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.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

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.

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.

__________________
~Wayne Wylie~
Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Ruling Elder
http://www.mcopc.org
Bedford, TX

Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

__________________
Fred Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

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.

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

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.

The funny thing is - yes!

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.

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

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

Judgement of charity.

Or maybe presumption?

__________________
Jeff Bartel
Mechanical Engineer
Member - Trinity Reformed Church - RPCNA

"To believe in the power of man in the work of regeneration is the great heresy of Rome, and from that error has come the ruin of the Church. Conversion proceeds from the grace of God alone, and the system which ascribes it partly to man and partly to God is worse than Pelagianism" (The Reformation in England (London, 1962), Vol. 1, p. 98)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

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?

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:

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.

__________________
Sean Gerety
Member
Calvary Presbyterian, PCA
Norfolk, VA

[COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="1"]“I don't really like disconcerting people. Although often when I try to be normal I disconcert anyway." Robert Wyatt[/SIZE][/COLOR]

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.

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• Westminster Letter Press
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

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.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

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. IMO 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.

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.

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

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.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon

Soli Deo Gloria

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ham.

Now that was funny!