A Review of Elder Michael Gowens’ Temporal Salvation: A Bogus or Biblical Concept?

Image from Pixabay

Is gospel faith necessary for eternal salvation?  Most current Primitive Baptists would say no.  I say “current” because, as far as I can tell, it is impossible to find any PB who taught this before the end of the 19th century, and certainly not before 1860.  However, modern PBs teach that there are no eternal consequences to gospel faith, only temporal ones.  Depending on who is teaching it, it may be said that gospel faith will always accompany the eternal salvation of the elect, but just that it is not necessary for it.  Though I don’t agree with the second part of that statement, I can at least understand it and sympathize with it to some extent.  Others, however, have taken this to its logical conclusion: that not only is gospel faith not necessary, but in many cases the elect may never even have faith this side of heaven.  Worse still, some will argue that this is not only the case in certain exceptions, like infants, but that even people who have heard the gospel and rejected it may still be elect without ever coming to faith.  

In this review, I want to interact with the arguments that Elder Michael Gowens makes in his article in support of the doctrine that faith can have no eternal consequences, only temporal ones.  I do so primarily because he lays out the case for this doctrine very clearly.  He is a fantastic and clear writer.  Indeed, I have personally profited from his ministry, and I still remember with immense and fond appreciation a sermon I heard several years ago preached by him.  Moreover, though we differ in some key areas, there is still much theological and doctrinal common ground between us.  Let me say it again: Elder Gowens is an incredibly gifted preacher and teacher, and it is only my wish that he had exercised it in a more robustly Biblical manner.

This reply will not be a point-by-point assessment of the argument of Elder Gowens, but I will try to assess and interact with his main arguments.  

I do not approach this subject theoretically and abstractly, nor do I desire to.  I approach this subject as a minister of the gospel who is tasked with a message.  The question I come back to again and again is this: what is the message that God has given me to deliver and to preach?  What am I tasked with telling my audience?  And in particular, as regards this question, what am I tasked with saying to an unbelieving listener?  The Bible is clear: the evangelist’s message is to call his audience to repentance and faith and that all who believe and repent of their sins will receive the forgiveness of their sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in his name (Acts 26:18).  Moreover, we are to warn those who do not believe and repent that they will be eternally lost if they continue in an unconverted state (cf. Acts. 13:46; 17:30-31).  

This approach to the issue is especially germane to the present discussion since the time salvation crowd will inevitably bring up the case of infants dying in infancy and argue that if we demand faith for salvation then such are necessarily lost.  But this is a red herring.  However one deals with that issue, it is not my responsibility to preach to infants.  It is my responsibility to preach to the people in front of me, who can hear and respond (by the grace of God) to my message.  To such people, the Bible and indeed our Lord commands us to say to them: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15-16).  Or as it is related in the gospel of John: “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (Jn. 3:18).  And: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (Jn.3:36).  Let the Bible say what it says: we are to preach that faith is necessary for justification and the forgiveness of sins.  And since you can’t be saved apart from justification and the forgiveness of sins, faith is necessary for salvation.  We are saved by grace through faith.  Therefore, regardless of what one does with the case of infants dying in infancy, to say that gospel faith is unnecessary for eternal salvation simply contradicts what the Bible plainly has to say.  This is no infrequent teaching; it is the refrain of NT doctrine from beginning to end.

Starting at the Beginning: The Heart of the Argument

Elder Gowens gets right to the point at the very beginning of his article.  His opening salvo greets us in the following question: “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?”[1]   In a footnote accompanying this question, he deems this existentialism, a philosophical system which teaches that existence precedes essence.  The implication is that those who do not hold to the doctrine of time salvation are existentialists.  And if this were true, it would be a dire problem indeed.

