Fralick on Dillon and Regenerated Idolaters

Brother Fralick stated:

"In an article entitled Faith, editor Randy Dillon writes of the regenerated child of God (emphasis mine):

"What will they believe?  Will they believe in God, the Creator of the universe, will they believe in Jesus as the Christ, or will they believe in some other God?  The faith that an individual receives in the new birth will cause him to believe in something greater than himself.  He will worship some god, but it may not be the God of the Bible.  Paul taught the men of Athens in Acts 17:23, 'Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.'  The scriptures clearly teach that the Jews believed in God, the Creator of the Universe, but rejected Jesus as the Christ." (Primitive Advocate, Volume 5, 2002)

This is one of the worst conclusions that can be reached when one has adopted extreme time salvation.  It suggests the change, if it can be called such, which regeneration brings is a conversion to idolatry!!! How dishonoring to Christ, whose purpose is to deliver His people, not just from the penalty (i.e. justification), but the practice of sins (i.e. sanctification).  If it be true, though, that the change experienced by the regenerated sinner is worshipping "some God" then what did he worship beforehand?  Anything?  If he did not worship any God, who then is NOT regenerated, seeing that the worship of some God is practically common to the human race?  If he did worship some God, then there is no real change.  He simply continues as an idolater; only now he is a regenerated one!
How does such a statement make it into one of the leading publications?  If it is an aberrant view, then a serious editorial slip was made somewhere!"

It is not clear that the error of Elder Dillon here stems from the embrace of conditional, time salvation.  Rather, brother Fralick is assuming a relation based on the symptoms of a quasi-universalism that has been present among the PB's, especially due to the influence of 20th century ministers like Cayce and Sarrels.  The controlling interpretative mechanism that under girds this type of minister is an irrational commitment to a nearly universal elect family.  This is the fundamental commitment that taints the truth of emphasizing the salvation in time (from an evil generation, for example) that children of God can experience when they are obedient.

The view that the belief and knowledge essential to the effectual call is the, "belief in something greater than himself", is easily refuted as a sufficient condition for the knowledge of the new birth, as John 17:3 clearly makes the essential knowledge of the vital union knowledge of the person of Christ, not a general nebulous idea of a being greater than which nothing can be conceived.  The idea that the intimate, spiritual knowledge of Christ is encompassed by an ontological argument for the existence of God is absurd, and is, no doubt, the same grounds that certain philosophers will appeal to Christ; and he will retort, "I never knew you" (Matt. 7:21).

This view of the knowledge of the effectual call shows the underlying commitment to a virtual universalism, it does not follow simply from viewing the conditional nature of disobedience among children of God, as in Jude 23.

This view is clearly refuted by the Fulton Confession in that the Fulton brethren did not footnote chapter 3, section 4 of the LCF in regard to the damnation of the idolatrous heathen in John 4:22.  This cited text establishes the historic view of Primitive Baptists in regard to unbelieving, idolatrous worship of God, which clearly reproves Mr. Dillon and Sarrels.

Brother Fralick insinuates that this view is not an aberrant one among Primitive Baptists, but it clearly is an aberrant view relative to the Fulton Confession.  The fact that it is held among some PB's only shows the influence of Cayce and Sarrels, it does not establish the historic view of Primitive Baptists.