There was a good exchange between Rev. Winzer and Wayne Wylie in the thread about Wilkins' Presbytery exam. I'll quote it below because I want to have some interaction with a thought. I'm trying to determine the difference between what Rev. Winzer is quoting as a historic Reformed usage of conditional election from the way the FV camp is using it. I've been engaging in some dialogue with some FV supporters lately. It's a bit difficult breaking through the crust honestly because, for all the charges that they're being unfairly treated, many tend to be very prickly when you're trying to interact with them on a concern. If I'm reading them correctly, however, they seem to be claiming that all they're doing is arguing for a concept of conditional election as Rev Winzer does. Here is Rev Winzer's first post: Now one of the FV champions actually found the whole post edifying but then really couldn't understand how they could be charged with the last part. Anyhow, Wayne responded with this: To which Rev. Winzer responded: As I argued elsewhere, this ought not to be a debate over semantics or the definitions of words but over the doctrinal meaning. I don't see anything contentious about the idea of conditional election given the way that Rev. Winzer described it. Thus, what is the substantive difference between what he has described and what the FV have written?