But it is a straw man.  No Calvinistic Baptist minister (the targets of Elder Gowen’s teaching) teaches that the objective fact of Christ’s redemptive work depends upon its subjective perception by man, as if our subjective perception makes the redemption of Christ a reality.  What Christ did on the cross is an objective reality.  However, the question is how God intended from eternity to apply the redemption purchased by Christ to the elect.  I don’t think anyone would argue that glorification, though purposed in eternity and purchased by Christ on the cross, is not actually ours until the resurrection from the dead.  It simply is no argument against the objective fact of redemption to say that any aspect of it is applied in time.  And so when, for example, we say that justification is applied to the elect in time when they believe, this has nothing to do with making Christ’s atonement a reality.  It is just about the application of that objective redemption in the actual justification of the elect when they believe.  

Faith may be a subjective response in the soul to God, but that does not make salvation unreal until the elect believe!  Here’s a question for you: is justification by faith an objective reality or not?  The answer of the apostle Paul to this question is clear.  It is God’s plan to justify his elect by faith in his Son.  This is not existentialism, this is just Salvation 101.

By the way, what is the object of faith?  What does the gospel call us to believe?  It does not call anyone to believe in order to become elect.  It does not call anyone to believe that Christ died for them in particular.  It would be ridiculous in fact to say that I am not elect until I believe it, or that Christ did not die for me until I believed he did.  Rather, the gospel calls on all unbelieving men and women to repent of their sins and to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord (an objective reality regardless of their subjective response) and that there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12; an objective reality regardless of their subjective response).  And the Bible promise is that all who so believe will be saved – not in terms of having a better life now but in terms of the real forgiveness of sins and justification before God and eternal life.  In other words, the gospel does not call us to make anything a reality by our faith; it calls on us to believe what is real and universally true, namely, that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior.  And it adds an objectively true promise to that: all who believe are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses (Acts 13:38-39).  There is not a hint of existentialism in any of this and to say so is a serious mistake philosophically as well as Biblically.

That Odious Label

What Gowens believes is sometimes called conditional time salvation.  He knows that people object to it, and even call it odious.  But his response to this is not helpful.  He argues, “If you discount the validity of this concept, then, of necessity, everything must have eternal consequence and everything must determine eternal destiny. Such a view compels you to believe that right now counts forever—that every word I speak and every thought I have and the way I raise my children and spend my money and service my car and treat my pets will somehow affect my salvation. If right now counts forever, then what other conclusion is possible?”

It's frustrating when I read stuff like this because (to my knowledge) no one argues that there aren’t temporal benefits to a life of faith and obedience.  But this is something I’ve noticed when people have responded to objections against this doctrine.  Their counter argument is something like, “Well, there is such a thing as time salvation in the Bible.”  So what?  The question in contention here is very specific:  do faith and unbelief have eternal consequences?  Gowens says no, and the Bible says yes.  You don’t have to say that everything we do determines whether you end up in heaven or hell.  Let’s be clear here. It’s easy to defeat a strawman position like the one he imagines, but not so easy to refute what the Bible very clearly says.

The problem of justification by faith

The apostle Paul says again and again that justification is by faith.  Justification is the removal of the status of condemnation and the granting of a status of righteousness by Divine declaration, and the Bible says that this is by faith.  This necessitates that faith in Christ has eternal consequences.  This is a real problem for the time salvation folks, who cannot give any credence to this doctrine which is so clearly and forcefully taught in the Bible, and especially by the apostle Paul.

Now Gowens responds by saying that when Paul talks about justification by faith, “he does so through the grid of the Abrahamic, not the Everlasting, Covenant.”  He wants to argue that if we affirm that one is eternally saved and justified by faith, then that would mean that no one was saved until the Abrahamic covenant was inaugurated.  He argues that Paul ties the fact of justification to the covenant made with Christ in Romans 5:12-21, whereas he ties the revelation of it to the Abrahamic covenant.  

However, Paul does no such thing.  The truth of the matter is that Paul is talking from the beginning of Romans how we are saved for eternity.  The problem that we need to be saved from is the very objective wrath of God (Rom. 1:18), and justification by the righteousness of Christ received by faith is the answer to that problem.  Gowens admits that in 3:24 Paul is talking about eternal salvation when he says, “that all of the elect have been ’made’ righteous by Christ’s imputed righteousness at the cross (Rom. 3:24).”  But that verse is in the context of the apostle’s argument for justification by faith!  Here is what Paul says in context:

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus (Rom. 3:21-26).

