Federal Vision and Crumbling Ecclesiologies

This issue should be dead.  I won't rehash old theologies.  I have nothing to add to the discussion on the theological front.  I do have some final notes, conclusions which I take to be indisputable.

• Having studied Richard Muller's conclusion on Arminius, there are parallels between Arminius's rhetoric and tactics (leaving theological conclusions aside at this point) and those of the FV.
• Apropos above point:  The FV men are correct to note locations in Calvin and the 3 Forms which seem to support some of their conclusions.  The problem from an ecclesiastical perspective is that they are playing these conclusions against the subalternate normative standards of the Westminster Confession to which some have subscribed.
• The difference between ministerial and magisterial authority:  the Confession isn't infallible.  It doesn't have absolute authority.  It does however, have some authority of a ministerial sort.   Seeking contradictions between confessions and not bringing up differences within an ecclesiastical court is an attack upon that legitimate, if limited, authority.
• On a practical point, it is hard to read Leithart's book on baptism and apostasy and seriously affirm conclusions in the Westminster Confession of Faith.   I know quite a few people who have become Roman Catholic from reading that book.
• If Arminianism is a heresy ala Dort, and the FV is quite Arminian on conditional covenants, apostasy, and election, then the conclusion is inescapable.