Conditional Time Salvation

Yelsew,

I was pointing out that Paul said that behavior can demonstrate one's state of salvation. If you don't believe the scripture teaches concepts that are applicable to situations outside of the people the letters are addressed, then why bother reading the Bible. None of it was written directly to us.

And I notice that he stopped short of calling them the elect of God.

 

And I am pointing out to you that Paul was writing in Galations to the people of Galatia and not to the people of Corinth.

Go back and look at your posts!

 

Sorry for the miscommunication. What I was trying to say was that according to what Paul wrote to the Galatians, those who were not living by the spirit in Corinth were demonstrating that they might not be a part of the elect.

 

But where in Chapter 5 of Galatians do you find that Paul is speaking of the Corinthians?

 

He did not specifically mention the Corinthians.

What he did mention is certain behaviors that reveal a heart that does not follow God's commands. One of these behaviors is drunkeness.

1 Corinthians 11:21

 

Yelsew, CTS is not generally discussed in SBC churches, unless they are Founders or sovereignty oriented. As I believe it is a heretical doctrine, the omission is fine with me. The teaching usually comes up in Primitive Baptist groups, though many of them don't advocate it either.

 

Hi P.B.
A quote from you;
-----------------------------------------------------------
The doctrine of Conditional Time Salvation springs from a denial of the sovereignty of God in all things. This doctrine maintains that the elect, being born again, may reject the gospel, abide in unbelief, remain unrepentant, refuse to walk in good works, etc. What think ye, brethren?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think your entire conception of what you just said in the post above is wrong.It's wrong because you do not understand the parable of the seed. Calvinist believe they are saved because they are elected but you can't prove you are elected without admitting that all who seek after Jesus Christ are elected.
Romanbear

 

According to this doctrine, what happens to the elect who reject God's commands and live by the flesh?

 

Could this belief come from Romans 2:1-16?

Romans 2:1-16

If so, then the elect who have not heard the good news would be the ones who have shown that they have God's truth written in their hearts. Their actions would still be consistant with the actions of living by the Spirit.

 

And it makes no sense to me whatsoever. I've suggested possibilities, but I still fail to see how anyone can draw this conclusion from scripture.

 

I find that often times those who disagree with a doctrine define it by the way they see it, which is not the definition the supporters would give.

 

If I am understanding you correctly, then Romans 2 does support the position, therefore I wouldn't call it heresy. It is not the hearers of the word that are saved, but the doers of the word that are saved. If a person shows that he/she has God's word written in his/her heart, then Paul says such a person can be found righteous.

***I don't see why people get upset over this issue. If such people are a part of the elect, then so be it. If such a person is not a part of the elect, then Paul instructs us not to judge. Either way we are not to condemn these people. Their situation has absolutely nothing to do with how we are to live.***

 

Tuor, You're missing the point. The CTSist would say those in the cults and all other religions are probably good Christians and going to heaven. Many verses are ignored, John 14.6, etc, etc. etc. From the outside the CTS churches appear universalists, though they don't, in reality go quite that far, just saying "disobedient children" committed followers in other religions or even atheist qualify. There is no mandate for love for the Lord or His word or etc. Often it is a rationalizing for those they want to perceive as saved to "be" saved, no matter their walk, or talk. They say the Almighty is sovereign in eternity, but not sovereign in time. I don't know about the 90% remark, but it is true that the majority of PB are CTSist. There is a growing group of those that believe God is Sovereign in all things, eternal and timely. PB beliefs vary a great deal with areas of the country. Though I agree with unlimited predestination, a fair number of CTSist are moving to a more moderate stance allowing for difference of individual belief.

 

Primitive Baptist, I know there are PBs in Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Maryland, Virginia, etc. that believe in absolute predestination. Are there many in North Carolina? I am Beebe-ite and Gillite, an Old School Sovereign Gracer, as there are no time sovereign PB in my area. One branch of my family came from the Franklin, N.C. area. I had visited there and was told that their Church didn't have Sunday Schools and that they were Baptist. Just curious about N.C. absolute predestinarians?

 

I've heard this kind of talk before out of some branches of the OSAS camp.

"If at one time in a person's life one accepts Jesus as Lord, one is saved. The only thing that our actions determine will be our rewards in heaven."

All these people are doing is applying it to the 'elect'. I agree that it is wrong. I'm just pointing out the similarity in doctrine.

 

Tuor, I don't know if you've been keeping up with the media on Carlton Pierson's Church in Tulsa, but he has taken up CTS theology. Oral Roberts and the charismatics/pentecostals have pretty much disowned Pierson. He says it is a new view/not knowing it has been espoused for many years & I would guess he is unaware that there is a CTS Church nearby. I've been told that the majority of his Church have left.