You simply cannot responsibly argue that the justification of verse 24 is different from that of the verses before and after.  Justification is the declaration that the sinner is righteous before God, and Paul says that this righteousness is by faith (22), that is it “unto all and upon all them that believe” (22), that it comes to us in a “propitiation through faith in his blood” (25), and that God is “the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (26).  The apostle then wraps it all up by saying, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (28).

By the way, the argument does not follow that if this justification has eternal consequences to it means that people were lost before the Abrahamic covenant was revealed.  This again fails to see Paul’s point.  Paul’s point in bringing up the Abrahamic covenant at all is to prove that this has always been the way God has saved people.  The argument against Paul by his Judaizing brethren was that he was introducing a new way of salvation, substituting faith for the Law of God.  Paul’s response is, no, for Abraham was justified, not by works, but by faith.  And David, too (Rom. 4:1-12).

Sometimes I hear people say that Paul’s justification by faith is a justification in the court of one’s conscience whereas justification by grace is a justification in the court of God’s justice.  Again, no: Paul once and forever prevents anyone from plausibly making such an argument in Romans 3 when he sets the context of all this in the words, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (3:19-20).  The context is guilt before God, and the eternal importance of being justified in his [God’s] sight.  It is in the court of God’s justice that we are justified by faith.

In Paul, “justification is the divine act of acquittal and acceptance, and it is precisely this which is said to be by faith” (John Murray).  We can talk about the differences between James and Paul; that’s fine and dandy.  And needed.  But whatever is said to that point, it does not undo the clear point that Paul repeatedly makes in his letters.  As he put it to the Galatians, “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2:16).  Notice that Paul does not say that we believe because we were justified or that faith is just the evidence that we were already justified (Gowen’s position).  Paul doesn’t take Gowen’s position at all; he says that we believe that we might be justified.  Faith precedes justification, not the other way round.  And this is actual justification, for the legalizers were in trouble precisely because they were teaching that a person is really saved by adherence to the works of the Mosaic law.  Paul is saying, “No, we are really saved by faith apart from works!”

I know that some have argued that “the faith of Jesus Christ” means “the faith that Jesus has,” or “the faith that Jesus exercises on our behalf” in order to get around the role that personal faith has in actual justification.  But even if we grant that (I don’t), you still cannot get rid of personal faith as the instrument of justification in Galatians 2:16.  For Paul clearly says, “we have believed in Jesus Christ” – that’s personal faith – “that [indicating purpose and/or result] we might be justified by the faith of Christ.”  So you can’t eliminate the instrumental role that personal faith has in the justification of the sinner.  (This undeniable fact points to the use of the genitive case in the Greek of the phrase “of Jesus Christ” as the objective use of the genitive.  It therefore means, “the faith of which Jesus Christ is the object,” not “the faith of which Jesus Christ is the subject.”)

I’m emphasizing justification by faith because it seems to me that this is the nail in the coffin of any doctrine that teaches that faith in Christ can only have temporal benefits and nothing more.  If we are justified by faith, and justification is the divine declaration that the sinner is just, then faith is necessary for eternal salvation.

“Time salvation” or “Temporal salvation” is not odious to me because I think there is no such reality.  When Gowens goes on to argue that “[t]his concept is consistent with the numerous Biblical references that speak of this ‘present’ life and the benefits to be enjoyed by God’s people ‘now’,” I really have no problem with that (though I would not interpret some of the texts he uses to establish his position in the same way).  But overall, I would agree with him.  That’s not the problem; the problem is that the doctrine of conditional time salvation obviates the clear Biblical teaching that God justifies men and women through faith in Christ.  This doesn’t make one an existentialist; it makes you a Paulinist and a Biblicist (in the best sense of that word).

