Time Salvation Defended

Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/12/time-salvation-its-modest-defense.html

Kevin Fralick Stated:

"I have noticed in my perusals of some of the so-called defenses of time salvation the consistent failure of its proponents to give a definition which captures the essence of its teaching. In most every attempt that I have ever read, the author always gives it a very modest definition. Instead of defining what it truly is and what it teaches in its extreme form, our modernists often skirt the issue by stating that it has to do with the "blessings in this life" or that God often rescues His people from temporary dangers, all the while neglecting to address the real issues which are at stake. Some of those issues include:

What is the purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

What is the correct interpretation, using sound hermeneutics, of those Biblical passages which connect the reception of the gospel with salvation (e.g. Romans 1:16; Romans 10; James 1:18)?

Is faith in Christ necessary for salvation?

Do the scriptures teach that conversion and sanctification are definite elements of eternal salvation?
It is not at all obvious to the reader that these are the real issues under consideration based on the superficial definitions of time salvation often presented. Notice in the citations we inscribe below the omission of weightier theological subjects such as regeneration, faith, conversion, justification, sanctification, or perseverance, which is actually what the doctrine actually compromises."

It is quite evident that Fralick believes that Conditional, Time Salvation (CTS henceforth), taken to it's logical conclusion, leads to universalism, as he accuses the doctrine of compromising the ordo salutis.

I point out, first, that universalism would only compromise much of the prescriptive nature of Fralick's conception of the ordo salutis. Universalism would not compromise all forms of these doctrines, only Fralick's conception of them would be sacrificed. In this, we observe that Fralick equates the compromise of these doctrines with the compromise of his conception of these doctrines, and he does not provide vindication of his views of these subjects. Why make an empty accusation where he is unwilling to be more precise? If he is preaching to the choir of Stephen Garrett, Bob Ross, and others of like mind, I'm sure such an accusation would be heartily endorsed. Notice the sweeping nature of the claim he makes that is beyond the scope of his present article, but in a polemical context, he simply begs the question.

Next, Brother Fralick argues as his thesis for this post that defenses of CTS from Primitive Baptists seem to omit what he takes to be the central heresy of CTS - universalism or a quasi-universalism. He argues that CTS is not a distinctive doctrine where it does not lead to these excesses. However, simply because CTS is used by some modern Primitive Baptists to justify universalism or a quasi-universalism does not demonstrate that it logically follows from CTS.

This is even inadvertently suggested by Fralick in this post, as he cannot easily find defenses of CTS that show what he takes to be the error of CTS. Fralick has not proved that the doctrinal flaw of CTS in many modern PB's actually follows from an emphasis of CTS, but presumes that it does. More than this, he even admits in contradiction to this presumption that no one denies that gospel obedience leads to temporal blessings, and all of Christendom is not guilty of a quasi-universalism. So it plainly follows from this that an understanding of temporal deliverances does not lead to the error he perceives in modern PB's. He effectively proves that CTS is not responsible for the errors of modern PB's that he perceives.

As for his claim that CTS is superfluous as an emphasis, this doctrine really came to the fore in Primitive Baptists in opposition to Absolute Predestination advocates who emphasized the unconditional nature of God's decrees over against man's responsibility for sin. The emphasis was really first about sin's relationship in the decrees of God. It is not a superfluous doctrine to place the emphasis of disobedience in man on man rather than the decree of God, as no man knows what God has decreed, and the Biblical emphasis per James 1:13, 14 is on man's responsibility, not God's decree. The converse, of course, logically follows as well. In obedience, man is equally responsible to make his calling and election sure. The calling and election are of God, but man does not know that he is called and elected unless he is obedient. There is a salvation from doubt if man perseveres, and men trust when they persevere that they are preserved in Christ.

CTS is not superfluous. It has epistemic significance. It certainly is not the case that all regenerate, children of God have the same measure of assurance in the faith. There is a confidence of faith that children of God must press toward, and this confidence is conditional on gospel obedience. The lack of obedience certainly could mean they are unregenerate, but it also may mean they are disobedient, as children of God are not always as obedient as they should be.

