A debate assumes that this the FV is an open question. That's a false premise. It's not an open question. In 2004, 2007, and 2010 synods of the URCs in NA rejected the FV doctrine extensively and substantially. In 2007 the PCA rejected the FV doctrine extensively and substantially. The OPC GA received a report on justification rejecting the FV. The RCUS has rejected the FV. The RPCNA has rejected the FV. Westminster Seminary California, GPTS, MARS have all rejected the FV. The debate is over. The time for repentance is at hand. If you're new to the question start at my FV/NPP resource page. A debate also assumes that two positions are yet unclear and need to be clarified. That is a false premise. The Reformed confession is quite clear. The FV errors have been clearly diagnosed. They articulated those errors themselves in their 2007 statement. This is why Federal Visionists have fled orthodox churches or, as in the case Jeff Myers, repudiated them in order to remain within confessional churches (the Leithart case has yet to be adjudicated). So, if the positions are clear and the assemblies and the courts of the churches have decided, what's the point? A stunt? Entertainment? A quest for credibility? You can decide for yourself. My view of Wilson and his sect is public enough. If you're not familiar with the CREC, start here.