SUBMITTED WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR LOUISIANA PRESBYTERY’S EXAMINATION OF TEACHING ELDER STEVE WILKINS

[My responses are in boldface type, sw]

[It should be noted that I am indebted to the writings of numerous men who are not credited in the body of my response below. In these responses I have borrowed freely from the writings of Rich Lusk, Mark Horne, Peter Leithart, Jeff Meyers, Alastair Roberts, John Barach, James Jordan, and no doubt a number of others that I can’t remember at present. Of course, none of these men should be held accountable for any errors that I might have expressed in the written responses below]

I. THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS

1. Regarding the Westminster Standards, what exceptions or reservations did you register with Louisiana Presbytery when you first became a member?

In reviewing the minutes of Presbytery of May 13, 1989 (the meeting in which I was received into Louisiana Presbytery), the only exception recorded in the minutes was my exception to the teaching that the Lord’s Supper is not to be given to baptized children prior to their admission to the table by the elders (WLC #177). I believe the Scripture teaches that baptized children who are capable of eating and drinking the elements of bread and wine on their own should be allowed admission to the Lord’s table based upon their membership in the visible church. [It should be noted that I and our church have not practiced covenant communion but have continued to submit to the requirements of the PCA Book of Church Order which requires children to make profession of their faith before being admitted to the Lord’s table. This has always been our practice and will continue to be unless our BCO is amended at this point.]

I also am fairly certain that I mentioned a few other quibbles and reservations. The following are what I remember mentioning:

1. I quibbled with the terminology of the so-called “covenant of works” (WCF 7.1) — I do not believe this to be the best way to refer to the pre-fall covenant between God and Adam since it is open to such wide misunderstanding regarding the whole matter of works and merit. I do not disagree, however, with the description of the “covenant of works.”

2. I also took exception to the description of the Larger Catechism regarding what was acceptable activity for the Lord’s Day. I do not believe all recreation should be prohibited as the catechism appears to prohibit.

3. I believe I also took exception to a certain interpretation of WCF 24.6. If this is understood to teach that divorce is only lawful in cases of adultery and willful desertion, then I disagree. It seems to me that the Scriptures allow for other serious forms of covenant-breaking (life-threatening abuse; refusal to keep marriage vows in other grossly immoral ways; etc.) to be forms of “fornication” which is the sole ground of lawful divorce (Matt. 5:32).

As I remember, these were the only exceptions I declared upon entering Presbytery.

[During the examination I was exhorted by one of our presbyters to use another word other than “quibble” to describe my reservations, because, he pointed out, the word “quibble” means to “to equivocate or evade or to dodge the question.” In fact, that is one meaning of the word. But it can also mean simply “to have a petty or very minor objection” which is precisely the way in which I am using it above. This illustrates once more how the same or similar words can mean different things depending upon the context. For this reason, I’ll stick with “quibble” though it is absolutely true that I could use such words as “scruple” or “minor objection” which would convey my intention equally acurately.]

2. Since becoming a member of Louisiana Presbytery, have your views regarding the Westminster Standards changed in any regard? Are there any additional or new exceptions that you have? Please explain.

I would take exception to a particular reading of WLC #109. If this is understood to forbid pictures and all mental images of God then I would disagree with it. We are not to use pictures/images in worship or as aids to worship, but I do not understand the second commandment to forbid all representations of God. I do not believe the second commandment forbids pictures of Jesus or depicting the Holy Spirit by a dove, e.g.

I also would quibble with the language of WCF 7.1 which implies that the covenant is something added to the Creator-creature relationship. The implication is that God, after He created man, realized that there was a great distance between Himself and His creation and needed to do something additional to bridge the gap. I don’t think this is the best way to put it. This implies that the covenant bridges some metaphysical gap, as if man’s problem is his “creatureliness.” It seems to imply that being a creature of itself necessitates a relational distance between God and man. In contrast to this the Scriptures indicate that God enters into covenant with man by virtue of His role as Creator. Adam is constituted by creation in covenant with God. Genesis 1 uses the language of covenant-making to express God’s creative work (speaking, evaluating, separating, etc.). Genesis 2 is even more explicit. The covenantal name Yahweh is used there in connection with the creation of man. Man was a covenantal creature, under God’s covenantal lordship, responsible to God’s covenant laws and sanctions, enjoying God’s covenant love and favor, from the very moment that he was created from the dust of the earth. Furthermore, all men, by virtue of their creation, “know God” and live inescapably in relation to Him (Rom. 1:18ff).

3. Do you believe any of your public teaching or writing since the beginning of the “Auburn Avenue Theology” controversy either contradicts or is inconsistent with the Standards? (Besides your registered exceptions).

No I do not. My concerns I have not been with the Confession’s statements or definitions but rather with how we read the texts of Scripture which appear to contradict some of the statements and positions set forth in the Confession and Catechisms. I do not believe the scriptural texts do contradict the standards in fact but they are simply using terminology in a broader way than it is defined by our Confessional standards. This means that we must consider carefully the meaning of these terms in the particular contexts in which they are used. That has been my concern in regard to the so-called “Federal Vision” issues.

I firmly hold to the Calvinistic system of doctrine set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms as the Biblical teaching.

This is probably, however, a good place to note the perspective from which the doctrines of salvation and the application of Christ’s redemption are discussed in the Westminster standards. The discussions regarding the application of redemption in the Westminster Standards beginning with the sections on effectual calling and continuing through the rest of the “ordo salutis” only properly apply to the elect as defined in WCF 3.5: “Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.” Here, the “elect” are defined to be only those who are predestined to eternal life. This sets the parameters of the discussion concerning the application of redemption.

Thus, chapter 10 (“Of Effectual Calling”) begins by defining the effectual call as something belonging only to those “whom God hath predestinated unto life” i.e., the elect as defined in chapter 3 (see 3.5 for this precise phrase). The rest of the ordo salutis is consistently discussed in these terms.

