Answering Elder Ben Winslet

Elder Ben Winslet left a comment the other day on Elder Fralick's Posting regarding the change in Flint River Primitive Baptist Church's articles of faith. To this comment Elder Fralick has already responded. Additionally, after making his comment, Winslet made a posting regarding Fralick's post and Winslet's comment thereon at his marchtozion web page (see here). In this posting I want to reply both to his comment and to his posting about the matter. First, to his article titled "Accusation Answered." Wrote Winslet (emphasis mine throughout):

"I generally refrain myself from acknowledging the disgruntled gossip blog "Old Baptist Test." If you're unfamiliar with the site, it's basically a home for people who were once Primitive Baptist to criticize us and write negative things about us. Over the years, several misrepresentations about what we believe have been published there. I usually just keep walking. But not today."

That sounds like a statement that a prosecutor would make as part of an "opening statement" to a jury in a trial of fact; And, of course, as all know, an "opening statement" sets forth the charges to be proven later as the facts are presented in support of the case. Will brother Winslet only give us a list of the charges, an opening statement, and not the proof behind his charges and or claims? Is he going to "rest his case" without any proof and expect the jury (in this case all who read this exchange) to agree? That is what the typical Hardshell does when visiting this blog. Hardshells practice, as I have previously observed (in my post "Hit And Run"), such tactics. I don't think the Holy Spirit is influencing them to behave in such a manner.

There is a lot to respond to in regard to what Winslet wrote! Perhaps I should follow the example of Winslet and "keep walking" and "refrain myself"? Should I ignore him as he has in the past tried to ignore us here at the OLD BAPTIST blog? Perhaps I should just take "pot shots" as he seems prone to do? His tactic resembles that of today's cultural and political "liberals" who do not want open discussion of the issues, but simply want to "label" their opponents and to slander them, to shut them up.

A "Disgruntled Gossip Blog"?

This blog is a "disgruntled gossip blog"? What an opening statement! Will we now get the proof for such a charge? Especially seeing how ludicrous it is?

We deal in facts here! Bible facts and facts of history. What Winslet calls "gossip" we call "facts."

In fact it is the Hardshells who have been promoters of gossip in regard to me (and to Kevin as well I'm sure). Did not Elder Ellis spread the awful gossip that I had been excluded from the Primitive Baptists for adultery? Not only was that "gossip," but of the worst kind. Actually, it was slander. I had to remind all of the facts, My wife was excluded from the Primitive Baptist church for adultery. Just the other way around!

It is also highly ironic that Winslet would call such a serious blog as the Old Baptist Test a "gossip" print medium. No, Ben, all know, and so do you in reality, that this blog is anything but a place for gossip. In fact, people who read this blog know how far fetched is your charge. The irony? Just read Winslet's posting at marchtozion and see if it is not a classic case of "gossip" in some instances! He is spreading "gossip" about our supposed gossip! It would laugh one to death if it were not so serious a matter. Further irony is seen in the fact that Winslet, though attempting to "answer" what he calls an "accusation," makes unfounded accusations against the authors of this blog.

Rather than hurt our readership, such comments and tactics actually help in that regard. Lots of people, including our Hardshell brothers, cannot resist hearing or spreading gossip. I am sure that some of marchtozion's readers, who read Winslet's posting, will want to check us out! Thanks for the help Ben!

So too will the honest readers of Ben's web page want to check us out, being like the noble Bereans of the Book of Acts, they will want "to see if those things are so."

Gossip includes the use of innuendo, insinuation, ridicule, casting suspicion, demeaning, etc., in addition to the basic idea of spreading rumors, or falsehoods and unproven facts. The history of this blog shows no such, but the history of the Hardshell denomination in general and of the several Hardshell leaders who have visited here and left comments, does in fact show such.

Surely all can agree that to make such representations of this blog and its authors is at least provocative? Surely Winslet knew that what he said in his comment to Kevin, and in the separate posting on his web page, would provoke us to respond? Was that intentional?

Thanks for stopping your practice of ignoring us here! We believe lots of Hardshells read our writings, many of them following us anonymously or privately. We believe that most do as Ben has been in the practice of doing. They try to ignore us. But, this time, Ben cannot resist and cannot ignore any longer. My hope is that others will also come to the point of concluding that ignoring us is not the best policy. We just wish that more would come here and have a true discussion of the issues and the facts and quit the kind of hit and run tactics that have characterized their visits here in the past.

