R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
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
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
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.