Emphasizing Time Salvation

Brother Fralick wrote (here):

"The doctrine of conditional time salvation can be somewhat deceiving.  At first glance, it might appear that it places greater emphasis on what we call ‘present salvation’ than that which is understood by average Christians.  All Christians recognize that there is a timely phase of the salvation of man.  Apart from the objective aspect of salvation (e.g. election, predestination, redemption) there is also the subjective side of it.  We receive new hearts and have our lives transformed in regeneration, and subsequently walk in the timely phase of our salvation, before final conformity to Christ in glorification.  To the reader who does not see through the smoke and mirrors of time salvation, he might be duped into heaping praise on the system, feeling that it points out the way for Christians to attain to the higher life."

Properly considered, "Time Salvation" does point the way for the Christian to attain higher joys of their objective salvation (Ephesians 1:14). According to Dr. Gill's commentary on Hebrews 4:11, gospel rest is something that the sons of God enter into by degrees, and is not an issue of "either or". There is a degree in which Christians lay hold of their earnest inheritance. It is not absolute, as if it was disciples could not be commanded to "quench not the spirit" in 1 Thess. 5:19 .

It is certainly true, therefore, that the direct consequence of a Christian's failure to lay hold of the earnest of their inheritance in "working out their salvation" is that they miss out on blessings in time. The principal blessing of fully embracing this timely inheritance is subjective assurance of objective, eternal salvation. What follows logically from this, however, is that a failure to lay hold of one's timely inheritance by gospel belief is a subjective rejection of the objective truth of one's salvation, as the "rest" of Hebrews 4:11 is the objective truth of Christ's redemption. This does not logically disprove one's objective salvation, but it removes all epistemic warrant for subjective belief of objective salvation.

Therefore, to the same degree that subjective gospel belief is rejected, it is to that same degree irrational to affirm objective salvation in Christ. It is not logically sufficient for epistemic justification of the belief of objective salvation in Christ to point to the fact that there were born again people that "died in the 40 year wilderness exile". It is logically possible that a person was redeemed by Christ and is secure in Him, though they fail to show their belief in Him by public confession, baptism, attending church regularly, being not ashamed to defend the Christian cause to the world, and even by committing any sin. However, how does that person know they were objectively redeemed when they fail to do any of the above? To the same degree they fail, is the same degree they should count themselves unbelievers.

Brother Fralick stated:

"It is most unfortunate if this is the case.  The fact of the matter is that conditional time salvation actually de-emphasizes the timely phase of the Christian experience, by being something which doesn’t happen for many of God’s elect.  Now do not understand me.  I do not mean to lead anyone into thinking that the system claims that many of God’s elect do not pass through the timely phase of salvation in the sense that they somehow skip from regeneration to glorification by being immediately wafted away to heaven.  What it does do, though, is strip the Christian of the subjective reality of the timely phase of his journey towards glory.  It may sound like a broken record for me to say it, but if I’m ever going to reach those who have become ingrained in this heretical system I must incessantly repeat that the whole point of conditional time salvation is to render the subjective Christian experience as optional."

Timely salvation does not happen to all the elect to the same degree, manifestly. Do all the elect have all the exact same life experiences? Do they all learn to add Christian virtues in exactly the same manner? Do they all commit the same sins? Do they come to the knowledge of the faith at the exact same time, in equal degrees, and with equal clarity?

Certainly timely salvation happens to all the elect in terms of their effectual calling in time, and a fundamental spiritual knowledge of Christ as the object of their faith, but the propositional knowledge they believe is somewhat variable, even sometime contradictory, as babes in Christ affirm that Christ died for them but not until they believe that He did.

An emphasis of timely salvation does not strip away subjective belief as consistent with objective, eternal salvation, but emphasizes that there is no rational basis to affirm the latter without the former.

Brother Fralick is a broken record because he has no basis to claim that timely salvation is not a valid emphasis because it is irrationally abused by some to assert that it is at all consistent for those redeemed by Christ to altogether be missing some degree of timely salvation, and that objective salvation can be rationally asserted of those that lack timely evidences. This idea is an abuse of a perfectly scriptural truth. The error is asserting that timely salvation is entirely missing to some of the elect, which is manifestly erroneous and absurd from the fact of the effectual call in time. Brother Fralick has no evidence that this emphasis is to the intent of this heretical abuse. All Primitive Baptists agree that "hollow log" doctrine is heresy, which is a denial that regeneration necessarily evidences some degree of good works and spiritual faith in the person of Christ.

