One of things that I've seen, in regards to the Reformed community's response to the FV, is that those from paedo circles seem more vocal about their opposition to the FV. Whereas R.S. Clark, Michael Horton, and whole paedo denominations are going after the FV, it seems that there is less vocal opposition from the credo camp. I'm not saying that I support the FV, because I'm very far from it, being a Baptist and all. But, it has prompted me to think about why this seems to be. Is is perhaps because the FV SEEMS to be the logical conclusion to the Presbyterian/Paedo view of covenant theology? When one views the church as believers and their children, it seems to me, the FV view is the logical conclusion that the covenant is objective. Even Dr. C. Matthew McMahon's catechism on baptism, though I'm not at all suggesting that he's in this camp, would seem to give creedence to the FV. Baptists are worried about the FV, but perhaps we are somewhat looking from the outside in on this issue, since it seems to be a discussion of mainly of ecclesiology (in particular Presbyterian/Paedo-Reformed ecclesiology), though soteriology is in play as well. One more thing to add. I do think that the FV distorts the gospel. It does do that, and that is very wrong and heretical. But the question I'm asking is if paedo-ecclesiology is playing a role in the vehemence of the response.