– The justification described in chapter 11 is predicated of those “whom God effectually calleth.” None others can be said to be “justified” in the WCF sense.

– The adopted children of chapter 12 are those who are “never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption; and inherit the promises, as heirs of everlasting salvation.” According to the Confession, the only people who are “sons of God” are those who in fact inherit eternal salvation at the last day.

– The sanctification defined in chapter 13 occurs to those who are justified in the sense defined in chapter 11. These alone are “sanctified” according to the definition of the Confession.

– “Saving” faith (WCF chapter 14) is only given to the elect (it is defined as “The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls.”). None but the elect may have “saving faith.” Non-saving faith is not discussed in this chapter.

– Repentance is called “repentance unto life” and is thus that repentance that only the elect can have.

And so on. These chapters do not address the spiritual experience of those who are not elect (in the WCF 3 sense). Indeed, the Standards have very little to say about the spiritual experience of the non-elect who are members of the visible church. WCF 10.4 is perhaps the clearest and fullest statement. This section refers to those who are members of the church but who apostatize (those who received the “common operations of the Spirit”). The Confession makes clear that these who fall away “never truly come to Christ.”

But, the WCF does affirm that the Spirit works in some way in those who are not elect (it mentions the “common operations of the Spirit”). What are some of these “common operations of the Spirit”? The proof-texts give us some indication of what the writers of the Confession were thinking:

– Matt. 7:22 – the Spirit enables some to prophesy, cast out demons, and work miracles;

– Matt. 13:20,21 – Some receive the word with joy but only believe for a while;

– Heb. 6:4-5 – the Spirit enlightens, enables them to “taste of the heavenly gift; they become partakers of the Holy Spirit, taste the good word of God and the powers of the age to come; (and so on, the other proof texts are John 6:37, 64-66; 8:44; 13:18; cf. 17:12)

In the end, however, this gives us very little to go on, and the proof-texts themselves are not confessionally binding or authoritative. When the confession says that these non-elect people “never truly come unto Christ,” it means that they do not receive Christ with a faith that perseveres unto final salvation. The confession does not address the question of whether they are able come unto Christ in some other sense and participate in some sense in the blessings of redemption that ultimately fall short of the fullness of salvation.

Further, when the confession says that these non-elect people “cannot be saved,” one must recognize that the Standards use the word “save” and its cognates almost exclusively to refer to the fullness of salvation inherited when Christ returns. In this sense, apostates are not saved because they fail to persevere and fall short of receiving the fullness of redemption as it is described in WCF 10-18.

The other major text in the WCF that is relevant to the non-elect is WCF 25.2. Here we find the assertion that all members of the visible church are members of the kingdom of Christ and the house and family of God (at least in some sense). Since the visible church contains some who are non-elect, the WCF thus implies that some adults and their children are citizens of the kingdom and members of God’s family, and yet still do not inherit the fullness of redemption and eternal life. Given the fact that earlier chapters of the Confession restrict these blessings to the elect alone, we are given some sense that the writers are sensitive to the claims made for the members of the visible church in the Scriptures.

Again, the proof texts used in WCF 25.2 help us to see some of the things that were in the minds of the members of the Assembly. They refer to Colossians 1:13 to prove that the visible Church is “the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.” But this text illustrates the very concerns that I have raised in my teaching and writing. In the verse preceding (1:12) he includes them among the number of those who have been qualified “to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.” Further, he goes on in the verses that follow to describe what has happened to the members of the Church in Colossae. They have not only been “delivered from the power of darkness” and “conveyed into the kingdom of the Son of His love” but also, in Christ, they “have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.” (1:13-14). In Col. 3:12 Paul calls the members of the church in Colossae, “the elect of God” and does not qualify this appellation at all, and calls upon them to forgive one another as Christ has forgiven them (3:13).

Does Paul mean that each and every member of this congregation is “elect” in the Westminster Confession sense? I don’t think so but that leaves the question of how exactly he does understand them to be “elect of God, holy and beloved.” And further, how exactly do they partake of “the inheritance of the saints”? And, though I am quite certain that only the elect will finally be redeemed through the blood of Jesus and only the elect will receive the forgiveness of sins (and I’m sure Paul would agree) how can Paul state that this reality was true of the members of the church in Colossae? These are the sorts of questions I’m seeking to address and to do so in a way that does no harm in the least to God’s absolute, sovereign, predestination.

In showing that the visible Church is the house and family of God, the Assembly points us to Ephesians 2:19 where we are told that the members of the church in Ephesus “are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.” The passage goes on to say that they “also are being built together [in Christ] for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” Since Paul doesn’t exclude those members who might not be among those chosen for eternal salvation from before the foundation of the world, this apparently is true also of them (at least in some sense) as members of the Church. Now the question is “How is this true of the non-elect?” I have proposed a possible answer for this and it does not involve a rejection of anything the Confession says in chapters 10-18.

These are the sorts of questions that I’ve been concerned to understand. If we think that calling members of the visible church citizens of the kingdom, sons in the family, and members of the house of God requires us to reject what the Confession says about “the elect” in chapters 10-18, we are pitting the Confession against itself.

4. Has the controversy surrounding your teaching caused you to consider whether or not you need to take further exceptions to the Standards? If so, explain.

I always continue to think through the Confession to see if there are additional places where I need to take an exception — but apart from extremely minor quibbles with words, at present, I am not aware of any places where I would have to take further exceptions.

5. Have you written to clarify/reformulate any of your teachings since the Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Vision Theology issued its recommendations during the 80^th Stated Meeting, and if so, would you explain any clarifications/ reformulations that you have put forth?

