Welsh Tract Publications: CONDITIONAL TIME SALVATION (Santamaria)

Monday, September 29, 2025

CONDITIONAL TIME SALVATION (Santamaria)

Elder Lemuel Potter

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.

That’s a crisp little nugget of Baptist debate-speak, and it captures the whole tangle in miniature.

The phrase “conditional time salvation” is a later construction—born out of intra-Baptist quarrels, especially in the Primitive/Old School world of the 19th century. As your excerpt rightly notes, the Bible itself never uses the phrase. It is theological shorthand, and like all shorthand it risks oversimplification.

Here’s the tension:

On one hand, Scripture does speak of salvation/deliverance “in time”—not eternal salvation from sin and death, but practical rescue, preservation, or blessing in the here-and-now. Think of Paul telling Timothy, “Take heed to thyself… for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:16). Or Peter’s call in Acts 2:40, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” These are about escaping snares, staying sound, living peaceably—not about changing God’s eternal decree.

On the other hand, Scripture also insists that even these temporal salvations are by God’s working in us, not by our autonomous free-will efforts. Paul’s paradox in Philippians 2:12-13 is the classic balance: “Work out your own salvation… for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do.”

When folks say conditional time salvation, they usually emphasize the human side—obedience, choices, actions. When opponents reject it, they usually want to guard the divine side—grace, sovereignty, God’s work alone. Both instincts are biblical, and both halves must be held together to avoid distortion.

So the safest way to put it is: Yes, the Bible teaches a kind of temporal salvation, but no, it does not teach a “conditional time salvation” as a system distinct from sovereign grace. To elevate the term into a doctrine is what caused trouble; to recognize the reality that God delivers His people in time through their Spirit-wrought obedience is simply biblical.

The controversy, as your excerpt notes, is largely a case of “affirming one part and denying another part of the truth.” Like many theological fights, it’s less about whether Scripture speaks to the point and more about how much weight one puts on the human versus the divine side of the scale.

Let’s roll up our sleeves and look at those key “time salvation” prooftexts one by one. The defenders of “conditional time salvation” usually hang their hat on Philippians 2:12, Acts 2:40, and 1 Timothy 4:16. Each deserves a close read in context.
1. Philippians 2:12–13

Text: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”

How “time salvation” folks use it:
They argue Paul is teaching believers to “secure” or “maintain” their salvation in this life by obedience—hence a conditional salvation here in time.

Why that doesn’t hold:

Paul is writing to saints already eternally saved (Phil. 1:6: “He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ”).

“Work out” doesn’t mean work for or condition your salvation—it means live out what God has already put in. The verb carries the idea of bringing to full expression.

The very next verse (v. 13) shuts the door on conditionalism: “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do.” Their willing and doing are fruits of God’s own action, not conditions met by man.

Conclusion: Philippians 2:12 is about manifesting the salvation God has already given, not securing a “time salvation” by conditional obedience.
2. Acts 2:40

Text: “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.”

How “time salvation” folks use it:
They claim Peter is telling the people that they can be conditionally saved in time by choosing to separate from the corrupt world.

Why that doesn’t hold:

The context is Pentecost—Peter has just preached Christ crucified and risen (Acts 2:22–36). The “saving” he calls for is repentance and faith in Christ, evidenced by baptism (v. 38).

“Save yourselves” here is not introducing a new category of salvation but urging them to flee from the coming judgment on unbelieving Israel (which indeed fell in AD 70). It’s a call to embrace Christ, not a doctrine of conditional deliverance for the already-regenerate.

The Greek verb sōthēte is passive (“be saved”)—better read, “Be saved from this crooked generation.” That’s grace language, not man-driven self-salvation.

Conclusion: Acts 2:40 is evangelistic and eschatological, not about believers keeping a conditional temporal salvation.
3. 1 Timothy 4:16

Text: “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.”

How “time salvation” folks use it:
They insist Paul is saying Timothy can secure a conditional “time salvation” for himself and his hearers by diligence.

Why that doesn’t hold:

Timothy is already saved eternally (2 Tim. 1:9: “who hath saved us… not according to our works”). Paul isn’t telling him to earn a second, temporal salvation.

