Winslett & Marriage To Christ

In this posting I will deal with what Winslett said about being "married to Christ" and my supposed misrepresentation of his remarks thereon in his sermon on "Conversion." Before I cite from Winslett's words, taken from his blog, being a response to my remarks thereon relative to being "espoused" and "married" to Christ, let me cite the pertinent words from that sermon as I transcribed them.

Said Winslet (highlighting mine):

"If you think that the biblical framework of our marriage to Christ, we were espoused to Jesus. When were we espoused to Jesus? Before the foundation of the world. Who espoused us to Jesus? God the Father when he chose us in his Son before the world began that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. And so in all these relational frameworks, whether you look at it, born of God, adopted by God, married to Christ, God is active and we are passive. So, then, where is the place of repentance? What, what responsibility do we have, and is this something that leads to these relational ties or as we'll see momentarily, is the something that we do in reaction to, and in reply to these relational ties?"

It was based upon these words that I wrote:

1) Winslet said that the elect were espoused and married to Christ before the world began!

Said Winslet in reply to these words:

"No I didn't. I said we were espoused to Christ before the world began. I said nothing about being married to Him before the world began. And to further clarify, I use the word espouse with reference to being betrothed to someone.

You may think this is no big distortion, but Garrett goes on to attack me for something I did not say (that we were married to Jesus before the world began). To be betrothed is not the same as being officially wed."

Notice that I acknowledged that Winslet said that the elect were "espoused" to Christ before the world began. Where did I deny that he affirmed eternal espousal to Christ? I did say "espoused and married." But, is "espousal" not marriage in Jewish law? Why did Joseph consider "putting away" Mary while they were espoused if it is not a binding marital agreement? Further, my words did not mean to imply that Winslett necessarily believed that all aspects of marriage to Christ were likewise eternal. I certainly had no reason to doubt that Winslett believed that there is yet to be a future consummation of the marriage (Revelation 19).

When Winslett says "to be betrothed is not the same as being officially wed," I perhaps can agree with him, depending upon what he means by "officially wed." If by "officially wed" he means the final wedding ceremony (Rev. 19), then that is true. But, to deny that betrothal or espousal in Jewish marital law and custom was a binding marital contract is something that I cannot do; And, it was with this in mind that I said "espoused and married." This was the state of Joseph and Mary before they "came together" in the final consummation of their "union." So, yes, it is indeed "no big distortion."

Before I address the issue of "passivity" in marital union, I want to address the idea of "espousal" and "marriage" to Christ, seeing what the scriptures, especially of the new testament, teach regarding it. In doing this there will be several aspects of the subject to address. The first question we will address is - "When do believers become espoused (betrothed, engaged) to the Lord Jesus Christ?" Was it before the world began? Before the elect even had an existence? That is the view of Winslett. It is not the view of Paul, however, nor is it the historic view of Baptists.

As we will see, Winslett seems to think that if one believes in election before the world began, then he must believe in espousal union before the world began. Is that so? We will see.

Paul On Espousal To Christ

"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (II Cor. 11:2 KJV)

Who "arranged" the espousal between Christ and believers?

We all know how people are often involved in bringing men and women together for a date or meeting with the hopes that the two will perhaps desire each other and become married. When I think of my own marriage to my beloved "Paulette" (now 33 years!), and how we first "met," I think of my college speech professor and debate coach Mike Fisher. He was the same age as I was (I started college at age 28) and he and I became best friends. He was a Baptist and he played the piano in local Southern Baptist churches while teaching at the University. He became the piano player for a Trio singing group that featured Paulette, her mother (just passed away! So sad. But she is with Jesus!), and her sister. Mike took me with him to a small Southern Baptist church in the summer of 1984 and there I first met Paulette. We were married a little over a year later! Mike brought us together. We became engaged. We said our vows and signed the marital document with witnesses. We were officially one.

In like manner Paul had brought Jesus and the Corinthian believers together! He introduced Christ to the Corinthians, and in some ways even introduced the Corinthians to Christ. That is why he says "I have espoused you to one husband."

Gill comments on this verse, saying:

"The act of espousing, the apostle here, with respect to this church, takes to himself, though in another sense, and which is the principal one, it is ascribed to Christ himself, who betroths all his to himself in righteousness, in judgment, in lovingkindness, and tender mercies; he saw them in his Father's purposes and decrees, in all the glory they were designed to be brought unto, when he loved them as his Father did, and desired them for his spouse and bride, which was granted to him; and then secretly in covenant betrothed them to himself, and ever after looked upon them as in a conjugal relation to him; wherefore though they fell in Adam, and became guilty and filthy, he gave himself for them as his church and bride, to sanctify and cleanse them, that he might present them to himself, just such a glorious church he had seen them before. In consequence of this, the Spirit of God attends the ministration of the Gospel, to the conversion of each of these souls, when they become willing to be the Lord's, and give their free and full consent to have him for their husband; and this is the day of their open espousal to him, and in this the apostle had, and other ministers of the Gospel have a concern; he was a means, in the hands of the Spirit, of their regeneration, a minister by whom they believed, an instrument in directing their souls to Christ, by setting forth his unsearchable riches, the glory of his person, and fulness of his grace: as Abraham's servant set forth the greatness of his master, and the large possessions his son was heir to, and brought out his bracelets and ear rings, his jewels of gold and silver, and thereby gained his point, a wife for Isaac; so the Spirit of God going along with the ministration of the apostle so wrought upon these Corinthians, as to give up themselves to the Lord, and take him for their head and husband, Saviour and Redeemer. This was the concern the apostle had herein, and his view, desire, and hope were, to set them before Christ their husband, pure and incorrupt:

that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ; that is, single in their love to, him, strictly adhering to him, and him only, as standing in such a relation to them; pure in the principles of faith, sincere and upright in their worship, and holy in their lives and conversations; nothing was more desirable to him than this, that he might thus present them to Christ at the great day; whereby it would appear, that his labour was not in vain in the Lord: now having been concerned in this affair of espousing them to Christ, and they not yet presented to him, or took home by him, he could not, as things were circumstanced, but entertain a godly jealousy over them in his own breast, lest the false apostles should draw them aside in any degree from their love to Christ, and faith in him."

