Thread: For Those Just Tuning In: What is the FV?

Thank you so much for that recap. Great idea Dr. Scott. This will make the perfect link to direct folks to. Blessings sir.

Dr Scott I just read your piece & I have one (tangential) question. You said that
"Today the FV movement (like theonomy before it) has been rejected by all the major denominations in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council ...".

I was wondering if you have a link to more info re Theonomy being rejected by "...all major denominations in (NAPARC)"?

I have a great deal of interest in both the doctrine & the movement and I was unaware that it had been directly rejected in any official way by any creditable denomination.

Thanks.

At the same time, the FV movement also re-defines covenant theology to say that there is but one covenant. Historic Reformed theology had affirmed three covenants:

1) a pre-temporal covenant between the Father and the Son (and implicitly the Holy Spirit) to accomplish the redemption of and apply it to the elect;

2) a covenant of works before the fall;

3) a covenant of grace after the fall.

Dr. Clark, I was wondering what account you would give of a man like John Brown of Haddington who claims that the divines who would talk of 3 covenants were only distinguishing two aspects of the same covenant? I can look up the exact reference when I get home in his Essay.

There are ways in which the covenants of redemption, works, and grace are all related. The covenant of redemption is a covenant of works between the Father and the Son and a covenant of grace with the elect. Thus, they all may be said, in that respect to be one covenant, but in their principles, the covenants of works and grace are utterly distinct. Thus, for pedagogical purposes, it's useful to speak of three covenants and it's particularly useful not to confuse the covenant of works the covenant of grace!

rsc

Originally Posted by py3ak

At the same time, the FV movement also re-defines covenant theology to say that there is but one covenant. Historic Reformed theology had affirmed three covenants:

1) a pre-temporal covenant between the Father and the Son (and implicitly the Holy Spirit) to accomplish the redemption of and apply it to the elect;

2) a covenant of works before the fall;

3) a covenant of grace after the fall.

Dr. Clark, I was wondering what account you would give of a man like John Brown of Haddington who claims that the divines who would talk of 3 covenants were only distinguishing two aspects of the same covenant? I can look up the exact reference when I get home in his Essay.

Hi Kevin,

I was thinking of the PCA report adopted by GA many years ago and the RCUS report of 1985 or so. I should probably be more precise. I don't know that the OPC has ever acted on theonomy and the URC has not.

rsc

ps. I deleted the parenthetical comment.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Dr Scott I just read your piece & I have one (tangential) question. You said that
"Today the FV movement (like theonomy before it) has been rejected by all the major denominations in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council ...".

I was wondering if you have a link to more info re Theonomy being rejected by "...all major denominations in (NAPARC)"?

I have a great deal of interest in both the doctrine & the movement and I was unaware that it had been directly rejected in any official way by any creditable denomination.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Hi Kevin,

I was thinking of the PCA report adopted by GA many years ago and the RCUS report of 1985 or so. I should probably be more precise. I don't know that the OPC has ever acted on theonomy and the URC has not.

rsc

ps. I deleted the parenthetical comment.

Dr. Scott,

Is it your understanding of history that that PCA GA rejected theonomy?

Here's a permanent link for the post.

Okay, I checked my my own footnotes:

In 1979, the 7th General Assembly of the PCA adopted four points of “definition and recommendations regarding theonomy.” They rejected theonomy as a standard of orthodoxy, but they also refused to rule it unorthodox. In 1987, however, the RCUS adopted two recommendations, the second of which says, “It is the position of the RCUS that the Heidelberg Catechism teaches that the ceremonial and judicial laws instituted by Moses have been entirely abolished and done away with by the coming of Christ, as far as it relates to obligation and obedience on our part. The moral law, however, has not been abolished as it respects obedience, but only as it respects the curse and constraint.” See Reformed Church in the United States, Abstract of the Minutes of the Reformed Church in the United States 1987 Synod (Sutton, NE: Reformed Church in the United States, 1987), 44.

Very good article, easy to understand, and what's more, the gospel is clear.

Thank you!

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

There are ways in which the covenants of redemption, works, and grace are all related. The covenant of redemption is a covenant of works between the Father and the Son and a covenant of grace with the elect. Thus, they all may be said, in that respect to be one covenant, but in their principles, the covenants of works and grace are utterly distinct. Thus, for pedagogical purposes, it's useful to speak of three covenants and it's particularly useful not to confuse the covenant of works the covenant of grace!

rsc

Thanks, Dr. Clark, and hearty agreement on not confusing the covenants of works and grace. I was just wondering what place someone like John Brown of Haddington or Thomas Boston would have within the three-covenant scheme, when John Brown specifically rejects that nuance while not disagreeing with those who accept it.

I will re-read Brown, but I'm confident that what I say is an accurate summary of the mainlines of Reformed federalism in the 16th and 17th centuries. There have always been idiosyncratic approaches.

There was a bewildering variety of approaches to covenant theology among the English in the 1640s but how many of them were influential? Not all writers were equally influential or important. If you look at the most important writers in Europe and Britain you'll see a remarkable agreement on the mainlines of Reformed federalism.

I think my explanation above is essentially what Boston did.

rsc

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

I will re-read Brown, but I'm confident that what I say is an accurate summary of the mainlines of Reformed federalism in the 16th and 17th centuries. There have always been idiosyncratic approaches.

There was a bewildering variety of approaches to covenant theology among the English in the 1640s but how many of them were influential? Not all writers were equally influential or important. If you look at the most important writers in Europe and Britain you'll see a remarkable agreement on the mainlines of Reformed federalism.

I think my explanation above is essentially what Boston did.

rsc

In your opinion, who were the principal covenant theologians between 1630 and 1750?

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.

Great summary Dr. Clark!

John Brown (of Haddington) in Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism under Q.20.

