A Defense of Reformed Orthodoxy
Against the Romanizing Doctrines of
the New
Auburn Theology (1/5)

By Rev. Brian Schwertley

Part 1 of 5

[Ed. Note: This controversy has been raging for some time; and I had obtained permission from Rev. Schwertley to publish his response shortly after he wrote it. However, I did not publish it earlier as I sensed at that time, that there was little interest on the matter here in Singapore, and very few would, in my opinion, be misled by the New Auburn heresies or deviations, whatever you may call it. Moreover, I was extremely reluctant to implicate at least one of the proponents of the heresy, because I had in the past benefited from his writings. Some of his books are with us, and they are good books too. But in recent days a number of brethren have asked me about the controversy. This prompted me to reassess the impact that the heresies will have, especially as some of the Auburn proponents are outspoken and respectable in many ways; and as far as I know there has been no repentance or recantations but further propagation of the errors in the last 5 years. I can no longer contain. I am as such, publishing this response, so that we may be clear in what we believe, informed of what has been going on and that we may ‘mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom 16:17) —JJ Lim].

 At the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastor’s Conference four speakers; John Barach, Doug Wilson, Steve Schlissel and Steve Wilkins; articulated what they themselves called a new paradigm in theology. These men set forth this new paradigm as an answer to their own perceived problems within Reformed theology as well as the inadequate manner in which they believe Reformed interpreters and theologians have dealt with “problem” passages in Scripture. The main theme of the conference centred on a new way to view the covenant, which they referred to as “the objectivity of the covenant.” In their lectures a number of traditional, confessional Reformed doctrines were rejected and replaced by the novel ideas of the speakers. Some of the standard Reformed doctrines that were rejected or redefined were: the covenant of works, the distinction between the visible and invisible church, the nature of baptism (especially relating to efficacy), the doctrine of perseverance (we are repeatedly told that real believers can fall away), the doctrine of the atonement (the speakers repeatedly separate the ground of salvation from its application in an Arminian manner), justification (sometimes faith is defined in a Romish manner as an obedient or working faith [the Norman Shepherd heresy], at other times perseverance is defined in a manner that makes it either a partial ground of salvation or co-instrument in justification), and assurance (The main answer to problems of assurance [we are told] is baptismal regeneration: “Look to your baptism because you were really saved and united to Christ in your baptism.”)

Because the new paradigm set forth by the Auburn theologians is a radical departure from the Reformed faith and is heretical in many areas, we will briefly examine some of the most perverse areas of their teaching. Not every area will be considered, for that would require a book-length response. Further, some areas such as justification have already been discussed at length. (For example, many excellent articles have been written refuting Norman Shepherd’s heretical view of justification. As far as this author can tell the Auburn doctrine of justification is essentially the same as Shepherd’s. In fact, Shepherd was originally scheduled to speak at the Auburn conference but was replaced by John Barach because he could not attend.) Therefore, this author will not spend time analyzing their view of this topic. One area that will receive a great deal of attention is the Reformed doctrine of the atonement. The Auburn teaching is a repudiation of the classic Reformed formulation of this doctrine. It is our hope and prayer that this brief analysis of their perverse doctrines will inoculate Reformed believers against the Romanizing paradigm of the Auburn four. [1]

The Church in Its Two-fold Character as Visible and Invisible

A number of the false doctrines of the Auburn speakers are related to their rejection of the two-fold distinction of the church as visible and invisible. They must reject the two-fold character of the church because they teach that everyone baptized is regenerated, truly united to Christ and forgiven. The standard Reformed view, that there are people in the church who are never regenerated and never have true saving faith, must be set aside to uphold the Auburn definition of baptism and their doctrine of the objectivity of the covenant. As we defend the traditional Reformed understanding of this doctrine we will interact to some degree with Doug Wilson’s false caricature of the orthodox view.