What do we learn then from these words of the apostle and from the commentary of Gill? How is the question answered in regard to "when" the elect are "espoused" to Christ? Yes, the Father and the Son agreed on who was to be the wife of the incarnate Son, and election is indeed involved. But, how does the prior choice of the Son, as to who he wanted for his wife, alone in itself create an espousal union? If that were indeed so, then we would truly have a forced marriage, a fact not denied by Winslett. Is the election of the desired spouse by the husband all that is needed for an espousal? Does not the woman have a choice in the matter before there is an espousal? It seems not, according to Winslett.

The two errors of Winslett are these:

1) Espousal of two people, one of whom does not even exist (of which there is no support in scripture)
2) Espousal union without the consent of the women desired

Questions for Winslet

1) Have you brought any sinners to Jesus for union and matrimony? Have you espoused any to Christ?
2) Those you have espoused, are you working to "present them as a chaste virgin" for Christ's return?
3) How can two people be espoused when one does not exist?
4) Where in the bible is espousal viewed as compulsory upon the woman chosen?
5) Was espousal in Hebrew practice viewed as a marriage requiring a divorce?
6) If yes, then is being "espoused" not being "married"?

So, the problem still remains. Not only can you not be married before you have an existence, you also cannot be espoused without existence. Don't you see?

Further, if the elect were espoused to Christ before the world began, then they had a union with Christ before the world began. And, have the PBs not have had a time with the doctrine of "eternal vital union" or "eternal children" in their history! They surely had their troubles with it in the Flint River Association of PBs! Remnants of "two seedism" still remain with many of today's Hardshells.

To have actual union between two people or things, those people or things must first have an actual existence. So simple. Why do so many PBs stumble over it? Yes, a union may be contemplated in regard to people and things not yet in existence, but this existence is in the mind and thought of the one contemplating the union. It is a virtual union, or hypothetical union, not an actual union. We might ask Winslett - when does actual marital espousal and union occur in the experience of the elect?

At this point let me cite from Dr. Gill.

John Gill comments on Eph. 5: 32:

"the bringing and presentation of Eve to Adam has its mystery; it was God that brought her to him; and she was the same that was made out of him; and to the same Adam was she brought of whose rib she was made, and that not against her will: so it is God that draws souls to Christ, and espouses them to him, even the same that he has chosen in him, and Christ has redeemed by his blood; and to the same are they brought, who was wounded for their transgressions, and bruised for their sins; and they are made willing in the day of his power upon them, to come and give themselves to him. Adam's consent and acknowledgment of Eve to be his wife, shadow forth Christ's hearty reception and acknowledgment of the saints, as being of him, and his, when they are brought unto him under the influences of his grace and Spirit."

Notice that! "Not against her will"! What is exactly this experience of being espoused or engaged to Christ? And, when does it occur in experience? What does Gill say in the above citation? Is his view not the real Old Baptist view? Is it not the view of we here? Are we not the real primitive Baptists?

In his comments on Song of Solomon 1: 3 he wrote:

"The time of his coronation is next to be enquired into ; and that is said to be “in the day of his espousals,” that is, on his marriage-day: for Christ's coronation and marriage-day are one and the same day. Now, by this “ day of his espousals,” we are to understand the time of a poor sinner's being enabled, by mighty grace, to give up itself to the Lord, when it consents to be his for ever: this marriage was made and agreed upon in the everlasting council and covenant of grace and peace; Christ made it his request to his Father, and he granted him it; he gave his full consent unto it, so that there remained only the actual consent of the persons themselves, for whom Christ had such a strong love and affection;. which is obtained by the powerful workings of his grace and Spirit in time upon their hearts; and that often under the ministry of the word, where they are “espoused as a chaste virgin to Christ,” at which time there is a large breaking forth, not only of Christ's love to and upon their hearts, but also of theirs to Christ; which is called the love of their espousals, and which Christ afterwards remembers, when it has grown cold and chill towards him: thus every time that a particular soul is brought to Christ, it is both a coronation, and an espousal day; but the great coronation and espousal-day is yet to come, when all the elect shall be brought in, and it shall be said, “The marriage of the Lamb is come, and the bride is ready;” then shall the king, with her, enter into the marriage-chamber, where the nuptials will be solemnized, and he openly and publicly crowned king of saints, where he will reign with them in all his glory." 

Notice again the words "there remained only the actual consent of the persons themselves." Is that Winslett's view? When does the soul become united to Jesus in wedlock espousal? In conversion!

Arranged Marriages

Two kinds

1) Parents arrange without the consent of the bride and groom
2) Parents arrange with consent of the bride and groom

Winslet seems to believe that the kind of arranged marriages in the bible are of the first kind. Yet, he has no proof of his seeming position. In fact, all the evidence teaches that it was only of the second kind.

We have an example of a kind of arranged marriage in the case of Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 24). In that case, Eliezer, a trusted servant, was sent by Abraham to find a suitable wife for his son Isaac. Did Abraham arrange the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah? Yes, and no. He arranged the marriage in the sense that Abraham limited the possible prospects for Isaac ("the house of my master's brethren" and "not take a wife to my son of the daughters of the Canaanites"). Isaac must take a wife from the right clan. But, who within that clan would be chosen, Abraham does not decide. He leaves it to destiny, to providence, and so does his servant Eliezer. When seeing several women of the right clan coming to the well, he prayed

"And let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master." (Gen. 24: 14 KJV)

With the limits set by Abraham, and with the consent of Isaac, all parties agreed to let God decide the matter. But, was the consent of Abraham, Isaac, Eliezer, or even of the Lord, all that was needed to effect the union? No, it required the consent and willingness of Rebekah to go and to become Isaac's wife. Remember the words of Eliezer to Abraham: "And I said unto my master, Peradventure the woman will not follow me?" Does that sound like the consent of Rebekah was not a factor? If Winslett's view of espousal and arranged marriages is correct, then Eliezer's question would become irrelevant.

Indeed God made Rebekah willing to be the wife of Isaac. No question about that! But, in Winslett's idea of espousal, only the choice of Isaac and Abraham is needed!

