ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION by Primitive Baptist

ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION by Primitive Baptist’s prior to 1900?

SEE PBtop: Reply to Conditional Time Salvation by 517 F3 & search for "Elders of the past" May I respectfully offer a "check and balance" to the suggestion that PB’s prior to 1900 tended toward what has since become known as "absolutism?" Perhaps a brief recap of the historical context will demonstrate why so many brethren around the turn of the 20th century found it necessary to make the fine distinctions between eternal and temporal salvation.

After the deaths of Beebe and Trott, "absolutism" (i.e. double predestination) made inroads into certain sections of the country primarily via the influence of the print media. Primarily along the eastern seaboard, churches struggled to survive the consequences of these ideas. As the concept of "passive obedience" gained momentum & a spirit of divisiveness grew within the churches, brethren who once appeared to tolerate the terminology of men like Beebe and Trott, found it increasingly necessary to clarify their respective views and distance themselves from what were perceived to be extreme positions.

Sylvester Hassell wrote in The Gospel Messenger, June 1897: It cannot be denied by any informed and honest man that such Scriptures as the following are conditional: "If His children forsake My law, I will visit their transgression with the rod, nevertheless My loving-kindness will I not utterly take from Him." {Psalms 89:30-33} If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.Isaiah 1:19-20If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.John 13:17If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye, through the spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.Romans 8:13How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?Hebrews 2:3"If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, His son, cleanseth us from all sin.." {1 John 1:7} See also such scriptures asLeviticus 26:1-46;Deuteronomy 4:29-31;Deuteronomy 7:12-16;Deuteronomy 11:13-32;Ezekiel 18:1-32;Ezekiel 33:1-33Not only is it certain that these Scriptures are conditional, but it is equally certain that the condition, introduced by ("if,") necessarily precedes the conclusion, which would not take place unless the condition took place first. If the conclusion in these sentences means eternal punishment, then Arminianism is true; but either the text itself or the context and other Scriptures, prove that the punishment or chastisement threatened in case of disobedience, is temporal and corrective, and not eternal and destructive, for God gives His children eternal life, and they shall never perish, and though their voluntary sins separate them from His face, nothing present or future can ever separate them from His love. {John 10:28-30;Hebrews 12:1-29;Isaiah 59:2;Romans 8:28-39} Thus the conditionality of time salvation is just as certain as the truth of the eternal word of God. Baptists have always heretofore understood it so; nearly all Baptists understand it so now; and this truth is in perfect accordance with Christian experience.

James Oliphant wrote in chapter 2 of his book, Justification and Kindred Subjects, 1899:

Some of our brethren think it would be an unworthy motive for us to serve the Lord in the hope of receiving a blessing.[i] But why are these motives put before us as an encouragement to obedience?[ii] Take the words, ("If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love.") Would it be a sin for us to desire to abide in his love?[iii] Or would it show an unworthy temper if we ask, ("How can I enjoy the love of God?")[iv] And when told that we shall abide in his love if we keep his commandments, would it be a sin for us to allow this backed away something from us?[v] Certainly not. To say, ("We shall be blessed in obedience,") would not change the case. If we are told that precious fruits grow on a certain road, we understand that we cannot have the fruits unless we go along that road. So, if we put it this way, there is as much reason to be influenced to obedience by the hope of reward, as there is to admit that our ("time salvation") is conditional.. We gain nothing to say we are blessed in obedience. For in this way of putting it, we clearly hold that our receiving the blessing depends on our obeying. If the blessing is in obedience, it is plain that we must obey in order to enjoy it, and also that we cannot enjoy it in disobedience. But if men obey, they will receive the blessing.

Take the text in Peter, ("He that will love life and see good days") etc. Is it a sin to love life and desire good days?[vi] Peter here urges this as an inducement to lead brethren to obey. It is a good motive and worthy for men to desire to enjoy life. Peter tells how to do this. ("Let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile. Let him eschew evil and do good. Let him seek peace and ensue it.") As a motive and an encouragement to obedience he says, ("He that will love life and see good days.") These are not the only motives, but they are some of the motives. It is not sinful to serve God and do right in order that we may see good days. Our ministers have urged this upon the people as one reason why they should obey. I have hundreds of times urged that there is sweet peace found in obedience; that we cannot have peace and rest of mind in sinful paths. Hence, we should eschew evil, seek peace, and ensue it. We should distinguish between that salvation in which we are quickened, and that which ("we work out.") God’s word does not call on us to be quickened or to be born again, but it does hundreds and thousands of times shows us it is our duty to obey. Now if obedience is of grace in the same sense that being born again is of grace, how is it that we are called on to do the one and not called on to do the other?[vii] [viii] We can scarcely read a page of God’s word that we see a command, exhortation or encouragement to obey the Lord and do right. And we may read every line in the Old and New Testament and not once find it our duty to be born again. Now if both are of grace in the same sense, why are we times without limit exhorted to do the one and scores of motives to induce us thereto, and not once exhorted to do the other. The fact is we should make a distinction here. We should either exhort everybody to be born again, or nobody to obedience, or we should make a plain, clear distinction between time salvation and eternal salvation. And as the apostles of old, we should exhort one another to love and to do good works. We should use their arguments to induce the people of God to serve the Lord and do right. The motives found in the Bible are numerous. The scriptures appeal to us from the love of God and on account of mercies received to our love of life and good days to our need and love of rest and countless motives are mentioned. We do not despise a man if we find him serving God in order to enjoy His presence and approval or for fear of falling or becoming a castaway. All these motives and scores of others are put before us. God does not deal with his children as a boy does with his marbles and say, ("When I want you in the right place, I will put you there.") His government is parental and moral and not physical.