Before we begin an analysis of the two-fold character of the church it is important to note that some very important doctrines are based on logical inference from Scripture (e.g., the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, the trinity, infant baptism, etc.). This observation is necessary because opponents of the doctrine of the two-fold character of the church will often point out that the terms visible and invisible are not found in the Bible and thus are an artificial construct of the Protestant Reformers. It is often then asserted that the Bible only speaks of the church as visible, local and particular. While the choice of the terms visible and invisible may be confusing to some, the two-fold distinction they represent is taught in God’s word and is vital for understanding Christ’s church. Indeed, without this distinction, many teachings of the Bible appear contradictory and incomprehensible. Therefore, as we compare Scripture to Scripture and analyze the nature of the church in relation to other doctrines that help define the church, we will see that the Reformed teaching regarding the two-fold nature of the church is necessary logically, theologically and exegetically. One can replace the terms visible and invisible; however, the ideas they represent cannot be replaced without disastrous theological consequences.

Perhaps the most succinct and the best statement of the church as invisible and visible is found in the Westminster Standards. Chapter 25, “Of the Church,” states:

“The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (sections 1, 2).

Before we proceed with more detailed considerations regarding the two-fold aspect of the church, some common misconceptions regarding this teaching need to be addressed. One common misconception of the church as visible and invisible is that this doctrine teaches that there are two separate churches. For example, Doug Wilson says: “But we also know from our Bibles that there is only one church, one Lord, one faith, one baptism. So we’ve got two churches with two different rosters of names.... Now if you’ve got two churches existing at the same time with different names on their membership rolls, the question that comes up, and it may not come up consciously, but the question is: which one is the real church?” (Doug Wilson, “Visible and Invisible Church Revisited,” tape 2). This false caricature of the Reformed doctrine of the church as visible and invisible ignores the fact that Reformed theologians emphasize that this distinction does not mean that God has two separate churches. [2]

Indeed, they assert that Jehovah has founded one church, that Jesus has only one bride, people, church, or body. Our Lord does not have two churches but only one. The terms “invisible” and “visible” are used to describe two distinct aspects of the one church; or, to put it another way, the church is considered from two different perspectives. These different aspects or perspectives will be considered in a moment.

Another false conception of the visible-invisible distinction is that they represent two completely separate categories. Note the false caricature of the two-fold distinction by Doug Wilson. He says: “When we say visible and invisible, we divide into categories, visible is down here [i.e., on earth] and invisible is an ethereal church in the heavenlies [i.e., in heaven]. We create an ontological [i.e., self-contained or totally separate] division between visible down here and invisible in heaven” (“Visible and Invisible Church Revisited,” tape 2). Wilson goes on to accuse the confessional view of the two-fold aspect of the church as being Hellenistic [i.e., based on a Greek philosophical mind-set], Platonic [i.e., that which is of the earth is separate and inferior to that which is heavenly and spiritual] and Gnostic. In context it appears that Wilson is accusing the classic Protestant position of being against history, against the church working in time and on earth for godly dominion. Aside from the fact that Wilson is using the word “Gnostic” improperly, the idea that the Reformers, Puritans and early Presbyterians were Gnostic or against progressive sanctification is completely untrue.

The confessional position of the church as invisible and visible is not that there are two separate air tight categories with one group on heaven and another on earth. On the contrary, there is a great overlap between both categories. All genuine believers are members of the invisible church whether they are living in heaven or on earth, whether they are alive or dead (i.e., have died physically). Not all professing Christians, however, who are members of the visible church, are members of the invisible church. Some people who make a profession of faith and are baptized are hypocrites. Such people do not truly believe in Christ (thus are never truly united to Him by faith) and are not part of the invisible church. This reality will receive further elucidation below.

The term invisible as defined by the Reformed symbols and theologians does not mean that some Christians are invisible like ghosts floating around in the spirit realm. It refers to the fact that the invisible church cannot be fully discovered, distinguished or discerned by the eyes of men, by empirical means. There are a number of reasons why this statement cannot be denied. (a) No one has the ability to look into the human heart and see if a person is truly united to Christ and regenerated by the Holy Spirit. That reality is the reason that, historically, Presbyterian churches have admitted members upon a credible profession of faith. (b) The inward, effectual calling of the Spirit and the application of redemption to the human soul are all spiritual, unseen events. Further, the Holy Spirit gives genuine saving faith only to the elect. The counterfeit faith of unregenerate professors of religion often is indiscernible to mere mortals. We can only perceive outward signs, statements and actions. No person has the ability to determine or observe the whole body of God’s elect irrespective of time (i.e., throughout human history prior to the last judgment) or place (i.e., there are many real believers in the world of which we are not aware). Williamson writes:

“It is invisible to us because it has extension in both time and space. It reaches from one end of the earth to the other, and from the beginning to the end of the age. But it is invisible only to us. It is not invisible to God. He, who infallibly discerns the hearts of men, knows them that are his. “The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal: ‘the Lord knoweth them that are his’ (2 Tim. 2:19).”[3]

Jesus prayed for the invisible church; the elect present and not yet born in John 17.