Did not Eliezer and Abraham instrumentally effect the espousal of Isaac and Rebecca? Just as Paul was instrumental in bringing about the espousal of Christ and the Corinthian believers?

According to one authority on OT Hebrew "Betrothal" we have this information on the subject:

"In the ancient Near East betrothal took place before the actual marriage and it was considered as binding as marriage. In ancient Israel a woman who was betrothed was considered the "wife" of the man she was betrothed to, and she was bound to be faithful. The betrothal (kiddushin) period lasted usually 6 months and sometimes 1 year, and it was a binding promise between the bridegroom and bride to marry."  (bible-history.com)

Thus, when I stated that Winslet said that the elect were "espoused and married" before the foundation of the world, I was correct.

Further, those who know OT marriage practice know that espousals were generally arranged by family or friends, just like my friend Mike Fisher was one who helped my wife and me "connect."

The Broader Subject

We are dealing with the broader topic of "union" with Christ, or as Winslett says, "relational ties." Several metaphors are used to teach us about the nature of a believer's union with Christ. Besides espousal and marriage, we have the metaphor of a body, the members being joined to the head, which is Christ; We also have the metaphor of the vine and the branches that tell us of that union; And, we have the metaphor of a foundation's union with the members built upon it; etc.

Paul in Romans, as respects our coming to be united to Christ, in marital covenant, said that we must first get freed from our first union, our first husband, and end our former marriage, before we can become married to the Lord Jesus. Wrote Paul:

"Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." (Rom. 7: 1-4 KJV)

In this text the union of believers with Christ is described by the marriage metaphor. There are two marital unions, and two husbands, but only one wife. Clearly the second husband is Christ to whom the believer is joined by faith. The first husband many take to be the law, and in some sense this is true. But, it fails to identify the real husband of the sinner. "The law" is identified as the power that creates and maintains the union between the wife and her first husband. That law cannot be broken or set aside. The law cannot be put to death. But, the law that binds the two spouses together becomes no longer applicable nor enforceable when one of the spouses dies. This frees the wife to be lawfully married to another man.

Who then is our first husband? To whom are we joined before our conversion? Are we not joined to several husbands, as the woman at the well in John 4? Are sinners not married to themselves, to their own egos, lusts, and passions? To their laws and ways? To the evil world system? To Satan and evil spirits? Did not God say of Ephraim of old that he is "married to his idols"? (Hosea 4: 17) Do sinners not need, like Ephraim, to obtain a valid divorce or severance of the bond that binds them to idols before they can be married to Christ? The first husband of sinners must be separated from (to use one metaphor), or else the Lord must kill those husbands. When the Lord destroys the idols that are set up in the heart, then the sinner is made ready to be joined to the Lord.

In order for us to become "joined unto the Lord" and be "one spirit" (I Cor. 6: 17) with him, we must first become free from the bond of union that keeps us "joined" to idols, self, lust, pleasures of sin, etc. We must become divorced from our self righteousness too.

Next, Winslett cites these words of mine:

"Winslet said that in marriage to Christ one is totally passive!"

Said Winslet in reply to these words:

"He's still attacking me based on either his misunderstanding or misrepresentation as listed above. I said in espousing, the married person(s) is passive because the marriage is arranged by a parent. This is a fact anyone with an encyclopedia or Google can verify. Now please understand, Garrett considers himself (or at least used to) a Calvinist. So he supposedly believes in election. Why then attack election, God's choice of His Son's bride? His entire point is here to belittle, or worse, to slander. He makes people an offender for a word. He twists what they say to attack them based on his misrepresentation of them, to influence others against them. Sound familiar? It was the strategy of Pharisees, Herodians, Scribes, and Sadducees in the first century."

Well, based upon that reply, does he or does he not believe that one is passive in becoming the spouse of the Lord? Does he not believe that "marriage is arranged by parents" alone? That the wife has no say in the matter? If I misrepresented him, how so? Does he believe that sinners must voluntarily become united to Christ or not? If they must give their consent, how and when do they give it? Do the scriptures not tell us? Did Gill not tell us? Winslett said - "in espousing, the married person(s) is passive because the marriage is arranged by a parent." But, where is the proof of that in scripture? Have I not already disproven his assertion? Also, did you notice that he connected "espousing" with being "married"?

Winslett also said: "Why then attack election, God's choice of His Son's bride?" Where did I ever attack the doctrine of election? Talk about misrepresentation! God's choice of a bride for his Son does not in any way negate the idea that the saints must also give their choice, as a result of the working of God's Spirit, in order that the union be effected. I chose Paulette before she ever chose me. But, my choice of her was not enough to effect union. She too had to choose me.

Winslett says of my character and writing:

- "His entire point is here to belittle, or worse, to slander"
- "makes people an offender for a word"
- "twists what they say to attack them based on his misrepresentation of them"

I leave the reader to judge these things for himself. Such good will here, hey? I think Ben should look up the word "slander." Further, if one is accused of slander, should not the accuser be compelled to substantiate that charge? Is it Christian to charge and fail to prove it? Is it fair to make a charge and not even give the one accused a fair hearing?

Winslet continued:

"There's a reason I love Gill's writings and read him so often. I know there are places we disagree (as with any two men this side of Glory), but I do very much appreciate his works."

Do you appreciate him still?

Winslet continued:

"So in closing, and much more could be written, let the record show that Mr Garrett misrepresents his opponents. I am sure pages and pages of rebuke and reply will be written by him. I am sure he will read this with glee and then pick it apart, taking words and phrases out of context or outright misrepresenting me. That's fine. Have at it. Knock yourself out. The above is sufficient to let anyone see and disregard his vain jangling."

What sophistry!

Oh what love and kindness! The very "meekness and gentleness of Christ"! What prejudice (prejudging us)! Remember that he said at the beginning -  "I wish them no ill and harbor no animosity"?

Well, I have knocked myself out! What labor I have expended to rebut him and to try to save his soul! Will it be ever be appreciated for what it is? And, don't you know that I spent all this time because I wanted the attention of the Hardshell cult members! The truth is, I would rather be spending time finishing my writings on subjects that have little to do with the Hardshells. I would not mind expending energy in this fashion in an honest discussion and dialogue, but this kind of retort with hard headed cult members can wear one out! So much more labor involved to clean up a mess than to make one!