In the last revision of our “Summary Statement” we did make substantial clarifications regarding what I mean by “all blessings” being given to the members of the church as well as the issues of assurance and perseverance. I also wrote the “AAPC Session’s Response to Charges of ‘Heterodoxy’” which was adopted on June 8, 2006, and seeks to make clear my/our position on various vital topics. In any case, I have continued to refine the way in which I express my views in response to various critics and have sought to explain them more clearly to any who have asked.

II. THE MEMORIAL FROM CENTRAL CAROLINA

Regarding the Doctrine of Election:

Central Carolina Presbytery asserts in its January 28, 2006, memorial the following:

“TE Wilkins publicly teaches a doctrine of election in flagrant contradiction to our Standards. Whereas the Confession teaches that “God hath appointed the elect unto glory” (WCF III.6), TE Wilkins states that the elect are appointed to a conditional relationship which they can lose through unbelief. He writes: “The elect are those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. If they later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect – they are cut off from the Elect One and thus, lose their elect standing” (The Federal Vision, p. 58).”

The memorial accuses you of teaching a doctrine of election “in flagrant contradiction to our Standards.”

1. Laying aside for a moment the argument that Scripture uses the word “elect” in different ways, can you provide an example(s) in your public teaching or writing where you affirm the Confession’s definition of election?

I’m not quite sure how to answer this question. The fact is that I have never taught contrary to the Confession in regard to its view of election. I have taught this view to our inquirers’ class, our officer training classes, and have taught it in a Sunday School study where I taught through the entire confession. My article in the Federal Vision affirms the traditional, Confessional view on p. 56:

“It has been the common practice in Reformed circles to use the term “elect” to refer only to those who are predestined to eternal salvation. Since God has ordained all things “whatsoever comes to pass” (Eph. 1:11), He has certainly predestined the number of all who will be saved at the last day. This number is fixed and settled, not one of these will be lost. The Lord will accomplish all His holy will.”

I then follow this affirmation of the traditional view with a discussion of how the word “elect” functions in various passages of the Bible.

Also in our “Response to the Charges of Heterodoxy” I wrote this:

“We affirm the teaching on ‘election’ in the Westminster Standards (WCF III.6). In our ‘Summary Statement’ we unanimously adopted this statement:

‘From before the foundation of the world, God has sovereignly chosen a multitude no man can number for salvation. The basis of His election was solely His grace and mercy and nothing in the creature. The number of the elect can neither increase nor diminish. All who were chosen by God from the beginning will be surely saved eternally. Not one will be lost.’

This continues to be our view. We do believe, however, that the terms ‘elect,’ ‘chosen,’ etc., are often used in the Scriptures to refer to those who are members of the visible church (e.g., Col 3:12; 2 Th 2:13; 1 Pe 1:1-2) and not restricted to those who were chosen to eternal salvation. To affirm this, however, does not require a denial of the teaching of the Confession. It is simply acknowledging the fact that our theological usage of these terms is often more narrow than the biblical usage.”

2. Do you at all deny the definition of election as given in the Standards?

Absolutely not, never have, and God willing, never will. I firmly believe in the absolute sovereignty of God over all things, including the salvation of man.

3. Briefly explain why your statement: “The elect are those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. If they later reject their savior, they are no longer elect” (Federal Vision, p. 58) is NOT contradictory to or inconsistent with WCF III-6).

The Presbytery in making this charge has ignored the context of what I have written and because of this, has completely missed my point. In the article, this statement comes in the context of a discussion of how the word “elect” is used in the Biblical text. God calls Israel His “elect or chosen” people (p. 56). Paul calls the members of the church in the New Covenant “elect and chosen” as well. On page 58, I discuss Paul’s statements in Romans 8 and II Thessalonians 2:13-14 where he calls the members of the church in Thessalonica “chosen from the beginning for salvation.” I then ask the question, “How could Paul say this?” (p. 57). In light of the decree of predestination and the reality that not everyone in the church is chosen in the Westminster sense of the word, how can he call the members of the church in Thessalonica “chosen before the foundation of the world”? If I didn’t believe WCF chapter 3 to be true, I would have no problems at this point. My question arises in light of the fact that I am convinced that WCF chapter 3 is correct!

Thus, the questions I’m addressing do not in any way deny what the Confession says in chapter 3. In no way should this discussion be interpreted to mean that I deny what I just affirmed (and still believe) on p. 56. In the passage cited I am focusing the discussion upon how the term is used in the text of God’s Word where over and over again, entire congregations are addressed as “elect” or “chosen” or with some equivalent term (e.g., Col 3:12; 2 Th 2:13; 1 Pe 1:1-2). I go on to suggest that we must understand Paul’s language covenantally rather than decretively. To make this distinction in no way requires that I reject one in order to embrace the other.

It seems clear to me that Peter in particular views the “elect” in the same sense that the term was used of Israel under the Old Covenant since he applies the same descriptive terminology used for Israel to the Church (1 Pe 2:9). Paul and Peter do not appear to use the terms “elect” and “chosen” to apply exclusively to those who were chosen to eternal salvation (i.e., in the Westminster Confession sense). They had no knowledge of God’s decrees and only could judge by what was revealed. What was revealed was that Jesus was the Elect One and all who are united to Him as elect in Him.(1 Pe 2:4-6).

It seems (at least to me) to be plain that Paul and other Biblical writers have no hesitation in identifying those who are members of the Church as “elect.” This apparently was based upon the fact that the Church is, as our Confession states, “the household, family, and kingdom of God” (WCF 25.2) and is the body of Christ Jesus, God’s chosen/elect Son. Thus, those who are members of the body of the Elect One are viewed as “elect” themselves. The writers of the New Testament, in numerous places, appear to use the word to refer to those who are united to the visible body of God’s people and persevere therein by grace through faith.

