Chpt. 7 - Time Salvation - A Novel Idea

"Secrecy" of some sort is a characteristic of a cult. Christians have their "secrets" (Psa. 25:14; Prov. 3:32), but the distinctive secrets of the Hardshell cult are not the secrets of God or of His kingdom.

Basically, religious secrets involve "special revelation" that the cult, and it alone, possesses. Christians have "special revelation"; for instance, the knowledge of Christ as being the Son of God (Matt. 16:16, 17). But the claimed "special revelation" of the Hardshell is nothing but the blindness of a heresy.

"Time Salvation"

Their primary "secret" revelation concerns the doctrine they call "Time Salvation." You have to be trained in Hardshell "dogma" to know all that the words convey. What the Hardshells believe the terminology, "Time Salvation," represents would never cross the average Bible reader's mind. You have to hear it from a Hardshell to be introduced to and informed in the meaning of its theological “jargon.”

Please understand that though all factions believe in "Time Salvation", yet not all believe in Conditional Time Salvation. This latter is peculiar to that largest faction of Hardshells, called the "Conditionalist" faction. It is not characteristic of the "Absoluter" side. These latter people condemn this doctrine. And in this, as anyone who knows Hardshell history will acknowledge, they are like the true Old Baptists.

It is interesting that many Hardshells adopt the Campbellite credal statement that says, "We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where it is silent," and yet they speak of their "Time Salvation." Hanks, in his Hardshell "history," says that the use of such "unscriptural terms" are not edifying, but rather divisive. He says:

"Scriptural expressions should be used on controverted points. Absolute predestination, eternal vital union, saved before the foundation of the world, conditional time salvation, eternal church, etc., are controverted and objectionable expressions which confuse brethren, and hence should not be used. Let all use scriptural expressions and labor to unify our people" (page 235).

I agree with Hanks that "conditional time salvation" is not a "scriptural expression." I also agree that such terminology is not only anti-scriptural but also "controverted and objectionable expressions which confuse brethren!"

It is an integral part of the Hardshell DEFENSE and APOLOGETIC, for their "Spirit Alone" and "No-Means Regeneration" theories, to get their opponents or would be "converts" to inbibe all the teachings involved in this doctrine of"Time Salvation."

Having been a Hardshell defender of such theories, I can see why this new doctrine had to be invented. But, the question every Hardshell ought to ask himself is this -- "Why is it that no New Testament writer addresses such a doctrine?" Also, "Why did none of the church fathers write about Time Salvation?" And, answer this question -- "Why did no Old Baptist, prior to Beebe and the rise of the Hardshells, use the Time Salvation argumentation against those who believed that the Bible taught means in regeneration?" You never read of anyone, prior to Beebe and the Hardshells, use any such kind of argumentation against the Arminians saying to them, "Oh, that passage is a time salvation, not eternal"?

What is the teaching of "Time Salvation?" Let me quote a few verses of scripture:

"He that believes and is baptized, shall be saved" (Mark 16:16).
"I declare unto the gospel and by which you are saved" (I Cor. 15:1).
"I have begotten you through the gospel" (I Cor. 4:15).
". . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation . . ." (Rom. 1:16).
". . . it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (I Cor. 1:21).
"What must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved . . ." (Acts 16:31).

All of these verses speak of "salvation." The normal, unbiased reader would have no reason to believe otherwise than that they were talking about being saved from sin, judgment, death and damnation. This is what constitutes the theme of the Bible. Man needs “salvation”; sin is what he is saved "from." He is saved "to" holiness, liberty, life and glory.

It is because of the general and overall Biblical use and emphasis of these terms (save, salvation, deliver, death, sins, judgment, damnation, etc.) that they are often used by speakers and writers without clarification. It is assumed that when a writer, in the Scriptures, announces his intention to discourse upon "salvation," he is talking about being saved from sin and condemnation. He does not need to say that he excludes other "kinds" of salvation, like from temporary evils such as starvation, drowning, sickness, etc.

When the jailer asked Paul what he must do to be "saved," Paul understood that he didn't mean saved from drowning or temporary problems, but from the awful judgment of God.

