Recently Elder Ben Winslett, pastor of Flint River Primitive Baptist Church, made a video on the church's article of faith on conversion. Months ago we had some communication with Winslet on this subject and we cannot but believe that some in Flint River Church are asking Winslet lots of questions about all this.
Brother Fralick wrote on this article first (see here), followed by a second (see here)
Winslett Responded and then I wrote an article in reply (Answering Elder Ben Winslet)
The article in discussion reads:
7. That God's elect shall be called, converted, and regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
In Winslett's video sermon on "conversion" he attempts to explain how Flint River Primitive Baptist Church still believes her original article on the subject. (see here) Needless to say, it was both funny and disturbing. I took notes while listening and let those notes lay undisturbed until today. I also went to the youtube page that has the sermon on the article of faith and left this comment behind two other comments. As of this morning he has had only 25 viewers, but I suspect he will perhaps get a few more as a result of our critique of it. Here is the comment I left:
So many distortions of the facts here brother. Where is your evidence that the term "converted" did not mean becoming a disciple? Those in Alabama in the early 19th century did not believe that being converted was as you believe. I will post a short review on my blog in regard to the things you say here about the article of faith.
I would like to have said more, but decided to say it here in a post rather than in comment stream.
Here are the questions to be decided:
1) How did the original authors of the articles of faith interpret the four key terms in article number seven? The terms "called," "converted," "regenerated" and "sanctified"?
2) Since it is agreed that "the writings" of the Baptists (in fellowship with Flint River at the time of her constitution and shortly thereafter) will be the determining factor in ascertaining the historical truth regarding how she defined the term "converted," what do those writings show?
3) Do those writings show that the first Alabama Baptists defined "converted" in the way that Winslet and Flint River church do today?
Brother Winslett says that those writings show that his (Hardshell) definition is the same as that of Flint River's founders and of the first Baptists of Alabama.
Now, can we have a short gentlemanly discussion of this point? Can we find out the truth on this point of history? Are we willing to deal with the truth we find? If all the historical evidence shows that Winslet's statement is false, will he admit his error? If he does not, what will that say of his honesty?
I will wait a few days before I write a more lengthy response, giving a chance for Winslett to respond and give us the writings that he says proves his assertion that the members of Flint River church believe about conversion exactly as did the founders. It will also give any others a chance to respond who want to do so before I make my next posting on this issue.
In closing let me say a few things that Winslett said in his sermon that are ridiculous and so against the scriptures. They are not directly related to his discussion of the article in question about conversion and so I will not include any comments about those things in that posting.
Outlandish Comments
1) Winslett said that the elect were espoused and married to Christ before the world began!
Thoughts in response
- No marriage in time necessary! Can't marry Christ in conversion if you were married already to him from eternity!
- Implies that this "marriage" involves no real conscious union and communion between the partners!
- Implies "eternal vital union" or "eternal children" for how can one who does not exist get married?
- Implies that one can get or be married and not know it!
2) Winslett said that in marriage to Christ one is totally passive!
Thoughts in response
- Is that the kind of marital union we have in Christ, a "forced marriage" or "rape"?
- An involuntary marital union, rather than a voluntary union! Where is that in scripture?
3) Winslett said that the gift of the Spirit does not occur in the new birth!
Thoughts in response
- a man can be born again and not have received the Spirit! Incredible for a bible teacher to say such!
- why does he feel the need to say such? Is it not because he feels forced to do so in order to uphold his man made Hardshell premises?
4) Winslett said Gill gave the same sense of conversion as did Flint River's article.
Thoughts in response
- would that not be easy to disprove? Have we not disproved it here many times?
- why will the Hardshells not give up on Gill?
- if Gill's view on conversion is the same as Flint River's founders, then today's members of Flint River have departed from their articles of faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment