Brother Fralick stated (here) that I confound the Primitive Baptist view of "Timely Salvation" with the doctrine of sanctification. I have stated in previous blogs (particularly here):
"I have not really changed my mind regarding the doctrine of salvation, but I am open to consider anything Brother Garrett has to say. What I truly believe is that the Primitive Baptist doctrine of what they label "Timely Salvation" is taught in the Bible as progressive sanctification and conversion - Elder David Pyles stated this in his sermon on Romans 1:16 - http://primitivebaptistsermons.org/sermons.php?page=12&st=&searchFor=, and that what is "timely" is perfected in eternity and what is eternal is manifested in time."
I have not hid the fact that I take the Primitive Baptist view of "Timely Salvation" to be the doctrine of sanctification and gospel conversion. I have also stated many times that the Scripture does not present sanctification and gospel conversion as mere options to those truly regenerate. Some degree of both is the necessary effect of regeneration (the degree of conversion is, of course, relative to special revelation).
Primitive Baptist ministers that have argued with Brother Fralick on this point, and would make sanctification and gospel conversion (to those under the sound of the gospel) completely and utterly optional are teaching heresy. This is hollow log heresy. It is "carnal Christian" absurdity and blatant antinomianism. Now, I doubt many are actually teaching this or mean to imply it, but they may "paint themselves into a corner" to find "differences" between themselves and Calvinists. There are some ignorant ministers who don't think for themselves, and simply tout the party line of what they take to be Primitive Baptist distinctives, placing greater premium on the thoughts of other ministers than "thus sayeth the Lord". If Brother Fralick would have had a more knowledgeable mentor in the faith he would still be with the Primitive Baptists.
Brother Fralick stated:
"In Brother Jason’s latest, he refers to it as “attaining to higher joys” as a Christian. The problem with such a definition is that it does not approach the major issues at hand, which has always been one of my criticisms of the teaching."
Brother Fralick refuses to see that any other definition of Timely Salvation than what I have given it is an abuse. The doctrine is abused as a tool of some to assert hollow log heresy, antinomianism, and universalism. Such usages do not disprove the Biblical legitimacy of salvation in time, obviously. I suppose his idea is, "why even use the term". Well, he should know that the term grew out of the Absoluter controversy among PB's. He should know the origin of it from that division. It's become a kind of "buzzword" among PB's to refer to the subjective side of salvation. I do not see that the concept is unbiblical. However, it is unbiblical when it is abused to suggest that the objective, eternal salvation in Christ is not evidenced in time to any degree. It is upon subjective belief in what Christ has accomplished that emphasis should be made.
Brother Fralick stated:
"Time salvation concerns the issue of what happens or does not happen after regeneration. Does the person who is regenerated go on to conversion to Christ or not? However, if Brother Jason really believes that all the elect will experience some measure of the subjective side of salvation, this is definitely a good starting point. The only step to be taken then is to affirm that this is wrought through the gospel (Acts 26:16-18; John 17:17-20; Romans 10:17; Eph. 5:26). Having followed Jason’s responses in his discussion with Brother Stephen I suspect that he will say the subjective reality is obtained via the gospel “for those under the sound of it”, but not for those who aren’t. Perhaps Brother Jason will enlighten us as to the degree of holiness and faith found in the regenerate heathen? Is it a "Christian" faith and holiness? Is it in his mind and heart?"
I have always affirmed that the regenerate are convicted and recognize the truth of the gospel when it is attended with the power of the spirit. I think all Primitive Baptists affirm this. What they deny is that the regenerate will necessarily openly manifest this belief in public confession. I think Romans 10:11 indicates that confession of faith is characteristic of true belief, and that those who truly believe will generally confess their faith, if not at one time then certainly eventually.
I have never asserted the certain existence of regenerate "heathen". If there were and are regenerate individuals in areas where men have not/did not preach the gospel, they would not be "heathen" after regeneration, save in reference to their general culture. My position is that God is not limited to man to save whom He wills, and that it is possible that God has effectually called men in heathen lands apart from special revelation. I think this was the position of the framers of the LCF and John Gill, though they went further to state that such measures would be "extraordinary" in terms of what they took to be God's "ordinary" method of effectually calling. I do not see how they can consistently come to such a distinction when they admit the possibility of effectual calling apart from the gospel in John 3:8.
As far as the degree of faith and holiness found in individuals that exist apart from the gospel, it is surely "some degree" of faith and holiness according to the Christ that dwells within them. More than this, who can say? No one can say for certain. It could be that God only has infants that die in infancy or the mentally incompetent in such lands. It could be that God provides adults who are regenerate in such lands gospel revelation by preachers at some point in their life. This seems to me to be intimated by Romans 8:19,21.
No comments:
Post a Comment