Featured Temporal Salvation

Bogus concept...from a former Primitive Baptist. Since 99% of Primitive Baptists deny Absolute Predestination, they came up with this idea to cover all those "disobedient children of God" who do not hear/believe the gospel.

 

By "temporal salvation" I take it that the term means the immediate salvation from harm such as being saved from shipwreck, or from danger, or perhaps being lost in nature.

Such was most often the prayers of the ancients.

The snakes were biting and people were dying. A pole with the serpent was raised and all that looked lived. Did that mean that they were saved eternally? Nope.

The messengers knocked on the door and told the occupants to pack up and leave right away. God was bringing judgment upon the city and the neighboring city. Did that mean the folks were eternally saved? Nope.

The prophet was thrown over the ship rail into the sea, the sea became calm, were the sailors eternally saved? Nope.

The men in the boat had struggled through the night, and one came walking on the water. Were the occupants eternally saved? Nope.

There is a basic difference between the immediacy of being saved in the physical, mental, emotional aspects in which resolution resolves some great difficulty and that which the Word and Holy Spirit bring to those God chooses for eternal salvation.

So, of course, temporal salvation is biblical. But it is also different then eternal salvation brought by God.

Almost forgot.

All believers experience without exception BOTH temporal and eternal salvation. Believers are guaranteed to "survive" any temporal problem even if such brings death which would engage the eternal salvation.

Trying to remember that Scripture in which it is written, "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death..."


All unbelievers may at times experience temporal salvation, but not always, and most certainly should fear death.

 

The issue is not whether we will experience "temporal salvation" or deliverance in this life, the issue is that Primitive Baptists in general will apply that to all passages in the Scriptures that have anything to do with salvation. For example, "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Acts 16:31) They claim that the Philippian jailor experienced a "temporal salvation" because he believed, but it had nothing to do with his being saved eternally. They claim that even if faith were to be necessary for the elect being saved eternally it would be of works and not grace.

 

Sounds like some posts on the BB.

Do they not see all believers as being both temporally and eternally saved when one is born again?

 

According to them when one is born again, he has the ability to believe. However, he may never hear the gospel or not believe due to any number of reasons that men, even unregenerate men, do not believe the gospel. It is basically an amalgamation of Arminian and Calvinist theology. For example, the "certain ruler" in Luke 18:18-27. It says that Jesus loved him, but we know that he was very sorrowful when Jesus told him to sell all that he had and give it to the poor. Matthew 19:22 says that "he went away sorrowful." Because of their commitment to Calvinist theology (Jesus does not love anyone except the elect), this man was definitely one of God's elect. He was either born again but not ready to become a disciple or not yet born again...I heard it both ways when I was with them. However, the majority I heard claimed that he was born again. For them, being born again does not mean the elect will hear/obey the gospel. In other words, they are basically Arminian after being born again. Even if your inclination to believe/obey the gospel is stronger than your inclination to disbelieve/disobey, it's still your choice at that point. Because they reject Absolute Predestination, they have to leave room for chance. There are those who believe in Absolute Predestination (only about 10%), but even they are disagreed whether all the elect will hear/obey the gospel. I visited the "Absoluter" churches a few times. Some would allow me to preach, but others would not. They are definitely Hypercalvinistic.

"If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. " (Isaiah 1:19, 20)

They love these verses. If you hear the gospel, you will be blessed and experience "salvation" in this life. Otherwise, you will not. However, that will not affect your "eternal salvation" one way or the other. I was an ordained elder, but I finally saw that such a view was not compatible with what the Scriptures taught. I must admit, though, funerals were always easy.

 

Interesting presentation.

I don't think they would get along very well with my own views concerning the Doctrines of Grace.

 

They would disagree with the I and the P. They believe that God will "call" his elect, i.e. they will all be born again, but that is something that God does by means of the Holy Spirit without the preaching of the gospel. They would also vehemently deny that the saints will necessarily persevere to the end. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Otherwise, they would agree.

 

Which, at times, amounts to nothing, The claim of reconciling tensions is a weak claim at best as it can be done by any consistent mindset even when the premise of that mindset is wrong. Cals do it all the time. In the end this article is a lot of over thinking something.

 

Two verses came to mind when the article put forth the difference of preservation and perseverance as it relates to the gospel.

James said, "Faith without works is dead..."

Paul said, "Without faith it is impossible to pleaseGod ..."

Perseverance is not removable from the Gospel just as preservation is not.

Removing either, imo, weakens the strength of the Scripture teaching of the gospel.

 

The typical thinking is perseverance.

However, I typically have a stuttering ending with two "P's" not leaving out one or the other unless they are addressed separately.

Hebrews 12:7, 2 Timothy 4:5, 2 Corinthians 6:4,... which gives perseverance as an attribute of believers should not regularly be separated from 1 Corinthians 1:8, Romans 8 , Jude 1:24,... which gives preservation which is of the Lord's authority unless the discussion topic obliges that separation.

Characteristic to me is to present comparisons and contrasts.

So, in contrast to the "T" is the "P" with the "U, L, I" forming that bridge between them. When one is presenting the gospel, there is a natural linear progression in which the final estate of the believer resides in both the Grace of God's handiwork and that also obliges that believer to "walk worthy of His love."

One is completely of their own choice and rebellion without hope; yet, by the sovereign authority of God, in giving the endowment of belief that compels and completes the salvation, it is then that the believer is both secure forever in God and given purpose of mission in which the world will, in the most ugly manner, rebuke.

 

I agree, however, as James would contend, the works are integral to the faith. One is not separated from the other.

True faith results in works.

Works does not result in true faith.

Hence, when I share the gospel, I present the view of the tulip (modified -L) with the view of the P being two in a pod.

 

According to them, those who backslide, if they are of God's elect, God will chasten them, but there is no guarantee that they will repent.

 

They would definitely use the term "preservation." They would reject being labeled "Calvinists," as did I when I was Primitive Baptist, but I only intended it as an easy way of designation.