Conditional Time Salvation

If this is conditional time salvation - "that the elect, being born again, may reject the gospel, abide in unbelief, remain unrepentant" - then I don't agree with it. I've always found the idea confusing and have never been sure that I understand what people mean when they say "conditional time salvation." I have purchased Conditional Time Salvation: Is it the Truth?, by Elder R. H. Boaz, but I haven't read it yet. Have you ever read Boaz' book?

 

Where in the Bible does it say that we can determine who is a part of the elect and who is not?

 

If we don't know who the elect actually are, then we can't know who will end up rejecting the gospel and who will end up enduring to the end.

I did a search in my Condordance on the word elect. Never once in the Bible does Paul refer to anyone, not even himself, as 'elect'. Paul mentions the elect, but never did he judge a single person as being a part of the elect.

 

I realize it doesn't fit the definition of Conditional Time Salvation, but every time I see that phrase now all I can think of is "Beat The Clock".

 

Paul's version is that life is a race. If one is going for a record or qualifying time, then I'd say the 'beat the clock' description is accurate.

 

Primitve Baptist

I am a member of a Primitive Baptist Church which you would probably label Conditionalist (and which label I would reject as inaccurate).

What you wrote there is not really what many who believe or call "Conditional Time Salvation" believe. It may fit some, but certainly not all. Most of the ones who preach such (and I don't go along with it), mean to say is that it is within the individual's power to save themselves from unpleasant situations in time.

If you want the truth of the matter, I preceived you to be one affiliated with the Absolute Predestinarian point of view. I also will tell you that I have attended churches on both sides of the great Primitive Baptist gulf, and there isn't much difference, except for the way folks choose to express themselves. It is a shame, and shouldn't be that way. All on "my" side that I am aware of believe in the absolute foreknowlege of God, and that that foreknowlege can't be thwarted by man. If there are those who would advocate something different, I would say they were in error.

The whole mess got started in trying to decipher the mind and purpose of God. (Its late, and I may not be making sense). Folks about 80 years ago got themselves in a lather over trying to determine the active will and permissive will of God.

Hope it helps.

Jeff.

 

What I am having trouble understanding is why one should care about CTS one way or another (indeed, why anyone would even bother to conceive of it).

The importance of election vs. free will makes sense to me. IMO, the doctrine of free will is man's invention that attempts to usurp some of the credit for his salvation. Arminians won't agree with me that free will does that, of course. But I would hope that Arminians would at least agree that if one does try to usurp some credit for salvation, that would be a bad thing. So Arminians should at least be able to see why the issue is important to Calvinists and others who believe we are not saved by a free will decision.

However, even if CTS is true, I don't see where its application makes any difference one way or another. For example, if someone in the church requires discipline, then would the belief in CTS or disbelief in it make any difference as to how one disciplines? Or if CTS means they're not even in the church, then why would it matter? Since I am terribly ignorant on CTS, perhaps someone can enlighten me?

 

The only problem I see with the Conditional argument is the use of the term 'elect'. The elect are going to heaven. The elect can't be deceived.

Once one realizes that we don't have the ability to discern who is of the elect and who is not, the contradictions in the Bible to people falling away disappear. Even Jesus said that people will 'fall away' from the gospel. If a person has a problem with Jesus' own words, then I think there is a problem with the person.

 

The CTS view limits God's sovereignty in time, perceiving man's will free apart from any Divine influence. Absolute predestination of all things is just that.

 

There is no need of man to know who the elect are. This is knowledge belonging only to God. If we had a list of these people then the Gospel could be dispensed to a group of those listed and then we would find favortism or "respect" of persons in the simple act of holding the Gospel until a group of the elect are gathered.

Bro. Dallas

 

I don't want to defend CTS because it doesn't make sense to me. (This may also be the reason I don't get your point, so perhaps you can clear it up for me if you see what I'm missing in my next statement).

