# Wilkins' Presbytery exam examined by Rick Phillips



## NaphtaliPress

I gather from the opening paragraph this document is in the public domain for wide distribution. The text below was posted to the bbwarfield list. I've added the red text to make it clear there is one footnote.
----------------------------

*Comments regarding “Submitted Written Questions for Louisiana Presbytery’s Examination of TE Steve Wilkins.” 
* By TE Richard D. Phillips, senior minister, First Presbyterian Church of Coral Springs/Margate, FL​ 

1. _Introduction_. The purpose of this paper is to comment on the written answers provided by TE Steve Wilkins to questions submitted by the Louisiana Presbytery (LA Presbyterian). It is presented in response to numerous requests, in light of the internet publication of TE Wilkins’s _Answers_. Rather than provide this paper privately to those who requested it, I thought it most fair to TE Wilkins for it to be offered publicly. My motivation has no reference to TE Wilkins personally, with whom I have no personal relationship. Furthermore, I am aware that he is a teaching elder in good standing and who is spoken of highly by many Christians. However, there is an evident need for a response to the publishing of his answers to the Central Carolina Presbytery (CCP) memorial. I consider this need to be made imperative by the polemics that have ensued on numerous internet websites, some making the very severe charge that TE Wilkins’s answers dismiss his critics as either incompetent or malicious. Such a charge makes it all the more important that critics of TE Wilkins’s teaching (and of the Federal Vision theology) state their reasoning as plainly and directly as possible. This I will attempt to do. Lastly, as TE Wilkins’s written answers were expressed plainly and with little rhetorical adornment, I will endeavor to do the same, since my purpose is not ridicule but response.

2. _Preliminary Observations_. In reading TE Wilkins’s answers to the questions submitted by the LA Presbyterian, it seems to me that some fundamental issues permeate the discussion. Moreover, these are issues of great importance to the PCA’s confession of the Christian faith, especially as our denomination has only recently adopted good faith subscription to our doctrinal standards.

a. First, it is obvious from TE Wilkins’s answers that much of this debate concerns the relationship of the Westminster Confession to the Holy Scriptures. In this respect, it is important to note that church officers do not subscribe to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms merely as the standard for _our_ theology. (Along these lines, one frequently reads today that the Confession represents a “club” mentality in which the Scriptures are superceded.) But instead, we affirm the Westminster Standards as a sound summary of the doctrines taught in the Bible.[1] The Westminster Standards are subordinate to the Bible, but they are subordinate in summarizing the Bible’s doctrinal teaching. This is important in the case of TE Wilkins. He strongly affirms the Westminster Confession, an affirmation that I accept as sincere. But the concerns in this matter arise not from TE Wilkins’s _faith_ but from his _teaching_. The question, therefore, is whether or not his published writings and addresses teach the doctrines of the Bible in a manner that is consistent with the Westminster Standards. As TE Wilkins’s answers consistently show, he affirms the teaching of the Westminster Standards and then proceeds to argue that the Bible teaches otherwise. But this is not to affirm the Standards. 

b. Secondly, TE Wilkins helpfully sets forth the concerns driving his distinctive teachings. These are found in the first paragraph of his answer to question #3. His concern has been “with how we read the texts of Scripture which appear to contradict some of the statements and positions set forth in the Confession and Catechisms. I do not believe the scriptural texts do contradict the standards in fact but they are simply using terminology in a broader way than it is defined by our Confessional standards. This means that we must consider carefully the meaning of these terms in the particular contexts in which they are used. That has been my concern in regard to the so-called ‘Federal Vision’ issues.” Since it has often been written that the critics of TE Wilkins and the Federal Vision simply do not understand their writings, let me state that this summary has for several years been my own understanding of the Federal Vision agenda. Therefore, I was gratified to read TE Wilkins’s statement to this effect. The difference, in my view, does not arise from a misunderstanding of what TE Wilkins (for one) has written, but rather from a difference of opinion over the implications of this theology. As I will hope to show with respect to the specific doctrines considered by the CCP memorial, TE Wilkins’s understanding of key scriptural passages causes him to _redefine_ the doctrinal terminology that he affirms in the Westminster Standards. It is not sufficient, I would argue, to affirm the scriptural doctrines as taught in the Confession unless one agrees with the meaning of the terms. TE Wilkins states that his reading of Scripture yields “broader” definitions of doctrinal terminology. I will argue that the true effect of these _broader_ definitions is that TE Wilkins teaches _different_ definitions of key terminology that appears in the Confession in such a way that his teaching is out of accord with the Confession’s summary of biblical truth.


3. With these preliminary considerations in mind, I propose to respond to TE Wilkins’s answers pertaining to the individual doctrines in question. The first is _the doctrine of election_. The CCP memorial complained that while the Confession states that “God hath appointed the elect unto glory” (WCF III.6), TE Wilkins teaches that “the elect are appointed to a conditional relationship which they can lose through unbelief” (CCP Memorial). The memorial goes on to cite an example of TE Wilkins’s teaching to this effect. TE Wilkins responds first by pointing out his past and present affirmations of the Westminster Confession’s teaching on election. I accept this affirmation at face value, and TE Wilkins backs it up with several citations to this effect from his writings. But the question pertains to the acceptable consistency of certain of TE Wilkins’s published teachings with the Confession’s doctrine of election. With respect to TE Wilkins’s answers regarding election, I would offer the following comments:

a. TE Wilkins states: “The fact is that I have never taught contrary to the Confession in regard to its view of election” (Answers II.1). But note:

i. In response to the citation in the CCP Memorial against TE Wilkins’s affirmation of the Confession – a citation in which he states that election is lost by those who profess faith but then fall away – he answers that he taught this only of the Bible’s teaching: “The Presbytery in making this charge has ignored the context of what I have written and because of this, has completely missed my point. In the article, this statement comes in the context of a discussion of how the word ‘elect’ is used in the Biblical text” (Answers II.3). His point is that he was merely teaching what the Bible says about election, in contrast to what the Confession says.

ii. TE Wilkins proceeds to state that the Bible applies “elect” to corporate Israel and members of the church in the New Covenant. He cites Romans 8 and 2 Thess. 2:13-14 as teaching a definition of election that is contrary to the Confession, i.e. as pertaining to all those present in the church, rather than to those chosen by God to eternal life and glory. He arrives at this conclusion by asking, “How could Paul say this?” He explains, “In light of the decree of predestination and the reality that not everyone in the church is chosen in the Westminster sense of the word, how can he call the members of the church in Thessalonica ‘chosen before the foundation of the world’?” (Answers II.3). At this point, TE Wilkins argues that his question presupposes his belief in the Westminster doctrine. But the point of his question is to reconcile the _difference_ between the Confessional doctrine and the biblical doctrine – yet the Confession maintains that its doctrine _is_ the biblical doctrine. 

iii. TE Wilkins goes on to argue that neither Paul nor Peter use “elect” and “chosen” in a manner consistent with the Westminster Standards. He summarizes his defense of his teaching on election by stating, “It seems (at least to me) to be plain that Paul and other Biblical writers have no hesitation in identifying those who are members of the Church as ‘elect.’” Arguing that the Confession describes the Church as “‘the household, family, and kingdom of God’ (WCF 25:2) and is the body of Christ Jesus, God’s chosen/elect Son,” TE Wilkins concludes that “those who are members of the body of the Elect One are viewed as ‘elect’ themselves.” The effect of this is to assert that the Bible’s teaching on election is different from the teaching of the Confession. TE Wilkins states that, biblically, the elect are those who are joined to the visible body of God’s people, whereas the Confession states that the elect are those “appointed… unto glory” (WCF III.5).

b. TE Wilkins thus claims that when the apostles – especially Paul – addressed their readers as “elect,” the author intended this to refer both to those who ultimately would enter into eternal life and those who would not, so long as both were present in the church. This consideration forms a large part of TE Wilkins’s argument in II.3 of his Answers. He summarizes, “I am focusing the discussion upon how the term is used in the text of God’s Word where over and over again, entire congregations are addressed as ‘elect’ or ‘chosen’ or with some equivalent term.” 

i. It should be pointed out that the Westminster Confession’s doctrine of election is based upon a different inference from such passages; the Confession clearly understands the apostles as addressing their readers as believers. It is true that the epistles will occasionally include warnings that among the readers may be false believers. But the operative assumption in the epistles is that the readers are “saints” and “faithful in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 1:1). It is this understanding of the apostles that yields the Confession’s doctrine of election “unto glory.” Therefore, _if TE Wilkins is right in his understanding of these passages, then the Confession’s definition of election is simply wrong_. If Paul was not specifically addressing those “predestined… unto everlasting glory” (WCF III.5) then the confession’s doctrine is in error and must be changed in favor of that espoused by TE Wilkins. This would effect a significant revision of the Confession’s system of doctrine, however, practically reversing the relationship between perseverance and election.

ii. My assertion regarding the Confession’s understanding of the apostles’ use of the term “elect” can be substantiated by consulting its proof texts for the doctrine of election unto glory. The proof texts are not part of the Confession, but so far as they go they indicate the exegetical logic of the divines. (For this reason, TE Wilkins makes frequent reference to the proof texts in his answers.) So what are the proof texts for the Confession’s doctrine that the elect are “predestinated… unto everlasting glory” (III.5) and “elect unto glory” (III.6)? They are some of the very passages that TE Wilkins see as pertaining also to those who will _not_ enter into glory: Eph. 1:4, 9, 11; Rom. 8:30; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Thess. 5:9; 1 Pet. 1:2; and Eph. 1:4-5. These proof texts demonstrate that not only is TE Wilkins’s definition of election contrary to that of the Scripture, but his teaching of the relevant Bible passages also fundamentally differs. Contrary to his assurances, Wilkins’s teaching is not as innocuous as he would like us to believe. He is, in effect, declaring that the Standards define and use the key doctrinal term “election” in a way that is at odds with the Scripture definition and usage of that term.

iii. TE Wilkins explains the difference between his and the Confession’s doctrine by stating, “We must understand Paul’s language covenantally rather than decretively.” But this is a dichotomy alien to the Confession’s teaching. It is hardly the case that the Westminster Standards neglect the covenantal perspective; as has often been pointed out, covenant theology provides the architecture to the Confession’s teaching of salvation. The reality is that TE Wilkins simply understands the biblical materials differently from the Confession and renders a doctrine of election that is contrary to that taught by the Standards.

iv. As an aside, TE Wilkins’s also wrongly understands the Calvin quote that he supplies. In it, Calvin notes God’s election (choice) to have the gospel preached to both the elect and non-elect. When Calvin observes that this is a kind of “election of God” he is not arguing that God’s elect include those destined for damnation, but that God has elected to have the gospel preached to both categories of people.

c. Another example of a changed definition occurs when TE Wilkins relates election and non-election to perseverance and apostasy. He writes, “When the confession says that these non-elect people ‘never truly come unto Christ,’ it means that they do not receive Christ with a faith that perseveres unto final salvation.” 

i. But this is not what the confession means; rather, TE Wilkins’s has imposed his own approach to a present and future salvation – in which one may have the former but not the latter – upon the Confession. What the Confession means is that the non-elect _never_ come to Christ with a true and saving faith, not that they come with a faith that does not persevere: “Others, not elected,… never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved” (WCF X.4). 

ii. It is true that a false profession of faith is often revealed by its lack of perseverance, but this is not the point. The point is whether or not the non-elect _ever_ possess salvation truly. The confession teaches that they do not; TE Wilkins teaches that they do, but that they subsequently lose it through their failure to persevere. 

iii. Again, TE Wilkins states, “When the confession says that these non-elect people “cannot be saved,” one must recognize that the Standards use the word ‘save’ and its cognates almost exclusively to refer to the fullness of salvation inherited when Christ returns. In this sense, apostates are not saved because they fail to persevere and fall short of receiving the fullness of redemption as it is described in WCF 10-18.” But this is not what the Confession either says or means; here, TE Wilkins is changing the definition to fit his scheme. The confession insists that the non-elect “cannot be saved” because they never have truly come to Christ in faith. Once again, TE Wilkins has affirmed a doctrine on the basis of key terminology that he has redefined, with the effect that he has rejected the actual doctrine of the Confession.

