Missouri Presbytery on FV

[Myshkin]

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.

 

[Magma2]

... 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.

For what it's worth one of the drafters of the report was pretty explicit:

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.

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

 

[biblelighthouse]

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.

 

[Pilgrim]

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.

Apparently this report is something of a compromise between some that are more pro FV and others that are less so.

 

[Myshkin]

Chris-

Would you mind demonstrating this compromise using the report itself? What statements explicitly support FV distinctives while at the same time deny non-FV teaching? Thanks.

 

[Pilgrim]

I have neither the time or inclination to go through the report again. It is certainly more FV friendly than the MVP report. I don't think anyone said it endorsed all of the particulars of the FV. Others here are more knowledgeable and more qualified to analyze it, and I believe already have to some extent.

My comment was based on a statement I'd seen on a blog (I think) by one of the participants stating that the language was a compromise in many cases, and that not all were happy with every portion of it. That's only natural. Any constitution, theological statement, confession or creed that is produced by a committee composed of individuals with different viewpoints, will generally have some element of compromise to it, and will often including room for differing views and interpretations, within reason.