However, this is where the Hardshell objects. He says that the "salvation" being talked about by Paul and the jailer was NOT concerning "eternal" salvation from sin and death, but of some kind of "timely" deliverance.

So they allege that all of those verses just quoted are NOT talking about being saved, i.e. "born again," "regeneration," "created in Christ," "justified," "forgiven," etc. So, their position is, that the gospel "saves," but not "eternally," and not in the sense of "regeneration." It "saves" from a few tears and sorrows "in this life only," as they would say.

To them, many, if not all, of the Scripture passages that talk about "salvation" or being "saved" are NOT talking about "eternal" salvation or the rescuing of a man from "Hell." Rather, they believe that mostpassages speak of "time" salvation from many temporary dangers and problems.

The Hardshells manifest great purpose of heart and ingenuity in "interpreting" many "salvation passages," clearly dealing with eternal salvation and redemption, in a limited way and as dealing strictly with timely or earthly concerns. Why the necessity to do this? Because to interpret those salvation passages as dealing with eternal salvation would destroy their "anti-means," "Spirit Alone" teaching!

Reader, look at those passages that we quoted earlier. Don't they all speak of the "gospel" as being that "means" or "instrument" in salvation and spiritual birth? In all of them it is the same. We are saved "by" or "through" the gospel.

Hardshells must do one of two things in the face of such passages: they must either abandon Hardshellism and their anti-means position, or else find some way of "harmonizing" the anti-means position with those passages! What a situation! What a test! What a crossroads!

This is where a cunning and devilish mind "invented" a "new" doctrine, for the purpose of defending "anti-means" in the face of passages that clearly teach the use of them. It was "sophistry" at its best. It was invented to simply win an argument and not from an honest genuine conviction that Hardshellism is taught in the Scriptures.

What the Hardshells have done, with their emphasis on the presumed many occurrences of timely deliverances in the Bible, is to take the occasional use of a word and make it the general meaning of the word, turning things about, upside down, topsy turvy. They do this in many areas of Bible interpretation. I will give some further examples, but first I will deal a little more with how they take the occasional use of the word "save" and make it predominate.

Saved

The common meaning of this word, in scriptural usage, connects with what relates to eternal deliverance from sin and death. This is its predominant meaning, especially in the New Testament doctrinal epistles. In the Psalms, probably more than any other inspired book, do the Psalmists speak of various timely deliverancies (but, really, even these are connected and based upon eternal salvation), but still, even in these, it is eternal salvation that is predominant. Sometimes the words save and deliver do respect a deliverance from a timely affliction. No one will deny this, and the Hardshells recognize this, seeking to build upon it in trying to win other Christians over to Hardshellism.

If we grant that these words may sometimes NOT refer to eternal deliverance, then it might be also true that other passages, that were thought to be talking about eternal salvation, are actually talking about various time salvations from afflictions and sundry things.

It will become obvious to most who read this essay on Hardshellism, that these Hardshells, who have historically opposed any thing "new," i.e. "inventions," have themselves, ironically and hypocritically, introduced many new things under the Baptist and Christian name, at least in doctrine.

If one takes the word saved in mostly a timely sense, then one will, of course, do the same with those words that express the opposite idea of salvation, words like Perish Destruction, Damnation, etc. These words too must denote, not eternal punishment, something after this life, but only some temporal punishment. It is no wonder that the Hardshells have been plagued with the heresies of "No-Hellism" and "Universalism.", violating such a simple rule of Bible interpretation. Rare and occasional usages of words cannot be made to be the regular use of them.