Q. Is the covenant of grace, and that of redemption, one and the same covenant?
-A. Yes; the scripture mentions only two covenants that regards man's eternal state, of which the covenant of works is one, and therefore the covenant of grace must be the other: and the blood of Christ is in scripture called the blood of the covenant, but never of the covenants, Gal iv.24.30.
Q. How do you further prove that what some call the covenant of grace made with believers, and distinct from the covenant of redemption, is no proper covenant?
-A. Because it hath no proper condition, faith being as much promised as any other blessing, Psal. cx. 3.
[And skipping a bit...]
Q. Is the making of it the same which some divines call the covenant of redemption?
-A. Yes, Psal. lxxxix. 3.

So John Brown is defining the covenant of grace in the making as being what some call the covenant of redemption, and the administration of it what some call the covenant of grace made with believers (the next question).

Is this an idiosyncratic approach?

No, this isn't problematic at all.

I addressed this in the first response. From the POV of Christ, the pactum salutis was a covenant of works. From the pov of the elect, for whom Christ would obey and die, the same covenant can be called a covenant of grace (as the shorter catechism does). That's why the PS is the "covenants before the covenants." See the chapter David VanDrunen and I wrote in CJPM.

rsc

Originally Posted by py3ak

John Brown (of Haddington) in Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism under Q.20.

Q. Is the covenant of grace, and that of redemption, one and the same covenant?
-A. Yes; the scripture mentions only two covenants that regards man's eternal state, of which the covenant of works is one, and therefore the covenant of grace must be the other: and the blood of Christ is in scripture called the blood of the covenant, but never of the covenants, Gal iv.24.30.
Q. How do you further prove that what some call the covenant of grace made with believers, and distinct from the covenant of redemption, is no proper covenant?
-A. Because it hath no proper condition, faith being as much promised as any other blessing, Psal. cx. 3.
[And skipping a bit...]
Q. Is the making of it the same which some divines call the covenant of redemption?
-A. Yes, Psal. lxxxix. 3.

So John Brown is definind the covenant of grace in the making as being what some call the covenant of redemption, and the administration of it what some call the covenant of grace made with believers (the next question).

Is this an idiosyncratic approach?

Hi Tim,

See my Brief History of Covenant Theology.

rsc

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

I will re-read Brown, but I'm confident that what I say is an accurate summary of the mainlines of Reformed federalism in the 16th and 17th centuries. There have always been idiosyncratic approaches.

There was a bewildering variety of approaches to covenant theology among the English in the 1640s but how many of them were influential? Not all writers were equally influential or important. If you look at the most important writers in Europe and Britain you'll see a remarkable agreement on the mainlines of Reformed federalism.

I think my explanation above is essentially what Boston did.

rsc

In your opinion, who were the principal covenant theologians between 1630 and 1750?

Originally Posted by py3ak

John Brown (of Haddington) in Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism under Q.20.

Q. Is the covenant of grace, and that of redemption, one and the same covenant?
-A. Yes; the scripture mentions only two covenants that regards man's eternal state, of which the covenant of works is one, and therefore the covenant of grace must be the other: and the blood of Christ is in scripture called the blood of the covenant, but never of the covenants, Gal iv.24.30.
Q. How do you further prove that what some call the covenant of grace made with believers, and distinct from the covenant of redemption, is no proper covenant?
-A. Because it hath no proper condition, faith being as much promised as any other blessing, Psal. cx. 3.
[And skipping a bit...]
Q. Is the making of it the same which some divines call the covenant of redemption?
-A. Yes, Psal. lxxxix. 3.

So John Brown is definind the covenant of grace in the making as being what some call the covenant of redemption, and the administration of it what some call the covenant of grace made with believers (the next question).

Is this an idiosyncratic approach?

Ruben,

It is standard to either have a two-covenant schema (Works/Grace) or a three schema (Works/Redemption/Grace). Thomas Boston held to the former (for example) and Rutherford to the latter. If the former, usually one simply describes the CoG as having both an eternal and an "in time" aspect.


Essentially, they are the same.

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

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.

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.

I agree with Dr. Clark having read the nine points.

What, do you suppose, a rejection of the FV will look like? Are they supposed to name actual people or say, precisely, "We reject the FV"?

Originally Posted by py3ak

John Brown (of Haddington) in Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism under Q.20.

Q. Is the covenant of grace, and that of redemption, one and the same covenant?
-A. Yes; the scripture mentions only two covenants that regards man's eternal state, of which the covenant of works is one, and therefore the covenant of grace must be the other: and the blood of Christ is in scripture called the blood of the covenant, but never of the covenants, Gal iv.24.30.
Q. How do you further prove that what some call the covenant of grace made with believers, and distinct from the covenant of redemption, is no proper covenant?
-A. Because it hath no proper condition, faith being as much promised as any other blessing, Psal. cx. 3.
[And skipping a bit...]
Q. Is the making of it the same which some divines call the covenant of redemption?
-A. Yes, Psal. lxxxix. 3.

So John Brown is definind the covenant of grace in the making as being what some call the covenant of redemption, and the administration of it what some call the covenant of grace made with believers (the next question).

Is this an idiosyncratic approach?

Thomas Boston, A View of the Covenant of Grace, p. 24:

So the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace are but two names of one and the same second covenant, under different considerations. By a covenant of redemption, is meant a bargain of buying and selling: and such a covenant it was to Christ only; forasmuch as he alone engaged to pay the price of our redemption, I Pet. i.18, 19. By a covenant of grace is meant a bargain whereby all is to be had freely: and such a covenant it is to us only, to whom the whole of it is of free grace.