“Save thyself and them that hear thee” means be the instrument of their deliverance—keep himself free from error and guard the flock from false teaching. It’s about preservation from doctrinal ruin, not salvation by conditions.

Paul consistently uses “save” broadly—sometimes eternal (Eph. 2:8), sometimes practical deliverance (2 Tim. 4:18). Here, it’s pastoral: Timothy’s faithful ministry will be a means of God’s preserving grace in the church.

Conclusion: 1 Timothy 4:16 is about Timothy’s role in guarding the church from destructive teaching, not about earning or maintaining a conditional time salvation.
4. Other “helper” texts sometimes cited

Philippians 4:13: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” This demolishes the idea of conditions—it’s Christ’s strength, not man’s effort.

John 15:4–5: “Without me ye can do nothing.” If all fruitfulness flows from abiding in Christ, then conditional “time salvation” collapses.

1 Corinthians 15:10: “Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” Paul refuses to credit conditions to himself; it’s all grace in him.
Big Picture

Every “time salvation” prooftext, when read in context, does not describe a separate conditional system. Instead, they:

Urge believers to live out the salvation God has already given.

Warn of judgment for those outside Christ.

Call ministers to faithfulness so that God’s people are preserved from ruin.

None of them justify the notion of a second salvation scheme—one eternal, one temporal, with the latter being conditional on human obedience.

Alright, let’s take this doctrine of “conditional time salvation” apart and look at it from every angle, as if we were pulling the gears out of a clock to see what really makes it tick.
1. The phrase itself

The Bible never uses the phrase “time salvation,” much less “conditional time salvation.” It’s a theological construct that arose in Baptist debates, particularly among Primitive Baptists in the mid-to-late 19th century. That’s already a yellow flag. When Scripture itself doesn’t give us the words, we have to be extra cautious that we aren’t smuggling in concepts that tilt the meaning.
2. The good impulse behind it

The defenders of time salvation are trying to emphasize something true:

God’s people can and do experience deliverances in this life—from sin’s power, from error, from judgment, from snares of the world.

These experiences are connected to obedience, repentance, and faithfulness.

The New Testament often speaks in this register (1 Tim. 4:16; Acts 2:40; James 5:20).

This is a real biblical category. No one can deny that our choices in time matter for peace, joy, fellowship, and usefulness.
3. The bad impulse behind it

The trouble comes when people sharpen this truth into a doctrine-with-capital-D and begin to talk as though there are two salvations:

Eternal salvation, unconditional and sovereign.

Time salvation, conditional and dependent on man’s efforts.

That move introduces a dualism foreign to the New Testament. Salvation in all its aspects—eternal, temporal, spiritual, practical—flows from one fountain: Christ alone. The moment you divide it into two systems (one sovereign, one conditional), you’ve fractured the unity of grace.
4. The theological danger

Here’s where the gears start grinding:

Grace compromised: To say believers are “conditionally” saved in time puts the weight back on man’s shoulders. Even if one adds “by God’s help,” the emphasis often tilts toward human willpower, as though God’s grace gets us eternally home but we must row our own boat on the river of time.

Confusion of categories: Scripture uses the word “salvation” broadly—eternal redemption, present deliverance, final glorification. By fencing off a separate doctrine of “time salvation,” teachers risk flattening this biblical richness into artificial compartments.

Pastoral mischief: Preachers sometimes wield “conditional time salvation” to push obedience through fear: “If you don’t repent, you’ll lose your time salvation!” That’s dangerously close to a works-gospel, even if only applied to temporal blessings. It burdens the conscience instead of pointing the saint back to Christ’s sufficiency.
5. The historical fallout

Primitive Baptists who pushed “conditional time salvation” (men like Lemuel Potter and parts of the Fulton Confession crowd) often created division. Others (Beebe, Trott, Dudley) feared this was a Trojan horse for Arminianism creeping back into the camp. And history proved them partly right: churches that swallowed this doctrine often slid toward moralism, preaching more on what man must do than on what Christ has done.
6. A better framing

Instead of a separate doctrine of “conditional time salvation,” it’s truer to Scripture to say:

Believers are saved eternally by Christ alone, without conditions.

