Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
adopted a detailed statement rejecting the Federal Vision
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 no in re 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 rejected the FV.
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
“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.”
Daniel,
Isn't the intent of this language:
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
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 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