“Christ is speaking of a special company which had been given to Him. The reference, then, is to the sovereign election of God, whereby He chose a definite number to be His ‘peculiar people’; His in a peculiar or special way. These are eternally His: ‘chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world’ (Eph. 1:4); and by the immutability of His purpose of grace (Rom 11:29), they are always His.”[4]

The visible church is designated “visible” because it is discernible by the senses, by empirical means. It consists of everyone who professes the true religion along with their children. Because men do not have the ability to see into the minds of men and read the human heart, anyone who professes Jesus Christ in a credible manner (i.e., he has a knowledge of the gospel, he is orthodox in doctrine, he professes faith in Christ and repentance toward God, he is not, as far as anyone is aware, committing habitual or scandalous sins) is allowed to join the church along with his children. In the visible church there are genuine believers who are truly united to Christ and false professors or hypocrites who only taste of heavenly gifts but do not really partake of the Savior. Their relationship to Him is only outward. “On this account the church is compared to a floor, in which there is not only wheat but also chaff (Mt 3:12); to a field, where tares as well as good seed are sown (Mt 13:24, 25); to a net, which gathers bad fish together with the good (v. 47); to a great house, in which are vessels of every kind some to honour and some to dishonor (2 Tim 2:20).”[5] People who are members of the visible church yet who never truly believe in Christ receive the outward privileges of membership (fellowship, the word, the sacraments and the guidance of church government), but are never regenerated, saved, forgiven, united to Christ and spiritually sanctified. The blood of Jesus never washes away their sins.

The visible church is set apart from the world by profession as well as its external government, discipline, and ordinances (e.g., the preached word and the sacraments). The members of the visible church have obeyed the outward call of the gospel, professing Christ, submitting to baptism and placing themselves under the preaching and authority of the local church. All such persons who obey the outward call of the gospel place themselves in covenant with God. They have separated themselves from the world and at least outwardly enjoy the privileges of being members of the visible church (e.g., the teaching of the word, godly guidance, the fellowship of the saints, etc.). While in a certain sense those who outwardly profess the truth participate in an external covenant with real responsibilities and privileges, it does not mean and theologically cannot mean that they truly participate in the saving merits of Christ. Such persons (for a time) are in the covenant but are never genuinely of the covenant. They participate in the covenant externally as professors of the true religion, but they never participate in the covenant of grace which flows from the eternal covenant of redemption. The Auburn theologians speak of the objectivity or reality of the covenant in radically different terms than Reformed theologians. Apparently, the Auburn speakers do not recognize the reality of the covenant if salvation or forgiveness by the blood of Christ is not involved. This view is related to their doctrine of baptismal regeneration and their idea that real believers can apostatize (these views are dealt with below).


It needs to be recognized that although God deals with the visible church as one church, as one people of God, the external administration of the church with the preaching of the word, the ordinances and discipline in the present and in the long run (e.g., after the final judgement, in the eternal state) only truly benefit the invisible church or the elect. While outward professors receive temporary benefits resulting from intellectual insights from the word, pressure to conform to God’s law, the outward influence from a society of family-oriented, ethical people, etc., they receive greater damnation on the day of judgment for spurning the great light to which they were exposed under continual gospel preaching. The Auburn teaching that everyone baptized who is in the (visible) church is loved, saved, forgiven and has the Holy Spirit,[6] even if he or she later rejects Jesus and goes to hell, is unbiblical and exegetically and theologically impossible (as we shall see in a moment).

Before we turn our attention to the Auburn perversion of the doctrine of the atonement, let us examine a few passages of Scripture that strongly support the traditional view of the church as visible and invisible. These passages disprove the Auburn teaching that everyone baptized is truly united to Christ and thus receives the “full benefits of salvation.” Indeed, these passages are incomprehensible apart from the confessional teaching regarding the two-fold aspect of the church.