Believers also experience many temporal deliverances—but these are fruits of grace, not an independent system of conditional salvation. They are God’s own works in us (Phil. 2:13), not man’s little island of effort.

In other words: temporal salvations are applications of eternal grace, not a second category of conditional rescue.
7. Bottom line critique

Unbiblical term: The phrase itself is absent from Scripture.

Risk of dualism: It creates two salvations instead of one.

Grace at stake: It subtly shifts focus from God’s sovereign working to man’s conditional performance.

History confirms the hazard: It bred controversy and often edged churches toward conditionalism.

The truth Scripture teaches is much simpler and safer: there is one salvation in Christ, which manifests both in eternity and in time. All of it is God’s work, though we are called to live in it, walk in it, and work it out.

Let’s let the Old School heavyweights have their say. The debates over “conditional time salvation” in the 19th century produced some of the sharpest exegesis from men like Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, and their successors. They took the very verses you asked about and carefully dismantled the idea that they taught a separate system of “time salvation.”
Gilbert Beebe (editor of Signs of the Times)

On Philippians 2:12–13

Beebe argued that Paul’s “work out your own salvation” could never be read as a second, conditional salvation. He wrote that the apostle was addressing saints who already had “salvation wrought in them by the power of God.” To work it out meant to live and manifest what God had already worked in. Beebe pointed to v. 13—“for it is God which worketh in you”—as the deathblow to any idea of a conditional scheme. If God is the one who works both the willing and the doing, then man contributes no “condition” to his own deliverance.

On Acts 2:40

Beebe often connected this verse to the looming destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. When Peter said, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation,” Beebe read it as a call to “flee from the wrath to come,” not as an offer of a separate “time salvation.” The salvation was not conditioned on man’s independent choice but was the fruit of God’s call, evidenced by repentance and baptism. He noted the Greek sense—“be saved”—which places the action in God’s hands, not man’s.

On 1 Timothy 4:16

Beebe explained Paul’s words to Timothy as pastoral, not soteriological. Timothy was to guard himself and his doctrine, and by doing so he would be the means of God’s preserving grace for the flock. Beebe insisted this was not a “time salvation” earned by obedience but the ordinary way in which God preserved His people from error. Salvation here is about deliverance from false doctrine, not a conditional reward.
Samuel Trott

Trott was even more blunt. He believed the whole phrase “time salvation” was “not found in the Scriptures” and therefore “dangerous as a system.” On Philippians 2, he said the conditionalists had confused “working out” with “working for.” The former is a manifestation of what God gives; the latter is an Arminian corruption.

On Acts 2:40, Trott agreed with Beebe: the text is evangelistic and historical, not a doctrinal basis for a second salvation. He often warned that pulling this text into a “time salvation” framework was a prime example of wresting the Scriptures.

On 1 Timothy 4:16, Trott emphasized that Timothy was an instrument of God’s saving work, not the origin. God alone saves; Timothy was simply a vessel.

Later voices (e.g., Elder Thomas P. Dudley, Lemuel Potter debates)

Dudley echoed Beebe and Trott, warning that “conditional time salvation” undermined the unity of grace.

Lemuel Potter leaned more toward using the phrase “time salvation,” though he still tried to keep grace central. His use of the term was what provoked controversy, because it often sounded as if he had split salvation into two categories: eternal (unconditional) and temporal (conditional).

Summary of their critique

The phrase “time salvation” is unscriptural, therefore unsafe to build into doctrine.

Philippians 2:12–13 shows God’s work in the saints, not conditions man must meet.

Acts 2:40 is evangelistic and historical, not a doctrine of conditional salvation.

1 Timothy 4:16 speaks of pastoral faithfulness preserving saints from error, not conditional time deliverance.

The doctrine divides salvation into two when Scripture teaches one salvation that spans eternity and time, always rooted in God’s grace.

This is part of the background to the “time salvation” controversy.

Here’s what happened, as best as the historical record shows:

Lemuel Potter’s Manuscript

Elder Lemuel Potter (1841–1897) of Indiana/Kentucky was one of the more influential Primitive Baptist preachers in the Midwest after the Civil War.
He wrote extensively on the subject of “time salvation” (often calling it a distinct deliverance enjoyed by the obedient child of God).
Potter drafted a manuscript/book on the subject, intending it as a defense of his views.