Conditional vs. Unconditional

One of the other key arguments that Gowens makes to establish his position is the distinction between unconditional and conditional language in Scripture.  He basically assumes that any condition required on the part of man means that salvation cannot then depend totally upon God.  He writes, “Consider the fact that the Bible speaks of both unilateral (i.e. one-sided) and bilateral (i.e. two-sided) covenants. Can it be possible that both types of covenants have eternal consequence? Absolutely not. How can eternal salvation both depend totally on God and depend partially on man at the same time? Either salvation is of the Lord or it is a cooperative work between God and the sinner, but it cannot be both.”

However, the supposed conflict that Gowens sees does not exist.  God makes eternal salvation conditional upon faith in Christ, and he guarantees that the condition will be fulfilled.  What is wrong with that?  There is nothing wrong with it.  It is neither illogical nor unbiblical.  We are saved by faith which is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8).  Faith in Eph. 2:8 is human faith, not divine faith, but it is granted by the Lord.  Moreover, as the apostle goes on to say in the next verse, this very arrangement precludes boasting before God.  Indeed, as the apostle puts it to the Romans, “Therefore it [the salvation promised to Abraham and his seed] is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all.”  Paul is literally saying that God made the way of salvation a way of faith so that it might be by grace!  No compromising the divine honor here; no compromising the fact that salvation is of the Lord by grace through faith.

The Glory of God

I agree with Elder Gowens that God does all that he does for his glory (and I am, by the way, also an infralapsarian as he is).  However, like the previous point, he fails to see that the requirement of faith for salvation does not compromise the glory of the grace of God in salvation.  As he puts it, “In a word, the realm of time was made not for the purpose of determining destiny, but for the glory of God” (author’s italics).  But this is a false choice.  I fail to see how it logically or Biblically follows that if God chooses faith as the means by which he applies the redemption purchased by Christ that the glory of God is compromised, hidden, or that Christ is dethroned.  It simply doesn’t follow.  If God choses faith to be the means by which we are saved by Christ, then God is glorified every time that happens.  

Look, we are not saved by faith because faith merits something.  Faith is not the ground of our salvation, but the means.  We are not called to have faith in our faith, but faith in Christ.  This is why Paul repeatedly says that we are justified dia pisteou (by faith) rather than dia pistin (on account of/on the basis of faith).  Paul is exceedingly consistent here.  To say that faith gets the glory if one is saved through faith is like saying that the cup which brought the water to my mouth satisfied my thirst.  Christ is the water of life; he is the one who satisfies our deepest needs, both temporal and eternal, and if God has ordained that faith be the cup that brings this gift to the mouth of the soul, we can no more glorify faith than we can glorify the cup.  God still gets the glory.

In any case, the fact that any man, woman, or child has faith in Christ in the first place is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8).  Primitive Baptists believe this perhaps more strongly than most, and yet they somehow forget this and pretend like the requirement of faith somehow deprives God of his ability to save in a monergistic manner.  No, not at all; not if God gives the elect faith.  He puts the cup in our hand.  It is of him that we are in Christ Jesus who “of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:30-31).

One may ask: why then does God make faith the instrument of our justification, if faith does not merit it?  It is because of this whole business of the glory of God.  God is not only glorified in the way he saves us; he is also glorified in being seen as the one who saves us.  And faith is the eye that sees this glory.  Faith does not turn back on itself, for if it did, it would cease to be faith in Christ!  No, faith gives us eyes for Christ alone.  Faith is not introspective; it is extrospective!  It turns our eyes toward Jesus to look full in his wonderful face.  Faith gives glory to God.  As Paul reminds us of Abraham’s faith, he says that “He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God” (Rom. 4:20).  Glory to God: that is why salvation is by faith and not by works.  

Other arguments

The argument that this makes the church more important, as Elder Gowens affirms, again does not follow.  In any case, in my experience, Baptists of a more Calvinistic type (like Mark Dever and Nine Marks) tend to put a stronger emphasis upon the importance of the church, and even a more balanced one.  As far as the argument that believers “experience timely judgments for disobedience, though they are never in danger of eternal judgment”, I would agree with him.  Though I would probably disagree with him on the way the warnings of Scripture function, nevertheless we are in fundamental agreement that true believers will never be lost.  I would also agree that much of what the NT epistles command the believer has relevance in the here and now.  Again, no problem.  Does faith in Christ have temporal benefits?  Of course, who would deny that?  But that does not automatically somehow rule out the fact that it also has eternal ones.

