I think if all he meant was temporal benefits, in the same sense that we began this thread with (i.e. Owen) then nobody would be batting an eyelash even if he called them saving benefits. I don't think the language is important. Note carefully what he says: That's completely different than the temporal benefits that Owen is speaking of. Pastor Wilkins is assuming that: -because Paul's called the Church the elect of God, holy and beloved -beause Paul has spoken of the inheritance of the saints -because Paul spoke of the forgiveness of sins -and addressed a Church body that he knew consisted of elect and reprobate THAT -it is true fully of the absolute, sovereignly elected *AND* -it must be also true partially (somehow not sure how exactly but true) of the ultimately reprobate But he does is what his critics are saying because he applies benefits that are only given to those who are absolute, sovereignly predestinated to the reprobate on the basis of a form of address. Now, one might argue that Owen and the WCF and Presbyterianism in general are all wet on this subject. What you cannot do with that statement, however, is just say "Well, it's exactly the same thing as what Owen wrote."