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.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. in my opinion bringing up the fact that Owen used the phrase "temporal election" in this situation just muddied the water.
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.