Interesting Federal Vision Quote

I was reading an article on the Federal Vision this morning and I came across an interesting quote in opposition to the movement:

"Extensive study of their [the Federalists'] oral and written teachings on the special concerns of the Federal Vision convinces me that they have taught, alongside some wonderful truths, some serious errors about covenant theology and its implications for salvation, personal and corporate spirituality and piety, the use and understanding of the sacraments and the conduct of theology and biblical studies in general. Sadly, their mistakes undermine their very laudable goals. Their attempt to assure tender souls who doubt their salvation while they trust in Christ collapses and the poor souls are left more confused than before, because the objectivity of the covenant is inadequate to the task-while the presumptuous, who hear that aspect of their message may be led, inadvertently, to the false assurance of formalism. At the same time, their attempt to destroy the complacency of the presumptuous is in profound danger of promoting a false legalistic notion of works righteousness" (p.306)."

- Cal Beisner

I thought that this quote captured some of my feelings and concerns with the Federalists. I tend to view this movement as mostly wrong but containing some good truths and correctives. The problems are compounded by a lack of direction and unity within the movement. Earlier in the article, the author Anthony R. Dallison states:

"Sadly, the so-called 'Federal Vision' is no vision at all in the end, but a 'Federal Fog', and that of a most serious nature indeed"

I agree that the movement is "foggy" but I am also not ready to come down on it with severe judgement. I disagree with many of its premises, but, in some ways, I also disagree with the way that the PCA is trying to control it. Is this really an issue challenging Justification by Faith Alone? Certainly the doctrine could lead to a misunderstanding of Justification which could be heretical. But how is this different than any other way of organizing theology. Every way to present theology could be taken to an extreme that warrants condemnation. Mostly, I think it is an issue of how we read the Westminster Standards. I favor a fairly loose reading of the confession, so as to allow room for generations to make it applicable to the cultural needs. This is not to say, of course, that the issue of Justification by Faith Alone is a cultural understanding of scripture. But I don't really think that FV proponents want to discard this doctrine.

"In essentials unity,
in doubtful matters liberty,
in all things charity."

-Rupertus Meldenius (via Millard J. Erickson)