Thomas Ridgeley, A Body of Divinity, Vol. 2, pp. 180-181:

When we consider this covenant, as made with Christ, whether we call it the covenant of redemption, or of grace, still we must look upon it as made with him, as the Head and Representative of his elect, and consequently it was made with them, as is observed in this answer, as his seed; therefore if the question by only this, whether it be more or less proper to call this two covenants, or one, I will not contend with them, who in compliance with the common mode of speaking, assert, that they are two distinct covenants: but yet I would rather choose to call them two great branches of the same covenant; one whereof respects what Christ was to do and suffer, and the glory that he was to be afterwards possessed of; the other more immediately respects that salvation, which was to be treasured up in and applied by him to the elect; and therefore I cannot but think, that what is contained in this answer, that the covenant of grace was made with Christ, as the Head, and, in him, with the elect, as his seed, is a very unexplicable explication of this doctrine.

Wilhelmus a'Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service, Vol. 1, p. 262:

Thirdly, the covenant of grace and our covenant transaction with God in Christ has its origin and basis in this covenant of redemption between God and Christ.

Abraham Hellenbroek, A Specimen of Divine Truths:

Of the Counsel of Peace

1. Q. How could God predestinate to salvation a portion of fallen mankind, since He can have no communication with sinners?

A. In order for God to be consistent with His holiness and righteousness, Christ intervened with His ransom, from eternity. This is usually called "The Covenant of Redemption, or The Counsel of Peace."

Nicholas Greendyk, An Explanation of Rev. A. Hellenbroek's Catechism "A Specimen of Divine Truths, Vol. 1, pp. 136-137:

But before we explain the Counsel of Peace, or Covenant of Redemption, we must emphasize that the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace are not two distinct covenants, but they are one and the same. Even among sound theologians, some have advocated that there are three covenants respecting man, namely, the Covenant of Works, the Covenant of Redemption, and the Covenant of Grace. They hold that the Covenant of Redemption was made with Christ, and the Covenant of Grace with believers. The Netherlands Reformed Congregations, however, maintain the doctrine of two covenants; namely, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. As Rev. Kersten says, "The Covenant of Grace lies firm in the Covenant of Redemption, and is the application and execution of it in the elect."[1] In respect of Christ it is called the Covenant of Redemption, forasmuch as in it He engaged to pay the price of redemption for His elect; but in respect of us, it is called the Covenant of Grace, forasmuch as the whole of it is free grace to us, God Himself having provided the ransom. He has given life and salvation to poor sinners, that is, His chosen by free promise, without respect to any work of theirs to entitle them to it.

[1] G.H. Kersten, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. I, 147.

Thanks, Andrew. That seems to show quite definitely that John Brown's treatment is not idiosyncratic.

Dr Clark,

Thanks for the great essay on the FV. It was very clear and concise. I do have one question about the following:

At the same time, the FV movement also re-defines covenant theology to say that there is but one covenant. Historic Reformed theology had affirmed three covenants:

1) a pre-temporal covenant between the Father and the Son (and implicitly the Holy Spirit) to accomplish the redemption of and apply it to the elect;

2) a covenant of works before the fall;

3) a covenant of grace after the fall.

Is it appropriate to say that "Historic Reformed theology" affirmed 3 covenants? Shouldn't the phrase "Historic Reformed theology" refer to the limits set by the official confessions? I'm not wanting to deny the 3 covenants, but wouldn't it be truer to say that in the mature reformed thinking 3 covenants came to be affirmed, but not officially codified?

This is because one can be confessionally reformed without having to affirm the 3 covenants. The first official confession to affirm the 3 covenants was the Savoy. The WCF only affirms the 2 covenants. And the 3FU only affirms 1 basic covenant.

Every blessing dear brother.

Thank you, Dr. Clark! I did "dial in" late to the show - greatly appreciate your summary.

one "proofreading" comment:

This is denomination led by Douglas Wilson, an articulate but confused and confusing religious and social and educational conservative.

You need to an add an "a" after "is" -

Dr Clark,

Thanks for the article. As a former 'Reformed' Baptist gone paedobaptist; I was never enamored by FV but I was easily lead into holding to paedocommunion primarily because I had not taken the time to become more broadly studied in Reformed Theology (you mentioned those like me in your article). As I continued in my studies, I realized I had moved too quickly on paedocommunion. I have since reversed my understanding of the subject (see My Defense of Credocommunion).

I know a handful of churches that practice or hold to paedocommunion. In most cases they or their pastors were formerly baptists and adopted a view for paedocommunion within 3 years of becoming paedobaptists.

My advice to former baptists considering adopting a position for paedocommunion...continue in prayer and study and wait at least a decade after you initially became a paedobaptist before making a change to paedocommunion (especially if you are a pastor). It is a serious matter to go against the entire history of Protestantism. Certainly 500+ years of Protestant history (and not only Reformed) on the issue of the sacrament deserves at least a decade of prayerful consideration before going against it.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

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.

I agree with Dr. Clark having read the nine points.

What, do you suppose, a rejection of the FV will look like? Are they supposed to name actual people or say, precisely, "We reject the FV"?

The context not given is that adoption of the 9 points as "pastoral advice" was preceded by Synod's REJECTION of an overture asking for adoption of a report that was a specific examination and condemnation of FV teaching. This was followed by Synod deciding to appoint a study committee to *actually* examine the FV itself. If the URC believed that the 9 points was their answer to the FV, then it was senseless to appoint a committee to spend the next 3 years crafting a proposed "URC position" on the FV. Bottom line, Synod 07 did NOT say the 9 points rejection of errors are referencing the "errors of the FV". So until it does, we should be careful not to state that the URC has taken a position on an identified movement until is has actually done so.


What would a such a rejection look like? I expect it will have the look of the OPC's exhaustive work, interacting fairly, thoroughly, and specifically with the positions taken by identified FV leaders. It will be a report disseminated to the churches for their study in advance of Synod, so that the delegates will be prepared for reflective discussion. I would also expect the report to include reference to the 9 points of "pastoral advice", examining where they can apply to the FV, or where they may not.