4. This matter of whether or not the “non-elect” (in the Westminster sense, not the Wilkins sense) ever truly partake of the saving benefits of Christ comes up again in TE Wilkins’s answers pertaining to _the doctrine of the Church_. Here, TE Wilkins must explain that, while the Confession teaches that “union and communion with [Christ]” are enjoyed only by the invisible church (WLC 62-65), his own teaching holds that “The reprobate… may enjoy for a season the blessings of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption,” etc. 

a. Again, TE Wilkins begins by denying that his teaching contradicts the Westminster Standards: “Contrary to the assertion of the memorial, I wholeheartedly affirm this distinction as the Westminster Confession defines the invisible church” (Answers II, _Doctrine of the Church_, 1). 

b. However, as TE Wilkins discusses this matter, he supplies a definition of the invisible church that is contrary to that of the Confession. 

i. He affirms the invisible Church as an entity that “does not yet exist though it is surely foreordained by God.” He adds that “It seems better to speak of the ‘invisible’ church simply as the ‘eschatological church.’” It should be observed that this is not the Westminster definition of the invisible church, which “ consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head therefore” (WCF XXV.1). What TE Wilkins sees as an eschatological fulfillment growing out of the visible church, the Confession sees as a past, present, and future reality in overlap with the visible church.

ii. TE Wilkins further states that the category of “invisible church” “can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings and misconceptions,” citing approvingly remarks to this effect by Professor John Murray. TE Wilkins then expresses the visible/invisible church distinction in these words: “The Church which throughout history had blemishes and imperfections, will finally be glorified and perfectly holy at the last day.” This, however, is not the point made by the Confessions’ visible/invisible church distinction. Moreover, TE Wilkins states that an emphasis on the invisible church denigrates the visible church. 

iii. Later in this same section, TE Wilkins argues against the Confession (although the point actually made by the Confession is not really in view) by stating: “The Bible speaks of only one Church which is the body and bride of Christ and thus our creeds assert that we believe in ‘_One, _holy, catholic, and apostolic church.’ That is the simplest and clearest way to speak of the Church.” 

iv. Finally, having redefined the doctrine, TE Wilkins affirms, “It is unquestionably true that _only_ the ‘invisible Church’ will partake of the blessings of eternal salvation.” This can be seen as an affirmation of the Confession’s summary of the Bible’s teaching only if one has redefined the doctrine as TE Wilkins does. In fact, the clear effect of TE Wilkins’s point is that the Westminster doctrine of the visible and invisible church is wrong and out of accord with Scripture.

c. But the specific complaint of the CCP memorial under this heading focused on TE Wilkins’s teaching that reprobate church members – those who belong to the visible but not the invisible church (in the Westminster sense) – nonetheless “may enjoy for a season the blessings of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession of the kingdom, sanctification, etc., and yet apostatize and fall short of the grace of God.” With this in mind, the second question posed to TE Wilkins asked him to explain. 

i. Far from retracting this contradiction of the Westminster Standards, TE Wilkins instead explains that he only meant that this is what the Bible teaches (in which case, the Westminster Standards are in error), describing his position as “the clear implication” of numerous Bible passages. While noting that the WLC applies the saving benefits in question to the invisible church, he states that “the apostles appear to attribute these same things to all the members of the visible church without distinction.” The logic behind this assertion is the same as that undergirding his approach to election, namely, that since the apostles describe the readers of their letters as enjoying these benefits, they must apply to reprobate members as well as regenerate members. But this is contrary to the view expressed in the Westminster Standards. 

ii. Moreover, TE Wilkins fails to point out that while WLC 65 applies the saving benefits of Christ to the invisible church without mentioning the visible church, its teaching on the visible church and its comparison between the two makes clear that those who belong only to the visible church do _not_ enjoy these saving blessings. To this effect, WLC 63 lists the special privileges of the visible church as including “the ordinary means of salvation” and “offers of grace by Christ,” while pointedly omitting the actual receipt of these blessings that are enjoyed by the invisible church. WLC 65 applies the enjoyment of “union and communion with [Christ]” only to the invisible church, which according to WLC 66 alone receives effectual calling, and according to WLC 67ff thus enters into the saving benefits understood under the ordo salutis. In this light, we see that while claiming to affirm the teaching of the Standards, the actual effect of TE Wilkins’s argument is to show that the Larger Catechism is out of accord with the teaching of Scripture.

d. The LA Presbyterian helpfully asked TE Wilkins to explain _how_ the visible church enjoys the saving blessings of Christ (question #4). He answered consistently with his understanding of present salvation and future salvation, in which one may enjoy the former but not the latter. This is out of accord with the Westminster Standards, which admit of no such distinction. Consistently in the Confession, those presently saved will and must enjoy future and eternal salvation (WCF XVII.1). TE Wilkins also addresses how the visible church enjoys Christ’s saving blessings by stating that while God knows the difference between a regenerate person’s present enjoyment of Christ’s saving blessings and a reprobate’s enjoyment of the same, “from our creaturely, covenantal point of view there is often no perceptible difference.” This statement continues with TE Wilkins’s denial of the essential point made by the Standards’ teaching on the visible and invisible church, namely, that the saving blessings of Christ are offered to the former and received by only the latter.

e. In arguing his case, TE Wilkins’s makes a significant appeal to the Confession’s description of the visible church as “the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ and the house and family of God out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (WCF 25.2). This demonstrates, he asserts, that the Standards understand the visible church as possessing all the saving benefits of Christ (minus perseverance). But this assertion has the effect of negating the Standards’ definition of the visible church as including those who receive only the offer of saving grace without the enjoyment of its benefits (see again WLC 62ff). In other words, TE Wilkins would have us extract WCF 25.2 from the context of the rest of the Westminster Standards so as to yield a definition amenable to his doctrine. This can only be done by redefining the Standards’ essential point in the visible/invisible church distinction. Contrary to TE Wilkins’s understanding, A.A. Hodge explains WCF 25.2 as affirming that the visible Church has received from God 1) the inspired Scripture…; 2) the Gospel ministry…; 3) the ordinances, such as preaching, prayer, singing of praise, and the holy sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and discipline” for the purpose of “a) the gathering in of the elect from the children of the Church or from the world, and b) the perfecting of the saints when thus gathered.” This understanding of WCF 25.2 is consistent with the overall teaching of the Standards that the visible church enjoys the means of grace and the offer of salvation, whereas TE Wilkins insists that by virtue of being called “the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ and the house and family of God” the visible church enjoys the saving benefits themselves. Again, his teaching is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

5. These same issues carry over into the next doctrinal discussion, pertaining to _the doctrine of perseverance_. WCF XVI.1 teaches that those who enjoy acceptance in Christ, effectual calling, and sanctification by God’s Spirit “can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.” By now, TE Wilkins’s answers have shown that central to his thesis is that persons who receive such blessings can and do fall away. The apostate forfeits “real blessings that were his in covenant with God,” he writes (as cited by CCP Memorial). According to him, people who enjoy the saving blessings described in the Confession end up losing these saving blessings by not persevering. This confirms the CCP memorial’s complaint that TE Wilkins contradicts the Confession with respect to perseverance.

a. TE Wilkins’s answer relies on the distinctions he has already laid out regarding his views on election and the visible/invisible church. Therefore he argues that he agrees with the Confession’s teaching as it pertains to those who are decreed to persevere. It is only with respect to those who do not persevere that he makes his statements. But the Confession’s teaching clearly rules out this scheme. The Confession does not insist on the certainty of perseverance only for those who in fact persevere, but rather for all who experience union with Christ. This is the point of the Confession’s teaching that those who are effectually called “shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved” (XVII.1). TE Wilkins maintains that the entire visible church experiences union with Christ, but that only some retain this through perseverance. Again, TE Wilkins’s own definitions are first substituted for those of the Confession and only then does he affirm the Confession.

b. Again, the key consideration underlying TE Wilkins’s view is his understanding that the New Testament epistles have persons who will not enter into glory in mind when they speak of election and union with Christ. As I have argued, this is not the understanding revealed in the Westminster Standards, which is why its teaching differs so markedly from TE Wilkins’s teaching. His answers to the LA Presbytery’s questions serve primarily to argue that the Standards are out of accord with Scripture. He goes so far as to state that by insisting on the language of the Confession, the CCP memorial is in fact charging the apostles and our Savior with false teaching. In other words, TE Wilkins argues that the Confession’s teaching is unscriptural. This is the very definition of what it means to deny the Standards.

c. The LA Presbytery’s questions press this matter, asking if those who ultimately fall away “ever truly possessed eternal life?” 

i. TE Wilkins answers that persons who ultimately fell away did not truly possess eternal life, since their salvation did not turn out to be eternal. But when then asked if such persons “ever truly possessed forgiveness of sins,” TE Wilkins gives a different answer. He admits that those who fall away did not possess forgiveness in the same manner that those who do not fall away possess it (since, in keeping with his construct, their forgiveness lacked the quality of perseverance). Nonetheless, TE Wilkins insists that those who fall away were forgiven through union with Christ up until the time that they fell away. This is contrary to the teaching of the Confession in its insistence that those who enjoy the saving benefits of union with Christ enjoy them irrevocably. 

ii. To show that the teaching of the Standards is out of accord with Scripture, TE Wilkins points out that Jesus stated that “those who refuse to forgive others will not be forgiven by the Father” (Matt. 6:14-15), arguing that such persons were forgiven until they refused to forgive others, at which point they lost their forgiveness. This blatantly refutes the Confession’s teaching that those who are accepted by God in Christ “shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved” (XVII.1). 

iii. TE Wilkins states that “forgiveness is only found ‘in Christ,’” and therefore as he understands (contrary to the Confession) that those who are in Christ may end up not in Christ, forgiveness may be lost. Whereas the Confession insists that those who enjoy the present benefits of salvation are certain to enjoy them in the future, TE Wilkins continues to apply his understanding that present salvation does not ensure future salvation. Thus, he denies the very heart of the point made by the Confession in the doctrine of perseverance, relying on his dichotomy between a covenantal and a decretal perspective, which does not exist in the Standards.

6. TE Wilkins’s answers with respect to _the doctrine of assurance _may be considered more briefly_. _The CCP memorial charges that while the Confession “teaches that we may have a certain assurance of salvation based on inward evidences of faith and salvation (WCF XVIII.1-2),” these Wilkins denies. 

a. In answer to this charge, Wilkins again denies that his teaching contradicts that of the Confession, then proceeds to argue that we should not seek assurance by this means taught in the Confession: “We do not attain assurance by trying to discern the sincerity of our faith or repentance through introspection of our hearts and examination of our motives, affections, or feelings.” 

b. It should be granted, however, that TE Wilkins does affirm that one may be assured of salvation, though he argues that these evidences cannot be seen inwardly but only as they are manifested outwardly. If this is true, it is hard to see how the Confession can be correct in urging us to seek assurance at least in part through “inward evidence” of grace. 

c. What TE Wilkins writes with respect to the importance of outward manifestations of grace – obedience to God’s commands, love to the brethren, etc. – is true and quite edifying. However, he continues to insist that it is harmful and dangerous to look inwardly for assurance, contrary to the Confession’s statement to this effect. When pointedly asked to affirm the Confession’s teaching that inward evidences should be consulted, TE Wilkins affirms this on the understanding stated previously that such inward evidences can only be seen outwardly. As before, he supplants the Confession’s teaching with his own definition and on this basis is able to affirm it.