First, I don't see how the elect can reject the gospel, or how we'd even know if they did, so I left that part out. But if the heart of CTS is the following:

Then CTS would appear to be potentially true based on 1 Corinthians. The Corinthians were engaged in some pretty outrageous behavior, yet Paul does not say they are not saved. The most dramatic thing God did was judge some and take them home early when they dishonored the Lord with their behavior at the Lord's supper.

From the perspective of human reasoning, this almost appears as if God was caught by surprise by their behavior. Surely He knows in advance what these people will do, don't you think? I suppose if God elected these people for good works, they could have been doing them when they weren't busy having their father's wives and getting drunk at the Lord's supper, but 1 Corinthians fails to highlight these good works.

So what was going on? Where these people being disobedient of their own free will, and God was unable to do anything about it except maybe cut their time short? Or did God foresee this perfectly and deliberately allow it to an extent as an example and lesson? Or anything inbetween?

Do you see what I'm getting at? God can be perfectly sovereign without the necessity of the elect behaving the way we'd expect them to.

Now -- what am I missing here (besides the whole point, probably?)

 

Would someone please condense this "doctrine of Conditional Time Salvation" to a doctrinal statement for me. In my 15 years in the Southern Baptist Denomination I never heard of such a doctrine.

 

That is a matter of interpretation. According to Galatians 5, Paul did say that those people were walking the road that leads to destruction.

Galatians 5:19-21

which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

If one lives by the flesh, then one will not enter the kingdom of heaven. It is impossible for the elect to live by the flesh.

 

Yes, it is a matter of interpretation, and I certainly don't know whether they (the Corinthians) were truly saved or not. But if I had to guess, I would guess that they were saved.

Galatians 5 doesn't necessarily contradict the idea that the Corinthians mentioned were saved. IMO, Galatians 5 clearly has in view those who are controlled by the flesh. And as we saw from Romans 8, people controlled by the flesh do not have the Spirit, and do not belong to Christ.

The quote (emphasis mine):

Note also the word "practice", instead of "do", which is, IMO, a more accurate translation. It's not saying that those who do these things (by error, or because they are weak, etc.) will not inherit the kingdom of God, but those who practice them (continually, because they are controlled by the flesh and do not have the Spirit).

You may not agree, but if you consider it possible, then how does this fit in with CTS?

 

By the way, I like your method of providing the link to the text instead of quoting it. I'll have to do that more often. I use Bible Gateway all the time, too, so it was nice to be taken directly there.

 

If Galations 5 in your bible is speaking of the Corinthians, You'd better stick with the King James version.

 

5:19 Now, manifest is the works of the flesh, which things is: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness,
5:20 Idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strifes, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, self-seekings, factions, heresies,
5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revelries, and the things similar to these, which I am mentioning to you in advance, according as also I said before, that the ones practising the such shall not inherit God's kingdom.

See the word "practising" in v. 21? This is the key. The Corinthians were individual sinners saved by grace, without a shadow of a doubt. Paul wrote the introductory salutation to them under divine inspiration. The Greek verb êgiasmenois in v. 2 of 1Cor. 1 literally says "to you having been sanctified" ("...in Christ Jesus"). It is followed by klêtois agiois - "to called (summoned) saints". They had been sanctified in Christ and effectually called from darkness to light. The present active participle in Gal. 5:21, "practising", speaks of an entire life characterized by practising the works of the flesh enumerated in that passage, and "the such like". The Corinthians repented of their slip into laxity of practice and attitude at Paul's rebuke, thus evidencing they were genuine penitents, converts. True converts may backslide like the Corinthians, but they are not bastards, thus the Lord God chastises them and visits them with the rod, resulting in godly repentance not to be repented of, evidenced by amendment of outward practice or whatever need to be repented of. True converts may temporarily practice some of the works of the flesh of Gal. 5:19 in a backslidden state. But, they are not "ones practising the such", i.e. on a continual basis even unto the point of death.

Harald