I also expect via formal appeals that the hasty and inapposite manner of adoption of the 9 points will be addressed by Synod 2010, so as to avoid a repeat of the current confusion as to what the URC has or has not done.

In the meantime, Dr. Clark is certainly free to give HIS exposition and application of the "pastoral advice" to the FV controversy {and one is free to agree that such exposition is accurately being applied} but it should be understood his exposition and application do not {yet} speak for the federation as a whole.

No, it isn't. I didn't mean to give the impression that identifying the PS with the C of G is idiosyncratic. I just wasn't sure at the moment, based on what you provided (my copy of Brown is at work and I'm at home marking papers) what Brown was doing.

When I mentioned the WSC, I was thinking of the WLC 31:

Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?

A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed

The only thing is that this language needs to be balanced with the language used in WCF ch. 8 which emphasizes Christ's voluntary assumption of a human nature etc, i.e. the legal side of the PS which he fulfilled for the elect.

rsc

This is not idiosyncratic.

Originally Posted by py3ak

John Brown (of Haddington) in Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism under Q.20.

Q. Is the covenant of grace, and that of redemption, one and the same covenant?
-A. Yes; the scripture mentions only two covenants that regards man's eternal state, of which the covenant of works is one, and therefore the covenant of grace must be the other: and the blood of Christ is in scripture called the blood of the covenant, but never of the covenants, Gal iv.24.30.
Q. How do you further prove that what some call the covenant of grace made with believers, and distinct from the covenant of redemption, is no proper covenant?
-A. Because it hath no proper condition, faith being as much promised as any other blessing, Psal. cx. 3.
[And skipping a bit...]
Q. Is the making of it the same which some divines call the covenant of redemption?
-A. Yes, Psal. lxxxix. 3.

So John Brown is definind the covenant of grace in the making as being what some call the covenant of redemption, and the administration of it what some call the covenant of grace made with believers (the next question).

Is this an idiosyncratic approach?

Thanks. Got it.

rsc

Originally Posted by jdlongmire

Thank you, Dr. Clark! I did "dial in" late to the show - greatly appreciate your summary.

one "proofreading" comment:

This is denomination led by Douglas Wilson, an articulate but confused and confusing religious and social and educational conservative.

You need to an add an "a" after "is" -

Thanks all for the clarification and documentation.

Yes, Synod rejected rightly the Classis Michigan overture but they ADOPTED these two sets of points. Nothing you can say can make that go away. Further, Classis Michigan just defeated an overture from a consistory to appeal Synod's decision, the grounds of which were similar to your complaints about the way Synod proceeded.

From what I understand, Synod the ground of the study committee was not to study the FV de novo but to provide a more detailed explanation of why the adoption of the 9 points was necessary.

It seems highly unlikely that, given the material that Dr Venema has written -- two books rejecting the NPP and participation is the MARS report that rejects the FV root and branch -- and given the material that Dr Horton has written rejecting the NPP and the FV, it seems almost impossible that the committee will come back with a report that is substantially different from the 9 Points. Mike just gave a series of lectures in his congregation (which are online at the website of Christ Reformed Church, Santeee) on the 9 Points and one of the handouts was my exposition of the 9 Points.

So, certainly, there are two leading and influential theological voices on the committee utterly opposed to the FV and NPP. I'm sure that other of the voices on the committee are equally as opposed. Indeed, I didn't see any name listed (or hear of any) who would represent a supporter of the FV. Yes, the FV will get a fair hearing, but not de novo. That hearing comes in the context of 7-8 years of reading, dialogue, and interaction.

The fact is that Synod approved these 9 points overwhelmingly and it seems very unlikely that Synod will reverse itself in 2010.

rsc

Originally Posted by mvdm

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

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.

I agree with Dr. Clark having read the nine points.

What, do you suppose, a rejection of the FV will look like? Are they supposed to name actual people or say, precisely, "We reject the FV"?

The context not given is that adoption of the 9 points as "pastoral advice" was preceded by Synod's REJECTION of an overture asking for adoption of a report that was a specific examination and condemnation of FV teaching. This was followed by Synod deciding to appoint a study committee to *actually* examine the FV itself. If the URC believed that the 9 points was their answer to the FV, then it was senseless to appoint a committee to spend the next 3 years crafting a proposed "URC position" on the FV. Bottom line, Synod 07 did NOT say the 9 points rejection of errors are referencing the "errors of the FV". So until it does, we should be careful not to state that the URC has taken a position on an identified movement until is has actually done so.


What would a such a rejection look like? I expect it will have the look of the OPC's exhaustive work, interacting fairly, thoroughly, and specifically with the positions taken by identified FV leaders. It will be a report disseminated to the churches for their study in advance of Synod, so that the delegates will be prepared for reflective discussion. I would also expect the report to include reference to the 9 points of "pastoral advice", examining where they can apply to the FV, or where they may not.

I also expect via formal appeals that the hasty and inapposite manner of adoption of the 9 points will be addressed by Synod 2010, so as to avoid a repeat of the current confusion as to what the URC has or has not done.

In the meantime, Dr. Clark is certainly free to give HIS exposition and application of the "pastoral advice" to the FV controversy {and one is free to agree that such exposition is accurately being applied} but it should be understood his exposition and application do not {yet} speak for the federation as a whole.

I'm not trying to make anything "go away". The 9 points are there. Anyone can read them. And when we read them, there is no language in the synodical decisions that says these are the URC's answer to the FV. Nothing you say can ADD to what Synod actually did.

Yes, I am aware that Classis Michigan recently rejected a consistory appeal challenging the procedural irregularity of the adoption of the 9 points. This is the same Classis whose own overture on the FV was roundly rejected on procedural grounds at Synod 07. So I wouldn't conclude from this that appeals on those grounds won't still make their way to Synod. I expect they will.

