In good chiastic fashion I have come full circle with some older pre-FV writings. When I left college I read anything I could get my hands on by Peter Leithart and James Jordan–and much of it really was quite good. Without really knowing all the issues involved, I fell in love with a tangible, concrete biblical verbalist ontology. And even today that is good. Several issues made this a bad thing: 1) the FV was still mutating into the dangerous creature it is today, 2) rightly or wrongly (and a little of both) theonomy was tagged as FV’s meaner cousin, and 3) Protestant scholastic categories had fallen on hard times. I think a good verbalist ontology is what we need, but not at the expense of justification.
Now that I’ve fought Anchoretism and truly understand (to the degree that I do) the philosophical issues involved in the debate, and since much of the FV has moved into the mainly CREC orbit (which has problems even beyond FV), FV writings do not tempt me anymore. In other words, when FV writers use the biblical text to deconstruct Greek ontologies (and the religious traditions that hold to them), I cheerfully use them. This isn’t all that different from what Mike Horton does.