# URC Synod 2007 Acts Against the FV



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 13, 2007)

On the HB


----------



## Poimen (Jul 13, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> On the HB



What in the world? Did you have that text messaged to you? Synod just adjourned 10 minutes ago!


----------



## Poimen (Jul 13, 2007)

_Caveat_: I am *not* a delegate but I have attended all the sessions of Synod and Scott your assertion that Synod-



> adopted a detailed statement rejecting the Federal Vision



is, as I understand it, incorrect or at least overstating the case. I think it would be more accurate to say that the 9 point statement does not reference the Federal Vision _per se_ and thus does not reject the FV as a movement but rejected the specific errors as summarized. 

In addition, the nine points are, specifically, to "serve as pastoral advice to the churches" and not necessarily as Synodical pronouncements or judgments. The FV will actually be addressed through the appointed study committee. 

That is not to say that the 9 points are not helpful or unimportant. In fact I think they are very important and it is also significant, as you point out, that they were adopted without dissent concerning the substance of the motion. They will serve to bring clarity to the URCNA churches concerning various theological matters, but, again, the committee will be the means to reject(?) the FV as a movement (if they should so move or recommend that Synod do so).


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 13, 2007)

Daniel,

Don't the 9 points address the substance of the FV?

I'm still waiting to see the official wording but my understanding is that the speeches and intent were clear. The URC wants no part of the FV. 

If someone holds a version of the FV that doesn't hold any of the errors rejected by synod it's either not the FV or not a problem, at least not in regard to the 9 points.

Does Dort mention the Arminians or the Remonstrants by name? Not in my text but there's no question that the Synod of Dort rejected the Arminians/Remonstrants.

In ecclesiastical proceedings, it's common not to mention names. That will come with the committee report.

Everyone present surely knew whom the points and the exhortation to discipline had in mind?

Do you know the URL for the press release with the 9 points?

I've checked urcna.info but that release doesn't even mention the pastoral advice or the statement strengthening the wording on the imputation of active obedience and sola fide without any works whatever.

rsc


----------



## Poimen (Jul 13, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Daniel,
> 
> Don't the 9 points address the substance of the FV?
> 
> ...



Yes the 9 points address the substance of the FV. But I stand by my point that the "the 9 point statement does not reference the Federal Vision per se and thus does not reject the FV as a movement but rejected the specific errors as summarized." If delegates and/or members of the URCNA (both of which I am not) disagree with my assessment I am more than happy to be corrected but it is rather plain to me.

The updates are being listed on urcna.info but Thursday's business has not, as of yet, been listed. But the statement "serve as pastoral advice to the churches" is a direct quotation from the press release as it was read to us last night. So again it was not a pronouncement (in fact it was specifically stated as such) but intended to provide assistance to churches who may be struggling with these issues. 

*Please note* that nothing I wrote implies that FV has or should have any influence in the URCNA.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 13, 2007)

Daniel,

Isn't the intent of this language:



> “remind & encourage individuals and churches that, if there are office-bearers suspected of deviating from or obscuring the doctrine of salvation as summarized in our confessions, they are obligated to follow the procedure prescribed in Church Order Art. 29, 52, 55, 61, and 62 for addressing theological error.”



to say, in effect, "It's time for the FV to go and if they won't go, they must be disciplined for the sake of the peace and purity of the churches"?

rsc


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 13, 2007)

It seems to me very clear that the primary errors of the FV are clearly spoken against in the 9 points outlined in the URCNA Synodical declaration. (See this thread) One needn't mention FV advocates by name, or books, or works of theirs to point out the egregious errors that must be rejected. This short, concise statement quite clearly calls out those errors. 

Now, one hopes that people like Barach will be quickly brought up on charges and if (heh - WHEN) found wanting in their theological positions, defrocked. 

Could the statement have been richer, fuller, and directly reference Scripture? Certainly. However, for the purposes of pointing out the incompatibility of the FV doctrines with the standards of the URCNA, this was just fine.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 13, 2007)

Hi Todd,

The Rev Mr Barach has left the building. He's now a part of the CREC -- Wilson's federation.

The other vocal proponent of the FV, the Rev Mr Theo Hoekstra has also left the URCNA and, I think, joined the CRE.

Not surprisingly, when we've harbored FV proponents for several years -- the influence of the movement remains to be eliminated root and branch.

rsc


----------



## Poimen (Jul 13, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Daniel,
> 
> Isn't the intent of this language:
> 
> ...



One could interpret it that way but that is not what the actual statement says. In fact Scott, the reason why this was included was to guard against those who make public judgments regarding persons and their theological views without first going through the proper channels and steps to bring the matter to the broader assemblies. In other words: follow the CO when you believe that an office bearer has broken their confessional vows. 

Again, I reiterate that the 9 statements excludes FV by virtue of the fact that they address it through their rejection of FV doctrine. This does not constitute, however, a rejection of FV theology _per se_ This will have to be done by the committee. If the Synod had said, by these statements, that the FV theology is rejected by the URCNA _in toto_ then there would have been no need for the study committee. 

It is clear, _by implication_, however, that the FV movement has no place in the URCNA and will not be accepted.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 14, 2007)

Poimen said:


> One could interpret it that way but that is not what the actual statement says. In fact Scott, the reason why this was included was to guard against those who make public judgments regarding persons and their theological views without first going through the proper channels and steps to bring the matter to the broader assemblies. In other words: follow the CO when you believe that an office bearer has broken their confessional vows.
> 
> Again, I reiterate that the 9 statements excludes FV by virtue of the fact that they address it through their rejection of FV doctrine. This does not constitute, however, a rejection of FV theology _per se_ This will have to be done by the committee. If the Synod had said, by these statements, that the FV theology is rejected by the URCNA _in toto_ then there would have been no need for the study committee.
> 
> It is clear, _by implication_, however, that the FV movement has no place in the URCNA and will not be accepted.



Hi Daniel -

Don't you think, though, by rejecting FV doctrines they are in fact explicitly stating that such doctrine is unacceptable? Certainly you wouldn't argue that they should have put forth a brief statement like:

"We reject the Federal Vision theology of Steve Wilkins, Doug Wilson..."

since this is little more than a calling out of a particular doctrinal title, and does little to clearly spell out what is wrong with it, and would lock the statement into a particular time frame rather than actually address doctrines that are unscriptural. What the URCNA have done is (properly, I think) put out a short document that outlines doctrines that are central tenets of FV (though not universally held), and clearly reject them. I'm not sure there would be any use at all in naming these doctrines as "Federal Vision" doctrines. What the document does, instead, is much stronger - as there is not a single prominent FV person that I am aware of who could stand up under those nine points.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 14, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Hi Todd,
> 
> The Rev Mr Barach has left the building. He's now a part of the CREC -- Wilson's federation.



My bad - I should follow such things more carefully 



> The other vocal proponent of the FV, the Rev Mr Theo Hoekstra has also left the URCNA and, I think, joined the CRE.
> 
> Not surprisingly, when we've harbored FV proponents for several years -- the influence of the movement remains to be eliminated root and branch.
> 
> rsc



I wish all the FV folks in the PCA,OPC,URCNA, etc. would just go and emasculate themselv.... i mean join the CREC, where they belong.


----------

