More about this. Here is a statement from the preface to the Missourri Presbytery report:

The members of the study committee recognize that some of the current tension in the PCA is connected to the tension between biblical theology and systematic theology. We affirm that biblical theology done within the church and in its confessional heritage, under the structure of sola scriptura, is no threat to systematic theology, but rather is the proper watchman over a systematic understanding of biblical doctrine. We further affirm the priority of exegesis over all theological reflection.

Committee members further recognize that we are heirs of a theological tradition that has come to use words in precise ways – words such as “justification,” “election,” and “regeneration.” This precision reflects the need we have in our particular context to define, prescribe, and defend theological constructs. We are far from claiming, however, that biblical passages that use the equivalent Hebrew and Greek words are necessarily speaking to the same topics as our theological conventions, or that they are speaking with the same level of precision (since these passages may be addressing other needs in their audience than those for which theological language is best suited). For example, a passage that mentions “the elect people of God” need not be saying that God has appointed each member of that people for everlasting life. For this reason we have labored to define the theological terms we have used. In light of our common commitment to “sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures,” we have aimed to let the definitions assumed in the Westminster Standards govern our usage.

Two cautions arise from this: First, we recognize that we must not confuse our doctrine of, say, election, with the lexical semantics of Hebrew and Greek words. Second, we must be careful when reading the Bible, not to read our theological definitions back into every use of the relevant biblical words.

And thus the report can do careful analysis and protect what needs to be protected. For example:

We affirm that the biblical word group for “to justify” (the dikaio-word group) has a broader range of usage than the term justification as employed in the Westminster Standards; we deny that this fact calls for a redefinition of the classic Reformed doctrine of justification.

This all makes complete sense and is well within the mainstream of Reformed theology. There should be nothing remotely controversial about it. Vern Poythress and John Frame may be well-known for careful thinkng in this area, but the distinction between Biblical terminology and theological terminology is widely recognized apart from them. Notice in the report quoted above that this issue never came up in the affirmations and denials as something worth special investigation as a unique proposal from the so-called “Federal Vision.” Rather, it was simply put in the introductory matter as a needed understanding if one was going to make any headway in understanding the issues.

Then there is this:

1. We reject the FV use of a separate theological language concurrent with, but separate from traditional systematic theology. Whether the FV supporters realize it or not, this dual language methodology is inherently deceptive. When the FV proponents speak, in what they call, their “decretal” language, they speak in the realm of the confession. When they speak, in what they call, their “covenantal” language, they communicate in their own created alternate theological sphere or paradigm. As will be seen in the following points, this alternate theological sphere allows them to affirm the words of the Westminster Standards when speaking “decretally,” all the while rendering its content meaningless when speaking “covenantally,” especially as it relates to everyday life.

Such teaching creates confusion in the flock. Words given opposing meanings in parallel spheres cannot but do otherwise. God is not the author of confusion. It is detrimental to the Truth and contrary to God’s Word. Thus confusion creates division. And we deplore what this teaching has done to the flock by setting brother against brother, producing division where there was once peace (1 Co 14.33).

2. We reject the FV redefinition and misuse of theological terminology. Much of the content of this point is an unpacking of the previous point; however it is crucial in the discussion of FV. Because of the dual languages used in FV theology, the definitions of some technical theological terms, which many orthodox men had fought and died for in the Church’s history, are radically changed and made to mean what is essentially, theologically, the opposite of their established usage.

For instance, the standard Reformed view rightly sees justification as an instantaneous and complete legal/forensic act in which the sinner is declared righteous. However, when speaking “covenantally,” the FV introduces the concept of a period of time or incompleteness into the definition, which, in turn, introduces works righteousness into salvation. They do this by referring to a justification that is not finalized, or complete, until the last judgment. FV defenders teach that those who profess Christ will be judged at that time on the basis of their works. This perceived injection of works righteousness is only reenforced by many of their proponents’ hesitancy to affirm salvation sola fide (“by faith alone”).

Of course, the key point is put in the most negative way possible, one that simply doesn’t apply to the targets. But that sort of inaccuracy is not worth mentioning in comparison to other more serious inaccuracies the report includes. The fact remains that, despite a barrage of serious charges made without evidence, the key point about theology and language is highly idiosyncratic and is not required by Presbyterian doctrinal commitments. The burden of proof lies on proponants of such a novelty to make an argument as to why the church must conform to their personal convictions on this matter.