Moreover, I am greatly encouraged to hear Elder Gowens say things like this:

Indeed, exhortatory preaching is not only appropriate, but indigenous to the nature of the gospel. I long to see people repent of their sins and turn to Christ, confessing that their trust is in His merit alone. I have a burning passion to make “disciples”, to baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, then to disciple the disciples in the life of the church—“…teaching [lit. discipling] them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…” (Mt. 28:19-20). I do indeed yearn to see Christ’s cause and kingdom expanded and His little “sheep” brought into the gospel fold. I desire to be used by God to “open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith” in Christ Jesus (Acts 26:18). And I do, in fact, feel a responsibility to call upon men to “repent and believe the gospel”.

Amen, brother!  Preach it!  

But is the call to repentance and faith only a call to service, as Elder Gowens affirms?  No. It is a call to service, yes.   But the Bible is plain that it is also a call to embrace eternal life in Christ.  As Paul put it in his exhortation to Jews in a synagogue in Pisidian Antioch: “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39).  Or as the apostle Peter put it, as he preached to a very unbelieving and hostile audience: “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord” (3:19).  

I agree that faith is an evidence of salvation.  But it is an evidence of salvation precisely because it is the means by which God sovereignly and graciously brings his lost sheep into a state of eternal salvation.  

Abuses

I am glad that Elder Gowens addresses some of the abuses stemming from this doctrine, and that those who point them out have legitimate criticisms.  It is vulnerable to antinomianism.  If one believes that faith is not necessary for eternal salvation, then one can legitimately argue that it does not matter (eternally, at least) how you live in this life.  Elder Gowens thankfully recognizes this danger and exposes it.  Moreover, I am very thankful that he seems to agree that the new birth is a real moral change and that those who are born again will continue in some degree in faith and holiness.  Lots to agree with here.

However, his response that the alternative proposed by folks like me is legalism is frustrating.  It’s a non sequitur if there ever was one.  It is not legalism to say to the poor, burdened sinner, “My friend, cast yourself upon the Lord.  Look not to yourself; look not to your works to justify you!  Find rest in Jesus Christ!  The Bible promise is that all who turn from their sins in repentance and faith, who believe in him, will have all their sins forgiven.”  What else could we say?  This is not legalism, this is grace.

He also recognizes that this doctrine is susceptible to universalism.  Again, I am thankful he sees this and calls it out.  One of the things that really concerns me about the present state of PBs is hearing people say that even Muslims who live and die in that faith will go to heaven.  If that’s not universalism, it’s pretty close to it.  It is a form of inclusivism, a very real heresy held by many liberal denominations, that all faiths lead to Christ and heaven.  (One thinks of the ubiquitous “Coexist” bumper-stickers.).  Troublingly, it is increasingly being affirmed by Primitive Baptist churches!  And though I agree with Elder Gowens that the “abuse of a principle is not necessarily a valid reason for its rejection” (author’s italics), it grieves me to see this happening among the PBs, and there is no doubt (to me, at least) that this doctrine is chiefly to blame.  The tree is known by its fruit.

The Claims of History

Finally, Elder Gowens appeals to history, and sometimes to its silence, to adjudicate his position.  He appeals to Dr. John Gill, which is fine, and to a book from the early 20th century, written by an Elder Charles Waters.  Again, that’s fine.  I am happy to agree that these men differ from me on the matter of justification by faith.  But I am far more at home among the 17th century Baptist confessions of faith than he is, which represented many pastors and many churches of that time.  The early Baptists by and large did embrace the doctrine of justification by faith.  It is not hard to document this; I am not concerned about that at all.  