When Winslet speaks of us in the manner he does at the outset of his article, he is using two common tactics of Sophists and people who are not really interested in the truth or the facts. First, he employs the tactic known as "poisoning the well." What is that? And, how does he do that?

"Poisoning the well" occurs when negative information that is irrelevant is presented ahead of time to discredit the argument. Said one expert on the topic (see here):

"To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim."

So, to begin a posting about our blog with charges of us being spreaders of gossip and deceptive writers who "mislead" people, is truly an example of both ad hominem and poisoning of the well logical fallacies. (It is ironic that Hardshells, who rely on the use of logic so much in their apologetics, would be so awful in their use of it) But, this is not all, for we also see how Winslet is guilty of the "red herring" fallacy. "Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue." It is also sometimes known as "beside the point," or a "misdirection," a "changing of the subject," etc. We see such misdirection in Winslet's article.

Reading Winslet's post is a good example of these three logical fallacies. It is certainly not the way to begin honorable discussion. But, discussion, really, is not what the Hardshells of Winslet's ilk really want, is it? It seems clear to me that Winslet responded because what we are presenting here in this blog is causing great harm to the Hardshell cult and their most zealous leaders are getting "hot under the collar." Their irritability with the information presented in this blog is quite evident. And just what is it to be a Sophist and to practice "sophistry"? One professor wrote (emphasis mine):

"Sophistry means trying to persuade others using arguments that you yourself would not find persuasive. It means treating debate and teaching like war, like the goal is to make sure that you leave with the same views you entered the dialogue with. Instead of activities that are meant to help uncover the truth wherever it is found." (What Are Sophists And- Sophistry)

Walking away from all honest discussion, making derogatory remarks about an author, poisoning the well, frequent ad hominem attacks, and labeling people who disagree with you with unbecoming nouns and adjectives, and such like behavior, shows that "the goal" is not "truth wherever it is found." The goal with the Sophists is to defend a position, right or wrong, so long as it helps me win the debate in the end.

Paul dealt with the teachings of the Sophists in his Corinthian epistles. Sophists are rarely sincere, unless, of course, that they think being sincere, in a given instance, serves them in their ends. Heretics have a problem with honesty and sincerity. This the scriptures show. They are not honest in their interpretation of the word of God nor with themselves and others. I wonder if brother Winslet would be convinced of his Hardshell errors on soteriology (that we have pointed out here hundreds of times over the years) if we use the kind of fallacious reasoning he uses, or the kind of arguments he uses?

Hardshells have been trying to "discredit" us for years now and yet we keep going, keep converting Hardshells back to the faith of their fathers, keep contending for the faith. It takes a lot of time to clean up the Hardshell historical and doctrinal mess, besides the smaller messes made by men like Ben Winslet, Mike Green, etc. Why not simply try, like Jason Brown, to have a scholarly discussion?

Notice how Winslet styles Kevin and me as "disgruntled." And, is Winslet not, ironically? The word according to the dictionaries involves being "angry or dissatisfied, discontented, aggrieved, resentful, fed up, displeased, unhappy." Some of those things are undoubtedly true of myself in regard to heresies and heretics. So what? How does that prove or disprove a single thing? Is it not "beside the point"?  "Irrelevent"? Does not saying such a thing divert attention from the real issue? Sophist tactics! He appeals to the emotions of his audience, not to their intellect or reasoning skill.

Now, though I may be disgruntled with the Hardshells and with other heretics with which God in his providence has brought me face to face (so to speak), I am not unhappy or discontented in regard to my personal walk with God. I enjoy God. I think of him every hour of the day. I can't even walk unless he holds my hands. I am rich in the Lord. I have more than heart could wish, things more valuable and lasting than silver, gold, or things of earth.

I have had Hardshells insinuate such things about me before. Oh how miserable is Stephen Garrett outside of the old PB church! How angry he is! How unhappy! See him judged because of his sins against the PBs! My response? I am still learning to lean on Jesus, still learning how to be happy and content, still struggling with doubt, unbelief, and sin. But, I am a soldier of Jesus and I will win the war! My salvation depends upon my winning. But, I will win. I cannot fail to win. The Father has predestined it. The Son has guaranteed it by his death and resurrection, and the Spirit executes it all without fail. Christ prays for me that my faith fail not. And, if I am truly elect and called, it will not fail. If I have truly been born of God, then I will overcome the world. I rest on these promises. They are the rock upon which my life is built. No man will take me off that solid foundation as long as I live.

