Originally posted by Draught Horse
... but do consider the FV in the bounds of orthodoxy...
Jacob-
For my understanding, would you care to show where the report states this even implicitly? Thanks.
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.
Originally posted by Draught Horse
... but do consider the FV in the bounds of orthodoxy...
... but do consider the FV in the bounds of orthodoxy...
Jacob-
For my understanding, would you care to show where the report states this even implicitly? Thanks.
Our committee . . .came to the unanimous decision that the way FV guys described the covenant was not a problem, and therefore certainly not heresy. There as an entire committee devoted to that early on, but then they concluded that the way those identified as FV guys defined the covenant was not heterodox.
Originally posted by RAS
Originally posted by Draught Horse
... but do consider the FV in the bounds of orthodoxy...
Jacob-
For my understanding, would you care to show where the report states this even implicitly? Thanks.
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by RAS
Originally posted by Draught Horse
... but do consider the FV in the bounds of orthodoxy...
Jacob-
For my understanding, would you care to show where the report states this even implicitly? Thanks.
Well, Jeff Myers is on the committee, and he is an FV guy, so I figured he at least considered himself orthodox.
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by RAS
Originally posted by Draught Horse
... but do consider the FV in the bounds of orthodoxy...
Jacob-
For my understanding, would you care to show where the report states this even implicitly? Thanks.
Well, Jeff Myers is on the committee, and he is an FV guy, so I figured he at least considered himself orthodox.