But, just to make my point, here is Keach’s catechism, which is word-for-word verbatim (without any footnotes to reinterpret the meaning) with the Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly (I could also quote freely from his sermons on Romans 4, or his A Medium Betwixt Two Extremes, but this will do):

Q. 34. How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?

A. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling. (Eph. 2:8; 3:17)

Q. 35. What is effectual calling?

A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, He does persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the Gospel. (2 Tim. 1:9; John 16:8-11; Acts 2:37; 26:18; Ezekiel 36:26; John 6:44,45; 1 Cor. 12:3)

Q. 36. What benefits do they that are effectually called, partake of in this life?

A. They that are effectually called, do in this life partake of justification, adoption, sanctification, and the several benefits which in this life do either accompany or flow from them. (Rom. 8:30; Gal. 3:26; 1 Cor. 6:11; Rom. 8:31,32; Eph. 1:5; 1 Cor. 1:30)

Q. 37. What is justification?

A. Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein He pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7; 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 5:19; Phil. 3:9; Gal. 2:16)

Keach clearly agreed that the redemption purchased by Christ is applied to us by working faith in us, and that this faith is the embrace of Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the gospel.  Moreover, he clearly believed that justification follows calling (a calling which, remember is a call to embrace Christ in the gospel).  This justification is pardon, acceptance with God on the basis of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.  I believe this, as clearly did Benjamin Keach.  However, Elder Gowens cannot, except by torturing the text and meaning of the catechism, make it fit with his doctrine of conditional time salvation.  It would have to be heavily footnoted and redacted for him to accept it.  But Keach, remember, is a 17th century Baptist, and a representative of the best of Baptist orthodoxy of the time.  I have not departed from the faith of our British Particular Baptist forefathers.  I’m not the one squirming in my seat when I read the catechism.  But I guarantee you that the time salvation folks sure are.

I do not therefore represent either a heretical or a new doctrinal stance.  And Primitive Baptists like Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson seemed to embrace it as well, for he says in The Old Baptist Test, “Therefore it [justification] may be said to be eternal in a qualified sense, and not eternal in a qualified sense: for the sinner is not actually justified before he shall have received the blessing of justification, anymore than he is actually born again, or glorified, before he shall have received those blessings.”  Hear what he is saying: we are actually justified when we receive the blessing of justification, and it is for that reason that it is not eternal.  It is eternal in the sense of God’s purpose to justify (I agree); it is not eternal in the sense of its reception by faith in time when we are actually justified (again, I agree).  Watson published this book in 1855, just a couple of decades after the PBs split off from the missionary Baptists, and he was a very respected minister among the PBs.  He does not represent an idiosyncratic position among the Old Baptists.  If he can hold it, why should folks who believe in the necessity of faith for eternal salvation be held as somehow unorthodox, or Arminian, or legalistic?  It does not compute.

Closing reflections  

As I have been writing this, I have been asking myself, “What practical difference does this make in terms of our preaching?”  Since Elder Gowens believes in calling men to repentance and faith, I assume he exhorts unbelievers to do so.  So do I.  The only conceivable difference that I can think of would be that I would call on them to believe to be saved, whereas he would tell them to believe so that they could know they are saved.  In the end, even here the difference is not great, since I believe that God is the one who brings every person to faith.  Indeed, I can also say that when one believes they have evidence that they are saved.  It’s not that I don’t believe what Elder Gowens believes; it’s that I believe more than he believes and am able to embrace all the Bible says about faith and justification.  

Nevertheless, one of my fears about current PB preaching is the implication that people will draw that faith is not necessary and that one can live and die in unbelief and still go to heaven.  I don’t think that Elder Gowens himself believes this, since he presumably believes that all the elect will be regenerated and that the regenerate will continue in some measure of faith and repentance.  So even here we are not that far off.

Perhaps it’s true that Elder Gowens and I are not all that far apart after all.  Maybe he would be shocked to hear me say that.  There are differences, but let’s not forget where we agree.  

However, faith is necessary for salvation.  This is no small matter, for it is what the Bible teaches.  We must believe this and embrace it and preach it.  It is for that reason that I have written this article.  Let’s embrace all that the Bible teaches about faith, justification, the gospel, and Christ.  

--------------------

[1] All quotations are from the article on his website: https://sovgrace.net/2020/03/27/temporal-salvation-a-bogus-or-biblical-concept/