Admitting that children of God are often disobedient does not logically force the belief that children of God are always disobedient, or that the degree of disobedience is typically so great that they are indistinguishable from the unregenerate. This is hollow log error that all Primitive Baptists would deny, though in practice of doctrine, some modern Primitive Baptists fall back into this error.

Primitive Baptists who make an absolute distinction between sonship and discipleship are courting this error. Though there is truth in the distinction, some arbitrarily make the category of sons most of the people of the world. There is nothing about CTS that lends itself to a high population of Christ-rejecting sons, disproportionate to the population of disciples. There is nothing about this doctrine that makes only Primitive Baptists some measure of a disciple. There is nothing about this doctrine that should give comfort to those in disobedience because the logical possibility always exists that disobedience is an effect of an unregenerate state.

CTS does not depend, or it is not an effect of the objectionable, unquestioned commitment of some Primitive Baptists to view most of the world as comprised of regenerate sons. Now, it is abused by those with such commitments, but as Fralick himself notes, J.W. Jones' view of CTS in 1924 has none of these excessive views.

Now, the degree to which I will admit that some modern PB's emphasize CTS "unnecessarily" is where they are emphasizing CTS to justify their universalism or quasi-universalism, but it is more than simply "unnecessary" when it is used thusly, it is erroneous to apply it in this manner because it controverts the NT in which the calling of God is manifested by discipleship in 1 Cor. 1:24. But this is not a problem of CTS inherently.

Just as some measure of discipleship is the natural consequence of sonship when sons are under the sound of the gospel, CTS has a close connection with eternal salvation. This follows logically from the NT in that calling and election cannot be sure per Phil. 2:13 outside of gospel obedience. It is obvious to all that CTS presumes eternal salvation, but it is plain from the testimony of the NT that in this gospel era eternal salvation presumes some measure of CTS. True relationship presumes fellowship per 1 John 3:9,10.

If children of God are truly conformed to the image of Christ in time, how is it all consistent to believe they can completely reject the revelation of Him to whom they are made conformable? This doesn't make good nonsense, to quote Sonny Pyles.

Most of Fralick's objections to CTS seem to be against those who abuse it to justify preconceptions of universalism, but he doesn't appear to lay blame where it belongs. It is the universalism at fault, not the concept of CTS, as noted above, he has difficulty himself finding a defense of CTS to which he objects. Fralick has elsewhere claimed that one of the reasons he left the Primitive Baptists was because of the lack of any systematic presentation of CTS.

Fralick wondered whether CTS was one salvation or separate salvations of confession, baptism, etc. I'm not sure of the logical difficulty here. "Timely" salvation is a general term that refers to all the deliverances experienced in time by gospel obedience. It is certainly reasonable to ascribe a deliverance from doubt in making sure of one's calling and election. There is a deliverance in time from doubt when one is baptized, as it is the answer of a good conscience. There is a deliverance from doubt in confession, as Paul says that he that confesses that Jesus is Lord shall be saved. What is the deliverance? The deliverance should be from the guilt of sin and fear of the righteous judgment of God.

Now, some modern Primitive Baptists flesh out fear of God's judgment only in a temporal sense, and surely God can punish that way, but it is a mistake and unnecessary to limit the epistemic deliverance in this manner. Children of God that are first aware of sin have a pervading sense of guilt. Guilt of sin is alleviated in Christ; the child of God should feel, when they are first aware of their sin, justly deserving of the eternal damnation of God. So, there is a deliverance from the fear of God's just eternal wrath through belief in Jesus. Their security in Christ, in reality, is no less secure for what they feel or know, if they are truly of the elect, but there is no epistemic access to this security but by faith in Jesus.

CTS ought to be emphasized as a goad to apathetic, fence-straddling individuals. It ought to be balanced and compelled by the logical possibility that those who fail to submit to Christ's path may never have tasted that the Lord is gracious. Not everyone that says to Christ, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of the Father (Matt. 7:21). This Kingdom of Heaven is not simply the spiritual kingdom Christ instituted on earth, as Matt. 7:22 extends to the final eternal heaven in the reference to "that day".