The Hardshells do the same with the words Angel, Heaven, Hell. The word angel does sometimes, occcasionally, refer to human messengers, but the predominant meaning refers to that order of beings that are spirits, without bodies, of whom man is said to be "made a little lower." But, you listen to Hardshell sermons and the way they "spiritualize" and abuse all "hermeneutic rules" of sound Biblical interpretation, and you will see that they make angel to nearly always mean human messengers. They have a reason for doing this. As I have already alluded, the Hardshells have had much trouble in modern times with the idea that Satan was ever in Heaven and is a fallen angel therefrom. I will be saying more about this later in this book, but this adversity to teaching about the origin of Satan and the fall of the angels has caused those Hardshells, so opposed, to go to extremes and make every reference to angels as referring to human beings. Here again they have taken the erroneous step of taking the occasional usage of a word, in Holy Scripture, and given it the predominant place, all to suit their own ends. I will also later show how they are guilty of what is called "eisegesis." They read their interpretations into passages and words instead of getting them out of the passages and words themselves.

The words Heaven and Hell too are now mostly used to refer to other places other than the final abode of the saints and of unredeemed men.

The causes at work, historically, and which later provided this veritable "new revelation," "Time Salvation," will now draw our attention.

Gilbert Beebe probably was the first to come up with the novel idea of this "Time Salvation" way of arguing and interpreting scripture. He was the father of the view that Christ speaks directly to each heart, apart from the gospel, in what the Hardshells call that "still, small voice," a voice that those who hear it are not even aware. Bob Ross showed this in his writings, of which I will be citing in the next chapter, and enlarging upon. Beebe invented that idea to get around those passages of scripture that speak of the necessity of hearing and obeying the word of Christ for salvation. But, as I said, more on that later. Let me now introduce what the founding fathers of Hardshellism said about "Time Salvation."

Hassell on Time Salvation

"Q. Does the Bible teach that there is a conditional time salvation?

A. The Bible does not use this phrase, and, as its truth is controverted by some of our brethren, it would probably be best to avoid it. But it is certain that the Bible does teach that there is a salvation or deliverance here in time, which we ourselves are to work out (Philip 2:12; Acts 2:40; I Tim. 4:16); yet we can only do this as God works in us by His grace (Philip 2:12,13; 4:13; John 15:4,5; I Cor. 15:10). The cause of the most controversies is the affirmative of one part and the denial of another part of the truth.

Q. Do the Scriptures set forth both a time and eternal salvation?

A. No one except those who are willfully or unintentionally ignorant of the Scriptures deny this fact. Salvation is deliverance, and human beings are delivered from distress both in time and in eternity. Our eternal salvation is alone by the free grace of God through His atoning Son and renewing Spirit; and if we are here in time delivered from trouble in our obedience unto God, that very obedience comes from the grace of God (Isa. 26:12; Philip 2:12,13; Heb. 13:20,21).

These are the answers given by Hassell. They are taken from the writings of Elder R. H. Pittman and Copied from the "Gospel Messenger" and from the "Advocate and Messenger".

"Conditional Time Salvation"

"Is it a Bible doctrine? or Is it a recent heresy?"

By Elder James F. Poole

"The subject with which we differ here is not Time Salvation; it is Conditional Time Salvation."

"The advocates of Conditional Time Salvation habitually interchange the expressions, Conditional Time Salvation and Time Salvation, as if they were the same. We expect to show the differences."

"It was hatred of absolute predestination that gave rise to the putrid system of Conditional Time Salvation."

"Conditional time salvation is a very new doctrine, and can be traced back only to the latter part of the last century, and only in the United States. It has no identity in early history anywhere, and the New Testament is totally silent in its support."

"Conditional Time Salvation did not exist. As with practically all errors that invade the church, Conditional Time Salvation crept in slowly, insidiously, a seed here, a denial there, a question or suggestion about predestination..."

(www.the-remnant.com/conditional2.htm)

Elder Poole is correct on the history of this innovation in doctrine among the Hardshells. Elder Poole is on the "Absoluter" side.

Remember that the Hardshell denomination first began with a very loud and vocal minority within the Baptist denomination. It began with some "rumblings" here-and-there. Their first unifying principle – the "mission system," "method," or "plan," then being practiced by the Baptist denomination, was "evil" and "carnal" and contrary to the "divine plan" or sacred "method," i.e. the "scriptural" or "orderly" plan. This first unifying principle was similar to the Campbellite's first unifying principle, Thomas Campbell's "Declaration and Address." The Hardshells issued their "Black Rock Address" during this same period.

