2 Timothy 2:24-25
After reading through this thread I can see why Federal Vision is usually linked with NPP. The basic concepts seem to have a thread of similarity. Both seem to be founded upon a hyper view that the "church" and the sacraments save, and works keep one saved. It is similar to what the RCC believes and some liberal churches.
I can also see why anyone not covenantal in their theology would not find this appealing since dispsensationalism is about salvation of the individual and apart from the workings of the church or the sacraments. They do not have that high a view of the church. (Let the reader understand)
The FV like to say that "...at least the minister can say objectively to the person that they are at least, right this moment, in union with Christ". Since covenant = union with Christ (though not perseveringly), they can escape all the icky issues of those revivalists.
I've stated before: the truth is not the polar opposite of a particular error. If we look at the morass of neo-Gnostic "He walks with me and He talks with me, Jesus is my boyfriend that I've invited into my heart" Christianity and conclude, rightly, that it is un-Scriptural, then the solution isn't to look at the error and find the truth by studying the error and saying exactly the opposite of everyting it teaches.
Just because most Christians (and, sadly, many "Reformed" Christians) boil Christianity down to a personal relationship with Christ doesn't mean there is no personal nature to it. Just because most Christians (and, sadly, many "Reformed" Christians) don't think the Covenant promises require anything of parents and election is a cosmic crapshoot doesn't mean that parents save their kids by their faithful parenting. Just because many Christian parents (and, sadly, many "Reformed" Christians) don't think much of their children's participation in the CoG doesn't mean that we have to treat infants like adults in the Church and shove bread and wine into their mouths before they can even say their parents' names. Just because many Christians (and, sadly, many "Reformed" Christians) treat the Sacraments as bare signs doesn't mean that they have saving power by the working of the works.
I could go on but I think everybody gets the point.
Some people simply amaze me that would say: "Ah, well, I only give up perseverance."
What?! If you understand perseverance, you understand the Gospel. If you think that perseverance is a negotiable aspect of what it means that God is the author and finisher of our faith then the Gospel has not been understood. You're the "dutiful", elder son in the Parable of the Prodigal Son who can't understand how the younger received an inheritance that he didn't deserve.
I've stated over and over in other criticisms of Arminianism that I cannot conceive of any motivation that a true Christian would give up the absolute certainty of salvation for those who have Evangelical faith to jettison that in favor of a conditional salvation that rests in the shifting sands of man's affections.
I understand all too well what the FV is. If I thought for a moment that the FV was correct with respect to these isssues of conditional election then I would simply go back to my childhood faith of Roman Catholicism and it's false Gospel. At least they have all the dogmatics worked out rather than being a disjointed movement propogated by a few self-appointed re-interpreters of Reformed Confessions who have a band of angry young Turks that follow them around that quote our Reformed forebears as if the 9th Commandment were never written. Perhaps when the cult of the FV has fully formed they will take time to actually write their dogmatics and find they can just copy the homework of the RCC as they interpreted Augustine since the Middle Ages.