Thread: Leithart Redux in the Siouxlands' Presbytery

Presbytery of the Siouxlands Exonerates Member Suspected of Federal Vision Teaching, Complaint to SJC Contemplated

An interesting read from the Aquila Report. TE Joshua Moon uses some of the same argumentation as did Rob Rayburn during the hearing on Leithart, namely, employing the fear tactic of having our denomination run by "narrow confessionalists", thus making us ineffective and unattractive to outsiders.

And where did these guys complete their historical theology studies to continue claiming that Calvin, Ursinus, et al would have agreed with them in their FV reconstructions? Those claims are really quite amazing for the most part, and lead me to believe that some uncited and unsupported assertions are being thrown out there, and are being left unchallenged by the intimidated REs who don't have either the time or the care to research them. The opportunities that I have had to read the rare citation from FV supporters claiming to show where Calvin or others taught like unto their views made it quickly apparent that they were not talking about the same matter.

Originally Posted by Archlute

The fear tactic of having our denomination run by "narrow confessionalists", thus making us ineffective and unattractive to outsiders being key.

The only thing worse than that would be to have those narrow minded members of the Westminster Assembly of Divines run our denomination.

Cheers,

I spoke with Wes White last night. He brought the original case before the SJC (we talked about it at GA this year too). Keep him in your prayers. He is expecting a slug fest.

In attributing to all the baptized some form of union, adoption, new life, and forgiveness, TE Lawrence is speaking the language of our tradition and of our Scriptures. By refusing to attribute absolute and final union, adoption, new life, and forgiveness, TE Lawrence is directly in line with our standards.


So, this is like a girl who has some form of pregnancy with some new life and some union with a fetus, but not exactly, she does not have an absolute and final baby in the womb? Just some form of a baby?

Or do they call it half way regenerated maybe?

Advocates of the committee recommendation were concerned about TE Lawrence’s statements that we are united to Christ and get new life in the water rite of baptism. They also argued that his teaching that in baptism even the non-elect in some sense receive new life, forgiveness of sins, adoption, and union with Christ was contrary to the Standards affirmation that such benefits only accrue to the elect. They believed that he was creating “a parallel soteriological system,” citing the General Assembly’s Federal Vision Report.

TE Joshua Moon, Pastor of Good Shepherd PCA in Minnetonka, Minn., a dissenting member of the committee, then arose and moved as a substitute motion that the work of the committee’s report and recommendations not be adopted. His motion passed 24-13.


24 to 13???????????????????

I am in the second PCA church of my life, and my church is solid. But I have lost all my rosy illusions about the PCA being a safe and secure place for good doctrine any more. I don't mind endless debates about things- like the Frame essay on Machen's Warrior Children- and all the many subjects that the Reformed argue about. It makes me think and study and revaluate and try to press into examining what the bible seems to be saying. But this horsepuckey is just too much, it is over the top. Union with Christ to the non regenerate? I don't agree with Arminians and dispensationalists but I understand their reasoning. I don't even undrestand the reasoning behind this. In my own PCA no less. Heartbreaking.

It is heartbreaking, Linnie.

Presbyterian Church in America
Study Committee Report
2007


IV. Declarations

In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:

1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.

2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

.

So..... are they not enforcing their own declarations?

Originally Posted by louis_jp

So..... are they not enforcing their own declarations?

As I understand this, it's not quite that simple.

In the denomination, study committees are to be given "due and serious consideration" and are used for reference authority in church court proceedings (A "court" can be a local session, presbytery, or general assembly).

They are not absolutely binding and are not intended to be. The Westminster Standards and the Book of Church Order are binding.

But a study committee is more the representation of the opinion of a General Assembly at a given time.

It seems they can be useful in complex issues or for new applications to old issues as a source of guidance. When they are unanimous, as this one was, they are more useful for referential value, because there is not a minority report to also draw from for the opposition.

What we have, in our polity, is a highly divided vote of presbytery that likely will be appealed the Standing Judicial Commission based on enforcement of the Church constitution (Westminster Standards, Book of Church Order). The constitution is binding through the vows officers take, but study committee reports, in and of themselves, are not.