As brother Ross has also shown, the first Hardshells were not at first characteristically deniers of means in regeneration. In fact, they strenuously cleaved to a professed belief in the London and Philadelphia Confessions, which of course, teach gospel means. They were originally in opposition to mission "methodology." This is evident in men like Elder and Doctor, John Watson of Middle Tennessee. He, like others of the time, opposed much of the mission methodology of his day, but he nonetheless believed in gospel means and decried those anti-mission Baptists who were then beginning to embrace the radical view of "Spirit Alone" regeneration.

Those first "Anti-Mission Baptists, however, were finding it very difficult to win many to their cause and belief, because a belief in gospel means does in fact encourage and necessitate the spreading of the gospel in some way or another. There was also the popular belief in the duty of obeying the Great Commission with its command to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." It is difficult to preach too much against "missions" with those beliefs ingrained in the people.

Some of the first "Anti-Mission Baptists preached that there were "better plans." But these people still believed in means in regeneration and church missions. They weren't Hardshell in the sense of denying means in salvation. It was simply a question with them as to what method was the best.
But some opposers of the "mission system" saw that, to be successful in the "war" with the Mission Baptists, they must attack the tree at its roots, i.e. the belief that the new birth involves the gospel and the preachers of it.

Thus you have Gilbert Beebe's statement or question, "Why talk about means to produce it?"

Doubtless, in this early period of the anti-mission effort, he was the first Hardshell to arise in attack of that sacred root. He can therefore lay claim to being the public "father" of Hardshellism.

In the creation and invention of this "new" doctrine of "Spirit without the word" regeneration, several classes of scripture passages that teach regeneration through the word, had to be interpreted in a non-traditional way.

That first class of passages speak of being saved, born again and converted by the "word," "voice" or "gospel" of Christ. Beebe first suggested a new way of dealing with that class of "means" passages: deny that they are talking about the "preached" or "written word," and contend that they are talking about some "mystical," "hidden," "subconscious" "voice" or "word" of God, and that it is totally unconnected with the actual recorded revelation. That was the ticket!

The next class of passages to deal with were those which speak of salvation coming through the "preaching" of the "word." Here came, as we said earlier, the invention of the "Time Salvation" and "Conditional Time Salvation" doctrines. In this, there would be, of course, the denial that any of that class of scripture was talking about "eternal" salvation or regeneration.

Connected with these denials came a "new" definition of what constitutes one as being Biblically "saved," "regenerated" and "born again." To Baptists, prior to the birth of Hardshellism, being "saved" (or "born again") was synonymous with "conversion" (the creation of faith and repentance). These were "evangelical graces" signaling the new birth and produced by the gospel. All of a sudden, these Hardshells had adopted a theory of "subconscious level" regeneration. A person could be saved and not even know it! In fact, he might never come to know it in this life! He may be unconverted, i.e. not a Christian, but yet still be "regenerated!" Thus the Hardshell premise became this: anything that the gospel produces in the elect cannot be necessary for their "eternal" salvation. When this is narrowed down, the only thing necessary for their "eternal" salvation or regeneration, was a belief in and love for a supreme being!

Hardshells today strongly assert the presence of "regenerated elect" among all religions of the world, from the idol worshiping Pygmy to the savage Indian. Hardshells see "evidence" of regeneration in the heathen's desire to worship anything! Therefore, Hardshells were forced into illogical, contradictory and unscriptural positions on the nature and necessity of "faith" for salvation.

Biblical faith, as the Confessions stated, and as the Bible clearly shows, is an "evangelical grace" which had the gospel and Christ as its object, and was therefore itself produced through the means of the gospel.

So Paul taught in Romans 10:14-17:

"But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? . . . So faith comes from hearing what is heard, and what is heard is by the preaching of Christ."

In dealing with those passages which lay down the necessity of faith for salvation, the Hardshells were in another predicament. First, they resorted to their "Time Salvation" doctrine with some of those passages. In some instances, however, it was clear that faith was necessary for eternal salvation. Those passages were just too plain to subvert with the "Time Salvation" “formula” and hermeneutic principle.

