Since John Piper's invitation of FV heretic Douglas Wilson, the idea is floated about that FV is merely an extension of Presbyterian view of the covenant. It is thus deemed inconceivable that there are Federal Vision Baptists, but the reality is there are Baptist churches in the CREC denomination, the flagship of the Federal Vision.
Is the Federal Vision REALLY just something that stems from the Presbyterian and Reformed view of the covenant? Those who think so do not either realize (1) the essence of the Federal Vision error, or (2) the covenantal theology embraced by the Particular and Reformed Baptists.
The essence of the FV error is not their view of the application of the Covenant. The essence of the FV error is in their dialectic between covenant and decree, and between the visible and invisible church. In other words, nothing in the FV has anything with regards to the application of baptism to infants. It is thus theoretically possible to believe in FV and still be a baptist, since believing that people can be covenantally elect while being able to fall away has nothing to do with infant baptism at all.
Secondly, those who do so do not realize that Particular and Reformed baptists can and do embrace Covenant Theology in a modified form. The major difference of course is that they believe that the sign of the covenant of baptism is to not to be applied to infant because infants do not profess faith. In other respects however, there is much similarity.
One could very well believe in everything in the Joint FV Profession and still believe that Infants should not be baptized because they do not exercise faith. Noticeable absent after all in the Joint FV Profession is anything mentioned regarding Infant Baptism.
Baptists such as John Piper should not therefore be playing around with fire. To think that this is a "Presbyterian" issue is naive. I don't think we want to wait for FV to infiltrate and subvert many Baptist churches before they start to realize that there is a problem at hand.