I'll tell you this, I am both angry and sad when I think about my Hardshell brothers. Is that sin? Is it prompted by a spirit that is not the Holy Spirit? If, my Hardshell brothers, it was your intention (in pointing out to me my anger and misery), to bring me to deeply ponder the matter and prayerfully consider the observation, then let me assure you that I have indeed done so over these many years. When I write, I weigh my words, as any decent writer will do. I know when I am using a harsh tone, or being straight-forward and blunt, and I use such language at times because I have judged it necessary and practical. I try to let my subject matter dictate the tone. Also, if my writing is a critical analysis of some writing by an author (Hardshell or other), then the nature of such writing will dictate that reason is appealed to and not emotion. Facts are what is important in such writings, as is interpretation of those facts.

Am I an angry man? Is such anger unrighteous? Is the judgement of many of my Hardshell brethren in regard to anger justified? Correct? If it is not, then how do I respond to the insinuation and accusation? Am I damned if I do and damned if I don't? (But, of course, all the talk about my character, my holiness, my walk with the Lord, is really besides the point, is it not?)

I have about said enough on the subject of my supposed life of bitterness, anger, discontent, etc. It is all beside the point! It proves nothing about whether the Hardshells have changed their beliefs and articles of faith over the past two hundred years! THAT IS THE POINT. Lets quit all the smoke and mirrors. Let us stop getting people "off track" by placing dead fish (red herrings) in the path of truth! Let us not lose our focus in discussion and deal with what is irrelevant.

All anger is not sinful. Jesus got angry. We are commanded to be angry, as a matter of fact. "Be ye angry and sin not." (Eph. 4: 26) I am angry at those who "handle the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4: 2) and "who corrupt the word of God" (2:17).

Winslet said that The Old Baptist Blog was "basically a home for people who were once Primitive Baptist to criticize us and write negative things about us." 

What a "caricature"! Not entirely true, either. We are indeed a "home" for converts from Hardshellism and we have no regrets about that! More people "coming home" every day to the "old Baptist faith"! We are also a "home" for people who come into contact with the Hardshell cult for the first time and need guidance. We have helped people in all parts of the world where Hardshell proselyte makers have gone. The Philippines, Russia, etc. We also welcome all Hardshells to our "home" here! I am glad that Elder Winslet visited us. Glad he finally "gave in" and left us a comment. We want you to return brother Winslet, and we want to talk about our honest differences. Is that not what Hardshells say that they want to do with everyone? So, we are a "home" to a lot more people than the ones described by Winslet.

Also, people who leave the so called Primitive Baptists, seeing their errors, actually become the real "primitive" or "old" Baptists! Brother Kevin and I are the real old Baptists! When will the Hardshells stop saying that we are no longer "primitive"? It is Winslet and his quasi Universalist Hardshell brothers who are not "primitive."

And what is wrong with someone "criticizing" the Hardshell Baptists? Are they "beyond criticism"? Further, what is wrong with giving "critical analysis" to Hardshell beliefs, practices, and claims? By the words of Winslet you would think that Kevin and I had committed the unpardonable sin in criticizing the Hardshells. Friends, is that not a "cult tactic"? Further, what is wrong with being "negative"? How are we any more "negative" in our writings than are the Hardshells in their writings against other denominations? And oh the irony once again! He derides our supposed "negativity" (the bad kind) but his opening paragraph is nothing but negative!

Being negative, in regard to our anti Hardshell writings, is just what one would expect, right? Gee whiz! How can I be "positive" in regard to a dangerous heresy and cult? And yet, the fact is, we have not all been "negative" here in our postings on Hardshells. We have commended them in regard to several things.

Winslet said "over the years, several misrepresentations about what we believe have been published there." Is that so? Is that not negative? Is it again not ironic and hypocritical? He misrepresents us about our supposed misrepresentation of Hardshellism!

Would not common decency, and Christian ethics, demand that Winslet not only make such a charge but prove it? Is this not the proverbial "pot shot"? I wonder - was he "disgruntled" when he said that? Did he feel any anger or animosity? Are his motives all pure while ours are all evil?

Wrote Winslet:

"The only problem with Fralick's point, is that he's comparing the Flint River monument with the Articles of Faith of Marchtozion.com, which are not the same!! The "link to the church's website" isn't a link to the church's website at all. It's a link to the Marchtozion.com Statement of Faith."