Likewise, the Fulton brethren inserted an explanatory comment on Chapter XVI, Section 3 of their confessional statement: ("We believe the Scriptures teach that there is a time salvation received by the heirs of God distinct from eternal salvation, which does depend upon their obedience. The people of God receive their rewards for obedience in this life only. We believe that the ability of the Christian is the unconditional gift of God...The act of God necessary to our regeneration must in some sense be distinguished from his act necessary to our obedience. We are never commanded to be born again, but in hundreds of places we are called on to obey. We are passive in regeneration, but in obedience we are active. Regeneration is neither a vice nor a virtue; obedience is a virtue and disobedience a vice. Regeneration is wholly independent of the will. There could be no such a thing as obedience or disobedience independent of the will. Men do not neglect to be born again, but they do neglect their duty.")

Commenting on Section 5, Chapter XVI, they wrote: ("We hold, too, that conditionality is an essential element of moral government. We distinguish between God’s government of mind and his government of matter.")

Throughout the 20th Century, PB’s continued to grapple with the influx of ("absolutism.") In Arkansas, the 1943 Rhodes-West Debate focused on two propositions: (1) ("The Scriptures teach that God, from the beginning, did absolutely predestinate all things, both good and evil, whatsoever comes to pass") (Rhodes affirm; West deny); (2) ("The Scriptures teach that the salvation of God’s people here in time, after regeneration, is conditional on them living up to Scriptural requirements; also, their suffering and afflictions are conditional on them not living as they are commanded") (West affirm; Rhodes deny). Elder C. H. Cayce served as Elder West’s moderator.

Even today, PB’s find it hermeneutically necessary, lest we violate the law of noncontradiction in Biblical interpretation, to distinguish between those passages that affirm a monergistic, i.e. the work of one, and those that affirm a synergistic, i.e. the work of more than one, ("salvation.") In less technical terms, we believe that Scripture distinguishes between ("sonship") and ("discipleship.") When we say, therefore, that ("eternal salvation is by grace alone") we mean that God is active and the sinner is passive in every aspect of his salvation, i.e. foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, glorification. ("Sonship") is the work of One, from start to finish. ("Discipleship,") on the contrary, is not ("by grace alone") in the same sense that ("onship") is by grace alone. Man is not passive in discipleship, but is accountable to God for his obedience or lack thereof. I am compelled to reject the assertion that discipleship is a monergistic dynamic, but would offer a hearty ("amen") to the sentiments expressed in a recent article by Elder Lonnie Mozingo, Jr: Although we must have grace to enable us to keep the laws, meet the conditions and perform the works required to obtain these temporal deliverances, grace does not make us do these things. If we do them, it must come from obedience. {Romans 6:16;Isaiah 1:19;1 Peter 1:14}

I hope my explanation provides clarity to the historical context of this question concerning the extent of predestination and the need to distinguish between the unconditionality of sonship and the conditionality of discipleship. As a matter of practice, I have ceased to use the more frequently used term, "time salvation." It appears that our folks developed this term in a futile attempt to communicate more clearly their distinction in belief from Arminian-leaning Baptists after the 1832 separation. The briefest interaction with most people outside the Primitive Baptist camp will reveal that the term confuses; it certainly doesn’t communicate anything more clearly.

Elder David Pyles has made a convincing case that Elders BeeBe and Trott developed their unique terminology with a similar desire in mind, but their terminology was not clearly understood by their own folks. David’s thesis, well documented, supports the idea that neither of these men ever intended to teach that God authored or caused sin in His predestination. Both unfortunate situations demonstrate a point that we should have learned well by now, but our humanity interferes with spiritual discernment. We should be cautious in our choice of terms. First, our terminology should stick as closely as possible to Scripture. The moment we add adjectives to Biblical terms, or substitute our own terminology and reject Biblically specific terms, we destroy any authentic effort to improve our communications.[ix]

Scripture never uses the term "absolute predestination of all things." Perhaps BeeBe and Trott should have left it off, regardless of their legitimate desire to communicate our views more clearly to people outside our camp. Equally, subsequent Primitive Baptists might have been better off not introducing the terminology "time salvation." [x] The first time that I find the term used in a significant Primitive Baptist writing is in the Fulton footnotes to the London Confession, published around the beginning of the twentieth century. I repeat; I’ve never heard a Primitive Baptist use the term "conditional time salvation." The only time I’ve heard this specific term was from someone who intended to attack a concept, not explain or clarify it. When nineteenth century and earlier Primitive Baptists intended to refer to matters related to our discipleship, they used specific Biblical terms; faith, repentance, conversion, etc. We should return to their Biblical penchant.[xi]