What I am trying to set forth seems to be the position Calvin expounds in his sermons on Deuteronomy. Calvin asserts that being in the Church is a form of “election” which can be lost:

“Now then it is of God’s free election that we have his Word purely preached unto us and that we have his Gospel and Sacraments. And therein we have reason to confess that he has shown himself generous to us . . . . So then, when the Gospel is preached in a place and it has the warrants that God gives men salvation - as when we have Baptism and the Lord’s Holy Supper ministered uncorruptly - we may say it is an election of God. But yet for all that, in the meantime he holds to himself those he so wishes in order that people should not trust the outward signs except by faith and obedience, knowing that although we have been chosen to be of the Body of the Church, yet if we do not make that election to our profit, God can well enough cut us off again and reserve a final number to himself.” (Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 53, Saturday, 3 August 1555).

Doctrine of the Church:

Central Carolina Presbytery asserts in its January 28, 2006, memorial the following:

 “TE Wilkins teaches a doctrine of the church in flagrant contradiction to that of our Standards, in that he denies the distinction between the visible and the invisible church. The Confession states that “The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect,” whereas “The visible Church… consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, and their children” (WCF XXV. 1-2). The sum of TE Wilkins’ erroneous view is to teach that all members of the church – without distinction to their actual faith and/or regeneration – partake of the saving benefits of Christ. Whereas the Standards state that the visible church enjoys “the ordinary means of salvation and offers of grace by Christ,” they grant only to the invisible church that they “enjoy union and communion with [Christ]” (WLC 62-65). As such, TE Wilkins denies that there is any distinction between believing and unbelieving members of the visible church, insisting that all baptized church members enjoy the benefits of union with Christ, only conditionally. See The Federal Vision, pp. 57-62, including the following statements:

“‘If God is for us, who can be against us? Christ died, rose again, and makes intercession for us, who can separate us from the love of God?

Clearly, Paul is not stating promises that are true only for some unknown group called the ‘elect.’ Nor is he speaking only to a portion of the congregation whom he judges to be ‘regenerate.’ Rather, he is applying these promises to all the members of the Church who have been baptized and united to Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6).” (The Federal Vision, p. 57).

“The reprobate may be in covenant with God. They may enjoy for a season the blessings of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession of the kingdom, sanctification, etc., and yet apostatize and fall short of the grace of God” (The Federal Vision, p. 62). Note that Wilkins here directly contradicts WLC 69, which ascribes these blessings only to the elect and denies them to the visible church.”

Central Carolina accuses you of teaching a “doctrine of the church in flagrant contradiction to that of our Standards” and denying the “distinction between the visible and invisible Church.”

1. Is it true that you deny the distinction between the visible and invisible church?

Absolutely not. Indeed, the bare fact that I do not believe all members of the visible church will be infallibly saved proves that I do see a distinction between the “visible” Church (containing those who persevere in faith and those who don’t) and the “invisible” Church (which consists of the whole number of the redeemed, who persevere in faith so that not one is lost but all without exception attain eternal salvation).

Contrary to the assertion of the memorial, I wholeheartedly affirm this distinction as the Westminster Confession defines the invisible church. The “invisible Church” is not a parallel entity that exists above or beyond the visible church but rather is the “whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof;”—in other words, the invisible Church does not yet exist though it is surely foreordained by God and will surely and certainly exist at the last day (but then of course, it will exist as a very visible body). It is only “invisible” in that we can’t see all the members of it now.

I think the category of “invisible church” can lead us to all sorts of misunderstandings and misconceptions. I fully agree with Professor John Murray’s assessment:

“There is no evidence for the notion of the ‘church’ as an invisible entity distinct from the church visible. . . . ‘the church’ in the New Testament never appears as an invisible entity and therefore may never be defined in terms of invisibility. . . . Strictly speaking, it is not proper to speak of the ‘visible church’. According to Scripture we should speak of ‘the church’ and conceive of it as that visible entity that exists and functions in accord with the institution of Christ as its Head, the church that is the body of Christ indwelt and directed by the Holy Spirit, consisting of those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be saints, manifested in the congregations of the faithful, and finally the church glorious, holy and without blemish.” (Collected Writings, I, 234-235)

Christ has only one Bride and she is a Bride that is in the process of being perfected (sanctified and cleansed) for Him through time (Eph. 5:25-27) until that day when she shall be “spotless and without blemish.” Thus, the Church which throughout history had blemishes and imperfections, will finally be glorified and perfectly holy at the last day.

It seems better to speak of the “invisible” church simply as the “eschatalogical church” — i.e., the church in its perfection as it will exist at the last day. My accusers are simply disagreeing with my argument rather than proving that I deny the WCF definition of the church. Indeed, it seems to me that they are often the ones who deny the distinction between the “visible” and “invisible” Church in that they attribute those things the apostles say to be true of the visible Church exclusively to the invisible Church. The visible Church is denigrated as being nothing more than a pale and imperfect reflection of the “true” church (which is, in their minds, the “invisible” church, the abode of the elect).

Ultimately, it is unquestionably true that only the “invisible Church” will partake of the blessings of eternal salvation. In history, however, the Church consists of those who are elect unto final salvation and those who are not. There are those who are members of the Church but who are not ordained to persevere in faith, yet they are, like unfaithful Israelites, still members of the Church, though in the sense that they harbor unbelief, they can be said to be not “of” the Church. But in saying this, we are merely acknowledging that the Church in history is a mixed body.

It is important for us to recognize the fact of the mixed nature of the Church in history, but this does not mean that there is such a thing as an “invisible Church” of which you must become a member. The Bible speaks of only one Church which is the body and bride of Christ and thus our creeds assert that we believe in “One, holy, catholic and apostolic church.” That is the simplest and clearest way to speak of the Church.