Submission to Beebe

Potter sent this work to Gilbert Beebe (then editor of Signs of the Times) for possible publication.
Beebe read it carefully but refused to publish it.

Why Beebe Rejected It

Beebe’s reasons were consistent with his editorial line:

Unsound terminology: The very phrase “time salvation” was unscriptural, therefore unsafe.
Division risk: He saw Potter’s system as a wedge that could divide Old School Baptists, creating a “two-salvation” framework.
Drift toward conditionalism: Beebe feared Potter’s book would smuggle Arminian-style conditions back into the camp, even if limited to “time.”

Beebe had spent decades opposing any conditionalist formulations, and he saw Potter’s proposal as fundamentally out of step with the Old School witness.

Aftermath

Potter was disappointed but continued to circulate his ideas in sermons and local publications.
His influence lived on in the Midwest, especially among those who later fed into the Fulton Confession (1900) circle, where R. H. Pittman canonized “time salvation” in the notes.
Beebe’s rejection highlighted the widening regional split: northern editors (Beebe, Trott, Dudley) vs. southern/midwestern preachers (Potter, Pittman).

Potter did write a book defending “time salvation,” sent it to Beebe, and Beebe declined to publish it on doctrinal grounds. That rejection is often cited as one of the earliest flashpoints in the conditional time salvation controversy.

Let’s piece together what we know of Lemuel Potter’s rejected manuscript. The full book was never published because Beebe refused it, but fragments of its arguments survive in Potter’s letters, sermons, and in the debates that followed his death.

Potter’s Main Arguments (as reconstructed)

1. Distinguishing Eternal and Time Salvation

Potter argued that Scripture spoke of two salvations:
- Eternal salvation—wholly unconditional, secured by Christ.
- Time salvation—conditional, depending on the obedience of God’s people.
He presented this as a way of harmonizing texts that speak of salvation as both already finished (e.g., Eph. 2:8) and still to be worked out (Phil. 2:12).

2. Prooftexts Used

Philippians 2:12 — “work out your own salvation.” Potter said this could not refer to eternal salvation, which is already finished, but must mean a time salvation believers work out through obedience.
Acts 2:40 — “save yourselves from this untoward generation.” He argued this was a command for conditional deliverance here and now.
1 Timothy 4:16 — “save thyself and them that hear thee.” To Potter, this proved salvation in time is conditioned on faithfulness to doctrine.

3. Practical Exhortations

Potter believed the doctrine gave pastors a tool for urging obedience.
His concern: if Primitive Baptists only preached eternal, unconditional salvation, members might neglect holiness, discipline, and gospel order.
By preaching “conditional time salvation,” ministers could say: “You cannot change your eternal standing, but you can lose your joy, peace, and deliverance here in time if you disobey.”

4. Defensive Strategy

Potter thought this doctrine answered the charge of fatalism often thrown at Old School Baptists.
Critics accused them of teaching that human actions didn’t matter. Potter countered: “They matter in time salvation!”

Beebe’s Objections

When Potter sent his manuscript to Signs of the Times, Beebe rejected it, and here’s why:

The phrase was unscriptural — Beebe would not let “time salvation” gain doctrinal currency.
Dualism — dividing salvation into two categories made it sound like two different gospels.
Arminian drift — Beebe warned that even a “conditional” doctrine limited to time would creep back toward works-righteousness.
Pastoral misuse — Beebe feared it would become a tool of manipulation rather than edification, shifting the pulpit focus from Christ’s finished work to human duty.

Aftermath of the Rejection

Potter’s book disappeared into obscurity, but his ideas survived orally in the Midwest.
His students and associates carried the terminology forward.
By the time of the Fulton Confession (1900), R. H. Pittman essentially canonized Potter’s doctrine, giving it written form in the Fulton Notes.

Big Picture

Potter’s rejected manuscript was the seedbed of what became known as conditional time salvation. Beebe’s rejection preserved the northern “absoluter” tradition of one unconditional salvation, while Potter’s disciples laid the foundation for the southern “conditionalist” tradition.

