What is the difference between FV and not-FV.

I think it comes down to how one understands Scripture to relate to Reformed distinctives like monergism and predestination.

I remember being told by a Reformed professor that he became a calvinist when he realized that the Scriptural passages teaching particularism must be given some sort of interpretive priority over the Scriptural passages teaching God’s general love and will for salvation of all.

That I think is the essence of the anti-FV (as opposed to mere non-FV) mentality.  There are a lot of dangerous passages in the Bible out there that will overthrow calvinism if we pay them too much attention or encourage others to give them consideration.

FV then, is not just mistaken in their optimism that the passages are no threat and can all be taken into account; they are positively dangerous.  They are releasing into the wild, outside the confines of the Reformed “anomalous materials” laboratory, a host of monsters that, they believe, can only wreak havoc on the Reformed microverse.

“FV” types, on the other hand, think they have actually found a way to spread calvinism, by showing Bible-believers that they don’t have to first sign away their consciences to a man-made tradition in order to accept it.

To demonstrate that calvinism is Biblical.

Like the lion and the lamb, the texts lie down together in the FV millennium.