It seems to me that this same charge could be brought against Calvin, for he also seeks to deal with some of the same passages of Scripture in a similar manner as I have done. Thus, for example in his commentary on 2 Peter 2:1-3 Calvin states: “Though Christ may be denied in various ways, yet Peter, I think, refers here to what is expressed by Jude, that is when the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness; for Christ redeemed us, that He might have a people separated from all the pollutions of the world, and devoted to holiness and innocency. They, then, who throw off the bridle and give themselves up to all kinds of licentiousness, are not unjustly said to deny Christ by whom they have been redeemed.”

In his commentary on Hosea 2:4-5: “it is not enough that God should choose any people for Himself, except the people themselves persevere in the obedience of faith; for this is the spiritual chastity which the Lord requires from all His people. But when is a wife, whom God has bound to Himself by a sacred marriage, said to become a wanton? When she falls away . . . from a pure and sound faith. Then it follows that the marriage between God and men so long endures as they who have been adopted continue in pure faith.”

In his Institutes Calvin states that in some sense, the reprobate may be said to have received “the gift of redemption” (3.2.11): “Yet, the reprobate [within the church] are justly said to believe that God is merciful toward them, for they receive the gift of reconciliation.”

In spite of these statements, I believe Calvin was a thorough-going Calvinist even though Central Carolina Presbytery apparently believes that Calvin's views are not compatible with the Westminster Confession of Faith.

2. Explain how your published views on the benefits that members of the “visible” church enjoy are NOT inconsistent with WLC # 69 (“The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.”).

First, it should be noted that the Presbytery has taken the quote they use to prove their point out of its context in the article. The full sentence reads,

“The clear implication of these passages is that those who ultimately prove to be reprobate may be in covenant with God. They may enjoy for a season the blessings of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession of the kingdom, sanctification, etc., and yet apostatize and fall short of the grace of God.”

Note that I refer to “the clear implication of these passages” which is a reference to the sixteen passages to which I have just referred on the previous page. The passages cited attribute these very things to those who are warned against the danger of falling away and being eternally condemned. In other words, this is not something I am teaching. Rather, it is what Paul himself was teaching. The problem of the Presbytery is with Paul not with me.

The Larger Catechsim is speaking about “members of the invisible church” who are by definition, the elect. I have no quarrel with that at all and nothing I have written contradicts that in the least. My questions have arisen because the apostles appear to attribute these same things to all the members of the visible church without distinction. For example, Paul says of the Corinthians (whom he sternly warns against apostasy, I Cor. 10:1-11) that they are sanctified (I Cor. 1:2); have been given the grace of God (1:4); and have been enriched in all things (1:5); they share in Christ’s righteousness, wisdom, sanctification and redemption (1:30-31); they have received the Spirit (2:14-16) and the Spirit dwells in them (3:16-17); all things belong to them (3:21-23); they have been born through the gospel preached to them (4:15); they have been washed and justified by the Spirit (6:9-11); they enjoy communion in the body and blood of Christ (10:15-17); they have been baptized into one body by the Spirit (12:13) and are individually members of Christ’s body (12:27).

My question in light of what WLC affirms (and which I also affirm) is this, “How can Paul say that these things are true of the members of the church in Corinth and in what sense are they true?” Whatever our answer to this question, it seems clear then that Paul is not using these terms in the same way that the Westminster Confession defines them. My accusers may disagree with my interpretation of these passages, but clearly these statements by Paul are not based upon a denial of God’s sovereignty in salvation or a denial of the doctrine of unconditional election or the perseverance of the saints as the WCF defines these teachings (which I affirm most happily). My contention is that our understanding of salvation from a systematic (Westminsterian) theology standpoint has difficulty accommodating these passages. I am suggesting that the understanding of covenant which I propose gives us a better way to deal with these statements in Scripture. My views do not require any departure from the teaching of the Confession at all. They simply require us to recognize that Paul is not thinking of these matters from precisely the same perspective as the writers of the Confession though he would very likely be willing to affirm the statements of the Confession wholeheartedly.

3. Would you say that your published views about the benefits enjoyed by visible church members are the necessary consequence of the confessional statement that affirms that the visible church is “the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ and the house and family of God out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (WCF 25-2) and BCO Preliminary Principles #3 which states that the “visible church” is the Body of Christ?

Yes, precisely. My suggestion is that these statements indicate how we are to understand the statements that Jesus, Paul, and the other writers of the New Testament speak about the blessings that belong to members of the visible church.

4. How would you distinguish between the benefits enjoyed by a (decretively) elect member of the visible Church and a reprobate member of the visible church who has not yet manifested his apostasy?

This is not an easy question to answer but it does seem to me that the benefits enjoyed by the “decretively elect” do differ from those received by the non-elect. First, they differ qualitatively. Thus, for example, though the non-elect are brought within the family of the justified and in that sense may be referred to as one of the justified, the elect person’s justification in time is not only a declaration of his present acquittal from the guilt of sin but also an anticipation of his final vindication at the last judgment. The non-elect church member’s “justification” is not. His “justification” is not the judgment he will receive from God at the last day. Second, the blessings conferred differ in their duration. The elect person perseveres and remains in a state of grace until the end of his life. The non-elect believer eventually forsakes the faith and falls away from the state of grace. There may also be other experiential differences between the elect and the non-elect, but these differences may not be discernible (to the individuals themselves or to others) until the non-elect person displays his unbelief in some very explicit and concrete ways.

God certainly knows (and has decreed) the difference between the elect and the non-elect, but from our creaturely, covenantal point of view there is often no perceptible difference (e.g., Saul and David were indistinguishable from one another to all outward appearances in the early phases of their careers; Judas looked like the other disciples for a time). It is only as history goes forward, as God’s plan unfolds, that we come to know who will persevere and who won’t. In the meanwhile, we are to view and treat all faithful members of the covenant community in the way we see them treated throughout the New Testament epistles — i.e., all covenant members are viewed and treated as elect, but also warned of the dangers of apostasy.

