Featured Temporal Salvation

What I understand the author to be saying, at a basic level (my understanding, not the author's view), is that we are not “saved” when we come to a faith in Christ but this faith is a realization of a work already accomplished. When Christ died He effected and achieved that salvation for us (for those being saved). Faith is the evidence of Christ’s imputed righteousness, not the means by which we are saved.

His use of “temporal salvation” is, if I understand correctly, not far removed in principle from what has been traditionally described as a "past, present, and future" aspect of salvation...except that here it is not necessarily the same idea of salvation. Here the past was salvation achieved at the death of Christ, with present salvation being that deliverance from this world (the revelation that one is actually saved and reconciled to God) and the ability to truly worship God because of the gospel (it’s saving message…not eternal salvation but deliverance). Salvation then, as a result of faith, has no eternal consequence but indicates the salvation of eternal consequence already achieved.

I think that the argument is well presented, but one would have to hold certain presuppositions (which I don’t) to consider it valid (primarily, that through Christ’s finished work on the Cross, redemption has been accomplished for all of the elect). For those who view God’s plan of redemption as process (not complete in Christ’s death alone) and salvation actually occurring through an ongoing process/mission of reconciliation (as opposed to individual revelation, or awareness, of a saved status) the author’s thesis simply does not fit. While the author may correctly say that this theory is not restricted to a Primitive Baptist grid, it is restricted to a grid similar (at a minimum) to a view of Christ’s death accomplishing salvation in and of itself.

This is, of course, if I understand the author correctly.

 

I am sure that all here believe Jesus’ cry from the cross, “It is Finished,” was true. Whether or not that definitely finished work, that propitiation itself, effected and achieved that salvation for individuals is an entirely different issue. There are some, myself included, who view redemption as God’s plan of reconciliation which includes, but is not only, Christ’s death. My point was not to demean Primitive Baptists or others who hold a different view of the Atonement, but to point out that the article is dependent on precisely that one dimensional view of Christ’s death. This is why I cannot agree with the article. I do believe the article well written, although perhaps more narrow in scope than indicated.

 

You're right, poor wording on my part. What I mean is that there are some who believe when Christ died on the cross the elect were effectively saved and salvation was accomplished apart from faith (to keep it simple). Others view the Atonement as God's plan of redemption, but not the death of Christ in and of itself God's complete plan. Instead, they believe that we are saved (salvation with eternal consequences) by grace through faith (and hold what I believe a more biblical view).

 

This is deeper into theology than many discussions and moved to "theology" forum. I will chime in when I have time to truly evaluate the article.

:thumbsup:

 

Again...my mistake. After re-reading the article a couple of times, the authors view of the Atonement is one dimensional. He may have various ideas or themes about the death of Christ, but that death serves one purpose which is to effect salvation to the elect in and of itself. I'll have to stick with my original comment. But Primitive Baptists will probably identify with the article more than I.

 

It is practical. I hope I am being fair to the author. For me, there are other issues that prevent my acceptance of the doctrine. One is a PB understanding of Christ's death (the author assumes an understanding which I reject, but I am probably not his intended audience). So I have obstacles at the onset (and theological differences can also mean I do not fully understand the impact of the article).