Winslet wrote:

"I do apologize to our readers for having to involve the blog here in a matter of controversy or disagreement. I generally shun that and it won't become a habit. May the Lord bless you and keep you."

Oh yes, let us not bother them with such things!

In my next, and hopefully last posting, I will deal with what Winslett said about how the new birth does not involve receiving the Spirit. Stay tuned.

Winslett's Gossip & Misrepresentations

In Winslet's entry in his March to Zion web page ( see here) he wrote:

"It seems that I once again made the morning headlines (lol) on the disgruntled PB gossip blog, The Old Baptist Test. I generally ignore the complaints or accusations of Stephen Garrett and his contributors, because I believe what such men really want is attention. If you feed him, he'll keep coming back." 

It seems that Ben has become hardened in his heart in falsely charging The Old Baptist Test blog with being a "gossip blog." Though Kevin and I have set him straight on this, and rebuked him for this by the word of God, yet he still persists in his malicious characterization. Remember that Solomon said:

"He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy." (Prov. 29: 1)

Ben, I am going to be blunt in speaking more directly to you now. Your attempts at "ignoring" us and our apologetic writings against your cult's errors has Satan behind it. I firmly believe that the Lord has led you to read some of our writings. To resist the desire to read them may be your resisting the leading of the Spirit. Satan does not want you nor any other Hardshell reading what we write. He wants you all to ignore us and cast us off as unworthy of the least consideration. He is skillful at "snatching the seed" from the hearts and minds of people. (Matt. 13:19)

Ben, I implore you to "turn from the error of your ways" (James 5: 19-20) and thereby "save your soul from death" and receive forgiveness of sins. You cannot ignore and falsely accuse those who are trying their best to help you out of your error and expect to remain blameless before our Lord. You cannot twist the writings of good men, especially of the holy scriptures, and expect that you will get away with it. Those who pervert scripture do it "to their own destruction." (II Peter 3:16) Don't take these threats lightly. Handle the word of God with extreme care. Remember that we "must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give account of what we have done, while in the body, whether it be good or bad." (II Cor. 5:10)

In regard to the prejudices and accusations that you make against us here, we will like Paul say - "being defamed, we intreat." In your eyes, without any honest inquiry or investigation into our real character, or into what we write theologically, we are prejudged and esteemed as "the filth" and "the refuse (garbage)" of the world. (I Cor 4: 13) But, in spite of this, we continue to "intreat" you to "consider your ways" and what we say here. We plead with you. We admonish you. We rebuke you. We call you to dialogue in the name of Christ. Jesus said:

"Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake." (Luke 6: 22)

Of Kevin and me Ben said - "such men really want is attention." Again, many responses pop into my head as I read those words. Let me list them.

1) How does he know that?
2) What does he insinuate by characterizing us as "such men"?
3) Was that said with any "ill will"?
4) Was it not, by definition, an instance of "prejudice"?
5) Why would it be wrong in all cases to want attention?
6) Do not preachers and teachers, etc., want attention? (They don't want non attention!)
7) What is wrong with saying to people "pay attention"?
8) Have we not asked people to pay attention to the facts of scripture and history?
9) Where have we ever tried to draw attention to ourselves as men?
10) Who made Ben (other Hardshells also) spiritual psychologists of my soul?
11) Could not one argue that Ben wants attention by using his own criteria?
12) Did he post his writings and videos on the Internet because he wants attention?

Well, that is enough.

Next, Winslett said - "If you feed him, he'll keep coming back." 

I think the Devil whispered that into you ear, not the Holy Spirit. I rather believe that the Spirit has often witnessed to Hardshells who have read our writings here in the blog, hearing the Spirit whisper to them "he is right." Brother Ben, what are you afraid of? If you "feed" us (whatever that means), are you afraid that we will become fat? Is your advice to other Hardshells this - "starve him to death"? Isn't there a better way to put us and our writings to death? One more in line with scripture? Would it not be better to try to convert us per James 5: 19-20? Do you not want Kevin and me to be saved from death and fail to receive pardon for our sins? We don't you. Can't you try to kill us and our writings by the sword of the Spirit, or the word of God? Killing us by ignoring us is not going to work.

"Keep coming back"? Don't you realize that God placed me, as a young convert and minister, among you all? That my years with you all as a pastor was for this very day in which I am pleading with you to "turn" from your vain reasonings and accept what is plainly taught in scripture? If God raised me up in his providence for this very reason, and you are rejecting the testimony that he has given to me to give to you, then what will you do when you have to answer to the Lord for your opposition to us? The same could be said of Kevin, Jeremy, Stephen Emmons, and others.

Wrote Winslett:

"Garrett, Fralick, and the like are entitled to their opinions and I am happy to let them be. I wish them no ill and harbor no animosity against them." 

First, we do not deal in opinions here! George Washington was the first U.S. President. That is fact, not opinion. The records of Scripture are not opinion but facts. The records of history are likewise fact, not opinion. Further, when someone comes along and denies that Washington was the first President, we ought not to say - "he has a right to his opinion." Especially is this true when the person making the denial teaches others to deny the same fact! "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

As far as having "no ill" against us here, we will just let the language of Winslett speak for itself and the reader to judge for himself. One wonders why he even felt the need to offer that assessment and word of preface? But, let us proceed to the next item.

Wrote Winslett:

"That being said, in his rebuke of me today, Garrett made a few remarks that were false. He even reported that I said things which I did not say. [I'm honored he is so bothered by what I preach that he apparently watches my sermons to pick them apart.]" 

As far as my misrepresenting Winslett, we will discuss that in our next posting when we discuss what Winslett said about being espoused and married to Christ. Let me first, however, respond to his statement that he is "honored" that I am, in his estimation and pre judgment, "bothered by what I preach." I will begin by citing these words of Solomon:

"He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him." (Prov. 18:17)

Wrote Gill in his commentary on the passage:

"He that is first in his own cause [seemeth] just As perhaps Tertullus did, before Paul made his defence; and as Ziba, Mephibosheth's servant, before his master detected him: this often appears true in telling a tale, in private conversation, in lawsuits before a judge and a court of judicature, and in theological controversies; but his neighbour cometh, and searcheth him" and "shows the falsehood of his relation" and "sets the cause in quite another light" and "exposes the errors of a man engaged in a wrong cause, and refutes his arguments."

