Temporal Salvation

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have been grappling with understanding Temporal Salvation for a while when I found this article that appears quite clear but would like to hear other peoples interpretations. Thanks!

http://www.sovgrace.net/theological...emporal-salvation-a-bogus-or-biblical-concept

 

[T Alan]

I have been grappling with understanding Temporal Salvation for a while when I found this article that appears quite clear but would like to hear other peoples interpretations. Thanks!

http://www.sovgrace.net/theological...emporal-salvation-a-bogus-or-biblical-concept

Began reading. Interesting article. I will hopefully finish it this evening. I must go into the world now and solve tangible problems. I will be back "On" tonight to solve BB's, hence the "Temporal Salvation" problems.

Sincerely,
"ThreadKiller".

 

[Yeshua1]

I have been grappling with understanding Temporal Salvation for a while when I found this article that appears quite clear but would like to hear other peoples interpretations. Thanks!

http://www.sovgrace.net/theological...emporal-salvation-a-bogus-or-biblical-concept

The problem with this view is that it does not reconcile with the NT, as those scriptures clearly yeach us that while God provided for a certain salvation unto all of his elect in and by the death of Christ for their sins, each one of them still MUST appopiate it/receive it thru faith in their lives!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The problem with this view is that it does not reconcile with the NT, as those scriptures clearly yeach us that while God provided for a certain salvation unto all of his elect in and by the death of Christ for their sins, each one of them still MUST appopiate it/receive it thru faith in their lives!

Yeshua, Friend & Brother, do me this favor, please read it in detail, think about it for a while & then we will discuss. Thanks

 

[T Alan]

Well written argument. I find it valid. I will enjoy following this thread and reading any arguments against the article. (Not against a "Strawman" of the argument presented but the article as written)

 

[JonC]

I have been grappling with understanding Temporal Salvation for a while when I found this article that appears quite clear but would like to hear other peoples interpretations. Thanks!

http://www.sovgrace.net/theological...emporal-salvation-a-bogus-or-biblical-concept

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.

 

[T Alan]

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.

It does necessitate one's understanding that the death of Christ was efficacious for the purpose it was intended; Propitiation. And that Christ's cry from the cross was true. "It is Finished" Tetelestai in the Greek (The debt has been paid). No more is needed for Eternal Salvation it has been achieved by Christ. It "IS" Finished!

 

[JonC]

It does necessitate one's understanding that the death of Christ was efficacious for the purpose it was intended; Propitiation. And that Christ's cry from the cross was true. "It is Finished" Tetelestai in the Greek (The debt has been paid). No more is needed for Eternal Salvation it has been achieved by Christ. It "IS" Finished!

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.

 

[T Alan]

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.

The Atonement by Christ for the sin of His people view, is hardly "one dimensional".

 

[JonC]

The Atonement by Christ for the sin of His people view, is hardly "one dimensional".

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).

 

[Revmitchell]

“Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world…” Galatians 1:4

Stretch your mental muscles for a moment. Is there a difference between reality and a person’s perception of that reality? If I fail to perceive the reality, does my subjective failure to understand what is real affect whether or not it is real?

Let me be a little more specific. Does the objective fact of redemption by Christ depend on man’s subjective perception or understanding of that fact? If so, then wouldn’t it be true that perception determines reality?

The Bible teaches both that God has redeemed sinners and that He has revealed redemption in the gospel (Eph. 1:7-8). My question is, “Does a person’s ability to understand the message of the gospel determine whether or not he is really redeemed? Does perception determine reality?”