As for the grounds of the appointment of the study committee, study of the FV was specifically included in its mandate. The Synodical press release stated, and I quote: "

"Finally, Synod 2007 appointed a study committee to examine the Federal Vision and similar teachings regarding the doctrine of justification. The committee was asked to bring a clear statement concerning this matter to the next synod. "

So the study committee was not formed to provide "a more detailed explanation of why the adoption of the 9 points was necessary", as you suggest. It was not told to bring a "clearER" statement. That again is "adding" to what was actually decided. Nonetheless, I do agree it would be wise for the committee to incorporate an analysis of the 9 points. The confusion created by their adoption could be cleared up through this process, As I said, the committee could then address the applicability/non-applicability of any of the 9 points to the FV matter.

Finally, I too expect the committee will come with a report that will thoroughly examine the errors of the FV. I also expect it will have a uniquely URC "flavor" in its analysis of the FV. I expect it to be beneficial to the URC churches in dealing with the FV, should it arise in their congregations. All of these expectations are for the future. In the meantime, I would prefer we let the committee do its work and not erroneously suggest that the URC has officially made some decision that has not yet been made.

Mark Van Der Molen
Immanuel URC, DeMotte, Indiana

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Yes, Synod rejected rightly the Classis Michigan overture but they ADOPTED these two sets of points. Nothing you can say can make that go away. Further, Classis Michigan just defeated an overture from a consistory to appeal Synod's decision, the grounds of which were similar to your complaints about the way Synod proceeded.

From what I understand, Synod the ground of the study committee was not to study the FV de novo but to provide a more detailed explanation of why the adoption of the 9 points was necessary.

It seems highly unlikely that, given the material that Dr Venema has written -- two books rejecting the NPP and participation is the MARS report that rejects the FV root and branch -- and given the material that Dr Horton has written rejecting the NPP and the FV, it seems almost impossible that the committee will come back with a report that is substantially different from the 9 Points. Mike just gave a series of lectures in his congregation (which are online at the website of Christ Reformed Church, Santeee) on the 9 Points and one of the handouts was my exposition of the 9 Points.

So, certainly, there are two leading and influential theological voices on the committee utterly opposed to the FV and NPP. I'm sure that other of the voices on the committee are equally as opposed. Indeed, I didn't see any name listed (or hear of any) who would represent a supporter of the FV. Yes, the FV will get a fair hearing, but not de novo. That hearing comes in the context of 7-8 years of reading, dialogue, and interaction.

The fact is that Synod approved these 9 points overwhelmingly and it seems very unlikely that Synod will reverse itself in 2010.

rsc

Originally Posted by mvdm

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I agree with Dr. Clark having read the nine points.

What, do you suppose, a rejection of the FV will look like? Are they supposed to name actual people or say, precisely, "We reject the FV"?

The context not given is that adoption of the 9 points as "pastoral advice" was preceded by Synod's REJECTION of an overture asking for adoption of a report that was a specific examination and condemnation of FV teaching. This was followed by Synod deciding to appoint a study committee to *actually* examine the FV itself. If the URC believed that the 9 points was their answer to the FV, then it was senseless to appoint a committee to spend the next 3 years crafting a proposed "URC position" on the FV. Bottom line, Synod 07 did NOT say the 9 points rejection of errors are referencing the "errors of the FV". So until it does, we should be careful not to state that the URC has taken a position on an identified movement until is has actually done so.


What would a such a rejection look like? I expect it will have the look of the OPC's exhaustive work, interacting fairly, thoroughly, and specifically with the positions taken by identified FV leaders. It will be a report disseminated to the churches for their study in advance of Synod, so that the delegates will be prepared for reflective discussion. I would also expect the report to include reference to the 9 points of "pastoral advice", examining where they can apply to the FV, or where they may not.

I also expect via formal appeals that the hasty and inapposite manner of adoption of the 9 points will be addressed by Synod 2010, so as to avoid a repeat of the current confusion as to what the URC has or has not done.

In the meantime, Dr. Clark is certainly free to give HIS exposition and application of the "pastoral advice" to the FV controversy {and one is free to agree that such exposition is accurately being applied} but it should be understood his exposition and application do not {yet} speak for the federation as a whole.

Thanks, Dr. Clark for the helpful information. It is apparent when you read what Norman Shepherd taught that this certainly comes through in the teaching of Wilson and other FV people. Wilson clearly teaches this conditional aspect of the covenanat for all those who are baptised. It still smells like heresy to me.

I was not aware that the PCA has officially rejected theonomy, but there are certainly a number of PCA Presbyteries that will not ordain or receive a theonomist into the Presbytery. The PCA is not tolerant toward it but there are a number of us who hold to this position. I think that it is not tolerated in the PCA because historically this denomination would not be classified as distinctly Reformed. There are a number of denominations in NAPARC that hold to theonomy.

"Finally, Synod 2007 appointed a study committee to examine the Federal Vision and similar teachings regarding the doctrine of justification. The committee was asked to bring a clear statement concerning this matter to the next synod. "

Mr. Van Der Molen,

The doctrine of the Federal Visionists is so amorphous that it could turn anywhere two years from now. It's like jello. So instead of trying to nail jello to the wall, the nine points pin down the substance of what FV men are spewing. The appointment of a study group was mainly to keep a finger on the pulse of a movement toying with the doctrine of Justification.

To say the URCNA hasn't officially spoken on the FV is like saying it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Originally Posted by mvdm

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

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.

I agree with Dr. Clark having read the nine points.

What, do you suppose, a rejection of the FV will look like? Are they supposed to name actual people or say, precisely, "We reject the FV"?

The context not given is that adoption of the 9 points as "pastoral advice" was preceded by Synod's REJECTION of an overture asking for adoption of a report that was a specific examination and condemnation of FV teaching. This was followed by Synod deciding to appoint a study committee to *actually* examine the FV itself. If the URC believed that the 9 points was their answer to the FV, then it was senseless to appoint a committee to spend the next 3 years crafting a proposed "URC position" on the FV. Bottom line, Synod 07 did NOT say the 9 points rejection of errors are referencing the "errors of the FV". So until it does, we should be careful not to state that the URC has taken a position on an identified movement until is has actually done so.

