Fralick on "Two Kinds of Faith"

Brother Fralick posted an article regarding what he takes to be the "two kinds of faith" argued by Primitive Baptists.

Brother Fralick wrote:

"It was always my understanding when I embraced conditional time salvation that there were two kinds of faith.  There was what we call seed faith, sometimes referred to as embryonic, subconscious, or vital faith.  And then there was what we call evangelical faith.  The first one came in regeneration and was necessary for eternal salvation.  This was the kind of faith under consideration when addressing those biblical passages which joined faith with salvation, but could not possibly be squeezed into the time salvation framework.  The second one was wrought through the gospel, and deemed not necessary for eternal salvation based on established anti-means premises.  The “regenerate” child of God who just happens to hear the gospel, conditionalism saying there is no guarantee that he shall, would now believe evangelically what he had already “believed” subconsciously."

Brother Fralick makes a simplistic caricature of what he takes to be Primitive Baptist views.  Now, it could be true that some Primitive Baptists lend fuel to such a caricature, but this does not exonerate Brother Fralick from depicting views he opposes in a ridiculous light.  He erroneously attributes what he sees as a dividing asunder of faith as the prejudicial effect of the doctrine of conditional, time salvation.  There are clearly other motives at work, such as a consideration of the nature of the knowledge of the vital union to all the seed, which plainly makes this issue pertinent to doctrines other than conditional, time salvation.  I wonder at his irrational obsession with conditional, time salvation, as he cannot prove that all defenses of this doctrine are false; yet he irrationally perseveres in accusing this doctrine alone to be the central poison of Primitive Baptists when it is clearly universalism and "no-hellism" that is the poison.

The central point of Brother Fralick is that the "two kinds of faith" issue among Primitive Baptists is in need of clarification.

First of all, Primitive Baptists do not believe in two kinds of faith, but one faith in Jesus Christ.  To depict the view in the manner Brother Fralick does throughout his article is haphazard, and plainly intent on making a caricature of the actual position.

What Brother Fralick fails to recognize is that evangelical faith and "seed" faith cannot be fully separated from each other in those that have heard the gospel preached by man.  These, in their essence, are the same, not contrary because evangelical faith is faith in the person of Christ just as "seed faith" is a rudimentary, spiritual revelation of the person of Christ.  One with faith in the gospel cannot break down what they have learned from the Spirit with what they have been taught instrumentally by man because the gospel as preached by man is efficacious by the same power and revelation of God as that which is immediately revealed by God.

The relevance of a "seed faith" is only in regard to the effectual call apart from the gospel as preached by man, as in John 3:3-8, and in relation to what is fundamental to the evangelical faith of gospel belief.  It is not relevant to support the inconsistent notion that a "seed faith" can stand fully contrary to faith in gospel propositions, except when some extend what is intrinsically salvific in gospel propositions beyond what is intrinsically salvific - beyond gospel, propositional truth that is tantamount to the experience of the person of Christ.

In this manner, when some argue that evangelical faith must necessarily encompass the propositional assent to the resurrection of Christ, Christ's death, or public confession of Jesus Christ at any one time they err in this standard for the faith of the vital union because of the unbelief of the disciples at the report of the risen Christ by women, Hymenaeus, and Philetus of the resurrection of Christ, Peter's unbelief in the necessity of Christ's death in Matt. 16:22, and the public denial of Jesus Christ by Peter.    

Now, it is important to realize that this proves the nature of the object of faith in those that disbelieve(d) some portion of gospel propositions, not that they remained in a state of unbelief of these propositions.  Growing to the full stature of Christ is a process of conversion and sanctification, which those truly effectually called are perfected toward, if by any means they might attain unto the resurrection of the dead (Phil. 3:10,11).

If Hymenaeus and Philetus were children of God in error, God would recover them out of the snare of the devil (2 Tim. 2:25,26) just as Peter and the disciples were converted from the error of their ways.

"Evangelical faith" and "seed faith" are both a faith in the person of Christ.  "Evangelical faith" encompasses a greater degree of intellectual knowledge about Christ, but the central faith is still in the spiritual person of Christ, not in mere propositions of language.

There is no reason to disallow evangelical faith in any passage of the New Testament because the fact that faith in the person of Christ may be effected by the preached word is not in any way detrimental to the nature of Biblical faith, which is in the person of Christ.   This faith in Christ is effected immediately by the Spirit, whether or not the Spirit is mediated through gospel propositions about Christ.