Observations on "Time Salvation Defended"

Jason Brown, our apologist for the Primitive Baptists, has written an article entitled "Time Salvation Defended" which serves both as a response to my own article, "Time Salvation: Its Modest Defense" and his own presentation of time salvation.

Jason writes:

"It is quite evident that Fralick believes that Conditional, Time Salvation (CTS henceforth), taken to it's logical conclusion, leads to universalism, as he accuses the doctrine of compromising the ordo salutis."

It is not a foregone conclusion that CTS will lead one to universalism, and I never stated otherwise. If so, then we would expect all of its proponents to be guilty of it, which is not the case. I specifically stated that it has led some into it. Jason correctly notes that it was not within my present scope to give an answer as to why this is so, but since he mentions it I will oblige, even though this is actually deserving of its own separate posting.

CTS blurs the distinction between the lost and the saved. It broadens the scope of the regenerate family of God to include the very ones which scripture forbids. The Bible excludes non-believers, the impenitent, and the heathen from being part of the regenerate, but CTS welcomes many of them with open arms. CTS so narrows what constitutes as regeneration, that it can say along with E.D. McCutcheon that many idol-worshippers are “working righteousness”. When this is done, it becomes difficult to find someone who is not saved, seeing that the recognition of a deity and religious profession is attainable to natural men. At this point the mind can become very susceptible to the idea that all are saved, and none are lost. One thus finds himself on the doorsteps of universalism with only a decision as to whether to walk through.

Let Jason know that universalism being one of the potential traps into which CTS may lead is the exact same observation made by Elder Thomas Mann in his 2002 sermon “Re-thinking Conditional Time Salvation”. Elder Sonny Pyles mentioned as well in a sermon that such charges were being circulated in emails by those who he claimed were in-the-closet gospel regenerationists. So I am not by myself in this charge. It is something commonly recognized by those who have come to see the error of time salvation.

It might be good for Jason to deeply consider this. He has correctly admitted from time to time that there are some Primitives who err. But Mann and these other brethren that Pyles mentions are the very ones ostracized by those who are in error! Perhaps, then, Mann and those of like mind are correct.

Now universalism is not the central heresy of CTS, but is one of the potential central consequences. The central heresy is that it is an error compromising every single one of the doctrines I listed at the outset of my article. For an example of what it does to justification, see my article A Novel Twist on Justification . Nor did I say, as Jason insinuates, that universalism compromises these doctrines. It is CTS itself which compromises them by its own faulty view of the order of salvation. He makes mention of my ordo salutis, when in actual fact I did not proclaim a particular stand on the issue. It can be gathered from what I wrote, however, that I believe that conversion, justification, and sanctification are inseparable elements from eternal salvation because that's what I believe the Bible to teach. In order to destroy CTS it does not really matter which particular version of the ordo salutis one advocates, whether it be logical or chronological, as both are destructive of its teaching. The problem with CTS is that it says there is not necessarily any order at all, seeing that parts of it are rendered optional. The "steps" of gospel conversion and sanctification do not have to be met, seeing that many may go to heaven without them.

In the discussion surrounding universalism, Jason is also guilty of claiming that I contradicted myself. In stating that practically all of Christendom understands the basic idea of receiving "blessings in this life" yet are not guilty of being universalists he deduces that my charge therefore does not hold water. He writes:

“More than this, he even admits in contradiction to this presumption that no one denies that gospel obedience leads to temporal blessings, and all of Christendom is not guilty of a quasi-universalism. So it plainly follows from this that an understanding of temporal deliverances does not lead to the error he perceives in modern PB's. He effectively proves that CTS is not responsible for the errors of modern PB's that he perceives.”

This is a false charge as it presumes that I claim that the MODEST presentation of CTS leads to universalism when what I had in mind is its teaching in its extreme form. It is not teaching that God grants temporal blessings in this life which may potentially lead to universalism, but claiming that one may continue in a state of unconversion for the whole of his life, and yet be regenerated, which may lead to it. That is what I meant. The conception formed of temporal deliverances by the average Christian is not the same as that what is formulated by the Primitives, who use the doctrine to dismiss things peculiar to Calvinism.

Jason himself admitted during his debate with Brother Stephen that some among the Primitives have come close to universalism, stating something which would land him in hot water amongst them today:

“Particularly with reference to the view that many Primitive Baptists hold today that most of the world is in fact comprised of regenerate children of God, which they erroneously affirm from texts of Scripture that state that the family of God is a numerous seed.”

We would remind him of the very question which Brother Stephen posted to him in response:
“What Hardshell teachings helped to create this error?”

Jason on Garrett's Work

It certainly is not the modest teaching that one is "saved from doubt" upon being baptized. It must be something else then. What is that certain something?

Even in his current posting he writes:

“…some arbitrarily make the category of sons most of the people of the world.”

But Jason, these are the very ones of whom I am myself speaking. You see the error as well, for which I'm thankful. You do mention that some have abused CTS to justify their universalism. This is the very thing I'm saying!

I also find it extremely interesting in a posting entitled “Time Salvation Defended” Jason resorts to the very thing which prompted me to write my article, for he himself ascribes very modest explanations to the doctrine. His definitions towards the end of his article do not even begin to address the issue of what CTS really is. The extreme version of this heresy is not that there is a salvation from doubt in baptism, but things surrounding the purpose of the preached gospel. The Means and Anti-Means Baptists did not meet at Mt. Carmel a century ago to discuss whether we receive “blessings in this life”, but issues surrounding the gospel means pattern of salvation. Nor did the Fulton brethren supply footnotes to the London Confession to clarify that God can deliver his people from fear, anxiety, depression, etc. And Elder John Watson did not describe as ultraists those who were teaching that the Egyptian exodus was an example of time salvation, but those who had departed on crucial doctrines of the scriptures.

It is not these modest explanations of CTS which arose from the upheavals of the day, and it is most certainly not the cause of the current controversy among the Primitives.

Does the application of biblical truth effect an eternal salvation, or only a temporal one? Are gospel conversion, faith, repentance, sanctification, and perseverance definite or optional parts of the salvation package? That is what the whole controversy is about, and where any "defenses" should focus their thoughts.

I have one other thing which I would like to point out in Jason’s response; that is, the question as to whether I am preaching to the choir of fellow contributor Stephen and Bob Ross, whom I do not even know, apart from ordering from his bookstore. If this was in fact my objective then I should have remained in my former position. It was there that I could get away with preaching the reprobate into heaven to the hearty Amen of many. It was actually my refusal to preach to the choir but chose rather to condone real OLD Baptist doctrine which was landed me where I am today.