I have now had a communication from one of the founders of Ecclesia Reformanda disputing David Anderson's take on things. He writes, "I can assure you that our stated aim is, in fact, our aim: to promote Reformed theology, and to respect the diversity that exists within the historic Reformed Tradition. We are emphatically NOT a "Federal Vision" journal."
He further adds, "It's worth noting that two of the authors in issue one are unsympathetic to the 'Federal Vision'," and concludes, "I'm not sure why David thinks he knows us better than we know ourselves. I'm also not sure what evidence he has for accusing us of lying about our intentions. But it's a bit irritating, and as you'll appreciate, for at least two of our contributors rather embarrasing, as he's associating them with something they'd explicitly repudiate."
Meanwhile, I am rapidly 'getting up to speed' on this issue, but am still baffled as to why it is all suddenly such a big deal (at least, here in the UK and, apparently, amongst Anglicans).
Updated 5 minutes later
I've just discovered (from a paper on this I've been sent) that, "The English word ‘covenant’ translates the Latin foedus, from which the English ‘federal’ is derived," hence the expression 'Federal Vision'. Or as we might say more plainly, 'Covenant Vision'. Does that make everything clearer?
When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.