The language of the Bible forces us to acknowledge a great deal of mystery here. For example, the same terminology that describes the Spirit coming upon Saul in 1 Sam. 10:6 is used when the Spirit comes upon David (1 Sam. 16:13), Gideon (Jdg. 6:34), Jephthah (Jdg. 11:29), and Samson (Jdg. 14:6, 9; 15:14). But in four of these five cases (David, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson), the man in question was clearly regenerated and saved by the Spirit’s work (cf. Heb. 11:32). This means that at the outset of Saul’s career, the biblical narrative itself draws no distinction between his initial experience of the Spirit and the experience of those who would obtain final salvation. Saul appears to receive the same initial covenantal grace that David, Gideon, and other saved men received, even though God did not enable him to persevere in that grace. While God no doubt predestined Saul’s apostasy (since he foreordains all that comes to pass), God was not the Author of Saul’s apostasy (cf. WCF 3.1). His failure to persevere was due to his own rebellion. Herein lies the great mystery of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility (cf. WCF 3.1, 8).

I agree with how this point is addressed in the AAPC “Summary Statement”:

“Once baptized, an individual may be truly called a ‘Christian’ because he is a member of the household of faith and the body of Christ (I Cor. 12). However, not all who are ‘Christians’ in this sense will persevere to the end. Some will ‘fall from grace’ and be lost (Gal. 5:4; 1 Cor. 10:1-5). Though the difference between those who are predestined to eternal life and those who ‘believe for a while’ is not merely one of duration (i.e., God works ‘effectually’ in those whom He has predestined to eternal life so that they do not fall away in unbelief), the Bible does not explain the distinction between the nature of the work of the Spirit in the reprobate and the nature of His work in the elect, and even uses the same language for both.”

This reality is reflected in the covenant relationship of marriage. Though men may be equally married in the eyes of the law, they may have quite different marriages in terms of the quality of their relationships with their wives. The presence or absence of biblical love makes a huge difference in the quality of the marital bond, though it does not affect their legal status as married men. So it is in the Church. Some members of the Church are “effectually” (savingly) joined in union with Christ by faith while others are not.

In addressing the issue of the qualitative difference between the communion the elect have with God as contrasted with that of the non-elect, I fully agree with Peter Leithart’s statement explaining this distinction:

“First, God has decreed the eternal destiny of elect and reprobate. That cannot help but color God’s attitude toward someone who is ultimately reprobate. He is obviously conscious that any blessing He gives or favor He shows is blessing and favor to a reprobate.

Second, while God decrees before the foundation of the world all that comes to pass, He also is active in the outworking of those decrees, and in that activity He is interactive with His creation. We pray, and He answers, and that is not pretense; He really does answer prayers (albeit He had planned from eternity for the prayer and the answer). Similarly, His attitude toward sinners changes through time. An elect man is an object of God’s wrath during the week before his conversion, and the object of God’s mercy during the time after. I submit that the same is true of the reprobate who receives the word of God with joy for a time: He is an object of favor while he responds in faith, and then becomes an object of disfavor. I take Saul as a concrete example of this reality. Again, this is qualified and complexified by point #1.

Third, I am favorable toward a teleological view of human nature. If you slice into the life of an elect man at a point of backsliding, and also slice into the life of the reprobate at a point when he is rejoicing in the gospel, it will appear that the reprobate’s faith is strong, more living, more true, than that of the elect. Analyzed in that kind of punctiliar fashion, the two are well-nigh indistinguishable. But nature is determined by ends. We are what we are destined to become (which is what we are decreed to become). Thus, the quality of temporary faith, even the nature of temporary faith, is different from the nature of true and living and persevering faith. I’ve used the analogy of marriage to explain this: A marriage that ends in divorce differs from a happy marriage in its conclusion; but the conclusion of the marriages reveals that there was something fundamentally and permanently different in the two marriages. The differences are never merely differences at the end, because the end reveals the shape of the whole story-line.

How have they had communion with the Spirit? I am thinking of Hebrews 6 primarily there: they “have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit” (v. 4). That might manifest itself in acts of ministry that are empowered by the Spirit. It may manifest itself in acts of piety, devotion to and joy in worship, eagerness to hear the word of God. I believe that this all falls under what the WCF calls “common operations of the Spirit,” taking “common” here as operations common to the elect and reprobate.”

Doctrine of Perseverance

Central Carolina Presbytery asserts in its January 28, 2006, memorial the following:

“TE Wilkins’ teaching directly contradicts our doctrine of perseverance. The Confession teaches that “They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved” (WCFXVI.1). But TE Wilkins teaches the opposite. See the above quote regarding the reprobate, who according to Wilkins were at one time forgiven, adopted, and sanctified. Wilkins adds, “The apostate doesn’t forfeit ‘apparent blessings’ that were never his in reality, but real blessings that were his in covenant with God” (The Federal Vision, p. 62). In Wilkins’ teaching, all church members share all the benefits of union with Christ, but only provisionally. He writes, “If they persevere in faith to the end, they enjoy these mercies eternally. If they fall away in unbelief, they lose these blessings and receive a greater condemnation than Sodom and Gomorrah… If they do not persevere, they lose the blessings that were given to them” (The Federal Vision, pp. 60-6 1).

The Central Carolina Memorial accuses you of directly contradicting the doctrine of perseverance as taught in WCF 17-1.

1. Explain how your statements in Federal Vision, pp. 60-62 are NOT inconsistent with WCF 17-1 (“They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.”).