I'm sorry but this is simply nonsense. With all the words you just used in response, all you said was this: "Unless someone actually says 'We're talking about the Federal Vision here' then the views of the Federal Vision have not been rejected."

Thus, I suppose once the URC actually closes the procedural loop to your satisfaction and rejects the FV "by name" and says "Oh and we reject the Federal Vision", then someone only has to re-name what they teach.

In other words, an errant Church leader's chief defense from an FV charge would only be this statement: "Oh, I'm not teaching the FV, I call this teaching covenant theology."

Will you then suggest that a new Study Committee be formed to address the newly named movement or would you not have the ability to see in his writings and teachings a resemblance to the errors actually rejected?

You seem to be arguing out of two sides of your mouth. Either the 9 points have been adopted by the URC or they have not. As you acknowledge that they have been adopted then they are binding with the force of the Church Body that made them. It matters, not in the least, that it was "hasty" as you seem to want to call it to cast doubt on its legitimacy. You might want to ask Joshua and the Israelites about how binding a "hasty decision" is much less a formulation of statements about 7 years in the making. You act as if the Synod discovered the FV and the men there adopted the 9 points after a couple of days interaction with them.

Yes, there are some benefits to actually spelling things out more carefully and giving some specifics on how to address the issue but, in the publishing of the 9 points, it is simply indisputable that the URC has rejected any body of theology that resembles the 9 points. You seem to miss the forest for the trees assuming that procedure is a substitute for prudence and that mature men cannot read the "writing on the wall" and figure out "Oh, they're talking about the FV." Procedural closure of such a process won't solve anything if people can't read the 9 points and see the FV in them and figure out that the URC doesn't sing that tune.

The bottom line, for anybody that reads the 9 points, and has a modicum of understanding of the movement is that the URC has stated that it rejects a theological viewpoint. Maybe there are ways in which the rejection of errors can be more thorough or pulverize the dead horse but it is a rejection and to state otherwise is simply facile.

I recognize the amorphous nature of FV. Nonetheless, other denominations were able to carefully identify the consistently recurring components of the FV based on reviewing the writings of its proponents, and render an judgment on it. The URC has now officially sent a committee to do it's own analysis so the federation can render it's own judgment on the FV in 2010. My simple position is that the URC has not made its official answer to the FV until then.

You suggest my position is being Clintonian. Well, you might consider that standard as applying a bit better to something you wrote. You say that the 9 points were not intended to "nail jello to the wall". But you also say the 9 points were able to "pin down the substance" of the FV. So have the 9 points nailed down the jello or not? If so, was it unintentional?

Mark Van Der Molen
Immanuel URC, DeMotte

Originally Posted by non dignus

"Finally, Synod 2007 appointed a study committee to examine the Federal Vision and similar teachings regarding the doctrine of justification. The committee was asked to bring a clear statement concerning this matter to the next synod. "

Mr. Van Der Molen,

The doctrine of the Federal Visionists is so amorphous that it could turn anywhere two years from now. It's like jello. So instead of trying to nail jello to the wall, the nine points pin down the substance of what FV men are spewing. The appointment of a study group was mainly to keep a finger on the pulse of a movement toying with the doctrine of Justification.

To say the URCNA hasn't officially spoken on the FV is like saying it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

I'm not sure how closely you followed the URC Synodical proceedings or how familiar you are with the URC Church Order, so I'll grant your statements may reflect some innocent ignorance on the matter. As you note, I did acknowledge the 9 points were adopted, so your charge that I'm speaking out of 2 sides of my mouth is simply baseless. The real point is whether they stand in the record as the URC's official judgment on the FV. Contrary to your assumption, the 9 points do not have binding force on the churches, such as would emanate from the Confessions themselves. Rather, the 9 points were framed as having the weight of pastoral "advice". Dr. Venema made the point clear {as reported in Christian Renewal}:

BOQ:

When the question was raised regarding the status of this "pastoral advice," Dr. Cornel Venema (who served on Advisory Committee 6) noted that the language of "pastoral advice" is "clearly intended to say this is not a confession."

"We are not adding to our Three Forms of Unity," he said. "We're not even calling this an 'affirmation of Synod', but these affirmations are set in the framework of advice."

EOQ.

Nor were the 9 points the product of 7 years worth of work by the federation. None of the churches were given them to study or comment on, and Synod as a body had less than a day to examine them. ONE may work out the relation of the 9 points to every point of the FV, or think the relation is clear, yet this requires one to make some leaps to ties things together. You may think that the study committee will now just be a tweaking or some niggling procedural cleanup. However, recognizing the importance of historical clarity, Dr. Venema spoke to the necessity of appointing the study committee to give a URC response to the FV. Dr. Venema said {as reported in Christian Renewal}:

BOQ:
Speaking in favor of a study committee, Dr. Cornel Venema pointed out that, while reports generated by other NAPARC federations address the same issue, it is important for our federation to examine the issue from the standpoint of the Three Forms of Unity.

"One of the principal claims of those identified as Federal Vision has been that what might be true in the Presbyterian confessions is not clearly taught in the Three Forms of Unity," he said.
"We would be well served, not merely to adopt affirmations like beads that fall off a string and lie on the floor, out of context, but to show how our affirmations fit within the bounds of our confessions."

EOQ.

So the 9 points are non-binding pastoral advice, laying as it were, like "beads on the floor out of context". So the committee is charged to interact specifically with the FV as a movement in the context of the URC's confessions. So you bet, the study of the FV will be by name, by leader, by writings, by topic--- just as the OPC and PCA studies were. THAT work will be the historic, studious, prudent, thorough, mature and official URC response to the FV. Certainly the 9 points can be used, if at all, pastorally {or polemically}, but that doesn't change the fact that the 9 points do not stand ---in the record--- as the URC's answer to the FV.