That is what we have been trying to do Ben! We are trying to expose your errors and refute your arguments, calling upon you, like the noble Bereans, to prove what you assert to be true.

Gill continued:

"...it is not proper to be hasty in forming a judgment till the other side is heard; for his antagonist comes and traverses the point, unravels the whole affair, shows the weakness of his cause, the vanity of his pretences, and makes void all his allegations...inquires more narrowly into the case, in order to find out truth, and pass a right judgment and sentence."

Again, Ben, we are doing what Dr. Gill said we should do, based upon what Solomon wrote. Are you and your Hardshell brothers, in ignoring and slandering us, not being "hasty in forming a judgment" by your failing to hear the "other side"? Why do you not want your members to hear all sides to an argument before they decide what is right?

No, Ben, I do not spend my time listening to your sermons to "pick them apart." I am just following Scripture, such as what Solomon and James taught, in "searching out" what you put forth as the truth of God and the facts of history. Again, thoughts enter my mind in response to this. Shall I list them? Why not?

1) Is that not what an honest investigator and seeker of truth does? How else are we to catch people in lies if we do not "pick them apart," or "search him out," etc.?

2) Is Ben beyond criticism in regard to his views?

3) Do Ben and his Hardshell brethren not "pick" us apart? And, mostly in personal matters?

4) Is there not ill will and animosity manifest in these accusations?

5) Is it not obvious to many that I have, like Paul, become Ben's enemy because I tell him the truth? (Gal. 4: 16)

Ben, I watched your video sermon because it popped up as a suggested video from youtube. Since we had been involved with you before on the issue of conversion, and the title of the sermon was "conversion," I thought I would listen. That is what prompted me to reply.

For your information, I listen to one or two sermons of PBs per year. I do more reading of their writings, however, especially from the 19th century. I have reviewed over the past decade several sermons by Hardshell elders. Let me name a few: Sonny Pyles, David Pyles, David Montgomery, Zach Guess, Michael Gowens, Ronnie Loudermilk, etc. Now we can add you to that list. Further, I listen to PB sermons that I never respond to, and some I actually agree with.

Wrote Winslett:

"So, in the spirit of correcting the record, I am replying here on my blog." 

"Correcting the record"? Whew! Many things pop into my head in response to that statement, coming as it does from a member of a cult that has a history of distorting the records of history! Scripture too! Ironically, we are the ones who spend our time "correcting the record" here at The Old Baptist Test blog! On Dr. Gill's views we have had to correct the Hardshells many times. Did your forefathers in Fulton "correct the record" of the London Confession? Or, did they not butcher it?

Wrote Winslett:

"We all have pet peeves, and perhaps my greatest is when men say things about me which are untrue. Whether Mr Garrett misunderstood or is simply misrepresenting me because he cannot help himself, I have no way of knowing. Either way, I feel it worth issuing one reply. I have no intention of continuing a dialogue with him or his cohorts."

Those "pet peeves" of Winslett, do they stem from or provoke feelings of ill will? Further, as we will see, we did not say anything that could be called misrepresentation.

Of course, in regard to his words - "I have no intention of continuing a dialogue" - all I can say is we have heard all this before! Hit and run! Cowards! Where is your soldierly spirit? Why do you not come to the fight? Why are you "settled on your lees" in your errors? If you are not "Hardshell," i.e. stubborn and incalcitrant, why do you act like one? Why be hard headed and close your eyes and ears? What do you think Jesus and the Apostles would do? Would they not confront us?

Wrote Winslett:

"First, to set the back story, this weekend we had an extraordinary weekend at Flint River. On Saturday, we ordained two deacons. The house was packed. The singing was booming and worshipful. The prayers were somber but also genuine. The word was preached with power. God was certainly present and it was such an honor for us to all be witness."

Was the house packed by sinners coming for the first time to hear the gospel and be saved? Or, was the house packed because many PBs from the surrounding area came for this special meeting? How many do you have on a regular service at Flint River? How many sinners converted? If the word was preached with power, then there surely must have been many conversions, many born again, many backsliders reclaimed, etc. Many cults have such meetings as you describe. Such proves nothing about the truth claims of the cult.

Wrote Winslett:

"On his blog, Mr Garrett makes a few statements about me that need to be corrected. I will attempt to do so in brief. His words will be indented and italicized (in red - SG).

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.

This one made me laugh. As if our flock sits around, reading Garrett's website. I'd be surprised if any of them knows he exists. In a word, inglorious. But to answer this: No Stephen. No one said anything about it. Don't flatter yourself."

Well, don't kid yourself either! More read our writings than you realize.

Why do you and other PBs keep telling me how I am such a nobody, such an unknown, as regards to the Hardshell brotherhood? Do you think that is uppermost in my mind? I was never one to engage in a popularity contest when I was a Hardshell. I quietly pastored my churches. Further, if I really wanted to get more attention from the Hardshells, I could do a lot more than I am doing, believe me. But, I write and I leave it to the Lord to direct enquirers to our web page.

Winslett and Conversion (iv)

I promised to give a sampling of the evidence that we have available on this blog that shows what the first Baptists, and the first Hardshells, believed about regeneration and conversion. So, in this conclusion to my reply to Winslett on conversion, I give the evidence.

From the "Primitive Baptist" (1837) and
What the first Hardshells Believed IX and
What the first Hardshells Believed VIII and
What the first Hardshells Believed VII and
What the first Hardshells Believed VII (second under that title) and
What the first Hardshells Believed VI and
What the first Hardshells Believed V and
What the first Hardshells Believed IV and
First Hardshells on Rom. 8: 28 and
What the first Hardshells Believed III and
What the first Hardshells Believed II and
What the first Hardshells Believed

In this posting we will look at some citations from Vol. 2 (1837) and Vol. 3 of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical.

