The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum WCF vs the Three Forms of Unity

Can someone provide a simple, summation of the differences between these confessions. I'm hearing that their are disagreements in Reformed doctrine between the Continental Reformed whose standards are the Three Forms of Unity (The Belgium, Dordt, & Heidelburg confessions) with the English (whatever it should be called) whose standard is the WCF. American Presbyterianism is rooted with the English. Are these disagreements based on the confessions, or came about early on, or just more recently?

Are problems such as NPP, FV and others rooted in the differences in the Confessions. For instance, does the Three Forms of Unity not separate the Civil law from the Moral law. How about the Visible / Church doctrine? Are there differences in this doctrine as well. What about people who use 'historical church' and 'eschatological church' instead of visible and invisible? What are they trying to say that may be different?

John, this may not answer your question but here is a little on 2 of the 4 creeds you mentioned.

To my knowledge the Westminster introduces the word offer (older usage) and the covenant of works.

Both creeds are Infralapsarian.

. . . the Lutheran and the Heidelberg Catechisms differ from the Westminster in the following points: 1. They retain the Apostles' Creed as the basis of doctrinal exposition; while the Westminster Catechism puts it in an appendix, and substitutes a new logical scheme of doctrine for the old historical order of the Creed. 2. They are subjective, and address the catechumen as a Church member, who answers from his real or prospective personal experience; while the Westminster Catechism is objective and impersonal, and states the answer in an abstract proposition. 3. They use the warm and direct language of life, the Westminster the scholastic language of dogma; hence the former two are less definite but more expansive and suggestive than the Presbyterian formulary, which, on the other hand, far surpasses them in brevity, terseness, and accuracy of definition.

The difference between the Heidelberg and Westminster Catechisms is . . . The Westminster Shorter Catechism has the advantage of greater condensation and precision. It is not impossible to make a better one than either by blending the excellences of both. They represent also two types of piety: the one is more emotional and hearty, the other more scholastic and intellectual. This appears at once in the first question. The Heidelberg Catechism asks: 'What is thy only comfort in life and in death?' The Westminster: 'What is the chief end of man?' The one goes at once into the heart of evangelical piety—the mystical union of the believer with Christ; the other goes back to the creation and the glory of God; but both teach the same God and Christ, and the same way of salvation, whereby God is glorified, and man is raised to everlasting felicity in his enjoyment.
The Creeds of Christendom – pg 543, 545