Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Elder Walter Cash on Is Time Salvation Conditional?

I noticed while perusing the Spring 2012, The Old Path Contender, a quarterly Primitive Baptist publication edited by Elder Kenneth Clevenger, that it showcased Elder Walter Cash's article in the Messenger of Peace in February 1924.

I have enjoyed and commend Elder Cash's writings to all, and count him certainly to be one of the most knowledgeable and Biblically faithful Primitive Baptists of the last century who emphasized, above all, using Bible language wherever possible.  The semantic confusion that can arise when doctrine is formulated conceptually apart from the language of Scripture, even if substantively synonymous, has been the cause of unnecessary strife within the Bride of Christ.  Certainly for the cause of the babes in Christ who might strain at concepts like the meat offered to idols, language that is not Biblical, though it is conceptually consistent with the logical consequence of expressed Biblical concepts, ought to be eschewed in preaching in favor of the language of Scripture.

This truth reproves both sides of the debate between those that advocate God's predestination of all things, and the so-called "conditional", time salvation, as Brother Cash's writings demonstrate.

I present the article that was originally presented by Elder Cash, whose years of life were from 1856-1937, in the, Messenger of Peace, in February, 1924:

                                                    Is Time Salvation Conditional?


Brother J.S. Rippeto, of Hartsburg, Missouri, asks me to answer this question, "Is Time Salvation Conditional?" through the MESSENGER of PEACE. It cannot be answered "yes" or "no."  The reason why it cannot be is because the meaning of "time salvation" has to be defined before it can be intelligently discussed.  It would be better to say in the beginning that the term should not be used at all, for the reason that it is too indefinite.  It is not a Bible expression and we should always be careful about using expressions that are not warranted by the Bible.


It may be true that in some sense we might use the expression, "time salvation," but it would always need to be qualified.  It is better to use terms so plain that they will be understood without having to qualify them.  The word "salvation," as used in the Bible, generally refers to God's salvation of his people, whether it be in time or to eternity.  God's salvation is God's saving and the manifestation of this commences in time and it's blessings and benefits are felt and known in time, and are made perfect in eternity.  Whenever this is used, those not used to some special explanation would be likely to think of this salvation and object to saying that it was conditioned on the acts of men.  For this reason I feel that the expression, "time salvation" is not good usage.


This expression is generally used to refer to blessings that follow obedience to God's will and way, or contrariwise, to the chastisement that follow disobedience.  Upon these points the Bible is so clear that if we use Bible terms no one will be misled.  If we ask, is there conditional chastisement?  The Bible will answer such a question.  God said to Samuel of David, "If he commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; but my mercy shall not depart away from him."  This course is also true of God's dealings with his children in all the ages.  "We are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world."  Our fathers, after the flesh, "chastened us after their own pleasure; but He (God) for our profit, that we might be partakers of His holiness."


No one with reason would claim that God chastised without cause or that He chastised the obedient.  So, likewise, we know that the obedient have the approval of the Master and the fruits of the Spirit will be manifest in them.  So, while it is true that the obedient save themselves from chastisement, it is not necessary to call it time salvation.

At the same time, Elder Cash in an article entitled, Thoughts on Predestination, published in Messenger of Peace, 1928, opposed the use of "predestinate" in reference to what God suffers or permits:

"
It may be urged that God certainly knows what will be, and so it may be said he "predestinated to permit" all the evil that there is in the world. The fact that he does not prevent evil cannot be denied. And he permits in the sense that he has power to prevent and does not do so. But we should so hold ourselves to the use of scripture language that we do not use terms that the scriptures do not use, and it is nowhere said in his word that he predestinates to permit. This is too strong a term to use unless God himself had authorized it.
"


In modern PB's, you often hear of this latter, semantic objection to the use of the expression of God's predestination of all things by fiat or permissive decree.  I agree with the point here, as it cannot be denied that the Bible's direct use of the word "predestinate" in the New Testament is expressly in reference to the specific salvation of individuals, though I do not object to the use of this term in reference to what God suffers as long as it is clearly qualified that God's predestination of sin is permissive and not causative, as the Fulton Confession (Hassell through this confession, as they adopted his statements in the footnotes) and the LCF allowed. 


However, it is inconsistent to stress this semantic focus of Biblical language without doing the same of the expression, "conditional time salvation", which is the focus of Elder Cash in his article posted above.  The salient objection to Absoluters and Stephen Garrett's view of soteriology, is that the sin of the regenerate, and the consequent chastisement in time, are clearly presented in the Scripture as conditional, not absolute, as the Bible commands in Ephesians to, "grieve not the Holy Ghost" and, 1 Thessalonians, "Quench not the Spirit." Also, clearly James 1:13,14 emphatically makes this point.


It does not follow from this fundamental objection that the subjective experience of grace and mercy of God is as conditional as disobedience, as the effectual call is manifestly unconditional, as an aspect of salvation experienced in time.  As Cash argues, it is disobedience that is conditional from the Scripture, not salvation (except as salvation pertains to deliverance from temporal disobedience), which is the common experience of all those truly shepherded.  


May the truth and emphases of the Scripture inform the emphases of His ministers.



No comments:

Post a Comment