{21} I agree that God did not desire, cause, or command child sacrifice and other sins. However, I do believe that he determined just how far He would allow it to go. I don’t know the reference but there is a verse that says something like...the wrath of man will praise God and the remainder of wrath he will restrain...forgive my paraphrase, but the idea is that it is God who decides how far he will allow it to go before putting an end to it. This is how we can have confidence that God will not allow us to be tempted more than we can bear. Certainly God is not tempting us, but we are tempted by our own lusts, yet God determines to restrain even that sin in us, that it will not overtake us.

" I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel stand, and I will do all my pleasure." {Isaiah 46:9-10}

[i] Well, on the other hand would we dare ask him a blessing and have no hope that He would answer it? I think not. It is NOT the prayer of unbelief that saves the sick but the prayer of faith.

[ii] I believe the lesson given by Elder James Oliphant makes a point that it is right to desire blessings in obedience. That may not be and should not be our main reason to obey the Lord. But God has determined that rewards and punishments to be one of the motives for doing right in this present world.

I do not believe the point made by Elder Oliphant can be successful denied according to scripture and experience.

[iii] It is a sin if we do not desire to abide in His love. It would be a sin IMHO if we were to advocate that one can abide in His love in disobedience to His commandments. 541 [iv] What greater thing should we desire than to enjoy the love of God. Nothing that I know of. 541 [v] I don’t understand the sentence-it seems something was left out or added that makes the sense incomplete.

[vi] Any answer that insists that it is a sin to love life is nonsense in my eyes. I don’t understand why anyone would consider desiring bad days.

[vii] Unless God’s grace abounds in us we would never be willing and certainly would never be able to come to God. We would never be obedient to any commandments of God. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:2 Corinthians 9:8

He calls on us to do the works in obedience because and only because He has given us the ability to do so. He has never given one sinner the ability to spiritually rebirth himself.

[viii] Amen to your comments! I think Oliphant’s point is well taken. "Justification" is a great book and I highly recommend it, along with "Thoughts on the Will" to anyone. Is this the essence of "conditional time salvation?" My recent querries have not been an effort to attack "conditional time salvation" but only to understand what is being advocated by those who use the term. I think there is reward and blessing in obedience, just as there is misery in sin. I know from experience and from scripture that it is true! I also never feel when I am blessed that it was anything I did that "earned" those blessings, but rather it was God’s gift. I even have found that my own obedience is a gift from God, since I know that if he did not give me the ability and desire to obey, I would go my own sinful way.

It is a common thought among people that we get what we deserve. But I have always felt that I’ve gotten better than I deserved. Not just in eternal blessings, but in timely blessings as well. Even when I have sinned, God has still blessed me. NOT as a reward for my sin certainly, but in spite of it, and the blessing he gave was the blessing of having the ability and desire to REPENT of those sins. That doesn’t seem to harmonize with condition time salvation, but maybe I am missing something...

I would appreciate anyone’s comments as I seek to gain a better understanding of these profound topics.

[ix] I agree. I do not believe that Trott or Beebe advocated that God caused sin. Hassell attested on a few occasions that many of the disputes were only over wording and that he himself agreed with the views on predestination expressed by Silus Durand and others, including the tract "absolute predestination" by Zanchius (a swiss reformer I believe). In a discussion on predestination, Silus Durand commented, among other things, that "I believe that God has purposed acts to be done which are sinful and wicked in them that do them." and " Some tell me that this cannot be reconciled, that if God should purpose that to exist which he hates. I simply reply that he has done so, for he says he has."

Hassell’s response to Durands letter contained this statement..." I thoroughly and heartily agree in the sentiment of my dear brother that there is no essential difference in doctrine between him and myself--between our highly esteemed supralapsarian and our infralapsaiian brethren,"

[x] In reference to the discussion over whether or not the term "time salvation" should be used, I would note that in my experience it is the term "conditional time salvation" and not "time salvation" that has caused disagreement. Also, I think I partly agree that it is a disagreement with the concept more than simply a disagreement with the wording.

Furthermore, I think that since many people today associate the term salvation only with eternal consequences, it may be necessary to employ a term like "time salvation" or "temporal salvation."

I think it is easy to explain to an unbiased person the validity of a concept such as temporal salvation. It is perfectly logical and simple to understand that not all deliverances are eternal. In "the cause of God and truth" by John Gill, he uses the term "temporal salvation" and uses the concept very effectively to refute common Arminian proof-texts. I also think that though "time salvation" is American language, the concept is as old as the bible.

[xi] I have found great peace and doctrinal soundness among my brethren here and have not heard the termonology such as "conditional time salvation" and "absolute predestination of all things" among our brethren until recently. I agree that it is better to stick to biblical terms. That is what our preachers do and in turn we have avoided harmful extremes and divisive language.