Mark,
You and I have been round this pole a few dozen times on the co-URC list.
The URC adopted two different statements relative to the FV:
1) Affirming the imputation of active obedience and sola fide -- which was a direct response to the errors of the FV. Synod would never have adopted this position at Calgary and again in Schereville without the FV. It is the FV that has notoriously corrupted the gospel by conflating faith and works in the act of justification and by denying the imputation of active obedience. Synod did not act in a vacuum.
2) Synod adopted a
Nine Point Statement, which I
have exposited at length.
It is hard for me to imagine any other way to take the language adopted by Synod:
Therefore Synod rejects the errors of those....
In each of the 9 points, Synod expressly rejects the errors of the FV.
Synod rejects certain errors
The errors are those of the FV
Ergo, Synod rejects the errors of the FV
There can be no doubt about the middle premise since each of the 9 points is a point advocated by the FV and rejected by Synod.
I don't believe anyone thinks that the study committee is going to come back with a fundamentally different view of the FV than expressed in the 9 points. I think most delegates to Synod knew what they were doing and God bless them for doing it!
rsc
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvdm  It is erroneous to say that the URC has rejected the FV. The URC has not formally made a statement on the FV itself. Rather, the URC's Synod 2007 appointed a committee to STUDY the FV and to present a report to Synod 2010. Given the caliber of membership of that committee, I expect a fair and thorough examination of the FV, the churches of the federation will have an opportunity to study the report, and then Synod will act on it. |