And just to perform an additional check on my position, I spoke today with a delegate /officer from Synod and asked him to judge whether I'm being too technical when I say that the 9 points are not the official URC response to the FV. He said {and I paraphrase}: "well, it would be silly for a synod to adopt a statement officially answering a movement and then move to appoint a committee to study that movement, now wouldn't it."

So call this position "facile" if you wish, but I'll stand with the reports of respected, thoughtful, attending delegates and take them at their word that the official URC response to the FV is forthcoming, just as the decision itself indicates. Ironically, loading more freight onto the 9 points than what was stated echoes the FV boys' weakness for reading more into the covenant that what's actually there.

Mark Van Der Molen
Immanuel URC, DeMotte

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Originally Posted by mvdm

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I agree with Dr. Clark having read the nine points.

What, do you suppose, a rejection of the FV will look like? Are they supposed to name actual people or say, precisely, "We reject the FV"?

The context not given is that adoption of the 9 points as "pastoral advice" was preceded by Synod's REJECTION of an overture asking for adoption of a report that was a specific examination and condemnation of FV teaching. This was followed by Synod deciding to appoint a study committee to *actually* examine the FV itself. If the URC believed that the 9 points was their answer to the FV, then it was senseless to appoint a committee to spend the next 3 years crafting a proposed "URC position" on the FV. Bottom line, Synod 07 did NOT say the 9 points rejection of errors are referencing the "errors of the FV". So until it does, we should be careful not to state that the URC has taken a position on an identified movement until is has actually done so.

I'm sorry but this is simply nonsense. With all the words you just used in response, all you said was this: "Unless someone actually says 'We're talking about the Federal Vision here' then the views of the Federal Vision have not been rejected."

Thus, I suppose once the URC actually closes the procedural loop to your satisfaction and rejects the FV "by name" and says "Oh and we reject the Federal Vision", then someone only has to re-name what they teach.

In other words, an errant Church leader's chief defense from an FV charge would only be this statement: "Oh, I'm not teaching the FV, I call this teaching covenant theology."

Will you then suggest that a new Study Committee be formed to address the newly named movement or would you not have the ability to see in his writings and teachings a resemblance to the errors actually rejected?

You seem to be arguing out of two sides of your mouth. Either the 9 points have been adopted by the URC or they have not. As you acknowledge that they have been adopted then they are binding with the force of the Church Body that made them. It matters, not in the least, that it was "hasty" as you seem to want to call it to cast doubt on its legitimacy. You might want to ask Joshua and the Israelites about how binding a "hasty decision" is much less a formulation of statements about 7 years in the making. You act as if the Synod discovered the FV and the men there adopted the 9 points after a couple of days interaction with them.

Yes, there are some benefits to actually spelling things out more carefully and giving some specifics on how to address the issue but, in the publishing of the 9 points, it is simply indisputable that the URC has rejected any body of theology that resembles the 9 points. You seem to miss the forest for the trees assuming that procedure is a substitute for prudence and that mature men cannot read the "writing on the wall" and figure out "Oh, they're talking about the FV." Procedural closure of such a process won't solve anything if people can't read the 9 points and see the FV in them and figure out that the URC doesn't sing that tune.

The bottom line, for anybody that reads the 9 points, and has a modicum of understanding of the movement is that the URC has stated that it rejects a theological viewpoint. Maybe there are ways in which the rejection of errors can be more thorough or pulverize the dead horse but it is a rejection and to state otherwise is simply facile.

I did not say that the 9 points were the URC's answer to the FV.

What you deny is that they are a rejection. They are. Even if in the form of pastoral advice, they still constitute a rejection of FV principles. If the URC as a Synod says "We reject points 1 through 9...", whether it is a rejection in the form of pastoral advice is immaterial. I'm not disputing the form of rejection, what I take issue with is your insistence that it is no rejection whatsoever.

"We are not adding to our Three Forms of Unity..."

Obviously, the irony here is that the FV will be shown to have already been rejected by the above. Do you actually believe that the URC will add to the 3FU with a study committee about this specific heresy?

You also seem to be extremely rigid in what you believe constitutes rejection of a theology. I'm curious, Mark, if you believe that Oneness Pentecostalism is a Confessional movement and, if not, then would you please point me to the URC Study Committee and official declaration that led you to that conclusion? As I alluded above, an honest man who reads the 3FU would reject the FV outright without needing a Study Committee to prove it to him that he can't re-interpret historical Reformed thought for his twisted purposes. The nine points are essentially affirmations of ideas found in the 3FU, which already rejected the core principles of the FV long before men started a popular movement that led many astray.

In fact, your notion of things in this case appears to be the very reason that a study committee exists because you seem unable to discern that the 9 points are re-affirmations of enduring principles set forth in the Scriptures and confessed in the 3FU. The 3FU implicitly rejects the FV already. But that is not satisfactory to some who need studies, like the Congress does studies, to say again for "our generation" the same thing that we already knew but it brings it all up to date.

If you attempted to understand what Dr. Clark is noting instead of arguing that the sine qua non is to "...name the FV..." then you might discern what the larger principle is here. If every species of a fundamental error required a Synod to declare it an error all over again then that is a recipe for disaster in a Church. In fact, the present need for the URC or the several GA's to re-confess something so clearly taught constitutes a fundamental degeneration in Reformed orthodoxy. If Voetius were around and we asked him: "Do you guys reject this too?" I imagine the answer would be of the form: "Duh! Why would you even have to ask?"

It has to be asked because some men like to argue about plain definitions.