(a) 1 John 2:19-20—“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.”

In this passage John discusses certain persons who at one time had professed apostolic doctrine and were members of the church. According to the Auburn paradigm these people were truly united to Christ; their sins were forgiven and they were just as much true members of the church as anyone. As baptized members of the church (we are told) these people were the elect of God.[7] But in truth, these people apostatized; that is, they abandoned the form of sound doctrine taught to them by the apostles and their associates and adopted a form of Gnosticism. As a result they left the church, probably to associate with like-minded heretical anti-christs.

Note the Spirit-inspired analysis of the apostle John regarding this all too common situation. John says, “they were not of us.” That is, they were never genuine members of the church. While it is true that they were baptized and professed the true religion, they were never united to Christ or saved. They were chaff on the same floor as wheat (Mt 3:12), or tares among the wheat (Mt 13:24-25). They were members of the visible church but never of the invisible church. In this context John uses the term “us” (emon) in the sense of true Christians. The apostle makes two observations, both of which totally contradict the Auburn teaching.[8] First, he says that true Christians or members of the invisible church cannot apostatize: “for if they were of us [i.e., true believers], they would have continued with us.” The fact that these professing Christians departed from the church is empirical proof that they were never true Christians. “They went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.” “The meaning here is that secession proves a want of fundamental union from the rest.”[9] Second, John says that true believers have received the Holy Spirit from Christ which secures them against apostasy or desertion: “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.” True believers or members of the invisible church cannot fall away because they are baptized with the Holy Spirit and thus permanently abide in Christ (see 1 Jn 2:27; 5:4). Our Lord concurs: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand” (Jn 10:27-28).

1 Jn. 2:19-20 teaches: (1) the church is composed of true and false believers; and (2) the doctrine of perseverance. True Christians are united to Christ by the Holy Spirit and can never apostatize while those who are not baptized in the Spirit and not united to the Savior can. “Their presence in the visible church was temporary, for they failed in their perseverance. If they had been members of the invisible church, they would have remained with the body of believers.”[10]

(b) Matthew 7:21-23—“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”

After warning His disciples of the danger of false prophets, our Lord warns them of the consequences of a false profession of religion. He describes people who profess Christ; who acknowledge His Lordship; who are even engaged in some type of Christian service; yet who never had a saving relationship to Jesus. These people were obviously members of the visible church. But, they were never truly united to the Lord or saved; they were never members of the invisible church.

This section of Scripture contradicts Arminianism, which teaches that if people accept Jesus as Savior, they are truly saved but can later reject the faith and fall away. It also explicitly contradicts the Auburn teaching that people who profess Christ and are baptized are really united to Him, loved by Him and forgiven by Him even if they are not among the elect (individually) and thus eventually fall away.[11] Note, Jesus says to all false professors of religion on the day of judgment, “I never knew you.” Since God is omniscient, the word “knew” in this context does not refer to a mere intellectual knowledge (e.g., in John’s gospel see: 1:47, 49; 2:24, 25; 21:17). Rather the term “knew” in this passage is used in the Hebraic sense of love, acknowledgment, friendship, intimate fellowship. Our Lord says that everyone in the visible church who is not really saved (i.e., they do not have true saving faith and the works that demonstrate the reality of that faith.) never, ever (i.e., for even a single moment) had a relationship or vital union with Him. There is no other way that the Saviors’ words can be interpreted without doing violence to the text of Scripture. Although Jesus’ words are in complete harmony with the classic Protestant distinction between the visible and invisible church, they cannot be harmonized with the new Auburn theological innovations. The Auburn “theologians” must either abandon their position or assert that the Bible can teach doctrines that totally contradict one another.

(c) Romans 9:6: “But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel.”

In the epistle to the Romans, Paul explicitly recognized the two-fold aspect of the church when he explains why the majority of the old covenant people of God did not embrace their Messiah.