7. The final doctrinal heading considered by the CCP memorial pertains to _the doctrine of baptism_. The memorial charges that, contrary to the Confession, TE Wilkins teaches that baptized persons should be equated with the elect and with the regenerate. The memorial further cites TE Wilkins as teaching that baptism conveys covenant with God, union with Christ, and all the saving blessings thereof, so that TE Wilkins teaches that “to be baptized is to have all the eternal blessings of salvation,” and that “all persons baptized in water must be eternally saved, unless they apostatize.” Contrary to this teaching, the Confession defines water baptism as “a sign and seal of these salvific blessings,” instead of granting “actual possession” of them.

a. When asked by the LA Presbytery whether “every baptized person possesses ‘all the blessings of salvation,” TE Wilkins resorts to his distinction between the covenantal and the decretal. Citing the AAPC revised summary statement on Baptism, he argues that “By baptism, one enters into covenantal union with Christ and is _offered_ all his benefits.” This would seem to be inconsistent with TE Wilkins’s prior insistence that members of the visible church actually possess Christ’s saving blessings (though perhaps without perseverance). He goes on to emphasize that baptism offers all of Christ’s benefits, which must then “be embraced by faith for him to enjoy their benefits in salvation.” In my view, these statements are both salutary and in keeping with the Confession. He does not, however, explain the statements cited by the CCP memorial, which at least imply that baptism confers the possession of saving blessings.

b. In answer to the second question pertaining to baptism, TE Wilkins states that he does not believe that the Confession equates all baptized persons with the elect nor the regenerate. In short, he responds that the impression gained by the CCP memorial through the sequence of statements cited therein does not reflect his intended teaching. This should be seen as an encouraging development and credit for it should be granted, although it would be more encouraging to see an amendment to the statements cited by the CCP memorial. I would further observe that no small amount of divergence of opinion exists regarding the meaning of the Confession’s language that the grace of the gospel “is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost” (WCF XXVIII.6), so that this is a subject that is prone to difficulty in reaching agreement. 

c. Again, the answers given by TE Wilkins to the effect that the benefits offered in baptism must be personally embraced by faith should be positively received by his critics. Towards the end of his discussion of baptism, TE Wilkins states, “I don’t mean… that baptism automatically saves apart from faith in Christ. Baptism joins you to the visible church which is the house, family, and kingdom of God…” The difficulty with this statement, however, lies in TE Wilkins’s prior definition of the visible church as enjoying the saving blessings of Christ. While noting this important point, his answer here is encouraging, suggesting that the concerns regarding TE Wilkins’s doctrine of baptism mainly result from his teaching on election, the visible/invisible church, and perseverance.

8. _Concluding Comments_. In his concluding section, TE Wilkins reaffirms many of the understandings that lead to his particular teaching, notably, his understanding of the apostles’ use of the term “elect” as incorporating church members who will not enter into glory and his covenantal vs. decretal dichotomy. He further argues that the memorial “exhibits a catastrophic misunderstanding” of his views and he depicts it as “uncharitable” and “unreasonable.” My contention is that none of these is the case. Rather, in my view, the memorial accurately understands the majority of TE Wilkins’s statements. Furthermore, his answers do not satisfactorily demonstrate the conformity of his teaching with the Standards, but rather have the effect of arguing that the Standards err with respect to key points of biblical doctrine. 

a. TE Wilkins’s premise regarding election as pertaining to those who ultimately are lost is in opposition to the view of the Confession and yields doctrines that are contrary to the Confession’s teaching. Moreover, the covenantal vs. decretal dichotomy is imposed on the Standards with the effect of making numerous redefinitions of key doctrinal terms. 

b. Furthermore, the frequent burden of TE Wilkins’s answers is to argue that the Standards define and use key doctrinal terms in ways that are at odds with the Scripture definition and usage of those same terms. But this is not to affirm the Standards, since they purport to accurately present the Bible’s teaching on the doctrines identified by these terms. 

c. On this basis, I would argue that the CCP memorial’s criticism of TE Wilkins’s teaching is not unreasonable, as he asserts. 

d. It is therefore my opinion that to accept TE Wilkins’s teaching – with respect especially to the doctrines of election, perseverance, and the visible/invisible church – is to reject the teaching of the Standards on these doctrines. Moreover, it is also my opinion that TE Wilkins’s differences with the Standards effectively revise the whole system of doctrine taught therein. For this reason, I believe that for elders in the PCA to permit TE Wilkins’s teaching is to violate our vows to defend and uphold our confessional standards as summarizing the Bible’s doctrine.

e. Finally, for the reasons stated in this paper, I see no cause for accusations that the charges raised by the CCP memorial are malicious or uncharitable. 


[1] The vow PCA ministers take says we “receive and adopt the _Confession of Faith_ and the _Catechisms_ of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.”


----------



## re4med

There are respones to this response...

http://www.barlowfarms.com/index.html?cm_id=1867737

or 

http://tinyurl.com/ycczbu


----------



## Poimen

I am glad with Mr. Phillips that Steve Wilkins is clarifying his views on baptism but there was no doubt that he was contrary to the Reformed views when he said the following at the 2002 AAPC:

*"The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant"*

"Now, you see, given this perspective, there is no presumption necessary when it comes to baptized people. _Traditionally, the reformed have said, we have to view our children as presumptively elect or presumptively regenerate._ And therefore, Christian, if we are willing to take the scriptures at face value, there is no presumption necessary. Just take the Bible. And this is true, of course, because by the baptism, by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we." (italics mine)

This brings us back to the issue of clarity and honesty that Rich has raised in other posts. For this is one of the few places I have seen an FV advocate admit that their view is not Reformed. They usually accuse others of distorting their theology but here it is clear that Mr. Wilkins intentionally set out to change the Reformed view of baptism.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Poimen said:


> I am glad with Mr. Phillips that Steve Wilkins is clarifying his views on baptism but there was no doubt that he was contrary to the Reformed views when he said the following at the 2002 AAPC:
> 
> *"The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant"*
> 
> "Now, you see, given this perspective, there is no presumption necessary when it comes to baptized people. _Traditionally, the reformed have said, we have to view our children as presumptively elect or presumptively regenerate._ And therefore, Christian, if we are willing to take the scriptures at face value, there is no presumption necessary. Just take the Bible. And this is true, of course, because by the baptism, by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we." (italics mine)
> 
> This brings us back to the issue of clarity and honesty that Rich has raised in other posts. For this is one of the few places I have seen an FV advocate admit that their view is not Reformed. They usually accuse others of distorting their theology but here it is clear that Mr. Wilkins intentionally set out to change the Reformed view of baptism.



There is nothing wrong with that statement, given the qualifications of Wilkins and others as to what they see "elect" as referring to in some places in the Bible (i.e., NOT decretally or eternally elect, but sanctified or set apart as one of God's covenant people, one of God's chosen people, temporally speaking, who could still turn out to be an apostate someday, but should be considered a Christian in the "here and now").

Wilkins believes exactly as the WCF does as far as God's eternal election is concerned.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> There is nothing wrong with that statement, given the qualifications of Wilkins and others as to what they see "elect" as referring to in some places in the Bible (i.e., NOT decretally or eternally elect, but sanctified or set apart as one of God's covenant people, one of God's chosen people, temporally speaking, who could still turn out to be an apostate someday, but should be considered a Christian in the "here and now").
> 
> Wilkins believes exactly as the WCF does as far as God's eternal election is concerned.



The _point_ though, Gabe, is that the WCF doesn't add a meaning to the term nor does it teach a _conditional_ election as TE Wilkins does. The idea that the Scriptures teach a conditional election or temporary regeneration is not in accord with the WCF. The Reformed do not believe that the Scriptures teach such a thing but TE Wilkins does.

The quote is useful because he says there is "...no presumption necessary..." with respect to election and reprobation for the baptized as a _correction_ to the Reformed perspective. Well, YES there is. We speak of presumptive regeneration because we guard the actual Scriptural idea of what regeneration and election are.

Now, TE Wilkins and others may rejoin and say "But we believe the Scriptures teach otherwise."

I say: FINE but that is not what the Reformed believe.


----------



## Bladestunner316

temporary regeneration? Is that the same as the you can lose your salvation doctrine?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bladestunner316 said:


> temporary regeneration? Is that the same as the you can lose your salvation doctrine?



To be fair to TE Wilkins, it's not the same thing as an Arminian teaching that rejects perseverance of the Saints.


----------



## Bladestunner316

Ok. Ive never heard of that before so its a bit confusing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bladestunner316 said:


> Ok. Ive never heard of that before so its a bit confusing.


I agree, which is the reason I am critical of the FV's use of language.

But the problem is on your end according to the proponents of the FV. I was just told by an apologist of the FV:


> I don' t think that if you go to Steve Wilkins or Doug Wilson's church you'll find a bunch of people who are confused about "salvation 101", Rich. Where do you get the idea that they would be?


No, of course not. Lay people totally get this stuff...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

To be fair, you're still redefining the terms they're using in order to poison the well.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> To be fair, you're still redefining the terms they're using in order to poison the well.



Unfortunately, I have to go to bed but I'd be interested to know what terms I redefined in my "poisoning of the well". I acknowledge that Wilkins speaks of an election that is like the Reformed view but adds an election and regeneration that is not according to the Reformed view (nor Scriptural in my estimation). He, not I, speaks of conditional election and represents it as confessional. Perhaps you could critique Pastor Phillips article above and demonstrate where he has misrepresented Wilkins view. I'll check this out in the AM.

Blessings,

Rich


----------



## fredtgreco

SemperFideles said:


> Unfortunately, I have to go to bed but I'd be interested to know what terms I redefined in my "poisoning of the well". I acknowledge that Wilkins speaks of an election that is like the Reformed view but adds an election and regeneration that is not according to the Reformed view (nor Scriptural in my estimation). He, not I, speaks of conditional election and represents it as confessional. Perhaps you could critique Pastor Phillips article above and demonstrate where he has misrepresented Wilkins view. I'll check this out in the AM.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rich



You are absolutely right, Rich. This point has been made numerous times. It (Wilkins' redefinition of election in a fashion that denies the Confession's exposition of cardinal doctrines) is what came out of the Knox colloquium. It is what came out of the initial rejoinder to Wilkins from several reformed theologians (including Pipa). It is what came from the Central Carolina Presbytery. It is what has come from Guy Waters. It is what has come from Westminster Seminary California, Mid-America Seminary and others. It is what has come from Calvin Beisner. It is what has come from Mississippi Valley. It is what has come from the OPC. It is what has come from Rick Phillips here - AFTER personal discussions, and after extensive email correspondence.

Which is more amazing: that so many theologians, churchmen and seminaries, Presbyteries *still* after years and several colloquia have failed to understand something that is so important that Wilkins et al have felt it necessary to continue to disturb the church over it, or that a half dozen internet theologians really understand the Reformed Confessions better than all these fathers and brothers?

I personally hope that Wilkins writes a rejoinder himself. Every time he does, he digs his hole deeper and shows more and more confusion and inconsistency.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

And now there is a response to the response etc. etc. etc.
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/01/07/rejoinder-to-jonathan-barlow/




PhD said:


> There are respones to this response...
> 
> http://www.barlowfarms.com/index.html?cm_id=1867737
> 
> or
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/ycczbu


----------



## MW

Remember Lot's wife.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Gabe, 

WHO is redefining terms here?

rsc



WrittenFromUtopia said:


> To be fair, you're still redefining the terms they're using in order to poison the well.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Well, formally no, except in the case that the parallel universe (of conditional administration) becomes conflated (as it sometimes does in FV discourse) with the parallel but mostly theoretical universe of the unconditional, decree in which case the conditional administration is impossible to distinguish from the unconditional decree and the line between the FV scheme and Arminianism becomes blurry to say the least.

rsc



SemperFideles said:


> To be fair to TE Wilkins, it's not the same thing as an Arminian teaching that rejects perseverance of the Saints.