I don't get it. (I may be in the PCA but the polity seems complicated).

White complains to the GA, they set up a comittee. Majority comittee vote finds this unacceptable. Presbytery thumbs their nose at majority vote.

So what now, back to the GA and another committee? What was the point of the first one if the majority ruling holds no weight?

Can the GA just get together and kick them out or what? The GA already wrote that unanimous FV paper and and said this position was wrong. So why are these teachers still in the PCA? I just don't get it.

Originally Posted by lynnie

I don't get it. (I may be in the PCA but the polity seems complicated).

White complains to the GA, they set up a comittee. Majority comittee vote finds this unacceptable. Presbytery thumbs their nose at majority vote.

So what now, back to the GA and another committee? What was the point of the first one if the majority ruling holds no weight?

Can the GA just get together and kick them out or what? The GA already wrote that unanimous FV paper and and said this position was wrong. So why are these teachers still in the PCA? I just don't get it.

White complained to GA, because the Presbytery wouldn't look into the matter, so GA said to look into the matter. The committee was formed to look into the matter. The committee is typically the representative view of the whole presbytery, but not in this case. The presbytery voted against the committees decision, which they are able to do, although perhaps unwise in some situations, like this.

Now what can be done is someone (which has already taken place) in the presbytery can lodge a complaint about the action to the Presbytery. So basically it is a plea for the Presbytery to reconsider their action. If the Presbytery votes the other way this time, in favor of the committee, then the minister is brought up on charges and church discipline occurs. He either changes his view or he is defrocked. But if the presbytery continues in their view (against the committee). Then after that decision, someone within the presbytery is able to lodge a complaint against the presbytery to GA. At that time GA (SJC) would handle the case. Then it would be similar to what happened with Steve Wilkins.

Trying to read this respectfully and charitably, and without at all knowing the particulars here,

Originally Posted by lynnie

I don't get it. (I may be in the PCA but the polity seems complicated).

White complains to the GA, they set up a comittee. Majority comittee vote finds this unacceptable. Presbytery thumbs their nose at majority vote.
The committee reports to presbytery which, after hearing defense is probably inclined to give a teaching elder in their midst the benefit of the doubt but on a very divided vote- the majority votes not to receive the committee report.

So what now, back to the GA and another committee? What was the point of the first one if the majority ruling holds no weight?
Don't think so. A complaint can be filed based on violation of the PCA constitution (Westminster Standards and Book of Church Order) to the Standing Judicial Committee, which has authority of General Assembly. The SJC looks at this from the standpoint of the constitution, without respect of persons, and without regard for majority or minority vote.

Can the GA just get together and kick them out or what? The GA already wrote that unanimous FV paper and and said this position was wrong. So why are these teachers still in the PCA? I just don't get it.

In the Louisiana Presbytery case, the process worked to good ends and an entire presbytery repented, was purged of this serious error teaching, and is restored to good standing.

Originally Posted by lynnie

Union with Christ to the non regenerate? I don't agree with Arminians and dispensationalists but I understand their reasoning. I don't even undrestand the reasoning behind this. In my own PCA no less. Heartbreaking.

There is a faulty reasoning behind it, as in the case of Arminians and dispensationalists. It is trying to do justice to the biblical concept of the temporary believer as participant of the benefits of Christ. It fails to do justice to this concept where it refuses to acknowledge the difference between eternal and temporal election, the invisible and visible church, internal and external union with Christ, and saving and historical faith.

Thanks so much guys for the explanations of how it all works.

It makes me think a lot about the deaconess thing. I have two friends in two different PCA churches (not mine) and they are very warm, gentle women who are functionally doing only works of helpful service in a non authoritarian capacity. And when the whole thing started up with the metro presby protest I was sympathetic to the Keller/Ryken position churches. Even though I don't believe biblically in women deacons, I wasn't sure it was worth arguing over.

But when you start allowing exceptions and variations here and there in areas some deem nonessential, I guess people start to feel free to allow variations in what we'd call essential, like FV quasi baptismal regeneration. Maybe the slippery slope starts with things like deaconesses? I don't know.

