I had my first real experience with Federal Vision this last week. I've been on a work trip to Grand Junction, CO and it appeared the only "reformed" options in the area were a CRC church (which I understand can have some good congregations) and a CREC church. Being wary of CREC, I did a bit of research and it seemed like there was a good bit of variance within the "denomination". Looking through this church's website I noticed they did sing some psalms and claimed to subscribe to the WCF and Larger and Shorter catechisms. So it sounded possibly promising. I did meet with the pastor on a day I had off and we talked about some things. He's a young guy that came out of the PCA, largely it seems because he didn't find a lot of theological acumen within the denomination but also issues related to family. Things were passable until this last Sunday when his sermon was preached on "perseverance of the saints", and in which he urged members of the congregation to persevere, lest they fall away completely (as a friend of his) and be cut off from the covenant, with absolutely no mention of God's keeping or preserving. It sounded exactly like an Arminian sermon. They also practice paedo-communion, which the more I think about the more concerned about it I get. He attended Rich Lusk's church in Alabama for a while and looks up to him. I guess my question is if there are any good works on FV or good ways to approach talking with this pastor? I won't be in town for another Sunday but didn't want to leave with the impression that I approved of everything that was taught, or thought it was consistent with reformed theology. But the only real facts I've been able to pick up about FV theology is that it's not consistent from person to person and any time someone tries to define it to expose its errors, the definition is met with denial. I watched the four-video lecture by Guy Prentiss Waters and Joseph Pipa, but I know folks like Rich Lusk would deny almost everything that is said, and Doug Wilson reviews Waters' book with a single word: "atrocious". I read (or skimmed rather) Rich Lusk's paper on "Do I belief in Baptismal Regeneration" which essentially didn't answer the question, only quoted from Calvin (and the way he pulled things out of context was mind-numbing), or Bucer, or some other people to show that maybe his view is really more reformed than the reformed view. It really does bother me when they say they hold to the WCF when they redefine or "qualify" lots of fundamental doctrines. I need to re-read Confessional Presbyterian vol 2 but in the meantime, is there any key point I could focus on, under the assumption that this young pastor is merely misled rather than knowingly teaching error?