Brother Fralick quotes Elder Gowens and states:

"“To say, ‘Yes, I believe in time salvation, but I just don’t believe it is optional’ is topinpoint the very root of the conflict. It is that idea – namely, that discipleship is certain for everyone who is truly saved, that every son will be a disciple, that repentance, faith, obedience, and daily growth in grace is a “guaranteed part of the salvation package” – that we object to.”(Q&A regarding recent PB tensions, April 2009)

Gowens is correct.   Though the title time salvation may place emphasis on the present life, the teaching itself detracts from it, by claiming that “discipleship, repentance, faith, and daily growth in grace” do not necessarily follow regeneration.  This makes the salvation of the “Christian” to be an empty experience.  Accordingly, these false teachers can often be found making the assertion that men can be regenerated and not know it, continue in impenitence, worship heathen Gods, etc.  In essence, the elect may remain in a state of “unconversion”.  This heresy meets with surprising success among the Hardshell Baptists as it appeals to the sentimental mind, whose only objective is to get sinners into heaven with no real concern of seeing them actually "come to Christ"."

What Brother Fralick fails to understand of Elder Gowens is that Elder Gowens is considering a degree of an option, not an absolute, categorical separation; else he would have to affirm the hollow log heresy.  The folks that oppose Elder Gowens here affirm a necessity of timely salvation that controverts any sense of degrees of obedience and conversion, which is Brother Fralick's position, presumably.  The salvation of the Christian can clearly be "emptier" than those who more diligently work out their salvation.  How can this be denied?

Brother Fralick points to abuses of this doctrine, which do not disprove the legitimacy of this doctrine, but only proves that it has been carried to errant extremes. That men can be regenerated and not know it (presumably in a propositional, analytic cognizance through the man-preached gospel) , is an odd thing to object to, seeing that John 3:8 states, "...so is everyone that is born (completed past action which continues to the present - see my post here). This rebirth by the Spirit alone is stated clearly as a prerequisite for seeing and entering the kingdom of God.

Presumably Brother Fralick means "remain" fully ignorant even under the gospel.  But who believes that truly regenerate people will remain "fully" ignorant under the sound of the gospel when it is attended with power by the same spirit that already dwells within the regenerate? Elder Gowens' quote does not affirm this. Elder Gowens only affirms that the regenerate can suppress this testimony and fail to publicly confess Christ, not that they can deny the spiritual testimony!

As far as "continue in impenitence", again Brother Fralick is talking about degrees here. Obviously he does not believe that after hearing and believing the gospel the regenerate no longer sin. Surely he can concede that no Primitive Baptist means, conversely, that the truly regenerate sin the same way they sinned before they were regenerate. This same distinction applies to the worship of heathen Gods. The idea that active heathen worship is participated in by the regenerate with no distinction between them and the unregenerate is patently absurd and nothing less than hollow log heresy.

That the truly regenerate can appear to be in a state of "unconversion" is logically established by Peter's denial of Christ. Brother Fralick needs to come to a more full understanding of the implications of this rather than trying to make absolute rules that the scripture clearly deny.

Brother Fralick stated:

"The phrase conditional time salvation was adopted to characterize the experience of a small remnant within the remnant of God’s elect who WORK and receive those blessings which are presumably not guaranteed in God’s covenant promise.  They are conditions which the “already regenerated” person meets under his own strength and power to attain to a second salvation in addition to the first one he already has."

By Brother Fralick's admission here, he essentially concedes the Primitive Baptist view. The fact that there are covenant promises made to the elect that are contingent on their sanctification and mortification of sin establishes this doctrine as applicable, therefore, to all Sons of God - all of the elect.

Now, I do not believe that knowledgeable Primitive Baptists have ever claimed a "completely optional" nature of timely salvation, as the effectual call is in no sense optional. The immediate effects of this call are therefore, not optional. Some degree of holiness, love, good works, and conviction under special revelation is a necessary effect of the effectual call in time. But the degree beyond this is contingent on "working out salvation" in harmony with the Holy Spirit. Brother Fralick even concedes this above.

Brother Fralick is a 19th Century Primitive Baptist!