The Confession in Chapter 17.1 is referring exclusively to those who are “effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.” I have no dispute or disagreement with this in the least. My statements are referring to how the Scriptures describe what is true of all members of the church (note pp. 58-60 of my article) and what is said to be true of those who are in danger of apostasy or who actually have apostatized (p. 61). It seems to me that the Presbytery’s argument would also have to be made against Paul, Peter, and Jesus as well since all apply the language of salvation to those whom they say are in danger ultimately of falling short of the grace of God.

– Paul says that the members of the church in Corinth had communion with Christ (I Cor. 10:4-5) and then warns them of perishing like unfaithful Israel.

– The writer of Hebrews says that they have been “enlightened” and been made “partakers” of the Spirit (Heb. 6:4ff) and sanctified (Heb. 10:29) and sprinkled with the blood of Jesus (Heb. 12:22ff) and yet warns them of falling into destruction.

– Peter says that apostates have forgotten that they had been “cleansed from their former sins” (2 Pet. 1:9) and were “bought” by the Lord (2 Pet. 2:1) and had “escaped the pollutions of the world” (2 Pet. 2:20).

– Jesus says that those who fail to persevere will have their names removed from the book of life (Rev. 3:5; 22:19).

Would the Presbytery be willing to bring their charges against the apostles or against our Savior? If not, why not? Are these not also denying the teaching of the Westminster Confession? Of course, to assume so would be ridiculous. This only shows that identical or similar language can be used in different ways. But this does demonstrate, I think, how irresponsible it is for the Presbytery to refuse to consider these statements apart from their context and the argument that I am seeking to make.

All of us recognize that the same words may not mean the same things in different contexts and this fact normally causes us no confusion in the least. We do this sort of thing all the time. Nearly every Presbyterian and evangelical minister understands the word “justification” differently depending upon its context and he does so without feeling compelled to charge Paul or James with being confusing in their terminology!

We see this same phenomenon even within our Confessional documents. The Directory for the Public Worship of God when it speaks of the baptism of infants states that the children of believing parents are “Christians and Federally holy.” Yet we all know that not every covenant child perseveres to the end. Should we denounce the writers of the Directory for denying the teaching of the Confession of Faith 17.1? No we shouldn’t and for good reason. We all understand that they are using the term “Christian” in a covenantal sense and not with the same definition that the Confession uses to describe the elect of God.

If the Presbytery disagrees with my understanding they should simply say so and show where I am wrong. But to pretend that I am utilizing words with certain stipulated definitions when I have explicitly said I am not doing so, is simply misleading. I affirm the Westminster Confession of faith and its statements as true and the statements made in my article in no way require a rejection of these truths.

You state that, “All in covenant are given all that is true of Christ. If they persevere in faith to the end, they enjoy these mercies eternally. If they fall away in unbelief, they lose these blessings and receive a greater condemnation than Sodom and Gomorrah. Covenant can be broken by unbelief and rebellion, but until it is, those in covenant with God belong to Him and are His. If they do not persevere, they lose the blessings that were given to them (and all this works out according to God’s eternal decree which He ordained before the foundation of the world)….“Thus, when one breaks covenant, it can be truly said that he has turned away from grace and forfeited life, forgiveness, and salvation.” (The Federal Vision, pages 60- 61)

You also state that, “The clear implication of these passages is that those who ultimately prove to be reprobate may be in covenant with God. They may enjoy for a season the blessings of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession of the kingdom, sanctification, etc., and yet apostatize and fall short of the grace of God.… The apostate doesn’t forfeit ‘apparent blessings’ that were never his in reality, but real blessings that were his in covenant with God.” (The Federal Vision, page 62)

2. Regarding those who ultimately fall away:

– Do you believe that those who ultimately fall away ever truly possessed eternal life?

No, if they did, they would not have fallen away.

– Do you believe that those who ultimately fall away ever truly possessed forgiveness of sins?

If you mean by “truly possessed” that they had forgiveness in the same sense that those who are elect unto salvation have, then the answer is, “no.” The Bible speaks of members of the visible church, as those who are counted among the redeemed, washed, and sanctified and promises forgiveness for all who abide in Christ and persevere in faith. Thus, though we know that the elect are forgiven and shall surely be acquitted at the last day, the promise of forgiveness given to us is always conditional upon our continuing in the faith (which of course, is only possible by the grace of God and not the result of our own native strength, will power, or discipline). Thus, Jesus makes plain that those who refuse to forgive others will not be forgiven by the Father (Matt. 6:14-15). This seems clearly to be the teaching of the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:21-35; see also Mark 11:25-26; Luke 6:27).

Note that the servant is actually forgiven his debt but he refuses to forgive the debt of his debtor. What made the servant’s sin so grievous is the fact that he really had been forgiven. If the parable was simply about the need for us to forgive others, then the first part of the story is unnecessary. Jesus could simply have told a story about a servant who didn’t forgive his debtor and was punished by his master. But He doesn’t because that isn’t the point (or at least, the entire point).

The point is that those who are forgiven must forgive. And that point depends upon the servant having genuinely been forgiven at the start of the story. That’s what drives the story and that’s what makes the ending of the parable so startling. This once-forgiven servant loses the forgiveness he had been granted because he didn’t forgive his own debtor. This seems to set forth a sort of “temporary forgiveness” (for lack of a better term) that is, in spite of its impermanence, real. If the servant wasn’t genuinely forgiven, the story loses its impact. He was given a real promise that he would not be held accountable for his debt. The point is that God has made such a promise to us in Christ, and therefore we must forgive our debtors or Jesus’ Father will treat us the way the master treated the unforgiving once-forgiven servant.

Forgiveness is only found “in Christ.” Apart from Him, there can be no forgiveness, no salvation. Those who are faithful members of Christ’s church, trusting in His work in their behalf are forgiven and must continue to believe in order to maintain this status. This is a difficult concept to express (and I don’t believe it is addressed in our Confession or catechisms) but it seems to me to be clearly taught in the Scriptures.