"The predestinarian believes in the foreknowledge of God, and that all men by nature deserve condemnation.  The predestinarian believes in the atonement of the Lord Jesus, and that his righteousness is made over and imputed to all his spiritual children by and through the means or instrumentality of faith, as the law of righteousness that it might be of grace.  The predestinarian believes that the means and the end are inseparably connected, and that works and faith are as much united as soul and body;  and that God knoweth them that are his...And this is eternal life, that they believe on the only true God, and in Jesus Christ whom he has sent."  (pg. 126)

Notice how the first Hardshells believed in "means" and that "the means and the end are inseparably connected."  Today's Hardshells almost universally reject this view.  So, if they don't even agree with their founding fathers on this issue, how can they legitimately call themselves "primitive" or "old school"?

"Bro. Bennett:  Being well pleased with the doctrine contained in the Primitive Baptist, edited by yourself, and believe the doctrine to be in accordance with the word of God, and that it is therefore calculated to disseminate life, light, and immortality to those who are dead in trespasses and sins, and is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;  comforting, confirming, and establishing them in the faith.."  (pg. 142)

Again, this is not what is advocated by today's Hardshells.  Today's "Primitive Baptists" will say that the means doctrine is "Arminianism," or as some are now doing, calling such a belief in means "Calvinism."

From Vol. 3

Elder John Watson wrote:

"We are informed by the apostle, in 2 Thess. 2: 13, that a sanctification of the spirit is necessarily connected with a belief of the truth; and those who cannot bear sound doctrine, would not at all be benefited, by our softening down gospel truths. We are directed in 2 Tim. 2: 23, to instruct those who oppose the truth, in meekness, hoping that the Lord may grant them "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth."  (Pg. 83)

"So we understand that sanctification and faith are the means of that salvation to which God had chosen these Thessalonians. In short, we should take no man's opinion in such cases, nor have an opinion of our own, without a thus saith the Lord for it; for opinion must always be founded upon evidence."  (pg. 95)

We know what Elder Watson believed about means in the new birth.  His "Old Baptist Test" is full of statements in line with what he writes here.  Further, Elder John Clark was a frequent writer and supporter of this periodical and he obviously shared the beliefs of Watson, Lawrence, Hassell, Bennett (the first editor), and others who supported this Kehukee Association supported paper.  So too did Wilson Thomspon and his son Grigg Thompson read this periodical, the latter especially.

"So then, he hath chosen us that we might be holy, etc. consequently will give us the means of salvation, which are faith and holiness. And God is onmiscient (sic), or every where present, and therefore none of his elect shall miss the end designed; that is, eternal life: For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God, etc. Chosen in him before the foundation of the world, etc. So then, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. And even in the same way that the Lord sent his gospel to all the world once, even so now will he send it where he pleaseth; for he is of one mind and one way, and hath not said to the church, send ye my gospel any where." (pg. 109-10)

"I find the will of God is to believe the record that God has given us of his Son for salvation, which would include all the fundamental principles of the gospel, and a good deal more; and the doctrine of election and predestination, and final perseverance of the saints, all of which I believe in." (pg. 115)

"...as I do believe God has chosen his people in Christ before the world was, and that according to his own purpose. And as he has made the choice of the characters that shall inherit his kingdom above, he has also ordained the means by which they shall be prepared and qualified for that eternal world. He has not chosen his people in Christ and left the means to be used necessary to bring them there in the hands of men. No, sir, he has ordained the preaching of the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation, as his own method of saving his elect."  (pg. 145)

Today's Hardshells have apostatized from what their forefathers believed.  Is this not why they have wanted to hide such old periodicals and information over the past one hundred years or so?  But, thanks to the Internet, such works are being taken out of the closets of libraries and discovered.  And oh what a discovery it is for those Hardshells today who know nothing of their real history.

"But perhaps the effort party may conclude there is still something for them to do, preachers must be prepared and sent to preach; but I want you also to remember, that God has not left this work in the hands of men, to say who shall preach his gospel, or who shall be instrumental in his hands in bringing his elect to a saving knowledge of his truth and glorious inheritance above. No, sir, he has reserved this work also to himself, he calls and qualifies his ministers to preach Jesus."  (pg. 145)

"Therefore we need no other means now than were needed eighteen hundred years ago; it then required the power of God to quicken a dead sinner and make him alive, it requires the same now and nothing short of that will effect the salvation of the soul. God saved his chosen people before missionary societies were introduced, by the ministers he chose, by the means he ordained, and not by plans devised by mortals; consequently they were indebted to him alone for that salvation, he was entitled to all praise and glory: Not unto us, but unto thy name give glory." (pg. 146)

Notice how it is said "we need no other means."   You see, these Hardshells rejected "human means," such as seminaries, Sunday schools, revival meetings, etc., but they did not "throw the baby out with the bath water" as their later descendents would do, for though they rejected these "human means" they did not see this as excluding the preaching of the Gospel as a divinely appointed means.

This is what brother Fralick and I believe and we are therefore the real Old or Primitive Baptists.

Vol. 5 Jan. 1840)

"And that gospel, instead of requiring legal duties of the dead, as a condition of their receiving life; actually gives life to them that were dead--spiritual life to such as had no such quality in them before; divine life, and union with God to such as were really his enemies, and far from righteousness of any kind until it was communicated by the gospel's quickening influence...The law was an administration of death to all that were found transgressors of it; the gospel was, and is the power of God unto salvation, to all the chosen seed."

Winslett and Conversion (iii)

As before observed, Winslett made an entry in his "March to Zion" web page ( see here) after my first posting about his sermon on conversion in relation to Flint River PB's seventh article of faith. I want to cite the portions of that writing that deal with the subject of conversion and thus complete this short series on that issue. This will be followed by a response to other things he said in the same writing, or in his sermon, relative to being espoused and married to Christ. I will also respond to some other personal gossipy items that he introduces.

Winslett cited my words - "Winslet said Gill gave the same sense of conversion as did Flint River's article." He then responds with these words:

"Here are two examples of how Gill used the word convert:

"...And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren: Peter was now a converted man, and had been for some years; but whereas he would fall by temptation into a very great sin of denying his Lord, and which was attended with such circumstances as made him look like an unconverted, and an unregenerate man; his recovery by the fresh exercise of faith in Christ, and repentance for his sins, is called conversion..." Gill on Peter's Conversion, Luke 22."