Men who have to have their brand of heresy named and actually put down by the Church yet again are not the norm. The norm is to receive the faith once for all delievered to the Saints so that the Church doesn't have to be re-formed after men neglect for years what they ought to have been attending to. I will not permit this thread to deteriorate any further to argue for the norm that the Confession isn't clear enough to condemn unless it is re-stated by modern men. Yes, we need jurists who punish evildoers in the real world and the guilt of wrongdoers has to be proven but it is the criminal that have to have wrongdoing proven to them. Your "show me" attitude reflects the attitude of the rebel and not the man who is already confessing with the Church.

Part of our disagreement may lie in a concern over whether I am elevating form OVER substance. I do not intend to do this. Rather, I do believe that form and substance are intertwined, and that the old maxim that the "medium is the message" plays into this discussion.

So, yes, I agree that you can pick up those {to borrow Venema's phrase} "out -of -context beads on the floor" and with your own *individual* wisdom, place them in context/application to the FV. When the individual person or church does this, then in that sense, I understand they contain rejections of some teachings found in the FV.

But I think it is a seriously different thing-- in form and substance--- for a FEDERATION to take up those beads, place them in context, and declare this is our "Rejection of the FV". When one suggests that with the quick adoption of the 9 points our work is essentially done, it diminishes {insults, perhaps?} the heavy task now that is laid on the study committee and upcoming Synod In my view, the work has just begun. This is especially true when polemical discussion of the issue places Synod 07 in the same level or CATEGORY as the OPC and PCA, two denominations that had done the heavy CONTEXTUAL work and specific naming of the movement and its leaders.

Maybe my expectations are too high that such careful and scholarly distinctions that should be made. But I have already seen some deleterious confusion caused by posturing done with the 9 points, which has even spread to to members of a denomination with whom the URC is in ecclesiastical fellowship.

Also, you raise an excellent point when you said: If every species of a fundamental error required a Synod to declare it an error all over again then that is a recipe for disaster in a Church.In fact, the present need for the URC or the several GA's to re-confess something so clearly taught constitutes a fundamental degeneration in Reformed orthodoxy. " This was exactly the position I strongly advocated prior to Synod 07. I too think it is a disaster to head down that road. Yet, my position was attacked just as strongly. I believed then, and am more convinced now, that the adoption of "extra-confessional" statements is unecessary where the confessions already clearly speak to the issue. They often give rise to all sorts of confusion. This is particularly true when we see the form of the 9 points affirmations and rejection of errors. They have the look of confessional status, like the Canons of Dort. The medium becomes the message. You could see that Dr. Venema had to clarify their non-confessional status to the delegates. But, once the church decides to go down that extra -confessional road, then it is propert to place a high demanding scrutiny on them, so that they be done with all due process and careful deliberation.

So a major concern lies in guarding against reckless characterization of the 9 points and the placing them in an official context/category they are not YET in. That may seem technical or rigid, but I don't think so. I have seen enough in the last 6 months to suggest the concern is valid.

Lastly, it is unfortunate that I have to do this, but I do disavow that I possess a "show me" attitude {that} reflects the attitude of the rebel and not the man who is already confessing with the Church. . Actually, I hold the confessions dear. In fact, I hold them so high that I believe the lasting brilliance of the confessions were MORE than adequate to have swatted the little FV bug long ago.

Mark Van Der Molen
Immanuel URC, DeMotte

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I did not say that the 9 points were the URC's answer to the FV.

What you deny is that they are a rejection. They are. Even if in the form of pastoral advice, they still constitute a rejection of FV principles. If the URC as a Synod says "We reject points 1 through 9...", whether it is a rejection in the form of pastoral advice is immaterial. I'm not disputing the form of rejection, what I take issue with is your insistence that it is no rejection whatsoever.

"We are not adding to our Three Forms of Unity..."

Obviously, the irony here is that the FV will be shown to have already been rejected by the above. Do you actually believe that the URC will add to the 3FU with a study committee about this specific heresy?

You also seem to be extremely rigid in what you believe constitutes rejection of a theology. I'm curious, Mark, if you believe that Oneness Pentecostalism is a Confessional movement and, if not, then would you please point me to the URC Study Committee and official declaration that led you to that conclusion? As I alluded above, an honest man who reads the 3FU would reject the FV outright without needing a Study Committee to prove it to him that he can't re-interpret historical Reformed thought for his twisted purposes. The nine points are essentially affirmations of ideas found in the 3FU, which already rejected the core principles of the FV long before men started a popular movement that led many astray.

In fact, your notion of things in this case appears to be the very reason that a study committee exists because you seem unable to discern that the 9 points are re-affirmations of enduring principles set forth in the Scriptures and confessed in the 3FU. The 3FU implicitly rejects the FV already. But that is not satisfactory to some who need studies, like the Congress does studies, to say again for "our generation" the same thing that we already knew but it brings it all up to date.

If you attempted to understand what Dr. Clark is noting instead of arguing that the sine qua non is to "...name the FV..." then you might discern what the larger principle is here. If every species of a fundamental error required a Synod to declare it an error all over again then that is a recipe for disaster in a Church. In fact, the present need for the URC or the several GA's to re-confess something so clearly taught constitutes a fundamental degeneration in Reformed orthodoxy. If Voetius were around and we asked him: "Do you guys reject this too?" I imagine the answer would be of the form: "Duh! Why would you even have to ask?"

It has to be asked because some men like to argue about plain definitions.

Men who have to have their brand of heresy named and actually put down by the Church yet again are not the norm. The norm is to receive the faith once for all delievered to the Saints so that the Church doesn't have to be re-formed after men neglect for years what they ought to have been attending to. I will not permit this thread to deteriorate any further to argue for the norm that the Confession isn't clear enough to condemn unless it is re-stated by modern men. Yes, we need jurists who punish evildoers in the real world and the guilt of wrongdoers has to be proven but it is the criminal that have to have wrongdoing proven to them. Your "show me" attitude reflects the attitude of the rebel and not the man who is already confessing with the Church.