Originally Posted by armourbearer

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 judgement, "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):

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.

Originally Posted by wsw201

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.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Rich, I would suggest the problem with the FV formulation is to be found in their saying that temporal election includes being partakers of "saving" benefits, from which the temporarily elect person may fall away.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Rich, I would suggest the problem with the FV formulation is to be found in their saying that temporal election includes being partakers of "saving" benefits, from which the temporarily elect person may fall away.

Originally Posted by wsw201

Are you speaking "covenantally" or "decretively". To the FV supporters, it makes all the difference. In fact this is the exact point Wilkins makes.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

It is the distinction itself which is in error. The covenant of grace is decreed so far as its spiritual and eternal benefits are concerned, and it is the exclusive privilege of those given to Christ before the foundation of the world to be in covenant with God. The external administration of the covenant in time to the visible church does not confer spiritual benefits, but only provides the means by which grace is administered. The means belong to all in the visible church. The grace belongs to the elect alone.

Originally Posted by turmeric

I didn't like the term "conditional election" at first, but Judas is a good example of exactly that, he was chosen to be one of the twelve who were closest to Jesus in His earthly life, and apparently chosen to carry the moneybag. Esau might be another example, not sure about that though.

Originally Posted by wsw201

FYI, the purpose of my response to Mr. Winzer in the above post was not to say he was wrong. I was just showing how the concept he was describing is reflected in the Standards, which has a clear definition that hopefully we can agree with.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Judgement of charity.

Originally Posted by WrittenFromUtopia

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.

Originally Posted by wsw201

Gabe you moved your post!!! So I'll also post my comment over here.

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?

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I moved Rev Winzer's response over here to follow Gabe's question. This is a good discussion.

Originally Posted by WrittenFromUtopia

These are the sections that I'm most interested in, and where I think Rev. Wilkins is making the best points on this topic. Thoughts?

Originally Posted by WrittenFromUtopia

I think he's saying the Scriptures are speaking in BOTH ways, and in harmony (like the paradoxical tension between free will and divine sovereignty).

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Gabe,

That quote is a perfect illustration of what I just wrote. Pastor Wilkins assumes this:

1. Paul makes reference to a whole church and calls them "elect", "partakers of the son", etc.
2. Paul knows that some of the members are not elect
3. Therefore, Paul must mean that there is a sense in which "saving benefits" confer on even the ultimately unsaved.

Don't you see that 3 is not a conclusion that has to be drawn necessarily? Notice in all of those passages, Paul does not say "...including those among the Church that are actually reprobate...." If he said that, then we would have to conclude that the benefits are for everyone.

Further, the problem that Pastor Wilkins has, even if we have to grant that this general form of address creates a necessary inference, Paul doesn't go on to spell out the differences in the benefits. Here's the rub. There is no didactic teaching that tells us where to draw the line on how those saving benefits differ. Pastor Wilkins and others are left to form that part with no Scriptural teaching except a vague notion that they have some forgiveness of sins. Well what forgiveness of sins do they receive? Some kind for sure because they're in the room when Paul talks to the Church and calls them elect.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Paradox, that old charley horse between the ears, or as we say in Australia, a brain strain. Who can prove anything to be in error if paradoxical tension exists? On this basis we can say that God both elects and does not elect; saints will persevere and they will not persevere. And thus Satan succeeds in destroying that "comfort of the Scriptures" whereby the saints "might have hope."

Originally Posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Does Pastor Wilkins ever explicitly state #3, though? I don't read it that way. I dunno. *shrug*

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Gabe,

Are you serious?


It's all over.

Originally Posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Those are contradictions, a paradox is an apparent contradiction...

Originally Posted by armourbearer

When the apparent contradiction is presented as a real problem (tension) it is a real contradiction. So when Wilkins presents the apparent elect as being real elect he is effectively saying that the reprobate are elect -- a real contradiction.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Here's the rub. There is no didactic teaching that tells us where to draw the line on how those saving benefits differ. Pastor Wilkins and others are left to form that part with no Scriptural teaching except a vague notion that they have some forgiveness of sins. Well what forgiveness of sins do they receive? Some kind for sure because they're in the room when Paul talks to the Church and calls them elect.

Originally Posted by WrittenFromUtopia

I'm still gonna have to give him the benefit of the doubt unless I read more. That can be taken in different ways. I'm not going to be so quick to pass judgment on this Elder. He demands my respect by virtue of the office in the Church and Christ's appointment of such an office.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Gabe,

I'm not passing judgment. I'm simply articulating what he says. The question for judgment, for the Courts to decide, is whether the idea that the reprobate participate in "saving benefits" is Confessional.

I've never seen them denying that the basic premise for their ideas flows out of the claim that because Paul addresses the Church with certain titles that he means to also be expressing something didactic about the use of the terms of address for the reprobate.

Originally Posted by WrittenFromUtopia

If he means temporal benefits by "saving benefits," though, then it is a problem of terms, right? He needs to use clearer language?

Originally Posted by WrittenFromUtopia

If he means temporal benefits by "saving benefits," though, then it is a problem of terms, right? He needs to use clearer language?

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Gabe,

I'm not passing judgment. I'm simply articulating what he says. The question for judgment, for the Courts to decide, is whether the idea that the reprobate participate in "saving benefits" is Confessional.

I've never seen them denying that the basic premise for their ideas flows out of the claim that because Paul addresses the Church with certain titles that he means to also be expressing something didactic about the use of the terms of address for the reprobate.

Originally Posted by DTK

For a point of clarification, what I've read in both Wilkins and Lusk (if memory serves me correctly), the difference comes down to the grace of perseverance. That seems to be the one saving grace uncommunicated to the temporarily elect.

DTK

Originally Posted by WrittenFromUtopia

If he means temporal benefits by "saving benefits," though, then it is a problem of terms, right? He needs to use clearer language?

Originally Posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Cannot someone who is in covenant with God, part of the visible Church, lay claim to forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus? Isn't forgiveness of sins offered to all who are in the covenant? Of course, faithful reception is the key to actually HAVING forgiveness, being united to Christ, but isn't the offer still there? Isn't it part of the covenantal arrangement, conditional upon faith alone (a gift of God)?

Maybe that is more along the lines of what Wilkins is getting at. *shrug*

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Are we forgiven on the basis of:
a. the imputed righteousness of Christ
b. being in visible Covenant with God
c. both a and b are the same thing

Originally Posted by WrittenFromUtopia

We are forgiven if we are united with Christ by faith. By faith then, we rest in Him and are counted righteous based on Christ's righteousness.

Originally Posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Cannot someone who is in covenant with God, part of the visible Church, lay claim to forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus? Isn't forgiveness of sins offered to all who are in the covenant? Of course, faithful reception is the key to actually HAVING forgiveness, being united to Christ, but isn't the offer still there? Isn't it part of the covenantal arrangement, conditional upon faith alone (a gift of God)?

Maybe that is more along the lines of what Wilkins is getting at. *shrug*