Posted here.

1. a. We affirm that God has appointed the elect unto glory, and that all those who are elect unto glory, and those only, will be redeemed, justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation (C 3.6).

This is absolutely true and beyond question. But it is also tautological. The only reason that we can say this is because we have, at the outset, defined “redeemed,” “justified,” “adopted,” “sanctified,” etc as ways that can only apply to those predestined to glory. These concepts are useful and necessary, but many of the words are used in Scripture to describe alike those who are appointed unto final glory and those who are not.

Thus, Paul was not being subversive to the doctrines of Westminster when he wrote of unbelieving Israel, “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” (Romans 9.4) or that, “For the unbelieving husband is made holy (“sanctified”) because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband” (1 Cor 7.14).

And surely if Israel can be said to be adopted, so can the visible Church if it is truly “the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” It would not be hard to imagine that, in line with our doctrine, all the great acts of salvation are approximated in the professing Christians who do not inherit glory–which in turn makes their guilt that much worse for neglecting so great a salvation (Heb. 2.3).

1. b. We deny that these saving benefits accrue to members of the visible church simply by baptism.

Again it is absolutely true and beyond question that no saving benefits accrue to anyone (elect or not) simply by baptism. 1. Saving benefits must be received by faith and only by faith. 2. The reprobate can receive no such benefit especially since the restrictive nature of the definitions is brought out: “saving.” By definition those who are not predestined for salvation do not receive “saving benefits.” If they were truly saving then the beneficiaries would inherit glory according to God’s own appointment.

However, this statement seems to assume that the person baptized has already been admitted into the visible Church. This seems to stand in tension with WCF 28.1 (Baptism is “the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church”).

This, I think, is actually important because, without entry into the visible Church, then the “controversial” point that benefits are “conferred” in baptism is rendered more controversial than it actually is. According to our Confession, head for head, everyone baptized receives the common grace of being admitted into the visible Church, which is “the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation”. This is arguably the entire reason there is a controversy right now because some have regarded this point as important. It ought not be silently ignored, or worse, revised–no matter how unintentionally–in a document dealing with the controversy.

Finally, I will also point out that blessing are sealed and offered in the sacraments, including baptism, that the unregenerate are guilty of neglecting and despising. To show one example:

Q. 167. How is baptism to be improved by us?
A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.

Again, the whole reason there is a controversy, in regard to baptism, is because of a perception that, according to Scripture and the Reformed standards, we are supposed to exhort all baptized people to respond to what God has given them in baptism by faith and repentance. While there is disagreement over how this should be articulated or whether it has been done properly, this document passes over the entire issue of what privileges are conferred in baptism. I appreciate and agree with the presbytery’s insistence that none of these benefits that accrue are saving. But if the great benefits of being received into the house and family of God are not acknowledged, then the alleged distance between the so-called “Federal Vision” and Reformed Orthodoxy is made to seem greater because Reformed Orthodoxy is being mutated.

One final note, I see the Presbytery uses the word, “saving” as I often do, and as can easily be Biblically justified, as referring to one’s destiny in resurrection glory and everything that invincibly leads to this goal. That is fine. But since so much confusion seems to be arising over the relation of words to concepts and technical terms, I feel obligated to point out that Paul can use the term for those who will not, in fact, be “saved” in the sense used in this document. God “is the savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (First Timothy 4.10).

1. c. We deny that any who are not elect unto glory have in any manner or sense the saving benefits of justification, adoption, or sanctification.

I repeat, this is all absolutely true because it is tautologically so, as is made explicit by the description of “justification, adoption, or sanctification,” as “saving benefits.” But I’m unsure how helpful it is to make the expansive claims–“in any manner or sense”–when the definition is of justification etc is so restricted. Obviously the Apostle Paul can say that unbelieving Israelites have “adoption” and an unbelieving wife is “sanctified,” without violating this report (Romans 9.4; 1 Cor 7.14). But then who really is the intended target. Would the Apostle Paul, if he were a minister in the PCA, be brought up on charges for saying to the Ephesian elders, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood” (Acts 19.28).

2. a. We affirm that this doctrine of election is highly useful for the glory of God and the comfort of believers (C 3.8).

2. b. We deny that this doctrine of election is of little use or should not be taught in the Church.

3. We deny that election cannot be a part of our assurance.

There is, of course, nothing to disagree with in the affirmations of what the Confession properly teaches in 3.8. What I find strange is how the Confession’s pastoral wisdom, which is, again, arguably directly responsible for the concerns expressed by PCA pastors now being labeled as allegedly “Federal Vision.” To see what I mean, let us consider the paragraph from the Confession:

The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

What is noticeable in this passage is that being assured of one’s election is as much or more at issue than gaining assurance from election. Indeed, while “abundant consolation” is “afford”ed by the doctrine of “the high mystery of predestination” (not “election,” incidentally), that is only listed after “humility” and “diligence.” The first sentence does not state that the doctrine is highly useful for the glory of God and the comfort of believers, but that it requires “special prudence and care” and that one is to gain assurance of one’s election “from the certainty of their effectual vocation [i.e.”calling”] which is done by “yielding obedience” to “the will of God revealed in his Word.” Again, the affirmations are correct, but they are affirmations that the Westminster Divines themselves would only make after giving what they felt was needed direction on pastoral care.

I applaud the report for affirming the claims of the Confession, but it is precisely these pastoral considerations that are left out that are a real source of the whole discussion among Reformed and Presbyterian pastors which has been labeled “Federal Vision.” I don’t understand how simply extracting from the Confession that which is taken for granted by all the parties involved, and skipping anything that has actually provoked our current controversy, can be helpful to the peace and purity of the Church.