I guess I just can't wrap my head around the idea that this FV stuff is really going on in my supposedly solid denomination. Maybe I am delusionally naive despite all the church history I've read. It hurts to watch.

Thanks again for the posts.

But when you start allowing exceptions and variations here and there in areas some deem nonessential, I guess people start to feel free to allow variations in what we'd call essential, like FV quasi baptismal regeneration. Maybe the slippery slope starts with things like deaconesses? I don't know.

When you leave the barn door open, getting the animals back inside takes lots of really difficult and time consuming work, and you may never get them all back in in any event.

I don't think it deaconesses, I think it non-ordained deacons. At Trinity Presbyterian PCA in San Luis CA, the issue wasn't deaconesses, but baptist and arminian male deacons. From their position statement, which you can read here:

http://www.trinityslo.org/abouttrinity.html

Deacons at Trinity may hold their credentials as either ordained or unordained. In keeping with the ordination requirements of the PCA, ordained deacons must be in substantial conformity with the Westminster Standards, must be men, and are elected by the congregation and ordained as per BCO 24. Unordained deacons are appointed by the Session (as per the process in BCO 9-7). Those who pursue the unordained deaconate may take broader exceptions to the Westminster Standards, or may prefer for other reasons not to pursue ordination. Unordained deacons may be men or women

The BCO says deacons must be ordained. By thumbing their noses at the PCA Constitution on this issue, they go on notice that they can do anything they please.

Originally Posted by lynnie

Thanks so much guys for the explanations of how it all works.

It makes me think a lot about the deaconess thing. I have two friends in two different PCA churches (not mine) and they are very warm, gentle women who are functionally doing only works of helpful service in a non authoritarian capacity. And when the whole thing started up with the metro presby protest I was sympathetic to the Keller/Ryken position churches. Even though I don't believe biblically in women deacons, I wasn't sure it was worth arguing over.

But when you start allowing exceptions and variations here and there in areas some deem nonessential, I guess people start to feel free to allow variations in what we'd call essential, like FV quasi baptismal regeneration. Maybe the slippery slope starts with things like deaconesses? I don't know.

I guess I just can't wrap my head around the idea that this FV stuff is really going on in my supposedly solid denomination. Maybe I am delusionally naive despite all the church history I've read. It hurts to watch.

Thanks again for the posts.

You're picking up on something very important here, Lynnie.

Creating an office "deaconess" and investing it with governing power is a constitutional violation in the PCA. Perpetuating an office not chartered in the constitution, altering vows in the constitution to suit it, altering its terms of office, and ordination ceremonies is a violation of the vows officers have taken to uphold their constitution.

We don't have study committees to resolve constitutional violations. That would be like someone caught in a robbery when confronted, demanding a study and survey of the issue and opinions of "property rights" (while they continue the robbery).

It's taken a while for that to become clear, but now it is. The constitution is the binding rule, it can be changed by amendment, but not violating the vows taken to uphold it.

With "federal vision" there is very well written, usable guideline in place and it has worked with some effect.

...And don't get tired of it- this is only one of many ways God brings things that need to be dealt with to our attention- and for His Honor and His Glory.

Folks, I was at the meeting of the Souixlands presbytery. I want to say that I was disappointed by the Presbytery's decision. However, I am a very disappointed by TE Carpenter's publishing this on the Aquila Report. TE Carpenter is publishing unapproved minutes of the SP; a thing that has been frowned upon in the past in our presbytery. TE Keister can verify this from his own experience. As you discuss this here, keep in mind that what you are reading on the Aquila Report is unapproved minutes. Keep the conversation charitable and free from gossip until the facts are all straight.

I want to offer a bit of a retraction of my above statement. After some consideration and a three hour long conversation with one who was involved in this article being posted, I have come to the conclusion that it was written in good order and that it was necessary in the struggle against the FV in the Souixlands Presbytery. I also want to say that though unapproved minutes were quoted, yet presbytery meetings are public and anyone who would have wanted to be there would have heard all that was stated by those quoted. I don't think TE Carpenter was writing anything other than what a reporter could have written about if one was there.