The answer to that came when the Hardshells divined that there were, not only "two kinds" of "salvation" (one "temporal" and one "eternal"), but also "two kinds" of "faith," one which is necessary to salvation but not produced by means, and one kind that is not necessary but is produced by the gospel.

Whatever qualities the "faith" produced by the gospel had, the other kind of faith could not have. That became another premise to defend.

When it was narrowed down, the "faith" not produced by the gospel rejected Christ and His death, burial and resurrection. A person could have a "faith" without these qualities and still be saved!

Also, the "life" that a sinner receives in the new birth must be void of those things that the gospel produces. And again, narrowed down, this becomes a bare mystical principle of life, or some strange spiritual deposited "substance" that Hardshells generally call an "inner ability."

These are heretical views. In the new Hardshell vocabulary, "faith," "salvation," "regeneration," "new birth," "repentance," etc., all receive new and heretical definitions!

It soon became the leading job of the Hardshell Bible student to know when a passage was talking about "time" or "eternal" salvation, or when it was talking about necessary "faith" or unnecessary "faith," etc. To be able to do this, was to them, to be able to "rightly divide the word!"

There have been adverse consequences to all this departing from the faith. First, in the area of "conversion." In the Bible, this is the outward expression of the inward work of the new birth. They were inseparable to the early Baptists. Conversion was the production of faith, confession and repentance in sinners under the gospel.

The adverse effects on separating salvation in time from the eternal program are, "No-Hellism," "Anti-Premillennialism," "Non-Resurrectionism" and "Universalism."

The Hardshells have often had to battle the presence of "No-Hellism," or the denial of eternal punishment, because of their substituting "time" for "eternal" salvation in so many scripture passages. If the salvation in those passages is only temporal, then the judgment, death and damnation must also be temporal. This has led some from "No-Hellism" and "Universalism."

The preaching of "time salvation" for the obedient minority of the elect, in contrast to those "elect who are unbelievers," help to make a cult out of those who thought that they were of that holy minority. Thus they began to preach that they were the "elect within the elect!" They only, of the whole regenerated class, had been truly "converted" or "saved in time" by the gospel, and therefore entered "Canann's Land!"

They avow that they only preach the gospel and only Hardshells are saved by the gospel, converted. All other Christians may be regenerated and eternally saved, but none of them have been "saved" in time and therefore none had entered the visible kingdom of Christ, the "Old Hardshell Church."

In the area of "Time Salvation," the already regenerated person had to "get this salvation by himself," i.e. by his own faith and works. "Eternal" salvation was all God's work, strictly by grace and without means. However, "Time" salvation, on the other hand, was by your "free-will" and works, i.e. your obedience to the gospel. In the area of "Time" salvation, Hardshells are virtually Pelagian, Arminian, and Campbellite! This the "Absoluter faction" constantly points out to the "Conditionalist" faction.

This "new" doctrine, as I said, made a cult out of the denomination. It led them to glorify themselves as the "only ones" who were "saved," in the sense of "time" salvation. All other Christians were "lost" in this "timely sense!"

All this fits really well with the root of Landmarkism and Amillennialism. Combined with Landmarkism, it created the "Simon-Pure" mentality, i.e. the "we be Abraham's seed" or "we be the only ones" mentality. We only, they say, have "authority" and gospel "order."

It also fit well with Amillennialism's glorifying of the church of the present age. To the Hardshell, they, and they alone, are seated upon their thrones and ruling with Christ in "Mount Zion," "New Jerusalem," which is, to them, the "Old Church." I have heard many sermons that proclaimed the Landmark Hardshell cult as being "Canaan's Land" in terms descriptive of heaven and of the earthly millennial reign of Christ.

All this has also caused problems with the presence of the non-resurrection doctrine. To place all the emphasis on this life and state of things leads away from the literal interpretation of the word of God. In order to apply all the millennial passages to the Hardshell church necessitated gross "spiritualizing" and "allegorizing" of the sacred text.