"...And one convert him;or turn him from his error, to truth again; for this designs not first conversion, or the turning of a sinner from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God, and from the evil of a man's heart and ways and from a dependence on his own righteousness, to the Lord Jesus Christ, to look to him for righteousness, life, and salvation, which is wholly and entirely God's work, and not man's; but conversion after backslidings; for a restoration from a fallen condition is sometimes so called..." Gill on James 5:19"

In this rebuttal I will take each passage and analyze it first exegetically and then look at what Gill said thereon and then compare all the evidence gained with Winslett's views. First, in regard to

Peter's Conversion

"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me." (Luke 22: 31-34)

First, let me notice a couple of things Gill said in the above citation (commentary). Gill says that the betrayal of Christ by Peter "made him look like an unconverted, and an unregenerate man." What does that say? What does a converted and regenerate man "look like" to Gill? To Winslett? It looks like he is a believer, follower, and confessor of Christ, according to scripture and Gill. Is that what he looks like to Winslett?

Gill also says that Peter's "recovery by the fresh exercise of faith in Christ, and repentance for his sins, is called conversion."

What are the constituent elements of true conversion according to Gill (whether it be first conversion, second, or third, etc.)? He mentions "faith in Christ" and "repentance for sins." Are these items not part of conversion in the understanding of Flint River's first members?

Now here is the part that Winslett left out, in his citation of Gill, with his typical and infamous Hardshell ellipsis - "and which was not his own act, but owing to the power and efficacy of divine grace; see (Jeremiah 31:18)." Is that what Winslett believes about Peter's conversion? Remember that the sin that needed to be turned from was his betrayal in saying "I know not the man." Does Winslett agree that this "conversion," one of the many "over and over again" conversions that Peter would supposedly experience in the future, was "not his own act, but owing to the power and efficacy of divine grace"?

The first members of Flint River, and even the ones who formed the first members of the anti mission faction that became known as "Flint River Primitive Baptist Church," would no doubt agree with Gill (and Winslett grants that this is true). So, it makes no real difference whether the conversion of which Christ speaks, in regard to Peter after his betrayal, is regeneration or first conversion, or one that followed that. The larger question is whether God had not only predestined and worked Peter's first conversion to Christ (when he said in Matthew 16 "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") but whether he also worked this subsequent conversion. Gill, the first members of Flint River, Kevin and I, we all believe that Peter's conversion from his betrayal was not any less certain than his regeneration. That fact is proven from the very context. Let us notice it.

"Satan has desired to have you" even though I have appointed you to reign in the coming eternal kingdom of God (preceding verses). Will Satan succeed in taking possession of Peter when Christ has possession of him? Will it be left up to the will power and strength of Peter to determine the outcome of that battle for Peter's soul? What do the Scriptures say? What did the first Baptists who wrote Flint's article say on the matter? What answer would Winslett and today's Hardshells give to the question? What would Gill say? In fact, what did he say? Did he not say that Peter's conversion in this context, though not first conversion, is nevertheless necessary for him to stay saved?

Jesus says "when you are converted," not "if you will be converted." The conversion is certain. But, how could it be certain if it were left up finally to the will and effort of Peter? It is certain because Jesus said to Peter "I have prayed for you that your faith fail not."

In Peter's repentance, and in his returning to the Lord in contrition and faith, after his betrayal, his faith got the victory. He lost a battle, but won the war, or took the field. Did not John say that "whatever is born of God overcomes the world" and that "this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith"? Peter got the victory because his faith was divinely given and sustained.

I would like to ask Winslett -

1) "Does Jesus pray for you to be converted over and over again in your sanctification?"
2) "If he does, will you then be as sure to go further from error and nearer the full truth?"

Next, let us notice

Conversion of "Brothers"

Gill in his commentary on James 5: 19,20

for this designs not first conversion, or the turning of a sinner from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God, and from the evil of a man's heart and ways and from a dependence on his own righteousness, to the Lord Jesus Christ, to look to him for righteousness, life, and salvation, which is wholly and entirely God's work, and not man's; but conversion after backslidings; for a restoration from a fallen condition is sometimes so called..." 

Gill says that the conversion of which James speaks "designs not first conversion." Okay, but what exactly are the essential elements of "first conversion" ("regeneration" strictly defined) according to Gill? Does he not tell us in the above words? How can we miss it? It involves essentially the actual turning of a sinner both "from" something and "to" something. Gill says in regeneration or first conversion there is an actual "turning of a sinner from darkness to light," an actual turning "from the power of Satan," and a "turning to God," and an actual turning "from the evil of a man's heart and ways," and an actual turning of a man "from a dependence on his own righteousness," and a turning "to the Lord Jesus Christ," etc. Are these things involved in "first conversion" according to Winslett? I trow not.

Interesting is this citation from Gill, and ironically, from his Body of Divinity on the subject of "Conversion":

"...not all that were so converted in a doctrinal sense were true and real converts; some had the form of godliness without the power of it, had a name to live, and be called Christians, but were dead, and so not converted; thus the recovery of professors of religion from errors fallen into, to the acknowledgment of the truth, is called a conversion of them (Jas. 5:19, 20)."

Notice how Gill references James 5: 19, 20 at the end of his remarks about those who are not "real converts," not real Christians, though they be "called" such by others. Though they "had a name (or profession) that says that they are alive," they are actually spiritually "dead, and so not converted." 

Gill, in commenting upon verse 20, wrote:

"shall save a soul from death; not efficiently, but instrumentally, as in (1 Timothy 4:16) for otherwise Christ is the only Saviour; and he will be the means of saving "a soul", which is of more worth than a world; and that from death, the second death which lies in the separation of the soul from God, and in a sense of his wrath; which apostasy threatens with, and leads unto, if grace prevents not."

Since we admit that the first members of Flint River Baptist church would have followed Gill on the subject of conversion, then Winslett and Flint River have today departed from the faith of the fathers concerning article seven of her articles of faith.