I still maintain, though, that we should discuss this charitably, and free from gossip.

Deacons at Trinity may hold their credentials as either ordained or unordained. In keeping with the ordination requirements of the PCA, ordained deacons must be in substantial conformity with the Westminster Standards, must be men, and are elected by the congregation and ordained as per BCO 24. Unordained deacons are appointed by the Session (as per the process in BCO 9-7). Those who pursue the unordained deaconate may take broader exceptions to the Westminster Standards, or may prefer for other reasons not to pursue ordination. Unordained deacons may be men or women

Presbyterian brethren, please help an old Baptist.

Why would your polity allow those not holding to the Westminster standards to hold office??? Won't that simply lead to a theological down-grade within your fellowship??? I have toyed with the idea of attending a PCA congregation during retirement (Reformed Baptists are pretty hard to find!). But, I cannot imagine a group with integrity accepting someone like me as an officer unless my view changes on paedo-baptism. Regular attender, tither, participatant in communion, etc. . . . sure. Official office holder? No way!

Quote:
Deacons at Trinity may hold their credentials as either ordained or unordained. In keeping with the ordination requirements of the PCA, ordained deacons must be in substantial conformity with the Westminster Standards, must be men, and are elected by the congregation and ordained as per BCO 24. Unordained deacons are appointed by the Session (as per the process in BCO 9-7). Those who pursue the unordained deaconate may take broader exceptions to the Westminster Standards, or may prefer for other reasons not to pursue ordination. Unordained deacons may be men or women

All I can say, Dennis, is after seeing this for the first time is that this appears to be unconstitutional in several ways for the PCA. I'm quite confident this would be an automatic complaint filed in the vast majority of sessions or presbyteries if this popped up.

Without going into detail, I have bolded likely violations of the PCA constitution (Westminster Standards, subject to Scripture and the Book of Church Order).

If a particular church government (session and diaconate) is publicly misrepresenting presbyterian policy, doctrine of ordination, the Book of Chruch Order in this way, it is grounds for church discipline, up to and including deposition from office and ex-communication.

Hi Guys,

I'm TE Carpenter, the one who wrote the article.

First off, Steve, I appreciate your retraction, but I still disagree on one point. Unapproved minutes were not partially quoted. There are no unapproved minutes in my possession or anyone else's except the Stated Clerk. I cannot circulate that which I do not possess. The Siouxlands policy concerning unapproved minutes is not a necessary one, in my opinion, but I would honor it. However, to take this policy to the extreme which some presbyters seem to take it is absurd. Allow me to do a reductio ad absurdam to show how absurd it is.

The unapproved minutes, when they are received by in January, will contain the words "Siouxlands Presbytery" "September" and "TE Carpenter." Therefore, if I publish anything in writing with those words, I am guilty of circulating a portion of unapproved minutes.

It is more accurate to say that there is an overlap between the information contained in the unapproved minutes and other public information which is and ought to be freely available. The fact that the information is in the minutes does not trump anyone's right to circulate and discuss said information.

Now, for my Baptist friend and those who wonder why these things have not been dealt with with greater speed. The wheels of presbyterianism grind slowly. A man's future is at stake here and we do not want to make any errors. The process works and we are utilizing the process. It has been slower than it could be due to the resistence of some presbyters, but it is proceeding apace. Truth will come out and good decisions will be made in the end. Until then we work and pray. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the Siouxlands Presbytery will always do the right thing.... after it has exhausted all the other possibilities.

Welcome to the PB Steve [sic, Brian; sorry; but that's what signatures are for] and thanks for posting. On a house keeping note, please fix your signature per the board policy.
The PuritanBoard - Signature/Profile Reqts

Not to derail the thread, but as a relevant cautionary tale about how far things can go, from the same Position Statement

At Trinity, a woman may serve the church in any way that a male layman may (see above). In the New Testament, the prime determiner of roles in church life is not gender but ordination. While the office of elder is only open to men (1 Tim. 2-3), women may use their teaching and leadership gifts in the church, under the authority of the Session

.

