Historical Criteria for Conditional Time Salvation

One of the things which the Lord used in delivering me from the teachings of conditional time salvation and all the baggage that it brings was the lack of historical proof showing where it had been taught before. I speak not of the recent past, for I could find some who did. What I could not find was a significant theologian, church, or confession prior to 1850 or so which held to these views. I found it not in the Westminster, London, or Philadelphia confessions, nor did I find it in the Puritan writers who compiled a wealth of Christian literature. It was not in the writings of John Gill, which is especially interesting seeing how he is generally held in high esteem by modernists today. And as far as The Black Rock Address and the first generation of Primitives are concerned, I found no mention about time salvation being the primary function of the preached gospel. I was now faced with a dilemma. If conditional time salvation is true, then where is the succession in doctrine to be found? This presented a serious challenge to my Landmarkism.

My interest in this matter has recently been renewed by the happenings of this blog. In Brother Stephen's online debate with Jason Brown, the position of the Welsh Baptists was discussed. Counter evidence was presented by Brother Stephen in order to show that the Welsh Baptists are not "in succession" with the ultraists today, despite the claims made by Michael Ivey. I'm quite sure that today's extremists would breathe a sigh of relief were someone to come forward with the needed evidence. It would certainly help their claim for church succession which now stands on shaky legs, seeing as how an increasing number have questioned its historicity and have concluded that it is not OLD, but NEW Baptist doctrine. Until such time that it is presented, I am pretty sure they will continue to ostracize the ones who are vocal about there being no evidence for its existence, and that it is a departure from what the Primitive Baptists generally believed prior to the rise of conditionalism.

In the historical search for evidence of conditional time salvation my mind has been made to reflect upon what it is that would have to be discovered. What points of doctrine must be found in the writers of antiquity in order to label them as advocates of this doctrine? Since I'm very familiar with its teachings, I thought it would be interesting to post what I think are some leading points of doctrine which compose this paradigm. Until the following things are discovered, the conditional time salvation scavenger hunt will have to continue.

Let me first state 1) that it is not enough to substantiate a past for conditional time salvation by finding some who taught immediate regeneration. This seems to be the foremost thing presented in an attempt to discover evidence of its existence. Some are under the impression that if one can be found who did not advocate gospel agency in regeneration, that this is sufficient proof to give conditional time salvation a historical warrant. It isn't, and let me explain why.

The term regeneration is ambiguous in the hands of writers, some giving it a broad definition, whereas others give it a narrow one. Most of the writers who contended for immediate regeneration were proponents of the ordo salutis, and claimed only that the first initial act of God upon the soul was void of gospel means. They maintained that regeneration and conversion were concurrent in the order of time, but that there was a logical priority. Regeneration apart from the gospel was followed logically by gospel conversion, but not chronologically. Others, however, would allow for an expanse of time between the two. Regeneration would occur, to be followed by gospel conversion at some point in the future. In both of these scenarios, its respective proponents may contend for immediate regeneration. Yet the point we wish to stress to our readers and to those who contend for conditional time salvation is that they believed gospel conversion would IN FACT follow!

This is a far cry from the teachings of conditional time salvation, the root assertion of which is that conversion is optional, and so may never happen at all! It doesn't follow regeneration logically OR chronologically! Therefore, in order to find historical evidence for conditional time salvation, its proponents should not necessarily look for teachers of immediate regeneration, but look for those who taught that...

2) Gospel conversion is optional. This is actually the very heart of the matter. Evidence would have to be shown that there were some who claimed that conversion has no place in the salvation of the elect. It is neither yoked with regeneration, nor does it necessarily follow. For an even stronger argument, this should be claimed as being the norm for the elect in order to give room for all the regenerate heathens, unbelievers, and even Christ-rejecters that this heretical system invents. It must be shown that many regenerated children of God spent the whole of their lives void of any evangelical virtues. They may "have God" but NOT have to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9).

3) Justification is either by:
a) seed faith
b) the faith OF Christ
c) the faith OF God

We apologize to the reader if he is confused by what we have just written. Concerning the subject of faith, the greatest confusion prevails among the advocates of conditional time salvation today. In a desperate attempt to explain the doctrine of justification apart from evangelical faith, which is what the normal bible reader sees (e.g. Rom. 10:17; Eph. 1:13), the above three permutations of the doctrine are being juggled. The reason why each one arose as an alternative explanation for justification is because they each bypass the gospel as a necessary element, and are therefore acceptable to the anti-means paradigm.

In looking for any evidence of conditional time salvation in the past, the search should be for some who claimed that justification takes place via seed faith, the faith Christ has in the Father, or the faith God has in His Son---anything except justification by the faith which comes by hearing the gospel (Rom. 10:17) or cognitive faith involving the mind and heart of the sinner.

4) Progressive sanctification is optional. Elder Thomas Mann made this point in his 2002 sermon "Re-thinking Conditional Time Salvation", and he is absolutely correct. Just like our above thoughts on conversion being optional, the same holds true in this case. The experimental side of sanctification must be shown as not being a definite part of the salvation scheme. It must be shown that upon regeneration, God does not necessarily work in His people the will and the doing of His good pleasure (Philip. 2:12-13). Christ must be shown as being a Savior who delivers from the penalty of sin, but not necessarily from the power of it.

And lastly, that which is most obvious:

5) The primary purpose of the gospel is to grant a second optional salvation to the regenerate family of God. This is the teaching of conditional time salvation in its most extreme form. A search in antiquity would need to show where men advocated that the gospel had nothing to do with regeneration when defined either narrowly or broadly as inclusive of initial conversion. It would have to be shown as something which comes to a person who just happens to be "fortunate" enough to hear it, there having been no prior decree of God or exertion of His providence to ensure that his elect shall be exposed to it in some form. When it is thus heard, it must be shown that an additional temporal salvation is granted to the person who already has one salvation (eternal) in his possession. Furthermore, it must be demonstrated that all the key passages in scripture which unite the gospel with salvation (e.g. Mark 16:16; John 17:17-20; Acts 13:47-48; 26:16-18; Rom. 1:16; 10; 1 Cor. 1:18-21; 15:2; Eph. 1:13; 2 Thes. 2:10,13-14; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23-25) were interpreted in the same manner by which our moderns do.

These are some of the assertions upon which conditional time salvation is built, and are therefore points which must be found in order for the system, as a complete package, to have any historical warrant. There are, of course, other points of doctrine which supplement its teaching, but what we've written above are some of its major claims. What makes this search very difficult is when Confessions of faith are confronted or local church articles in which assertions are made which knock this heresy to the ground. Any declared statement which says that God's elect SHALL be converted, SHALL believe savingly, or SHALL persevere are destructive of the teaching of conditional time salvation.

It should serve as a sign to the seeker that he must look elsewhere.

Kehukee Association Articles of Faith (1777):

"We believe, in like manner, that God's elect shall not only be called, and justified, but that they shall be converted, born again and changed by the effectual workings of God's Holy Spirit."

"We believe that such as are converted, justified and called by His grace, shall persevere in holiness, and never fall away."