Peter has another interesting post.

When I address these issues, I assume “saving” means “infallibly bringing to eternal salvation.”

Thus, only the elect receive saving graces and benefits. Anyone who receives such a “saving” benefit would have to be elect.

But it is equally obvious to anyone who reads the Bible that “save/saving/salvation” words are not used as a theological technical term.

The fact that this is causing confusion is a pretty straightforward indication of rampant Biblical illiteracy in the PCA (see the links later tonight for some anecdotal confirmation). Instead of leading us into Scripture, theological teaching is being used to guard us from Scripture.

(Note: I do not say that the Westminster Standards are used this way; it is pretty obvious that a pop version that extracts a few favorite passages from the standards are all that most people really know.)

A cynical interpretation of the “FV” vote at GA (actually a laudable vote in favor of justification by faith alone, but mistaken in application) would be that it wants continued protection from and ignorance of the Word of Life. However, I am still optimistic that history will show that the will of this branch of the Visible Church is far otherwise.

Some people are fore-ordained to destruction through being kept from hearing the Gospel.  Some are fore-ordained to a much worse version of the same by being graced to hear the Gospel.  Thus, in one sense, the Gospel is not a “saving” message by the stipulated meaning above.  On the other hand, we all speak of the Gospel as an objectively saving message without being the least confused on the issue–and in so doing we follow Scirpture.

The same road leads some to life and others to greater condemnation so that there latter state is worse than their former state.  But the road is, itself, the road of grace and salvation.  Some are condemned because they aren’t given the saving grace of remaining on it.