Trinity regularly has non ordained men lead the Sunday service, and while to my knowledge a woman hasn't done so yet, it's obvious those who drafted the Statement were setting the ground work for it.

Welcome, TE C, and thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

It is trying to do justice to the biblical concept of the temporary believer as participant of the benefits of Christ.

Sorry, I'm confused. What is a temporary believer?

I don't want to comment on the substance of the thread, since it is possible that I will be called upon to hear this case at SJC.

But I would also say that the report was published in the Aquila Report, and there are maybe a half-dozen men in the PCA equal to Dominic Aquila in understanding our Constitution. So I don't think this presents any problem.

Ivan,

The Reformed have always agreed that a person might be the subject of certain operations of the Spirit without having ever been regenerated. Baalam, King Saul, and those who will come to Christ on the Last Day and claim to have taught and even done miracles in His name, but to whom He will say, "Depart from me, I never knew you" can be said to have experienced the non-saving operations of the Holy Spirit, or "temporary faith."

Let me quote from AW Pink's commentary on Hebrews, p336 from the chapter on "Christian Perseverance"

"We dare not stop at the point reached at the close of the preceeding paragraph. Backsliding is dangerous, so dangerous that if it be persisted in, it is certain to prove fatal. If I continue to neglect the Divine means of grace for spiritual strength and support, if I go back again into the world and find my delight in its pleasures and concerns, and if I am not recovered from this sad state then that will demonstrate that I was only the subject of the Holy Spirit's inferior operations, that I was not really regenerated by Him. The difference between the thorny-ground and the good-ground hearers is, that one brings forth no fruit "to perfection" (Luke 8:14) whereas the other brings forth fruit "with patience" or perseverance. (Luke 8:15) It is continuance in Christ's word which proves us His disciples indeed (John 8:31) It is continuing in the faith, grounded and settled and being "not moved away from the hope of the Gospel" (Col 1:23) which demonstrates the reality of our profession." (emphasis in original)

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

Kindest Regards,

I understand the reasoning, but it sounds odd to me.

Somebody remarked above that TE Moon's argumentation sounded a lot like Robert Rayburn's argumentation. I suspect that is not accidental. Guess who TE Moon's father-in-law is?

BTW, I'm not being a scofflaw. My signature worked once and then quit working. I see it in the preview changes mode, but it's not showing up when I publish.

Perhaps my signature function possesses only temporary faith. It is not appearing at the end when it counts.

TE Brian Carpenter
pastor, Foothills PCA
Sturgis, SD

bouletheou
Perhaps my signature function possesses only temporary faith. It is not appearing at the end when it counts.

I think it was united with the text and had all the benefits and accouterments thereof. The text was at that time justified.

But in the full and final verdict of justification, the union with the text proved only temporary, and the text was not justified... but perhaps, however, that is only a quibble.

Perhaps if we could add another toolbar element out of Microsoft Word, we could force-justify the text and drag it kicking and screaming into a state of justification, making all the Arminian typists who observe us say "See, I told you that was what they believed!"

Though it still would not solve our issue here as to whether or not the sort of justification my signature is receiving is the sort that endures to the end, and how we might tell the difference between the decreetally elect justification and the non-decreetally elect justification. I do know that we ought not ask the text to do any internal examination or speculation, but rather tell it to look wholly to Bill Gates.

Originally Posted by Ivan

I understand the reasoning, but it sounds odd to me.

Ivan, consider a text like 2 Peter 2:1, "denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." One who holds to particular redemption is obliged to explain in what sense the Lord is said to have bought those who ultimately suffer destruction. It is perhaps the failure of the modern reformed church to clearly articulate a doctrine of the visible church which has opened the door for a false view as to how the benefits of Christ relate to the non elect.

Pastor W, isn't that verse talking about Jews who deny Christ is God? I understand that bought them is OT grammar for God delivering His people. In other words, Peter is saying whoever denies that Christ is God denies He who ransomed His people. So if a Jew says that Christ is not God he is denying the God of the OT.