"They are not the same"! I am glad that he admits at least this fact! The pastor of Flint River has a different and altered confession of faith than has Flint River church herself! Let us ask brother Winslet

1) Has Flint River changed her articles since 1808? If yes, on which articles and why?
2) Does she believe that all the elect will be regenerated and converted as she did in 1808?
3) What did she define as being "converted" in 1808?
4) Does she believe that all the elect will persevere in grace and never finally fall away?
5) How did she define "persevere in grace" in 1808?
6) What did "fall" and "finally fall" mean to those Baptists in 1808?

How would we decide on the right answers to these questions? Would not the writings of Flint River's first representatives on these subjects tell us how they defined those terms in the articles? Have we not given a large amount of historical evidence from the writings of the period to show what the first particular Baptists believed throughout the South about regeneration, conversion, and perseverance? What does all that evidence say? It says that Elder Winslet and Flint River church does not believe the same things about the fundamentals of salvation as did their forefathers who founded the church on Flint River and in the Alabama territory. We are tired of ("fed up" or "disgruntled") hearing Hardshells of today tell us what they think their forefathers believed about this and that statement of faith, but we want to know what they actually believed. Their writings tell us and it is not the Hardshell teaching of Ben Winslet and Flint River PBC. Hardshells have shown how they can twist the writings of their forefathers to make them agree with the changes in doctrine that they have experienced in the past 150 years or so. They did this infamously in the "Fulton Confession" as we have shown here in this "gossip blog."

Winslet wrote:

"I left the comment on the blog, but wanted to publish it here because otherwise, their admins might not approve it and refuse to actually publish it (comments on that site must be approved by admins)."

More irony! He decries how we (like many other bloggers) must approve comments first and yet he allows none on his web page! Can't respond at all to his slanderous posting! Further, the chief reason for such restrictions are due to 1) Hardshells in the past who left the most vicious comments and which decency would not allow me to approve, and 2) the possibility of people leaving unwarranted advertisements, links to perverted web pages, etc.

Since when have we ever refused to publish comments by our Hardshell brothers? Do we not rather encourage them to communicate with us and respond to what we write?

Finally, Winslet ends his web posting with these words:

"Why share this on Marchtozion.com and waste your time and mine even bothering a reply? Because I wanted to reply with a truthful post about a misrepresentation made by the folks over at Old Baptist Test. I don't intent to offer any further dialogue with them. Nor do I intend to answer such here again. This time I didn't feel I had much choice."

So, we are judged and convicted of being unworthy of dialogue and discussion? We are not worth anyone's time to hear us or respond to what we say? That is surely casting us in a bad light! More poisoning of the well too. He also sarcastically insinuates that our posts in this blog are not "truthful," saying that he, Winslet the truthful one, will "reply with a truthful post."

"The folks over at the Old Baptist Test"? Do you notice how we are not ever addressed as "brother"? Kevin and I are "the folks"? This reminds me of the first time that Jason Brown and I started our discussion. He too referred to me as "sir" (as did Ben to Kevin) but not as "brother." I finally pointed out the striking irony of this in view of the fact that his belief says that most people will go to Heaven, and that most heathen worshipers were "regenerated." All these people are "brothers" to the Hardshells, but not Steve Garrett? Finally, Brown started addressing us as "brother."

"I do not intend to answer"! Says it all, doesn't it? Hit and run! Sucker punch and run!

Wrote Elder Winslet in his comment to Elder Fralick:

"So to compare the link I shared to the granite monument and insinuate that Flint River is changing her articles of faith is misleading." 

"Misleading"? Is it not, ironically, a case of "the pot calling the kettle black"? How does Winslet mislead? Chiefly in implying that Flint River Primitive Baptist church has 1) not changed her articles of faith at all, and 2) still believes in those original articles concerning conversion and perseverance.

Winslet admits that the Flint River's articles of faith have been changed! That is the very thing that Kevin was showing! The only thing that was in error was in regard to the article regarding conversion! It was true in regard to perseverance, for the church did change that! So, is this really not a quibble?" A "straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel"? A "making mountains out of mole hills"?

In this posting we have been "forced" (as Winslet says he was "forced" to respond to Kevin's posting - see below) to give evidence of this ugly fact. Also, Winslet himself has been misleading in both his comment to Kevin and in the posting he made at his marchtozion web page. Not only are his words misleading but also hypocritical and contradictory.