I maintain that the gospel is a declaration of something that is a reality. By its very nature, the gospel dispenses information—indeed, “good” news of the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. I insist, therefore, that the gospel and man’s subjective response to it is not God’s vehicle for making salvation an objective reality. Christ’s death alone is the means of redemption. Through His finished work on the cross, redemption has been accomplished for all of the elect. If I am correct that perception does not determine reality, then what is God’s purpose in revealing the fact of redemption in the gospel, if it is not to make salvation a reality? His purpose in reporting the good news of redemption accomplished is to call upon those He has redeemed to respond in grateful and believing obedience so that He might be glorified even now. In other words, the gospel informs the mind of the objective fact of redemption so that the believer may render the worship and service to God in this present life that He so justly deserves. Yes, the true gospel does indeed “save” the believer, but this “deliverance” does not have eternal consequence. It is a deliverance, as the Galatians 1:4 says, “from this present evil world.” In no uncertain terms, Galatians 1:4 teaches that there is not only an eternal but also a present, or if you please, a temporal, benefit in the cross of Christ.]

This is the first part of the op. After reading the entire thing ( time I will never get back) it is apparent that everything after this is nothing but the authors bloviating thinking he is saying something. Even the quoted part here is a bit clumsy.

Having said that, his entire promise lives or dies based on this quoted part alone. It is my position that his entire thought here can be undermined by one single passage of scripture.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

 

[righteousdude2]

Sorry for the wrong post on the wrong thread!

 

[Dr. Bob]

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:

 

[Deacon]

Looks interesting but right off the bat I'll comment that the text size is way too tiny [and unwilling to resize] for my eyes.
I'll have to transfer the article into another format.

Some of the terms used are unfamiliar... e.g. 'time salvation'

Rob

 

[kyredneck]

.... It is my position that his entire thought here can be undermined by one single passage of scripture.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

All those that 'received him' v 12 were already children of God born from above:

13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Verse 12 pertains to His children obeying the gospel and maturing to sons, not unlike:

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
15 For ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: Ro 8

Your premise from Jn 1:12-13 is that one chooses 'of their own will' to be born 'not of their own will'?

Now THAT'S bloviating.

 

[JonC]

You're right, poor wording on my part.

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

Well Jon, I have allot of questions & concerns myself about this particular doctrine but in the overall I can see some practicality in Temporal Salvation that is not found amongst other practicing religious societies....the Calvinists (who Im probably am closest to ) come to mind. Ya gotta remember that I am only a few years a Regenerated Christian so I am delving into everything in order to learn.....so the opinions of anyone that is willing to read through Brother Gowens article & discuss it is welcome..... however I must say that Gowens is considered a scholar amongst many "Old School" types so please be fair & balanced in your critique. Thanks

 

[JonC]

Well Jon, I have allot of questions & concerns myself about this particular doctrine but in the overall I can see some practicality in Temporal Salvation that is not found amongst other practicing religious societies....the Calvinists (who Im probably am closest to ) come to mind. Ya gotta remember that I am only a few years a Regenerated Christian so I am delving into everything in order to learn.....so the opinions of anyone that is willing to read through Brother Gowens article & discuss it is welcome..... however I must say that Gowens is considered a scholar amongst many "Old School" types so please be fair & balanced in your critique. Thanks

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).

 

[Revmitchell]

All those that 'received him' v 12 were already children of God born from above:

That is not what the passage says. It is clear that becoming the Sons of God comes after believing.

Your premise from Jn 1:12-13 is that one chooses 'of their own will' to be born 'not of their own will'?

I never said that. In fact you are conflating issues here. The only thing I a addressing is when one becomes children of God not how the children of God come to believe.

 

[kyredneck]

That is not what the passage says. It is clear that becoming the Sons of God comes after believing.

No, it is precisely what the passage is saying. The term 'sons of God' is used in contrast to 'children of God'. Receiving Christ, belief and obedience of the gospel, gives them the potential to grow from children of God to becoming sons of God. 'Sons of God' denotes maturity in this context.

I never said that. In fact you are conflating issues here. The only thing I a addressing is when one becomes children of God not how the children of God come to believe.

No, it is precisely what you are saying, that man 'by his own will' (v 12) chooses to be born 'not of his own will' (v 13).

Verse 13 is a threefold denial of any involvement on the part of man in regeneration. Man is absolutely totally passive in regeneration.

Verse 12 pertains to 'temporal salvation', in which man is an active participant. Verse 13 pertains to 'eternal salvation' in which man is totally passive.