Errors of Elder Michael Gowens

Several times over the years I have critiqued the writings of Hardshell apologist, Elder Michael Gowens. At this time I would like to add some to that critique. In "Questions and Answers Regarding Recent Primitive Baptist Tension" (here) Gowens wrote (emphasis mine):

"That pastoral responsibility necessarily involved me in an effort to challenge the man from outside and the young man within our local church who were sowing seeds of discord within our congregation. These men were ridiculing the practice of distinguishing between eternal salvation and temporal or gospel salvation. They mocked the ignorance of Primitive Baptists who believed this way and expressed how embarrassing it was that we were so different in this regard to other Christians. I saw their desire to remove this classic PB distinction and to push the idea that the present life has eternal significance – that is, to teach only “one” salvation – as the kind of classic reformed theology popularized by MacArthur, Piper, Sproul, Mohler, and Nettles in our day. It soon became evident that an effort to modify PB doctrine, particularly in regard to this distinction between unconditional eternal salvation and conditional temporal salvation, was gaining momentum in a few PB circles and the church that I pastor was under particular attack. That’s how I got involved."

Notice the several heresies and historical errors of Gowens in these words. He says that "the idea that the present life has eternal significance" is not right, not in keeping with what the word of God teaches. Now, that is indeed a "whopper" of a falsehood! I would love for Gowens or one of his Hardshell brothers to come forth and try to defend this idea! Not only do the scriptures condemn this statement, but it was not in keeping with the views of his Old Baptist forefathers. If he thinks it an easy job to defend this statement, then let him come forth and correct us!

How a man can affirm such a proposition, calling it a "PB distinction," and then complain that other Christians "mock" such an idea, identifying it as absurd, is truly astounding. In my posting "Not So, Brother Hassell! (2)" (here) I stated:

The "Primitive Baptist Universalist Church," the "No Hellers," was formed for the same reason as that of the quasi Universalists. What led the PBs in the formative years of their development to begin to apply eternal salvation and damnation passages to mere temporary salvation and damnation?

Was it not because they imbibed a false proposition, springing from Hyper Calvinistic notions, that affirmed that nothing a person did had any eternal consequences?

Is that not what Gowens said? Nothing you do has any eternal consequences! Who can read the bible and see that? Only one blinded by a cult mentality.

Next, Gowens, in answer to the questions "What is the primary issue in dispute?" said:

"Well, most people who have followed this debate understand that there is disagreement over the subjects of Perseverance and the Absolute Predestination of all things. What they may not realize is that the root of the controversy is really a debate between what has been termed “Temporal Salvation” and “Lordship Salvation”. Let me explain.

In the mid-1980’s, John MacArthur published a book entitled The Gospel According to Jesus in which he argued for a position known as “Lordship Salvation”. That book created a firestorm of controversy within evangelicalism, eliciting rebuttals from Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie, and others, and garnering support from others like Michael Horton, R. C. Sproul, and more. MacArthur’s argument was simply that a person may not have Christ as Savior without also acknowledging Him as Lord. In other words, he objected to what other, lesser-known writers had called “the Carnal Christian heresy”. He claimed that a person who is truly saved will manifest that salvation by believing the gospel and living an obedient and faithful Christian life—that there is no such thing, ultimately, as a disobedient child of God—that the individual who fails to live in submission to the Lordship of Christ demonstrates that he was never truly born again—that only those who embrace Christianity are truly saved. MacArthur argued, in other words, for the old Puritan idea that everyone who is truly saved will persevere in faith and holiness."

Notice that he says that one does not have to embrace Christianity to be saved! The forefathers of the PB church would not accept this idea of Gowens and today's Hardshells.

Gowens continued:

"Now, PB’s have characteristically held, not to “Lordship Salvation” but, to “Temporal Salvation”. That is to say, our position has been that there is a distinction to be made between Sonship and Discipleship—between being a child of God and being a follower of Jesus Christ. In the Lordship Salvation paradigm, regeneration and discipleship are so intertwined that one does not exist without the other. In 2002, a PB preacher in Virginia preached a sermon in which he labored to prove that “belief in Jesus Christ and eternal life are married—you cannot put asunder what God has joined together.” That’s the “Lordship Salvation” position. But Primitive Baptists do not believe that regeneration automatically produces discipleship."

"Characteristically"? It may characterize today's PBs, but it certainly does not reflect the view of their forefathers! The founders of the PB church believed that belief in Jesus Christ and eternal life were joined together inseparably. Which PB wants to come and show us the evidence to the contrary?

What do my PB brothers do with the information, for instance, about the beliefs of Dr. Watson? Do they "put it out of their minds" as a way to deal with the dissonance it causes them?