In order to properly understand Romans 9:6 we briefly need to consider the context. In Romans chapter 8 Paul elaborates on the major theme that all those who are in Christ shall never be condemned. Believers are delivered from the law by Jesus’ death. They are freed from the pollution of sin by the indwelling power of the Spirit. The Spirit’s power also guarantees a believer’s resurrection and glorification. Christians have their assurance rooted in their union with Christ. There also is the comfort of the intercession of the Holy Spirit. Toward the end of the chapter the safety and assurance of believers is founded upon God’s electing love from eternity. Here the apostle discusses the unbreakable chain of the order of salvation (ordo salutis) and the fact that “if God is for us, who can be against us?”

In chapter 9, as Paul turns his attention to the design of God in reference to Jews and Gentiles, he needs to answer the question: “What about Israel?” If election and perseverance are rooted in the eternal-unchanging love of God, how can the mass apostasy of the Jewish people be explained? They were God’s people, the church, who received the word, the promises, the sacraments and ordinances. Does not God’s rejection of the Jewish nation contradict the promises to Abraham and the perseverance promised in chapter 8? No, absolutely not! The apostle explains that it is to true Israel (i.e., the elect or the invisible church) that the promises are made. It is to these people only that God’s eternal electing love is directed. There is national election; the nation of Israel or the visible church; and within Israel, the visible church, there is true Israel; the invisible church. The Jews who did not reject the Messiah are “a remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom 11:5).

According to the Auburn theological scheme every one who is baptized is truly united to Christ, loved by Him and has his sins forgiven. The people who are united to Christ, who are forgiven by Jesus’ blood can (we are told) really fall away and be lost. The major deciding issue regarding salvation in their system is whether or not a baptized person perseveres in the covenant.[12] Note that the apostle Paul completely rejects the Auburn paradigm.

For Paul there is true Israel (the elect, the invisible church, the remnant) within national Israel (the visible church). In other words the elect or the invisible church is hidden in the visible church. Further, when describing why the church is composed of true Israel (i.e., real believers) and false Israel (i.e., hypocrites) the apostle turns our attention to the doctrine of election. If the Auburn theology were scriptural we would expect Paul to discuss how God was in intimate union with all circumcised Jews, that God really loved them all, but that many simply did not persevere. Instead, Paul discusses the twin brothers Jacob and Esau. These twins were conceived at the same moment and were born only minutes apart. Both were covenant children born of the patriarch Isaac. Both received circumcision and were part of the visible church; the covenant people of God. Since Esau was circumcised does Paul argue that he was loved and forgiven by God? No. God hated Esau before he was even born (Rom 9:11-13). Although Esau was a circumcised member of the visible church, he was never united to Christ, loved by God or forgiven. Instead, he was a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction (Rom 9:22). Esau’s circumcision was never efficacious because he was never regenerated and given the gift of saving faith. As Paul says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation” (Gal 6:15).

(d) Another section of Scripture which totally disproves the Auburn paradigm is 2 Peter 2. This chapter describes men who at one time were baptized, members in good standing and who had even become teachers. According to the Auburn theologians these men who were baptized were loved by Christ, their sins were forgiven and they even had received an interior special work of grace by the Holy Spirit.[13] Peter, however, does not say that they were loved or forgiven but that they for a time “escaped the pollutions of the world” (2 Pet 2:20). That is, they had an external reformation of behavior based on an intellectual knowledge of the word. Peter makes it crystal clear that these men were not united to Christ, regenerated, forgiven or saved because he says their natures were never, ever truly changed. He says, “But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: ‘A dog returns to his own vomit,’ and, ‘a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire’” (2 Pet 2:22). A dog and a pig act according to their own nature. One can wash a pig and make it clean, but a pig is a pig. It will return to wallowing in the mud—in disgusting filth—because that is what pigs do. The apostle is saying that people who apostatize, who return to their former lifestyle, never had an interior work of the Holy Spirit. They were never regenerated and united to Christ. Their natures were never changed. The apostle apparently hadn’t listened to Steve Wilkins and his comrades and learned that baptism is always efficacious. The apostle is, in fact, teaching that if we could look at the hearts of those who apostatized, “we would discover that at no time were they ever activated by a true love of God. They were all this while goats, and not sheep, ravening wolves, and not gentle lambs.”[14]  In other words the visible church contains not only real believers but also unsaved hypocrites.