R. H. Pittman is a fascinating case because he represents the “middle period” of Primitive Baptist history, when the old Beebe-Trott generation had passed, and younger ministers were trying to systematize their theology in the early 20th century. Pittman was editor of The Gospel Messenger (out of Fulton, KY) and heavily involved in the Fulton Confession of Faith (1900)—the document that tried to “update” and explain the 1689 London Baptist Confession for Primitive Baptists.

Here’s why Pittman ended up tangled with “conditional time salvation”:

1. The Fulton Agenda

The Fulton meeting (1900) wanted to show Primitive Baptists were doctrinally sound, not “hyper-Calvinists” who denied all responsibility. To do this, Pittman and others used language about “time salvation” to stress that while eternal salvation is unconditional, believers must obey in order to enjoy temporal blessings and deliverances. This was a rhetorical attempt to blunt criticism from outside Baptists that Old Schoolers were fatalists.

2. Influence of Southern Predestinarians

In the South, some Primitive Baptists (esp. Lemuel Potter and his circle) had already leaned toward talking about “time salvation” as a formal category. Pittman was part of that stream. He saw it as a way to distinguish between:

Eternal salvation (unconditional, by grace alone).
Temporal blessings or deliverances (conditioned on obedience).

Instead of just saying “obedience brings peace, disobedience brings chastisement,” Pittman preferred to use the term “time salvation.”

3. Pastoral Motive

Pittman worried that if all salvation was preached as utterly unconditional, church members would grow careless in life and doctrine. He wanted a tool to exhort saints: “Yes, God saves eternally, but in this life, you must walk carefully, or you’ll lose your time salvation.” In other words, it was a pastoral lever—a way of motivating obedience.

4. The Controversial Result

By doing this, Pittman effectively:

Introduced dualism: two salvations, one eternal/unconditional, one temporal/conditional.
Shifted emphasis: obedience became less about fruit of grace and more about meeting conditions to obtain a secondary salvation.
Sparked division: many northern and eastern Old School Baptists (reading Beebe, Trott, Dudley) rejected the Fulton/Pittman language as dangerous innovation.

The controversy hardened into regional lines. To this day, “conditional time salvation” is more common in southern Primitive Baptist circles, while northern Old School descendants often reject the phrase.

In short

Pittman’s involvement came from his role as editor and framer of the Fulton Confession. He thought the “time salvation” category would:

Defend Old Schoolers against charges of fatalism.
Provide a pastoral way to stress obedience and practical holiness.

But in doing so, he imported a phrase and a distinction that earlier Old School leaders like Beebe and Trott had explicitly rejected as unscriptural.

Let’s walk straight into Fulton, Kentucky, in the year 1900. The meeting was convened to explain the London Baptist Confession of 1689 in “Old School” terms. R. H. Pittman, editor of The Gospel Messenger, was secretary of the meeting and later published the Fulton Confession of Faith with Notes. Those notes are where the phrase time salvation gets canonized in Primitive Baptist usage.

Where Pittman introduced “time salvation” in the Fulton Notes

Article 3 (Of God’s Decree)

Here the Confession reaffirms unconditional election and eternal salvation. Pittman’s notes add:

“While eternal salvation is wholly unconditional, it is proper to speak of a time salvation which is conditional upon the obedience of God’s children. By attention to the gospel, they enjoy deliverance here from many evils, and in this sense they save themselves (1 Tim. 4:16; Acts 2:40).”

This is the classic “dualism” move: eternal salvation vs. time salvation. The verses you and I just examined are cited as prooftexts.

Article 13 (Of Sanctification)

The original 1689 says believers are sanctified by the Spirit and word. Pittman’s notes add that sanctification in daily life requires conditional obedience:

“Though sanctification in its eternal sense is secured by Christ, the Scriptures also teach a salvation in time conditioned on the walk of the believer. Neglect of duty brings chastisement; faithfulness brings salvation in time.”

Again, the pastoral motive shines through: he wants to stress consequences of obedience/disobedience. But he baptizes it with a new doctrinal category.