Originally Posted by bouletheou

BTW, I'm not being a scofflaw. My signature worked once and then quit working. I see it in the preview changes mode, but it's not showing up when I publish.

Perhaps my signature function possesses only temporary faith. It is not appearing at the end when it counts.

Signatures appearing only in the first post that someone makes on the thread is a 'feature' of this board. It's an issue where I submit meekly to the board leadership.

Originally Posted by TimV

Pastor W, isn't that verse talking about Jews who deny Christ is God? I understand that bought them is OT grammar for God delivering His people. In other words, Peter is saying whoever denies that Christ is God denies He who ransomed His people. So if a Jew says that Christ is not God he is denying the God of the OT.

I have been taught that this verse signifies external deliverance of the nation of Israel and the like deliverance (external sanctification) of the visible N.T. churches. God is sovereign over all; He "owns" all men, but His specific covenant promises of internal regeneration and justification does not extend to all.

Such purchase and redemption unto salvation is only realized and manifested in the invisible church body, elected in Christ, before the foundation of the world.

IOW's, external sanctification and "deliverance" does not equate with internal regeneration and justification; such being known only by the elect of God; His invisible church body.

My

Originally Posted by TimV

Pastor W, isn't that verse talking about Jews who deny Christ is God? I understand that bought them is OT grammar for God delivering His people. In other words, Peter is saying whoever denies that Christ is God denies He who ransomed His people. So if a Jew says that Christ is not God he is denying the God of the OT.

If they are denying Christ is God, and He is the Lord that bought them, there is no way of separating redemption from that which Christ accomplished.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Ivan

I understand the reasoning, but it sounds odd to me.

Ivan, consider a text like 2 Peter 2:1, "denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." One who holds to particular redemption is obliged to explain in what sense the Lord is said to have bought those who ultimately suffer destruction. It is perhaps the failure of the modern reformed church to clearly articulate a doctrine of the visible church which has opened the door for a false view as to how the benefits of Christ relate to the non elect.

Thank you, Matthew. That helps. The thorny-ground, good-ground concept helps as well. I have a better understanding of what is being expounded here.

And maybe it's just the bump on my head.

If they are denying Christ is God, and He is the Lord that bought them, there is no way of separating redemption from that which Christ accomplished.

Just to clarify this for me as well, if the verse paraphrased is "Those of your fellow ethnic Jews who reject Christ are rejecting the God of the burning bush, who ransomed the whole Jewish nation from Egypt, even though they may be ignorant of the fact" then does that verse necessarily have anything to do with Christians?

Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away John 15:2

I find that distinction between Invisible and Visible Church is aboslutely required to understand there are unregenerate members of the Covenant, that later may not make professions of faith or deny their profession.

Imo this is the only sound interpretation of several passages Hebrews 6, 2 Peter 2:20 ff, John 15:2, etc, since it accepts its dreadful warning while maintaining the perseverance of the saints, that true regenerated christians, partakers of the substance of the Covenant will persevere to Glory Romans 8:29-30

Karl Barth was one voice that denied that distinction, but he messed up with a lot of biblical doctrines.

But how about Klaas Schilder and John Murray, who also argued against that distinction between Visible and Invisible Church ?

Did they provide any strong arguments to the Federal Vision Folks?

Originally Posted by discipulo

Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away John 15:2

I find that distinction between Invisible and Visible Church is aboslutely required to understand there are unregenerate members of the Covenant, that later may not make professions of faith or deny their profession.

Imo this is the only sound interpretation of several passages Hebrews 6, 2 Peter 2:20 ff, John 15:2, etc, since it accepts its dreadful warning while maintaining the perseverance of the saints, that true regenerated christians, partakers of the substance of the Covenant will persevere to Glory Romans 8:29-30

Karl Barth was one voice that denied that distinction, but he messed up with a lot of biblical doctrines.

But how about Klaas Schilder and John Murray, who also argued against that distinction between Visible and Invisible Church ?

Did they provide any strong arguments to the Federal Vision Folks?

I'm no Schilder scholar (I don't even read Dutch). However, Kloosterman's essay on Schilder and the legal/vital distinction gives me pause before yielding him to the FV.