----------



## Robin

A practical and curious question, Dr. Clark...

Do the "leaders" of the FV ideas actually meet together and coordinate/design the aberrant notions? Does anyone know?

Additional to theology issues are the documentation links revealing a long/wide history of misdeeds and serious dishonest intent on (at least) the part of Wilson.

All things considered, there begins to form a scary potential scenario that reminds me of some of the cult research I did with Walter Martin many years back. 

I don't think this is off-topic. It relates to the way they work their "system." As for Scripture-twisting, the overall style mimics Jehovah Witness or Mormon-esque tactics!
 

(And "no" Gabe....I'm not kidding!)

PS. It might be good strategy to not comment. ??


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

[esv]Proverbs 6:16-19[/esv]


----------



## Robin

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> [esv]Proverbs 6:16-19[/esv]



 Gabe!

r.


----------



## turmeric

[bible]James 3:1[/bible]


----------



## Magma2

> *Comments regarding “Submitted Written Questions for Louisiana Presbytery’s Examination of TE Steve Wilkins.”
> * By TE Richard D. Phillips, senior minister, First Presbyterian Church of Coral Springs/Margate, FL


 
 
Outstanding analysis. Not impressed at all by Mr. Hill’s linked reply by Jonathan Barlow. Orwellian double think parading as rational thought (that was nicely exposed and countered Lane Keister). I guess in more modern phraseology, Barlow’s reply was “Clintonesqe” in its attempt to cloud Wilkin’s complete departure from the Confession. While Clinton could, in a manner similar to that employed by Mr. Barlow, dance around the use of the word "is," it still doesn't eliminate the adultery committed.

OTOH Mr. Hill has provided another a nice illustration of how completely desperate defenders of Wilkins and the rest of these Neo-legalists have become. 

My question is, and I suppose it's a technical one that perhaps Fred Greco can answer, what is stopping someone from bringing Wilkins up on charges for teaching heresy at this point? Also, wouldn't that just end the debate? I have to think this would be beneficial for those on both sides and is the only thing that will settle matters once and for all. Then we could all see if the PCA courts actually hold to the Westminister Standards as “the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures,” or, whether they are willing to permit the teaching of an entirely different system to be taught along side it . . . like in the OPC.


----------



## wsw201

One thing that I am curious about is why has the Session at AAPC been given a pass?? 

Steve Wilkins is not the *BISHOP OF MONROE*! Everything he is teaching has been directly or indirectly approved and agreed to by the Session!! Go to the AAPC web site and read their statements. Though the Session does not have direct jurisdiction over a TE, they certainly are responsible for what is taught at AAPC and can put a lot of pressure on a TE to cease and desist from teaching things that they believe are out of accord with the Standards, or at least get the Presbytery involved. Did they do this? I don't think so!!

But then again, they're just a bunch of RE's who don't have the brains to pour sand out of a boot (since they didn't go to Seminary) unless a TE tells them how to do it! So how can anyone hold them responsible?? But of course we can let them excommunicate someone from the Church.

{RANT OFF FROM AN OLD RE}


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PhD said:


> There are respones to this response...
> 
> http://www.barlowfarms.com/index.html?cm_id=1867737
> 
> or
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/ycczbu



In the words of Mubatu from _Zoolander_: "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"

If we ever hope to understand each other then I want to make sure I break down what _I_ believe Pastor Phillips clearly articulated because it is my estimation that this "response" doesn't even enter into the same neighborhood as the criticism. I ask those who have read both to make sure I'm not stating this improperly.

Here is the substance of the response from Barlow (I'm summarizing):

Pastor Phillips wants to try and convict Pastor Wilkins for not being a strict subscriptionist to only ONE confessional use of the terms election and perseverance. Pastor Wilkins does not deny election or perseverance in the way that the WCF use them and wholeheartedly agrees with them BUT merely denotes that the terms are used in a broader sense.

He goes on to use an analogy of using the word trinity in another way (i.e. “Shadrach, Meschach, and Abegnego made up a trinity of dissent in the
empire.”) and then being accused of denying the Trinity.

Thus, according to Barlow, the _substance_ of Pastor Phillips critique is over the use of terms: you cannot use the word election or predestination in any other way than the Confession uses or we're going to put you up on a pole.

Now, I ask the critics of the critics of the FV: Does this _accurately_ represent Pastor Phillips critique? I thought Pastor Phillips was very cogent in his analysis. I'm constantly told, including on this thread, that men are not dealing honestly with each other's views. If there is going to be a response to Pastor Phillips' critique then let it be on the substance of the critique.

As we noted earlier, the substance of the critique is this:

*BEGIN*

Neither the Scriptures, nor the confession, admit to a _doctrine_ of conditional election.

Neither the Scriptures, nor the confession, admit to a _temporary_ perseverance.

Neither the Scirptures, nor the confession, admit to a _temporary_ union with Christ.

*BREAK*

You see, it one thing to admit that the Scriptures use a _term_ to address a larger body that includes both elect and non-elect. It is quite another to form a doctrine based on this syllogism:

1. Paul calls a Church body "elect" in some passages
2. Paul knew it consisted of both the regenerate and unregenerate
3. Therefore, Paul must mean that everyone there is elect in some way...

Barlow seems to completely miss the fact that Pastor Phillips convincingly demonstrates that the Reformed completely reject this in their confession. They do NOT conclude 3 in the way that Wilkins and others do and, on the contrary, reject the idea.

Would they admit to points 1 and 2 above? Certainly, they would believe it is Pastoral language. This is why there is the idea of _presumptive_ regeneration where you treat and talk of people _as if_ they are regnerate not knowing either way. Jesus still treated Judas _as if_ he were a disciple when He knew from the beginning who truly believed even before He called Judas.

Thus, I find Barlow's response to utterly obfiscate the critique. I thought Pastor Phillips critique was a scholarly and clear examination of the issue and am shocked that Barlow so utterly misrepresents the substance of the critique.

Are there any responses out there that do a better job of answering the _actual_ charges?


----------



## SRoper

Thanks Rick. I think you have clearly articulated the deficiency of Barlow's criticism.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

SRoper said:


> Thanks Rick. I think you have clearly articulated the deficiency of Barlow's criticism.


Don't know this theologian Mubatu or his work _Zoolander,_  but


----------



## Robin

NaphtaliPress said:


> Don't know this theologian Mubatu or his work _Zoolander,_  but




Chris,

It's the same as the "Jedi mind trick."

r.


----------



## MW

Friends, when did the reformed church insist that the exact terms must be found in Scripture? The idea of conditional election to temporary benefits is clearly revealed in holy writ. Our Lord has provided a parable which specifically teaches that the reprobate are partakers in the kingdom of God temporarily -- the parable of the wheat and tares. At the judgment, "the Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather OUT OF HIS KINGDOM all things that offend, and them which do iniquity," Matt. 13:41. The visible church enjoys special "privileges" bestowed by God, which the world does not receive, Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 63. To be in the visible church is to enjoy these benefits. If any are made partakers of these benefits it is because God chose them to it (temporary election).

The term "temporary election" is used in reformed theology in the same way as "common grace." Although Scripture uses "election" and "grace" only in relation to the members of the invisible church, there is a theological analogy which makes it appropriate to apply the terms to the members of the visible church in a common way, in virtue of the fact that the visible church is the temporal manifestation of the invisible church.

Consider the words of John Owen (Works, 4:430):



> "Thus God chooseth some men unto some office in the church, or unto some work in the world. As this includeth a preferring them before or above others, or the using them when others are not used, we call it election; and in itself it is their fitting for and separation unto their office or work. And this temporary election is the cause and rule of the dispensation of gifts. So he chose Saul to be king over his people, and gave him thereon 'another heart,' or gifts fitting him for rule and government. So our Lord Jesus Christ chose and called at the first twelve to be his apostles, and gave unto them all alike miraculous gifts. His temporary choice of them was the ground of his communication of gifts unto them. By virtue hereof no saving graces were communicated unto them, for one of them never arrived unto a participation of them."



As Owen goes on to note, the term election finds specific support in connection with the choice of Judas to the apostleship, John 6:70. That this was temporary is indicated by the fact that our Lord specifically says in chap. 13:18, I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen." Now if this is true of Judas, who was given an extraordinary office in the church, and equipped with miraculous gifts, it must also be true of ordinary officers and members of the church, who are given the ordinary gifts to administer and receive the Word and sacraments.

The problem with the FV formulation of the teaching is that it supposes "saving graces" are communicated by virtue of this temporal election, contrary to what John Owen teaches above. It is at this point that justified criticism can be levelled at the FV. By denying the traditional reformed teaching of temporal election in order to oppose the FV, you make yourself equally chargeable with a departure from the reformed faith.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> The problem with the FV formulation of the teaching is that it supposes "saving graces" are communicated by virtue of this temporal election, contrary to what John Owen teaches above. It is at this point that justified criticism can be levelled at the FV. By denying the traditional reformed teaching of temporal election in order to oppose the FV, you make yourself equally chargeable with a departure from the reformed faith.


I should have posted more clearly. I used shorthand and do not deny that the Covenant confers some temporary blessings. My critique was leveled primarily at the notion that the _substance_ of Pastor Phillips critique had to do with a mere use of terms in a broader sense.

I believe Pastor Phillips critique echoes yours above. If one is going to critique his response to Wilkins' examination then it needs to be made on this ground alone.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Rick Phillips has publicly opined about how his paper has been received:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/24446


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> In the words of Mubatu from _Zoolander_Now, I ask the critics of the critics of the FV: Does this accurately represent Pastor Phillips critique? I thought Pastor Phillips was very cogent in his analysis. I'm constantly told, including on this thread, that men are not dealing honestly with each other's views. If there is going to be a response to Pastor Phillips' critique then let it be on the substance of the critique.



The constant refrain of Neolegalists and their fellow travelers is, to paraphrase B. B. King, “Nobody understands us except our momma, but I think she’s jivin’ too.”



> You see, it one thing to admit that the Scriptures use a term to address a larger body that includes both elect and non-elect. It is quite another to form a doctrine based on this syllogism:
> 
> 1. Paul calls a Church body "elect" in some passages
> 2. Paul knew it consisted of both the regenerate and unregenerate
> 3. Therefore, Paul must mean that everyone there is elect in some way...
> 
> Barlow seems to completely miss the fact that Pastor Phillips convincingly demonstrates that the Reformed completely reject this in their confession.



Where has Barlow or Wilkins demonstrated premise 1? The verses Wilkins cites do not support #1 in the slightest and perhaps Phillips could have done a better job in brining this out in his critique, however I think he made this point pretty clear even if it wasn't transparent enough for the likes of men like Mr. Barlow and I suppose Mr. Hill. 



> Thus, I find Barlow's response to utterly obfiscate the critique. I thought Pastor Phillips critique was a scholarly and clear examination of the issue and am shocked that Barlow so utterly misrepresents the substance of the critique.



While I’m not exactly shocked by Barlow’s attempt to bamboozle the already confused, I am shocked that for once there is one issue that you and I are in complete agreement.