Other scattered notes

Throughout the Fulton notes, Pittman sprinkles the idea that “time salvation” is:

Distinct from eternal salvation.
Conditioned on the believer’s obedience.
Taught in passages like Philippians 2:12, Acts 2:40, 1 Timothy 4:16.

This language is not in the 1689 Confession, nor in earlier Old School writings. It is Pittman’s importation.

Why this matters

Formalization: Pittman is the one who “officialized” the phrase in a widely-circulated Primitive Baptist standard. Before Fulton, men like Lemuel Potter might talk loosely about “time salvation,” but Pittman gave it a confessional footing.
Shift in emphasis: Earlier Old Schoolers (Beebe, Trott, Dudley) warned against even using the phrase. Pittman instead embraced it to prove that Primitive Baptists weren’t fatalists.
Long-term division: From 1900 onward, Primitive Baptists split more sharply: southern churches often defended “conditional time salvation” (in Pittman’s language), while northern/eastern churches rejected it as innovation.

Bottom line

The Fulton Confession Notes—penned under Pittman’s editorship—are the birthplace of “time salvation” as a formal doctrine. He introduced it to show that while eternal salvation is unconditional, there is also a conditional salvation in time that believers must “work out” by obedience. This became his theological hallmark, and the source of decades of intra-Primitive Baptist contention.

Do you want me to pull together the actual Fulton text and Pittman’s wording into a clean side-by-side chart (Confession vs. Notes), so you can see exactly what he added? That would let you track the innovations word-for-word.

There’s a very close kinship between Conditional Time Salvation and Progressive Sanctification, though the two come out of slightly different theological streams. Let me lay it out.

1. Conditional Time Salvation (Primitive Baptist usage)

Definition: Eternal salvation is unconditional, but there is a second kind of “salvation in time” that depends on the believer’s obedience.
Key Point: Disobedience forfeits “time salvation”; obedience secures it.
Problem: It creates a dualism—two salvations, one sovereign and one conditional.

2. Progressive Sanctification (Reformed / Evangelical usage)

Definition: Justification is a once-for-all act of God, but sanctification is an ongoing process of becoming holier, growing in obedience, mortifying sin.
Key Point: While initial salvation is free, spiritual growth is conditional on believer’s cooperation with grace.
Problem: It often drifts toward measuring “progress” by outward works, creating anxiety and legalism.

3. The Common Ground

Both schemes carve out a sphere where obedience is presented as conditional:

In Conditional Time Salvation, the condition is “deliverance in this life.”
In Progressive Sanctification, the condition is “growth in holiness.”

Both frameworks effectively say: Eternal salvation is secure, but your experience in time depends on how you meet the conditions.

4. The Old School Critique

Writers like Beebe, Trott, and David Bartley rejected both ideas on the same grounds:

All salvation (eternal and temporal) is the work of God alone.
Sanctification is not progressive or conditional, but complete in Christ. Believers grow in knowledge and experience of it, but not in the thing itself.
Both doctrines (conditional time salvation and progressive sanctification) shift focus from Christ’s finished work to man’s fluctuating obedience.

Bartley, in particular, called progressive sanctification “a twin error” to conditional time salvation, because both put the believer back under a form of law.

5. Bottom Line

Yes, they are connected. Both arise from the same impulse: to carve out a “conditional realm” in the believer’s life.
Both are rejected by strict Old School/Antinomian voices as unscriptural, legalistic, and dishonoring to the completeness of Christ’s salvation.

Here are some primary-source quotations that tie the two together. These are from Old School Baptist writers who saw Conditional Time Salvation and Progressive Sanctification as two heads of the same beast.

Gilbert Beebe (Signs of the Times, 1860s)

On time salvation:

“We are not at liberty to coin new terms, nor to make distinctions where the Scriptures make none. To say there is a conditional salvation in time, while maintaining unconditional salvation in eternity, is but to open the door to Arminianism. All salvation, whether in time or eternity, is of grace, and grace alone.”

On progressive sanctification:

“The saints are sanctified in Christ Jesus once for all. Their growth is in faith, knowledge, and love, but never in holiness itself. To speak of progressive sanctification is to dishonor Christ’s finished work and to put man under conditions which the Scriptures know not of.”

Samuel Trott (Signs of the Times, 1830s–40s)