Would the average reader, visiting the web page that Kevin visited, not assume that the articles of faith of Flint River's pastor was the same as the church he pastors, either now or originally? Would he say that Flint River agrees with him on the two articles in question? Or, with the first members of Flint River? Surely he will say that they agree with him and with the rest of his Hardshell brethren who support the changes to those articles that their late 19th century forefathers made? So, though they may have retained the original article about conversion, they do not believe it. That is the major point, is it not?

Why is the elder so ticked off about the charge of PBs changing their articles of faith? Is it because he is jealous for seeing that they are not changed? Does he believe that they ought not to be changed? Will he condemn himself then for changing them? Flint River may not have changed the article on conversion but Winslet and his fellow Hardshells have done so in probably 90% or more of the time. Will he call on his fellow Hardshells who have changed their original articles of faith to return to the original? That is what Kevin and I are doing here. Glad to have you join us in this call!

I suppose then that Flint River church still believes that all the elect will be regenerated and converted? Does she still believe that the elect will all persevere in grace?

By the way, what does it mean to "persevere in grace"? The way the elder explains the meaning is not a thirty second cousin to the way the original authors of the articles explained the words. The way the elder wants to explain that is to twist the words to make them mean "grace will persevere," "stay in grace," etc. But, you see, it is not God or grace that is persevering, but it is the born again soul who perseveres. Let us ask Winslet (even though he says he will not answer or talk any more) - if one falls from grace, did he persevere in grace? (Gal. 5:4) If one "fails" of the grace of God (Heb. 12: 15), did he "persevere in grace"? In Acts 13: 43 we are told that Paul and Barnabas "persuaded them to continue in the grace of God."

Wrote Winslet:

"The only word, to my knowledge, that actually HAS been changed in the FR AofF is the word persevere, to preserve."

How ironic! How hypocritical! He decries Fralick's observation that Flint River (like nearly all her fellowship of churches) has changed her articles of faith and then admits that she has changed them! "Oh consistency thou art a jewel." The only issue (the mountain made from the mole hill) is whether the article on effectual calling had been changed. The issue of whether the articles had been changed is settled. Fralick was right that they have been changed, at least on the article dealing with perseverance. Fralick, it seems, was wrong on the change about conversion. But, several questions arise at this point.

1. Does Flint River still believe that all the elect will be converted?
2. Does Elder Winslet still believe that all the elect will be converted?
3. If Flint River church and elder Winslet reject that article, why don't they change it?

Wrote Winslet:

"This is not the first example of a misleading post I've read on this blog either. But since you're quoting ME, I can't let it stand without correction." 

Honor demands that Winslet substantiate his charges.

Wrote Winslet:

"The entire point of your post is built on this faulty premise. You err, sir. I give you the benefit of the doubt that it was a simple mistake, answering a matter before you hear it."

"The entire point"? It is clear that Winslet missed the main point! What "faulty premise"? The "entire point" was not built upon the point regarding the change of the articles regarding conversion.

Wrote Winslet:

"We still believe and teach that saints shall persevere in GRACE. This is why the phrase “shall not finally fall away” is a part of our articles. Any and every PB I know believes that saints stay (persevere) in a state of grace. The reason for the change is twofold:

1. Men such as yourself used the word to teach Lordship salvation, a cruel, hideous, Pharisaical doctrine which yields men over to either bondage or pride.

2. “Preserve” is a more biblical word. Anyone who doubts me can look up both words in a dictionary."

Kevin has already more than adequately responded to this. So have I to some extent. But, why not have a discussion about what the forefathers meant by "persevere in grace" and "persevere in holiness"?

In closing, let me cite from both the original 1808 articles and the present articles in regard to those articles that have been changed.

Under "Our Beliefs" (18 June 2012) we have this heading "Articles of Faith, adopted 1808" (see here)

- We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice. (King James Translation only)

- We believe that God's elect shall be called, converted, regenerated, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

- We believe that the saints shall be preserved in grace and never fall finally away.

This is all "misleading"! The church's web page says that the articles above were adopted in 1808. However, here is what the articles actually said in 1808.

2. That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of god, and the only rule of faith and practice.

7. That God's elect shall be called, converted, and regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

8. That the saints shall persevere in grace and never fall finally away.

Articles 2 and 8 were changed! Further, though article 7 has not been changed, it is not believed by either the pastor, Flint River Church, nor the fellowship of churches to which Flint River church is connected! All, or nearly all, of these other churches in her fellowship have eliminated "converted" from the articles, just like her pastor!