----------



## wsw201

armourbearer said:


> Friends, when did the reformed church insist that the exact terms must be found in Scripture? The idea of conditional election to temporary benefits is clearly revealed in holy writ. Our Lord has provided a parable which specifically teaches that the reprobate are partakers in the kingdom of God temporarily -- the parable of the wheat and tares. At the judgment, "the Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather OUT OF HIS KINGDOM all things that offend, and them which do iniquity," Matt. 13:41. The visible church enjoys special "privileges" bestowed by God, which the world does not receive, Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 63. To be in the visible church is to enjoy these benefits. If any are made partakers of these benefits it is because God chose them to it (temporary election).



The Standards have a better term than "conditional election" or "temporary election" and that is the "general calling". The definition in Chapt 10 on Effectual Calling is as follows:

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:[17] much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess.[18] And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.[19]

Proofs:

[15] MAT 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

[16] MAT 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 13:20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; 21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. HEB 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come.

[17] JOH 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

[18] ACT 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. JOH 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. EPH 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. JOH 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

[19] 2JO 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. 1CO 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. GAL 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

One of the problems with the FV are the use of terms. Using "temporary election" only causes further confusion despite the fact that some theologian at some time used the term.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

If it is true that the WCF is saying that conditional election is under the heading of the "general call" as you quote above, then I would say the WCF is unScriptural on this point... Just a simple read of John 15 should show us that people can, in fact, be IN Christ and not be ultimately saved eternally.


----------



## AdamM

Gabe, back in the early 80's I used to read a magazine published and If I recall correctly, editied by R. Emmet Tyrrell, called the American Spectator. One of the features I enjoyed the most was Tyrrell's "Strange New Respect" awards. Basically awards given out to folks who evidenced remarkable changes from their previously staked out positions. Things like Dick Gephardt suddenly becoming pro-choice after many years of being a leading pro-life stalwart in congress and so on. David Brock who once wrote for the magazine is another example. 

No offense intended and I wish you well whatever, but you appear to have developed a rather amazing "strange new respect" for the Federal Vision (or maybe you've been body snatched)?


----------



## wsw201

Gabe,

Based on what Rev. Winzer cited, he is discribing a person who is in the church and shares some of the benefits of the church but is not elect to salvation no matter what they may do. What he is describing is a person who would fit the definition per the WCF as generally called. Being a Presbyterian, I think its best to use terms and definitions that are clear to all. I can point to Chapter 10 section 4 and say "that is exactly what I'm talking about". No fuss no muss.

Now *you *have to define what it means to be "IN Christ" since it can be taken a number of ways. Does it mean that a person is in the visible church but not elect, ie; generally called? or that they are actually elect, effectually called, but can lose their salvation?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

To be "in Christ" is exactly what Scripture says.

It is to be born again into the kingdom of God -- the Church -- under the headship of Christ (cf. John 3). It is to be set apart from the world in covenant with God. It is to be called to faith and repentance and to rest in Christ all the days of your life (cf. John 15).

It is NOT the same thing as "salvation" in the WCF sense; that is, being "truly" saved, or "eternally elect."

Good Calvinism has to take into account (as Calvin did), both the covenantal/sacramental life of the Church (the visible church), and the predestination and eternal side of things (the invisible church, which is far less "important" to us in the "here and now"; cf. Deut 29:29 if you disagree with me).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> If it is true that the WCF is saying that conditional election is under the heading of the "general call" as you quote above, then I would say the WCF is unScriptural on this point... Just a simple read of John 15 should show us that people can, in fact, be IN Christ and not be ultimately saved eternally.



Gabe,

To be blunt, I think you are behaving irresponsibly in this thread. It's as if you have your hands clasped over your ears and are simply charging: "You misrepresent, you misrepresent..."

You have so far:
1. Accused two Elders in the visible Church of bearing false witness without substantiating the claim.
2. You have accused all those who agree that Wilkins' statements are irresponsble as "...making haste to run to evil...."
3. You accused me of poisoning the well without explaining how I was being unfair with terms.
4. Having barely studied the WCF and wondering aloud "...if that's what it teaches...", you assume your "...on the surface of John 15..." is enough to pronounce that the WCF is wrong.

This is a _dialogue_ on the issue. You may not agree with the conclusions others are drawing about Wilkins' teachings but to stop your ears and scream "...you're misrepresenting..." does not help anybody to understand.

If you have a case to present that his words are being misrepresented then demonstrate how Pastor Phillips or others have dones so by comparing meanings, analyzing, and critiquing. If you're expecting any of us to agree with you on the basis of your decretal authority alone then you're sadly mistaken.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

1. Then I guess I'm guilty along with the hundreds upon hundreds of people who simply regurgitate synopses of what they read online in order to engage in a blanket condemnation of any number of Elders in the visible Church. This is ad hominem tu quoque.

2. No I did not. That was directed at Robin who -- to be blunt -- has said some REDICULOUS things regarding Elders in the visible Church, with apparently no intent to understand someone's position, dialogue, or come to any sort of understanding... just throw rocks.

3. You were being unfair with terms because Wilkins and others are using regeneration in (what is arguably) a more Biblical-Theological manner (and there's nothing WRONG with that, as long as one is clear -- which Wilkins and others obviously haven't been clear enough in the past, and thankfully they're qualifying now... but still to people's discontent!); that is, regeneration as being born into the kingdom of God (the visible Church) through Baptism (cf. John 3, Titus 3, etc.). This is found in Calvin, Augstine, and especially in M.F. Sadler's book "The Second Adam and the New Birth," which is a defense of the Reformed view of the Sacrament of Baptism, straight out of Calvin and his contemporaries. WCF made regeneration to mean "conversion," which is fine by me, as a theological term, but I really am not sure if that's how Scripture ALWAYS uses the term. I'm still studying, and always will be. So, like I said, TO BE FAIR, you should read Wilkins in context, according to what he has said, not read a different -- but fine and good -- context into what he's saying and then throw stones at his statements about baptism and regeneration. He does not believe Baptism "truly saves" a person or makes them "eternally elect." He's completely confessional on this subject; that is, on the subject of God's eternal decree and the salvation of sinners.

4. This is just an insult, but I'll clarify anyway, giving you the benefit of the doubt, as a fellow layman in the Church. I said that "if that's what it teaches" because I don't believe that is what WCF's point was. I thought it was a bad reading, because it would seem to contradict clear Scriptures on being "in Christ" and how one can be "on the vine" and "a branch" but still be cut off from Christ (covenantally speaking, of course!!! not eternally).


----------



## MW

wsw201 said:


> The Standards have a better term than "conditional election" or "temporary election" and that is the "general calling". The definition in Chapt 10 on Effectual Calling is as follows:



This call can be heard from Joe Blogs standing on a soap box in the centre of town.

Traditional Presbyterianism taught that Jehovah God manifests His gracious presence and acts according to His special providence for the good of the visible church. This privileged position is acknowledge by historic writers as an election, which distinguishes the members of the visible church from the world. To call it anything less is to detract from the significance of the church as an institution of divine appointment.

The Confession considers the visible church to be nothing less than "the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation" (chap. 25, sect. 2). Besides the special benefits of the sacraments, which apply only to the elect, the Confession states they are also instituted " to put a visible difference between those that belong to the church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word" (Chap. 27, sect. 1).



wsw201 said:


> One of the problems with the FV are the use of terms. Using "temporary election" only causes further confusion despite the fact that some theologian at some time used the term.



It appears to me that the confusion arises because inexperienced theologians do not understand the adjectives "absolute," "unconditional" or "eternal," as being relative to the election which pertains to eternal life, and that such adjectives are stated for the express purpose of distinguishing this election from an election to temporal privileges.

I specifically chose the quotation of John Owen because he particularly refers to Christ's election of Judas to temporal privileges. Judas was chosen, being a devil; yet in terms of inward, spiritual blessings, he was not chosen. One is not at liberty to deny what the Bible so plainly teaches. The responsible thing to do is to explain the difference between these two elections, which is what historic reformed theology has done.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> 1. Then I guess I'm guilty along with the hundreds upon hundreds of people who simply regurgitate synopses of what they read online in order to engage in a blanket condemnation of any number of Elders in the visible Church. This is ad hominem tu quoque.
> 
> 2. No I did not. That was directed at Robin who -- to be blunt -- has said some REDICULOUS things regarding Elders in the visible Church, with apparently no intent to understand someone's position, dialogue, or come to any sort of understanding... just throw rocks.
> 
> 3. You were being unfair with terms because Wilkins and others are using regeneration in (what is arguably) a more Biblical-Theological manner (and there's nothing WRONG with that, as long as one is clear -- which Wilkins and others obviously haven't been clear enough in the past, and thankfully they're qualifying now... but still to people's discontent!); that is, regeneration as being born into the kingdom of God (the visible Church) through Baptism (cf. John 3, Titus 3, etc.). This is found in Calvin, Augstine, and especially in M.F. Sadler's book "The Second Adam and the New Birth," which is a defense of the Reformed view of the Sacrament of Baptism, straight out of Calvin and his contemporaries. WCF made regeneration to mean "conversion," which is fine by me, as a theological term, but I really am not sure if that's how Scripture ALWAYS uses the term. I'm still studying, and always will be. So, like I said, TO BE FAIR, you should read Wilkins in context, according to what he has said, not read a different -- but fine and good -- context into what he's saying and then throw stones at his statements about baptism and regeneration. He does not believe Baptism "truly saves" a person or makes them "eternally elect." He's completely confessional on this subject; that is, on the subject of God's eternal decree and the salvation of sinners.
> 
> 4. This is just an insult, but I'll clarify anyway, giving you the benefit of the doubt, as a fellow layman in the Church. I said that "if that's what it teaches" because I don't believe that is what WCF's point was. I thought it was a bad reading, because it would seem to contradict clear Scriptures on being "in Christ" and how one can be "on the vine" and "a branch" but still be cut off from Christ (covenantally speaking, of course!!! not eternally).



Well, at least I got you out of your pithy "one-liner" cocoon in this thread.

1. That's an interesting ethic. What others do is not normative. Others may accuse me of misrepresenting and the Lord knows I have much to learn but if I speak inaccurately I confess it when I know of it.

2. Take that up with Robin.

3. I didn't even write enough words to conclude everything you just accused me of. I summarized something that was true as far as it went. My point, at the time, is that you merely charged me with misrepresenting and now you engage in accusing me of concepts I did not express. Be careful of the standard with which you judge...

4. I would suggest you be more guarded in your speech the next time.

My comments were intended as a warning. I do not intend to give a tit for tat. I don't want this to become personal but others are not the only folks "poisoning the well" in this thread.


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> This call can be heard from Joe Blogs standing on a soap box in the centre of town.
> 
> Traditional Presbyterianism taught that Jehovah God manifests His gracious presence and acts according to His special providence for the good of the visible church. This privileged position is acknowledge by historic writers as an election, which distinguishes the members of the visible church from the world. To call it anything less is to detract from the significance of the church as an institution of divine appointment.
> 
> The Confession considers the visible church to be nothing less than "the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation" (chap. 25, sect. 2). Besides the special benefits of the sacraments, which apply only to the elect, the Confession states they are also instituted " to put a visible difference between those that belong to the church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word" (Chap. 27, sect. 1).
> 
> 
> 
> It appears to me that the confusion arises because inexperienced theologians do not understand the adjectives "absolute," "unconditional" or "eternal," as being relative to the election which pertains to eternal life, and that such adjectives are stated for the express purpose of distinguishing this election from an election to temporal privileges.
> 
> I specifically chose the quotation of John Owen because he particularly refers to Christ's election of Judas to temporal privileges. Judas was chosen, being a devil; yet in terms of inward, spiritual blessings, he was not chosen. One is not at liberty to deny what the Bible so plainly teaches. The responsible thing to do is to explain the difference between these two elections, which is what historic reformed theology has done.



