TheologyThoughts

Peter Leithart and others are complaining not simply that no theological debate took place concerning the Federal Vision issue, but that the PCA simply does not do theological debate well at the GA level (though occasionally such debate may happen at the Presbytery level):

http://www.leithart.com/archives/003073.php

I find such charges immediately suspicious, and I wonder if it is simply some form of sour grapes griping. Peter comments that an 800 plus group at varying theological levels can't do theological debate, but my suspicions is that a lot of these men have an M.Div. or higher theological attainment. Why couldn't a pro-fv'er or anyone have raised his hand and said "Let's talk about salvation in this report. That's not what FV's really believe!" Of course, it would have to couched in appropriate theo-speak and so forth. Now, I have no experience with PCA GA's, and maybe I'm naive, but why not?

One post later, Peter sends a letter to the stated clerk outlining his theological objections to the report. Great, I think that's good, it shows some kind of progress. Now, why didn't he do this at the outset? Why didn't he and others with such concerns send those letters ahead of time (the report has been out for a while, after all). For that matter, if the FV is such a concern, and if it is well within the bounds of historical presbyterian confessionalism, why didn't the FV men make all the efforts to make sure that their views were fairly considered?

Now the FV men have a much harder row to hoe...