However we might state this, we would have to maintain that the “forgiveness” received by such a person is not identical to that received by the elect. To repeat what I’ve said earlier: First, differs in its duration. The elect person perseveres and remains in a state of grace until the end of his life. The non-elect eventually forsakes his faith and falls away from the state of grace. And second, it differs qualitatively. The elect person’s forgiveness in time is an anticipation of his final vindication at the last judgment. The non-elect’s “forgiveness” is not. Although the non-elect person has standing for a time in the church which is “realm” of the forgiven, his justification is not the judgment he will receive from God at the last day. Ultimately, it seems to me to be impossible systematically to define and enumerate what all these qualitative differences may be. To the degree that we can even identify any differences, we can only do so retrospectively, after an individual has moved significantly along the path of rebellion and unbelief toward apostasy.

– Do you believe that those who ultimately fall away ever truly possessed salvation?

Again I understand you to mean by “truly possessed” that they have salvation in the same sense that those who are elect unto salvation have it. If that is your meaning, then the answer is, “No they do not.” If they had salvation in that way, they would never have apostatized in the first place. The Bible, however, speaks of salvation in three tenses. In many instances, the biblical writers view salvation as an eschatological concept — i.e., it is something that will not come to pass until the last day. But salvation is also spoken of as a past reality (salvation was determined in eternity past when God chose you in Christ, it was purchased when Christ died on the cross and rose again and then applied to you at your conversion). But salvation is also spoken of as a present and progressive reality (e.g., we are in to “work out” our salvation in fear and trembling, Phil. 2). Ultimately, no elect person can lose his salvation, however much he may backslide. This is the point of Jesus’ teaching in John 10 — God the Father and God the Son will not lose their grip on those they have chosen for final salvation.

But the Biblical language becomes more complicated when speaking of the members of the visible Church. There is a sense in which we can say that all those in covenant are “saved.” They have been covenantally delivered out of the world and brought into the glorious new creation embodied in the resurrected Christ even though not all of them will persevere. Thus Jude (5) can speak of the Israelites as having been “saved,” and then destroyed, because they did not persevere. The preface to the Ten Commandments addresses Israel as God’s redeemed people even though many of the redeemed did not continue trusting their Deliverer and perished. Peter speaks of a similar class of people in 2 Peter 2. They were “redeemed” by Christ but then they later denied him and are destroyed. To take another example, 1 Peter 3 we read of the eight people who were “saved” from God’s wrath in Noah’s ark. But if we read the Genesis narrative, we find one of those who was saved, Ham, apostatized and came under a curse.

Again, there is no question that only God’s elect, those predestined for final salvation, will infallibly persevere to the end. They cannot fall away because God is determined to keep them in the path of life. But reprobate covenant members may for a time experience a quasi-salvation. They may be said to have been, in some sense, “bought” by Christ (1 Peter 2), “forgiven” (Matt. 18), “renewed” (Mk. 4), etc., and to have lost these things through unbelief.

One way to understand this is to think of salvation more in “relational” terms than in metaphysical ones. “Salvation” is not a “thing” we possess that can be lost and found, like our car keys. Rather, it is a matter of being rightly related to God. But relationships are not static, timeless entities. They are fluid and dynamic. Some marriages start well; the couple is full of love. But then things go sour. Our salvation covenant with the Lord is like a marriage. If we persevere in loyalty to Christ, we will live with him happily ever after. If we break the marriage covenant, he will divorce us. It may not be wise to call this “losing one’s salvation,” but it would be unbiblical to say nothing at all was really lost. That would simply be a denial of the reality of the covenant.

The visible Church may be viewed as the realm of “salvation” since it is the body of Christ (WCF 25:2). Thus, there is a sense in which we may speak of those who are members of the church as those who are “saved” in the same way that we may address them as the “redeemed” and “saints.” But in regard to non-elect members of the church, this will prove to be only a temporary standing. If they never believe or cease to believe in Christ, they shall not be saved at the last day and we may say in one sense that they never had “salvation” — certainly not in the sense that our Confession uses the term.

– If you answered yes to any of these questions, how do you reconcile your teaching with:

Westminster Confession of Faith 17.1 (“They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.”), and

Westminster Larger Catechism 79 (“Q. May not true believers, by reason of their imperfections, and the many temptations and sins they are overtaken with, fall away from the state of grace? A. True believers, by reason of the unchangeable love of God, and his decree and covenant to give them perseverance, their inseparable union with Christ, his continual intercession for them, and the Spirit and seed of God abiding in them, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.”), and

Westminster Larger Catechism 68 (“Q. Are the elect only effectually called? A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called: although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their willful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.”), and

As I have shown, the Confession in each of these places speaks from a decretal perspective.

– WCF 17.1 speaks of those who are “effectually called” and the Confession defines “effectual calling” as the gift of “saving faith” which cannot die out or be lost but which perseveres to the end.

– WLC #79 speaks of “true believers” (as opposed to temporary believers or hypocrites) as those who have the “unchangeable love of God and his decree” to give them perseverance — i.e., it is referring to those who are “kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.”

– LC #68 speaks of the “elect” as the only ones who are “effectually called.”

Thus, in every case, the standards are not referring to apostates and what might be true of them prior to their apostasy, but they are speaking only and exclusively of those who are chosen to final salvation. My concerns are not with these statements of the Confession with which I wholeheartedly agree. My concerns center around understanding what the Scriptures say to be true of those who are members of the church but not elect. How is it that the “non-elect” can be said to have “forgotten that they were cleansed from their former sins” (2 Pet. 1:9)? How is it that they can “trample the Son of God underfoot and count the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing” (Heb. 10:29)? Clearly, they were not elect (in the WCF sense) or they wouldn’t have done these things. Thus, the Confession, because it doesn’t address these passages directly or deal wi