Rev. Winzer,

I understand what you are saying, but I do not believe it is apropos of the issue at stake here in this thread. To acknowledge that there is an "election" or "choosing" by God that amounts to common grace (which you have aptly described) is not the point. Owen is clearly describing an election to temporary gifting, such as Judas had. That is not what Wilkins is describing. He is describing a temporary election to salvific gifts, benefits. Owen is describing the exact opposite. He is discussing the giftings shown by those who manifestly do not have saving graces, in his effort to show that the work of the Holy Spirit (the selected text is from Owen's work on the Holy Spirit, _Pneumatologia_) in saving grace is distinct, different and not related to his work in gifting men.

Here is the quote in full context, from a section dealing with the *difference *between spiritual gifts and saving grace, which makes that point crystal clear (I'll bold the bottom line portions):



> DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SPIRITUAL GIFTS
> AND SAVING GRACE.
> THEIR nature in general, which in the next place we inquire into, will be
> much discovered in *the consideration of those things wherein these gifts do agree with saving graces, and wherein they differ from them*.
> First, There are four things wherein spiritual gifts and saving graces do
> agree: —
> 1. They are, both sorts of them, the purchase of Christ for his church, the
> especial fruit of his mediation. We speak not of such gifts or endowments
> of men’s minds as consist merely in the improvement of their natural
> faculties: such are wisdom, learning, skill in arts and sciences; which those
> may abound and excel in who are utter strangers to the church of Christ,
> and frequently they do so, to their own exaltation and contempt of others.
> Nor do I intend abilities for actions, moral, civil, or political; as fortitude,
> skill in government or rule, and the like. For although these are gifts of the
> power of the Spirit of God, yet they do belong unto those operations
> which he exerciseth in upholding or ruling of the world, or the old creation
> as such, whereof I have treated before. But I intend those alone which are
> conversant about the gospel, the things and duties of it, the administration
> of its ordinances, the propagation of its doctrine, and profession of its
> ways. And herein also I put a difference between them and all those gifts
> of the Spirit about sacred things which any of the people of God enjoyed
> under the old testament; for we speak only of those which are “powers of
> the world to come.” Those others were suited to the economy of the old
> covenant, and confined with the light which God was pleased then to
> communicate unto his church. Unto the gospel state they were not suited,
> nor would be useful in it, Hence the prophets, who had the most eminent
> gifts, did yet all of them come short of John the Baptist, because they had
> not, by virtue of their gifts, that acquaintance with the person of Christ
> and insight into his work of mediation that he had; and yet also he came
> short of him that is “least in the kingdom of heaven,” because his gifts
> were not purely evangelical. Wherefore, those gifts whereof we treat are such as belong unto the kingdom of God erected in an especial manner by
> Jesus Christ after his ascension into heaven; for he was exalted that he
> might fill all things, ta< pa>nta, that is, the whole church, with these effects
> of his power and grace. The power, therefore, of communicating these gifts
> was granted unto the Lord Christ as mediator, by the Father, for the
> foundation and edification of his church, as it is expressed, Acts 2:33;
> and by them was his kingdom both set up and propagated, and is
> preserved in the world. These were the weapons of warfare which he
> furnished his disciples withal when he gave them commission to go forth
> and subdue the world unto the obedience of the gospel, Acts 1:4,8; and
> mighty were they through God unto that purpose, 2 Corinthians 10:3-6.
> In the use and exercise of them did the gospel “run, and was glorified,” to
> the ruin of the kingdom of Satan and darkness in the world. And that he
> was ever able to erect it again, under another form than that of Gentilism,
> as he hath done in the anti-christian apostasy of the church visible, it was
> from a neglect and contempt of these gifts, with their due use and
> improvement, When men began to neglect the attaining of these spiritual
> gifts, and the exercise of them, in praying, in preaching, in interpretation of
> the Scripture, in all the administrations and whole worship of the church,
> betaking themselves wholly to their own abilities and inventions,
> accommodated unto their ease and secular interest, it was an easy thing for Satan to erect again his kingdom, though not in the old manner, because of
> the light of the Scripture, which had made an impression on the minds of
> men which he could not obliterate. Wherefore he never attempted openly
> any more to set up Heathenism or Paganism, with the gods of the old
> world and their worship; but he insensibly raised another kingdom, which
> pretended some likeness unto and compliance with the letter of the word,
> though it came at last to be in all things expressly contrary thereunto. This
> was his kingdom of apostasy and darkness, under the papal
> antichristianism and woful degeneracy of other Christians in the world; for
> when men who pretend themselves intrusted with the preservation of the
> kingdom of Christ did willfully cast away those weapons of their warfare
> whereby the world was subdued unto him, and ought to have been kept in
> subjection by them, what else could ensue?
> By these gifts, I say, doth the Lord Christ demonstrate his power and
> exercise his rule. External force and carnal weapons were far from his thoughts, as unbecoming his absolute sovereignty over the souls of men,
> his infinite power and holiness. Neither did any ever betake themselves
> unto them in the affairs of Christ’s kingdom, but either when they had
> utterly lost and abandoned these spiritual weapons, or did not believe that
> they are sufficient to maintain the interest of the gospel, though originally
> they were so to introduce and fix it in the world, — that is, that although
> the gifts of the Holy Ghost were sufficient and effectual to bring in the
> truth and doctrine of the gospel against all opposition, yet are they not so
> to maintain it; which they may do well once more to consider. Herein,
> therefore, they agree with saving graces; for that they are peculiarly from
> Jesus Christ the mediator is confessed by all, unless it be by such as by
> whom all real internal grace is denied. But the sanctifying operations of the
> Holy Spirit, with their respect unto the Lord Christ as mediator, have been
> sufficiently before confirmed.
> *2. There is an agreement between saving graces and spiritual gifts with
> respect unto their immediate efficient cause. They are, both sorts of them,
> wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost. *As to what concerneth the
> former, or saving grace, I have already treated of that argument at large; nor
> will any deny that the Holy Ghost is the author of these graces but those
> that deny that there are any such. That these gifts are so wrought by him
> is expressly declared wherever there is mention of them, in general or
> particular. Wherefore, when they acknowledge that there were such gifts,
> all confess him to be their author. By whom he is denied so to be, it is
> only because they deny the continuance of any such gifts in the church of
> God. But this is that which we shall disprove.
> 3. Herein also they agree, that both sorts of them are designed unto the
> good, benefit, ornament, and glory of the church. The church is the proper
> seat and subject of them, to it are they granted, and in it do they reside; for Christ is given to be the “head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all,” Ephesians 1:22,23.
> *But this “church” falls under a double consideration: — first, as it is
> believing; secondly, as it is professing. In the first respect absolutely it is
> invisible, *{N.B. the antipathy displayed even this week by FV types for the visible church, expressed by Owen here, and they refer to as "against the law of non-contradiction}* and as such is the peculiar subject of saving grace. This is that
> church which “Christ loved and gave himself for, that he might sanctify and
> cleanse it, and present it unto himself a glorious church, not having
> spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and
> without blemish,” Ephesians 5:26,27.*
> *This is the work of saving grace, and by a participation thereof do men
> become members of this church, and not otherwise.* And hereby is the
> professing church quickened and enabled unto profession in an acceptable
> manner; for *the elect receive grace unto this end in this world*, that they
> may glorify Christ and the gospel in the exercise of it, Colossians 1:6;
> John 15:8. But gifts are bestowed on the professing church to render it
> visible in such a way as whereby God is glorified. *Grace gives an invisible
> life to the church, gifts give it a visible profession; for hence doth the
> church become organical, and disposed into that order which is beautiful
> and comely. *Where any church is organized merely by outward rules,
> perhaps of their own devising, and makes profession only in an attendance
> unto outward order, not following the leading of the Spirit in the
> communication of his gifts, both as to order and discharge of the duties of
> profession, it is but the image of a church, wanting an animating principle
> and form. That profession which renders a church visible according to the
> mind of Christ, is the orderly exercise of the spiritual gifts bestowed on it,
> in a conversation evidencing the invisible principle of saving grace. Now,
> these gifts are conferred on the church in order unto “the edification of
> itself in love,” Ephesians 4:16, as also for the propagation of its
> profession in the world, as shall be declared afterward. Wherefore, both of
> these sorts have in general the same end, or are given by Christ unto the
> same purpose, — namely, the good and benefit of the church, as they are
> respectively suited to promote them.
> 4. It may also be added, that they agree herein, that they have both the
> same respect unto the bounty of Christ. Hence every grace is a gift, that
> which is given and freely bestowed on them that have it, Matthew
> 13:11; Philippians 1:29. And although, on the other side, every gift be
> not a grace, yet, proceeding from gracious favor and bounty, they are so
> called, Romans 12:6; Ephesians 4:7. How, in their due exercise, they
> are mutually helpful and assistant unto each other, shall be declared
> afterward. Secondly, *We may consider wherein the difference lies or doth consist
> which is between these spiritual gifts and sanctifying graces*: and this may
> be seen in sundry instances; as, —
> 1. Saving graces are karpo>v, the “fruit” or fruits “of the Spirit,”
> Galatians 5:22; Ephesians 5:9; Philippians 1:11. Now, fruits
> proceed from an abiding root and stock, of whose nature they do partake.
> *There must be a “good tree” to bring forth “good fruit,” Matthew 12:33.
> No external watering or applications unto the earth will cause it to bring
> forth useful fruits, unless there are roots from which they spring and are
> educed. The Holy Spirit is as the root unto these fruits; the root which
> bears them, and which they do not bear, as Romans 11:18*. Therefore, in
> order of nature, is he given unto men before the production of any of these
> fruits. Thereby are they ingrafted into the olive, are made such branches in
> Christ, the true vine, as derive vital juice, nourishment, and fructifying
> virtue from him, even by the Spirit. So is he “a well of water springing up
> into everlasting life,” John 4:14. He is a spring in believers; and all
> saving graces are but waters arising from that living, overflowing spring.
> From him, as a root or spring, as an eternal virtue, power, or principle, do
> all these fruits come. *To this end doth he dwell in them and abide with
> them, according to the promise of our Lord Jesus Christ, John 14:17;
> Romans 8:11; 1 Corinthians 3:16; whereby the Lord Christ effecteth
> his purpose in “ordaining his disciples to bring forth fruit” that should
> “remain,” John 15:16. *In the place of his holy residence, he worketh
> these effects freely, according to his own will. And there is nothing that
> hath the true nature of saving grace but what is so a fruit of the Spirit. We
> have not first these graces, and then by virtue of them receive the Spirit,
> (for whence should we have them of ourselves?) but the Spirit bestowed
> on us worketh them in us, and gives them a siritual, divine nature, in
> conformity unto his own.
> *With gifts, singly considered, it is otherwise. They are indeed works and
> effects, but not properly fruits of the Spirit, nor are anywhere so called.*
> *They are effects of his operation upon men, not fruits of his working in
> them; and, therefore, many receive these gifts who never receive the Spirit
> as to the principal end for which he is promised. *They receive him not to
> sanctify and make them temples unto God; though metonymically, with
> respect unto his outward effects, they may be said to be made partakers of him. This renders them of a different nature and kind from saving graces;
> for whereas there is an agreement and coincidence between them in the
> respects before mentioned, and whereas the seat and subject of them, —
> that is, of gifts absolutely, and principally of graces also, — is the mind,
> the difference of their nature proceeds from the different manner of their
> communication from the Holy Spirit.
> 2. *Saving grace proceeds from, or is the effect and fruit of, electing love.*
> This I have proved before, in our inquiry into the nature of holiness. See it
> directly asserted, Ephesians 1:3,4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Acts
> 2:47, 13:48. Whom God graciously choosoth and designeth unto eternal
> life, them he prepares for it by the communication of the means which are
> necessary unto that end, Romans 8:28-30. Hereof sanctification, or the
> communication of saving grace, is comprehensive; for we are “chosen to
> salvation through sanctification of the Spirit,” 2 Thessalonians 2:13, for
> this is that whereby we are “made meet to be partakers of the inheritance
> of the saints in light,” Colossians 1:12. Th*e end of God in election is the
> sonship and salvation of the elect, *“to the praise of the glory of his grace,”
> Ephesians 1:5,6; and this cannot be unless his image be renewed in them
> in holiness or saving graces. These, therefore, he works in them, in pursuit
> of his eternal purpose therein. *But gifts, on the other hand, which are no
> more but so, and where they are solitary or alone, are only the effects of a
> temporary election. *Thus God chooseth some men unto some office in the
> church, or unto some work in the world. As this includeth a preferring
> them before or above others, or the using them when others are not used,
> we call it election; and in itself it is their fitting for and separation unto
> their office or work. *And this temporary election is the cause and nile of
> the dispensation of gifts. *So he chose Saul to be king over his people, and
> gave him thereon “another heart,” or gifts fitting him for rule and
> government. So our Lord Jesus Christ chose and called at the first twelve
> to be his apostles, and gave unto them all alike miraculous gifts. His
> temporary choice of them was the ground of his communication of gifts
> unto them. By virtue hereof no saving graces were communicated unto
> them, for one of them never arrived unto a participation of them.
> “Have not I,” saith our Savior unto them, “chosen you twelve, and
> one of you is a devil?” John 6:70.
> He had chosen them unto their office, and endowed them with
> extraordinary gifts for the discharge thereof; but one of them being not
> “chosen unto salvation before the foundation of the world,” being not
> “ordained unto eternal life,” but, on the other side, being the “son of
> perdition,” or one certainly appointed unto destruction, or “before of old
> ordained unto that condemnation,” he continued void of all sanctifying
> graces, so as, unto any acceptation with God, he was in no better
> condition than the devil himself, whose work he was to do. Yet was he, by
> virtue of this choice unto the office of apostleship for a season, endowed
> with the same spiritual gifts that the others were. And this distinction our
> Savior himself doth plainly lay down; for whereas he says, John 6:70,
> “Have not I chosen you twelve,” — that is, with a temporary choice unto
> office, — chap. 13:18, he salth, “I speak not of you all; I know whom I
> have chosen,” so excepting Judas from that number, as is afterward
> expressly declared: for *the election which here he intends is that which is
> accompanied with an infallible ordination unto abiding fruit-bearing, chap.
> 15:16, that is, eternal election, wherein Judas had no interest.*