To be continued…


[1] Keep in mind that when we discuss the Auburn paradigm we are analyzing the views of the four different pastors. This means that: (a) The views of each one may not totally reflect the views of the other speakers. (b) Some speakers may be more guarded or careful in their statements than others. (c) Some speakers are more organized and systematic than others. Having said this, a careful reading of the separate lectures reveals a very strong similarity of thought on the part of each speaker. Further, this author is unaware of any of the separate speakers repudiating any of the comments made by the other speakers. In fact, Doug Wilson endorses a lecture by John Barach that contains serious theological perversions. It is very likely that these speakers were chosen for the pastor’s conference precisely because they all had adopted similar theological views. Also, it is noteworthy that the same speakers came together for the Auburn Pastor’s Conference in 2003 to clarify their positions. At the 2003 conference they did not repudiate any of their false doctrines but rather arrogantly defended their Romanizing innovations.

[2] Reformed theologians who emphasize or teach this point are: Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith (Edmonton, AB, Can.: Still Waters Revival Books, n. d., [1845]), 261. James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1969 [1869]), 1:29. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1997), 3:8ff. A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1958 [1869]), 310ff. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), 565-566. G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964), 187-189. Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 665ff.

[3] G. I. Williamson, The Confession of Faith, 187. Emphasis added.

[4] Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975 [1945]), 3:11.

[5] Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith, 263.

[6] “How could you know you are in Him? God gave you the seal and sign of baptism. He gave you that rite that brought you into Christ and you can look and you can trust that God’s promises are objective” (John Barach, “Covenant and Election,” tape 6). “...some persons, not destined for final salvation, will be drawn to Christ and His people only for a time. These, for a season, enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ’s cross and applied to them by the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament.... Saul received the same initial covenantal grace that David, Gideon, and other men who persevered in faith received, but he did not receive the gift of perseverance.... In one sense, all those in the covenant are ‘saved.’ They have been delivered out of the world and brought into the glorious new creation of Christ, but not all will persevere in that ‘salvation’ (Summary Statement of the Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church’s Position on the Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation, emphasis added).

[7] “Traditionally, the Reformed have said, we have to view our children as presumptively elect or presumptively regenerate. And therefore, Christian, if we are willing to take the Scriptures at face value, there is no presumption necessary. Just take the Bible. And this is true, of course, because by the baptism, by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from his sin in death...so are we” (Steve Wilkins, “Halfway Covenant,” tape 11).

[8] For example John Barach says: “Every baptized person is in covenant with God and is in union then with Christ and with the triune God. The Bible doesn’t know about a distinction between being internally in the covenant; really in the covenant, and being only externally in the covenant, just being in the sphere of the covenant. The Bible speaks about the reality, efficacy, of baptism. Every baptized person is in Christ and therefore shares in His new life.... We need to say [to every baptized person] Jesus died for you personally and we mean it, to them, head for head, everyone of them” (“Covenant and History,” tape 3).

[9] Alfred Plummer, The Epistles of St. John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980 [1886]), 58.

[10] Simon J. Kistemaker, James and I-III John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 277.

[11] “Baptism means that the one baptized has a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, the one baptized has been grafted into Christ, he has the sign and seal of regeneration, forgiveness of sins, and the obligation to walk in newness of life” (Doug Wilson, Reformed Is Not Enough [Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2002], 103).

[12] “...some persons, not destined for final salvation, will be drawn to Christ and His people only for a time. These, for a season, enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ’s cross and applied to them by the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament.... Saul received the same initial covenantal grace that David, Gideon, and other men who persevered in faith received, but he did not receive the gift of perseverance.... In one sense, all those in the covenant are ‘saved.’ They have been delivered out of the world and brought into the glorious new creation of Christ, but not all will persevere in that ‘salvation’ (Summary Statement of the Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church’s Position on the Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation, emphasis added).

[13] “The Bible teaches us that baptism unites us [Wilkins believes that baptism is efficacious to everyone baptized] to Christ and by his, and to his body the power of the spirit. By one spirit we were all baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, we’ve all been made to drink of one Spirit. Paul says that at baptism you are clothed with Christ Jesus. For as many of you as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. Union with Christ is a real, vital blessed union. The clothes make the man. With our union with Christ, we have all spiritual blessings. Union with Christ is union with the church, his body” (Steve Wilkins, “Halfway Covenant,” tape 11).

[14] Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979 [1932]), 192.