For all these reasons, the "ecclesiology of the cult" is subtle, devilish, earthly and carnal. And on this we will have more to say shortly.

Let me first return to the more particular subject of the cult's "secret" revelation, i.e. "Time Salvation."

This "new revelation" of a "Time Salvation," with its attendant evils and adverse consequences, has helped to make the Hardshell denomination into a cult. For this teaching is peculiar revelation to the Hardshell few. This they admit; they even boast of it. They claim it as their peculiar revelation; no one else sees this!

It is ridiculous for them to claim the Old Baptists of John Gill's day as believers in all this. For the salvation, life, faith, regeneration and repentance of those Old Baptists was "evangelical" and well defined, and not like the Hardshell definition, which is vague, mysterious and unrecognizable! I will later show how ridiculous all this is in the light of the Holy Scriptures.

I've already shown how this "heresy" was born out of necessity from those "Anti-Mission Baptists who were later driven into extreme Hyper-Calvinism, i.e. into the position of the Hardshell "anti-means," "Spirit Alone" theory.

It is clear that the Hardshells took this position to the Bible and made it conform to their new man-made theory. This they did through violating all normal rules of interpretation. This has given wing to all sorts of fanciful interpretation and encouraged the practice of "corrupting" and "handling" the word of God "deceitfully." The art and ingenuity of the Hardshells were called upon to come up with "alternative interpretations" to those many passages which clearly teach, directly or indirectly, the necessity of means.

What this industrious and united effort produced were the innovations in theology of "Time Salvation" and "Spirit Alone" regeneration. These were ways of "getting around" the plain and obvious teachings of the word of God.

In teaching the doctrine of "Time" salvation, the Hardshells use many man-made illustrations. These Hardshell "parables," with their subsequent "interpretations," help form a part of the "logic" used by them to win proselytes to their cause. Let me quote from a Hardshell "elder" on the point. He says:

"Suppose I owe an hundred dollar debt down at the grocery store. I have no money to pay. I am burdened down with the thoughts of the debt. I have no peace because of my obligation to this debt that I rightfully owe.

Then one day, a man whom I regard as an enemy, goes down to the store and pays my debt for me. Now there are two things that it will take to cancel my debt.

First, the man who is to pay the debt must have one hundred dollars. Ninety-nine dollars will not pay the debt. Also, the grocery store owner must accept the payment.

Now, this all being done, the debt is cancelled. Also, this is all done without me, the debtor, knowing anything about it. Several days later I happen to be down at the store and the store-owner says to me: 'Mr. Garrett, your debt has been paid.' Now this would be equivalent to the preaching of the gospel. The man is telling me some 'good news.'

At this point, I will do one of two things. I will either accept or reject the message as being the truth. If I feel that the man is simply jesting with me and not telling me the truth, then I will continue to carry the burden of that debt. But, if I believe the message to be the truth, then I will be delivered (saved) from the burden of the debt . . . My coming to hear about the transaction and believing it did not have anything to do with the debt being legally removed. So it is with eternal salvation." (Eddie Garrett in his written debate with Thomas Thrasher, pages 2, 3).

Here the author seeks to "illustrate" the Hardshell belief in what they call the "Two Salvations" of the Bible. In the story, the author wants to show how it is possible to be "saved" from a debt, without the knowledge or acceptance of the debtor. If that's possible, then so is it possible for one to be forgiven of his sin debt, even though he never believes it and even denies it! This then becomes the "proof" of the Bible teaching of "Two Salvations!"

But that "parable" has no divine authority. And the question must be asked of the Hardshells who adopt such an "illustration" -Where is "regeneration" in the "parable?" If the actual payment of the debt represents Christ's death and actual redemption, and if the debtor's believing the "good news" of its payment is "conversion" or "Time Salvation," then where is "regeneration?" Is it not, to the real Old Baptists at least, the same as "conversion," i.e. his coming to faith? If his coming to faith is not his inner regeneration, then where is it illustrated in the parable? When did the man's "attitude" change toward the payer of the debt? Was it not when he heard and believed the "good news?"