----------



## MW

I was careful in my original post to note the deficiencies of the FV in this regard. My concern is to ensure we do not throw out the baby with the bath water, that is, the important concept of temporal election in connection with visible church privileges. One should not oppose the FV on the basis that they use the term, but because they use the term inappropriately.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Do Wilkins and other FV proponents say that one is OFFERED the benefits of Christ, or is really and truly GIVEN those benefits?

Everyone in the covenant is OFFERED eternal life, justification, glorification, etc. etc. etc.

Whether or not they actually are truly GIVEN those benefits depends on faith.


----------



## wsw201

Rev Winzer,

If you think that the definition of the general calling is not what you meant, all you had to do was say so.

It is interesting though that the Divines used Judas (as noted in the Scripture proof 17 sighting John 6) as someone who was generally called (just like you did. Imagine that!). 

BTW, I don't think anyone will dispute that the basic definition of elect is to choose. And if you want to put and adjective with it? thats okay as well. Also that is a nice quote from Owen. But Owen, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Hodge, Machen or any other teacher you want to quote is not the Church. Unless I missed somewhere that the Church declared that everything Owen's said was now dogma. The Church gets to establish doctrine for the Church, not anyones favorite teacher. So Owens aside, since the Standards, which I have taken a vow to subscribe to, do not use such terms as "conditional" or "temporary" election, I see now reason to muddy the waters with extranous terms.


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> I was careful in my original post to note the deficiencies of the FV in this regard. My concern is to ensure we do not throw out the baby with the bath water, that is, the important concept of temporal election in connection with visible church privileges. One should not oppose the FV on the basis that they use the term, but because they use the term inappropriately.



Absolutely. I meant no disrespect, but just wanted to clarify. The FV advocates are already linking your post here in this thread as a vindication of their position.


----------



## fredtgreco

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> Do Wilkins and other FV proponents say that one is OFFERED the benefits of Christ, or is really and truly GIVEN those benefits?
> 
> Everyone in the covenant is OFFERED eternal life, justification, glorification, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Whether or not they actually are truly GIVEN those benefits depends on faith.



No, Gabe, you are wrong. Read the Knox Colloquium, read _Federal Vision _itself, and read Paedofaith (just among a few). If this were just about benefits being "offered" there would be no dispute, and frankly no need for the FV advocates to even write anything, since this is standard Westminster theology and language.

You can't have it both ways, either (as keeps being said over and over) Westminster is not broad enough, and not Biblical enough - which the FV folks have been so bold as to come out and say in the past six months - or there is no reason for them to be disturbing the church.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> Absolutely. I meant no disrespect, but just wanted to clarify. The FV advocates are already linking your post here in this thread as a vindication of their position.



I hope that includes the part where I explicitly state their departure from the historic reformed position.


----------



## MW

wsw201 said:


> Rev Winzer,
> 
> If you think that the definition of the general calling is not what you meant, all you had to do was say so.
> 
> It is interesting though that the Divines used Judas (as noted in the Scripture proof 17 sighting John 6) as someone who was generally called (just like you did. Imagine that!).
> 
> BTW, I don't think anyone will dispute that the basic definition of elect is to choose. And if you want to put and adjective with it? thats okay as well. Also that is a nice quote from Owen. But Owen, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Hodge, Machen or any other teacher you want to quote is not the Church. Unless I missed somewhere that the Church declared that everything Owen's said was now dogma. The Church gets to establish doctrine for the Church, not anyones favorite teacher. So Owens aside, since the Standards, which I have taken a vow to subscribe to, do not use such terms as "conditional" or "temporary" election, I see now reason to muddy the waters with extranous terms.



It is just good to remember that if the term itself is made anathema, then those orthodox teachers which used the term are anathematised with it, which should give pause before making such a commitment. Also, as words are symbols of meaning, it is to be hoped if the term is to be discoontinued that the idea it represents is not forgotten.


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> I hope that includes the part where I explicitly state their departure from the historic reformed position.



The funny thing is - yes!


----------



## MW

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> Do Wilkins and other FV proponents say that one is OFFERED the benefits of Christ, or is really and truly GIVEN those benefits?



Refer to the first post. They teach that persons forgiven can lose their forgiveness. Forgiveness is a spiritual benefit merited by Christ for the elect alone.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> The funny thing is - yes!



Those in the wrong always find some way to turn their own accusers. Verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

How are we to regard the apostle Paul when he calls entire Churches "elect" with "forgiveness of sins", etc.?


----------



## MW

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> How are we to regard the apostle Paul when he calls entire Churches "elect" with "forgiveness of sins", etc.?



judgment of charity.


----------



## Arch2k

armourbearer said:


> judgment of charity.


 
Or maybe presumption?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

armourbearer said:


> judgment of charity.



So then, my question is, what is "wrong," Biblically speaking, with referring to Christians as elect and forgiven, and so forth? Especially consider Reformed liturgies where the Pastor declares the congregation's sins are forgiven after the prayer of confession! Of course, the Pastor is not saying that those who in the congregation that are not REALLY elect are forgiven, but it is given as a general declaration, based upon Scriptural truth. We can't lift up people's skirts to see if they're REALLY elect, so I think, with Paul, this is the best we can do. That doesn't make one wrong, does it? Or a liar? I am having a hard time seeing how.


----------



## wsw201

Gabe,

Would you agree with Steve Wilkins and the AAPC Session that the Standards are speaking "Decretively" and the Scriptures are speaking "Covenantally"? And would you say that this would be the general position of most of the advocates of the FV position?


----------



## Magma2

> Traditional Presbyterianism taught that Jehovah God manifests His gracious presence and acts according to His special providence for the good of the visible church. This privileged position is acknowledge by historic writers as an election . . . I specifically chose the quotation of John Owen because he particularly refers to Christ's election of Judas to temporal privileges..



Rev. Winzer, you are confusing the forest for the trees. Which is ironic, since you are the one who wrote what is arguably the definitive refutation of the error of the so-called “well meant offer.” Where the WMO is Arminianism repackaged with Reformed gift wrap, the Federal Vision is the next logical step – Romanism wrapped in the powdered wigs of Puritans. The error of the latter is the working out of the logical implications of the former.

All Federal Visonists and their defenders like Wilkins, Wilson and Gaffin are united in their belief that all those who are baptized are in existentially united to Christ. Union with Christ is not through faith alone. It is not a change of legal standing and adoption. It is the result of the combination of water on the head and the murmurings of some designated prelate. As Doug Wilson said, baptism is always efficacious; "This consecration really happens [in baptism]. God really does it. His people are genuinely set apart; a visible difference is placed between them and the world. By means of baptism, baptism by water, grace and salvation is conferred on the elect.” Baptism is the wedding of a person to Christ and marriage comes with a whole new set of obligations and responsibilities. The lesson taught by the Federal Vision is that in order to be finally saved, to be counted among the “eschatologically elect” and not just the “corporately elect,” sinners must do their part. Salvation is not the result of Christ's work alone outside of them and on their behalf, but something worked in the church "corporately" as church members persevere and live out their lives in covenantal faithfulness. For Wilkins, Wilson and Co., Christians are saved by fulfilling the conditions of the covenant 

Election and reprobation are not eternal decrees of God made before the foundation of the world, they are states which men enter as a result of their actions under the objective covenant -- they are covenantal outcomes. They are made elect by baptism, and reprobate by failing to fulfill the (unspecified) conditions of the objective covenant. For Wilkins election and reprobation are conditional and revocable. Each is conditioned on one's performance. Federal Visionist Joel Garver makes this idea even clearer as he reshapes the Arminian error of the "well-meant offer" in terms of the covenant:



> If someone is in Christ by baptism -- united to the Head as a member of the Body -- then that person is elect. If that person apostatizes and no longer abides in Christ (like the branches in John 15), he is no longer elect in Christ, but is reprobate, should he never repent and return. _*Whatever time we abide in Christ is a manifestation of God's electing love for us and faithfulness to us.*_



Since God's love extends to the reprobate and elect alike, as both are "in Christ" by virtue of being "covenantally elected" at baptism, it follows that it is not God's eternal and immutable love and hatred which determines election and reprobation. It is not on the basis of Christ alone that God loves his own, for we see that both the elect and reprobate are in covenant relationship with Christ, and this is so regardless of the time we abide in Christ. The ones who, through their faithfulness, "meet the condition that God has set for the fulfilment of His promise," become sheep. In the objective covenant in which the sinner meets conditions and fulfills his covenantal obligations, thus qualifying himself for the salvation God has promised. 

With all due respect, if anything like this was ever taught by Owen and “Traditional Presbyterianism,” then Presbyterian tradition along with Owen be damned.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Rick Phillips has posted some interaction to the Warfield list.

I received an email today from an FV supporter that involved what I think is helpful interaction. He affirmed that the point of my paper (re: TE Steve Wilkens's answers) was that Wilkens teaches different doctrines from the Westminster Standards. What he did not see was my argument to this effect. I gave the following as an answer to this question, that is, my reasoning as to why Wilkens's answers involve not just differences in terminology but significant doctrinal differences with the Confession. I hope this advances the conversation and clarifies my earlier paper for some readers.

Rick Phillips

My answer consisted of four points:

 1. Part of my criticism of Steve Wilkins's _Answers_ is the way in which he defends his teaching. When challenged as to his teaching of a conditional election, he answers that where the Bible teaches election, it teaches something other than the doctrine of the Confession. This was a point I labored to make in my _Comments_. While I certainly realize that there is not always a correspondence between a word in the Bible and the doctrine of that name in our confessions, here is a case where they in fact have the same point of reference. So his way of defending his teaching is to assert that the Bible teaches differently than does the WCF. This, I argue, is not to affirm the Confession.

2. Moreover, what TE Wilkens says about election is contrary to the Confession. All Bible-believers agree that God elects people. But the point of the doctrine of election is in answering two questions: when the Bible relates election to salvation, _on what basis we are elected, _and _to_ _what we are elected_. Arminians answer that the basis of our election is _conditional _(the condition being foreseen faith), and we are elected _to glory_. The Westminster Standards answer that our election is _unconditional_, and we are elected _to glory_. Wilkens answers that our election is _unconditional_ (at least I think this is his position), and we are elected _to covenant membership_ _and its privileges_. So we might line them up: 

Position Election on what basis? Election to what?
Arminian Conditional To Glory
WCF Unconditional To Glory
Wilkens Unconditional To Covenant Membership

One thing this argues is that Wilkens's teaching is not Arminian; whatever else he is doing, he is not doing the same thing the Arminians are doing. For this reason, I do not believe that charges of Arminianism against Wilkens are either accurate or helpful. But the other thing this argues is that _Wilkens teaches a doctrine of election that is different from that of the Westminster Standards. _This is the point I am seeking to make.

3. Wilkens and his supporters argue that this is a both-and situation; what he is saying is true of church members who will not inherit glory, and what the Confession says of church members who will inherit glory is also true. I am arguing that it is in fact an either-or situation. When Paul wrote the Book of Ephesians, he spoke of election with reference _either_ to those who are destined to glory only (the WCF position) _or_ to all church members, regardless of their end. Surely we will all agree that in Eph. 1:4 (and similar passages), Paul is relating divine election to salvation, so Eph. 1:4 is not a use of election that belongs to a different doctrinal context. _Either_ Paul is saying that those who are "saints" and "faithful in Christ" are chosen unto glory, _or_ he is saying that church members are elected into the covenant, some to be saved through perseverance and others to be lost via apostasy. You cannot have it both ways, as if Eph. 1:4 is directed to two different kinds of readers. Is Eph. 1:4 is directed, as Wilkens says, to church members who enter into glory _and_ to those who will not, or is written only with reference to true believers who can thus be assured of glory? This question yields two different doctrines of election. I maintain that the Westminster Standards teach one doctrine -- Paul is telling true believers that God elected them unto glory -- and Wilkens teaches another doctrine -- Paul is telling true and false believers that they are elected into covenant membership and privilege. We might go on to debate the correct interpretation of Eph. 1:4, but my point is that Wilkens' doctrine and the Confession's doctrine are fundamentally different. If one is correct, the other is in error, since Paul is making either one point or the other. As I indicated above, this is true not merely of Eph. 1:4, but of Paul's use of election throughout his epistles.

4. My _Comments_ make this same point for the other doctrines -- especially perseverance and the visible/invisible church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Good post. I just corresponded with Pastor Phillips today commending him on his work.

It is gratifying to see my reading of him is precisely how he intended to be read.

Perhaps I'm just an optimist but I've been trying to interact with some heavily ensconced FV proponents and pointing them to this couple of threads. My point is this:

Here is what we think guys - clearly laid out. Here's what the problem is. I think we've done a pretty good job of showing why we believe your view of conditional election differs completely from ours and the historic Reformed position. You don't have to agree with us but we are completely clear about what we believe the problem is:

We do NOT agree that Paul's form of address in Ephesians (and elsewhere) when he is speaking to the Elect can be used to infer what you're concluding: that Paul means to speak of the same things in a full sense for the "fully" elect and in a lesser sense for the "partially" elect.

I have to admit that, after just a few days of spending some energy on this, it gets pretty frustrating having some of the FV proponents just deal with that issue. They keep getting distracted by words. They want to keep qualifying terms and avoid the issue and get me to see that maybe there are some places where Paul means to say this or "this is like the Psalter...." I keep pointing them back here and the other thread because I don't think we could be any clearer.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> Rev. Winzer, you are confusing the forest for the trees. Which is ironic, since you are the one who wrote what is arguably the definitive refutation of the error of the so-called “well meant offer.” Where the WMO is Arminianism repackaged with Reformed gift wrap, the Federal Vision is the next logical step – Romanism wrapped in the powdered wigs of Puritans. The error of the latter is the working out of the logical implications of the former.



John Owen wrote what is UN-arguably the definitive refutation of the well meant offer. He had no difficulty with "temporal election" and what it represents biblically. I have pointed out the key point where his use of the term differed from the way the FV use it; and I believe I have clarified more than once that it should be used with Owen's qualification.



Magma2 said:


> With all due respect, if anything like this was ever taught by Owen and “Traditional Presbyterianism,” then Presbyterian tradition along with Owen be damned.



Thankfully Owen and traditional Presbyterianism have never taught anything like the FV, so there is nothing for you to get so worked up over.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> Thankfully Owen and traditional Presbyterianism have never taught anything like the FV, so there is nothing for you to get so worked up over.



Well, of course not. Which raises the question why you would even bring up Owen temporal election in the first place? It's not as if he provided justification for Wilkins' vacillations, redefinitions, equivocations and false gospel. What both men believe and teach are apples and oranges. in my opinion bringing up the fact that Owen used the phrase "temporal election" in this situation just muddied the water. 

On a side note, Phillips is wrong, Wilkins does hold to a conditional view of the Covenant.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> Well, of course not. Which raises the question why you would even bring up Owen temporal election in the first place? It's not as if he provided justification for Wilkins' vacillations, redefinitions, equivocations and false gospel. What both men believe and teach are apples and oranges. in my opinion bringing up the fact that Owen used the phrase "temporal election" in this situation just muddied the water.



I raised it because there is a tendency to regard the term itself as erroneous, rather than the way the term is being used by the FV. The term has biblical and historical basis and needs to be properly explained. Condemning the term only muddies the water with a different kind of mud.

The FV is a reaction to American Presbyterianism's failure to take the administration of the covenant seriously. I have observed that most opponents of the FV are only giving them more fuel for their fire by not properly explaining the historic position so far as the visible church is concerned.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> I raised it because there is a tendency to regard the term itself as erroneous, rather than the way the term is being used by the FV. The term has biblical and historical basis and needs to be properly explained. Condemning the term only muddies the water with a different kind of mud.
> 
> The FV is a reaction to American Presbyterianism's failure to take the administration of the covenant seriously. I have observed that most opponents of the FV are only giving them more fuel for their fire by not properly explaining the historic position so far as the visible church is concerned.



Here Here.

The worst possible thing when combating error is an incompetent critique.


----------



## Archlute

Just a point, I have never in all of my courses here at WSC (systematic or otherwise) heard a discussion of temporal election. My professors are quite learned, and it would seem to me that if this term were a matter of great import for the Reformed we would have discussed it in our studies. It is, indeed, not found in the confessions as far as I can tell, and in light of the fact that the FV controversy is being waged as a confessional debate, it seems wisest to stick with the terms given therein. While it is true that both John 6:70 and Ephesians 1:4 use the verb 'eklego', it is equally true that the emphases of these passages are profoundly different. I understand Owen, but indeed, he is not the one who sets the language of our confession. It seems that since this is exactly where the battle lies (confessional definitions) it would be wise to stick with the understanding of election as a soteriological reality.


----------



## wsw201

Archlute said:


> Just a point, I have never in all of my courses here at WSC (systematic or otherwise) heard a discussion of temporal election. My professors are quite learned, and it would seem to me that if this term were a matter of great import for the Reformed we would have discussed it in our studies. It is, indeed, not found in the confessions as far as I can tell, and in light of the fact that the FV controversy is being waged as a confessional debate, it seems wisest to stick with the terms given therein. While it is true that both John 6:70 and Ephesians 1:4 use the verb 'eklego', it is equally true that the emphases of these passages are profoundly different. I understand Owen, but indeed, he is not the one who sets the language of our confession. It seems that since this is exactly where the battle lies (confessional definitions) it would be wise to stick with the understanding of election as a soteriological reality.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> I raised it because there is a tendency to regard the term itself as erroneous, rather than the way the term is being used by the FV.



Well no one I've read on these boards, Gabe and William Hill perhaps excepted, were objecting to the term per se rather the meaning Wilkins attaches to it. Further, Wilkins claims various senses of the word "elect," as well as a number of other key words and phrases, yet uses these interchangeably and equivocally as it suits his purpose. It's not that he is unclear, he appears to know full well what he's doing is to mislead. That way no matter what his critics say he can change the sense of the words he uses like a dealer in a game of Three Card Monty. Every word has a "broader historic and biblical meaning," therefore he refuses to be forced to defend his own peculiar usage and can make himself appear different ways to different people as circumstances warrant. Gabe's and other's willingness to give the man -- even at this late stage -- the "benefit of the doubt" is case in point. 

OTOH, Owen was very clear what he meant, defined his term and then stuck with that definition throughout his argument and didn't attempt to surreptitiously change meanings midstream. As I've said, what Owen was saying and what Wilkins is now saying are apples and oranges. 



> The term has biblical and historical basis and needs to be properly explained. Condemning the term only muddies the water with a different kind of mud.



Which is besides the point. The point is how Wilkins uses these terms and what _he_ means and it is the meanings _he_ attaches to these terms which places him squarely outside of the Reformed faith and Christianity in general. The man is a false teacher and he should be prosecuted as such and sooner rather than later. Discussions of how various phrases and words have been used in history are frankly immaterial with how they are being used now by men who are recognized as enemies of the gospel. 

These men continually wrap themselves in "Presbyterian Tradition" and the Confession all the while denying both. I just don't think providing them one more tool to further their deception is helpful, if for no other reason than your need to "properly explain" has added to the confusion of at least one brother here. That said, I fully expect your citation of Owen to be cited in their defense in the near future with those qualifications where you "explicitly state their departure from the historic reformed position" summarily forgotten. I don't think the PB boards have the reach and influence some might think.



> The FV is a reaction to American Presbyterianism's failure to take the administration of the covenant seriously.



I disagree. FV is a reaction of those who once pretended belief in the Gospel of Christ who are now being exposed as false brothers. I think what we have here is a another example of what Paul observed in Gal 2:4; "But it was because of the false brethren who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage." Therefore, and unless God grants him repentance (and so far I only seeing him growing more entrenched), you might say Wilkins and others were "temporarily elected" in the Owensian sense.  



> I have observed that most opponents of the FV are only giving them more fuel for their fire by not properly explaining the historic position so far as the visible church is concerned.



Which opponents of FV? Rick Phillips? Me? Who? The historic position that needs to be recognized and observed -- in this case -- is the one expressly taught in the WCF concerning the visible/invisible church, a distinction denied and confused by Neolegalists like Wilkins. It seems to me that the fuel on the fire is coming from those who want to continually discuss how words or terms have been used historically in an attempt to obfuscate or excuse how words and terms are being used now. See the links above to Barlow's reply to Phillips for a relevant example. I understand that was not your intent or purpose so I apologize if I am coming off too strongly, but I can't help thinking you've unwittingly helped fill their gas cans.

I don't want to  so please have the last word.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> I don't want to  so please have the last word.



Ham.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Ham.





Now _that_ was funny!


----------