There are lots of "brothers," "Christians," "disciples" of Jesus today, of every stamp and sect. Are they all saved? In saving many of the false professors among nominal Christianity we are indeed, as Gill said, instruments in saving souls from eternal death. By the way, how could the words "save a soul from death" and "hide a multitude of sins" be a "time salvation"?

I find it ironic that we are discussing James 5: 19,20 about "brothers" converting brothers from their religious errors in doctrine and practice when this is what I have been doing for many years (so has Kevin)! We are trying to save our Hardshell brothers (instrumentally) from death!

Winslet continued:

"There's a reason I love Gill's writings and read him so often. I know there are places we disagree (as with any two men this side of Glory), but I do very much appreciate his works."

I don't think you would like Gill so much if you would read more about what he said about predestination, effectual calling, perseverance, etc.! Keep on reading Gill! You might become a real "Old Baptist" if you do. We are praying for you as James 5 tells us.

Winslett and Conversion (ii)

At the end of my last posting I cited these words of Winslett (from his sermon):

"Regeneration is once, conversion happens over and over. This is not a distinction that we invented. Listen to what Dr. Gill said - "regeneration is the sole act of God." There is only one way to understand that sentence. Amen? Regeneration is the sole act of God!" There is no other interpretation of that without being deceitful. "Conversion consists of both God's act upon men in turning them and" - and the sense of the word "and" here means in addition to. Additionally "to acts done by men under the influence of converting grace." And, that comes from chapter thirteen of John Gill's Body of Divinity."

I made a few comments on the above commentary by Winslett in the previous posting and I would now like to add to those comments. After doing this, we will continue to look at what Winslett says about "conversion" and his references to Dr. Gill.

The words "regeneration is the sole act of God" are repeated over and over by Winslet in his sermon with the implied meaning that affirming such a proposition logically excludes human means and agents, and excludes acts coming from the thing acted upon (or the effect). He even implies that Gill intended these Hardshell "logical deductions" by those very words! Winslett has obviously not read all of chapter 13 of Gill's Body of Divinity, nor anything else Gill wrote on regeneration, effectual calling, and conversion. I ask these simple questions; Are faith and repentance acts of the creature? Are these acts the effects of the work or sole act of God? 

If I say "creation is the sole act of God," do I mean that the act (cause), exclusive of the effect, is "creation"? Would that not be absurd? What we mean by the words "creation is the sole act of God" is "creation is the result of the act of God." Don't you see? Likewise, when we say "regeneration is the sole act of God" we mean "regeneration results from the sole act of God." To define "regeneration" as the act of God, exclusive of the effect, makes God the one who experiences regeneration. Don't you see? Gill understood this. Our Baptist forefathers understood this. We understand it here at the Old Baptist Test blog.

Gill does not limit the definition of either regeneration or conversion to the action of God alone but includes the effect that the action of God produces, as we have already stressed. What Gill means by "regeneration is the sole act of God" is "regeneration is the result of the act of God." God is not the one who experiences regeneration or conversion, though his act causes each. But, if we limit these terms to an activity of the Deity, then it is God who is experiencing regeneration. Don't you see?

As another instance, let us notice the words of Jesus to dead Lazarus, "come forth." Those spoken words of Jesus were the cause of his coming forth, but who did the coming forth? Surely, the words of Jesus, having power, effected resurrection or the giving of life. The quickening of Lazarus is not defined by what caused it, else Jesus would be the one being quickened.

At the end of the last posting I also posted the rest of the citation from Gill that was given by Winslett in his write up in his blog (which I will introduce shortly after this review of his sermon):

"Conversion, though it may seem, in some respects, to fall in with regeneration and the effectual calling, yet may be distinguished from them both. Regeneration is the sole act of God; conversion consists both of God's act upon men, in turning them, and of acts done by men under the influence of converting grace; they turn, being turned. Regeneration is the motion of God towards and upon the heart of a sinner; conversion is the motion of a sinner towards God, as one expresses it." 

Notice that in the remainder of the citation that Gill defines conversion; he says - "conversion consists both of God's act upon men, in turning them, and of acts done by men under the influence of converting grace". Observe that in this definition Gill does not say "initial conversion" but "conversion," and says that the latter is not to be defined alone by what causes conversion, i.e. "God's act," or "converting grace," but also in what is effected by that action or that grace, which is the actual turning of the sinner, and this involves "acts done by men under the influence of converting grace."

For a fuller treatment of this issue, see my posting Chpt. 111 - Mediate or Immediate? In that posting I cited from Archibald Alexander, who wrote:

"Evangelical repentance, conversion and regeneration, are substantially the same. They all signify a thorough change of views, affections, purposes and conduct; and this change is every where declared to be essential to salvation."

And: 

"Curious inquiries respecting the way in which the word is instrumental in the production of this change are not for edification. Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included; and we shall therefore treat the subject in this practical and popular form. The instrumentality of the word can never derogate from the efficient agency of the Spirit in this work. The Spirit operates by and through the word. The word derives all its power and penetrating energy from the Spirit. Without the omnipotence of God the word would be as inefficient as clay and spittle, to restore sight to the blind."

Alexander pinpoints the error of those who restrict the definition of regeneration (or conversion) to include only the "cause."  He correctly states that the scriptures include what is effected in the definition. A man cannot be said to have been "regenerated" who lacked the "effects," or constituent elements of regeneration.  In other words, a man cannot be said to have been "saved" who lacks the "things which accompany salvation." Thus, to say a man is regenerated before he believes and repents is to define regeneration strictly by the cause to the exclusion of the effect.

In reply to my post Winslett & Flint River On Conversion Winslett made an entry in his MarchtoZion web page ( see here). In that posting Winslett wrote (emphasis mine):

"On Sunday, I decided to follow this line of thought, and explained that whereas regeneration (and the conversion from darkness to light which occurs therein) is a one time, God-only event, we experience conversions many times in our lives. Further, conversion (to convert means "to turn") is something that we experience on a spectrum. At minimum, every elect is converted from death to life. Yet there is coming a day in which we will be fully and totally converted from every sin and unto every truth, in the Glorified State we anticipate in the resurrection. And so on the spectrum of conversion, on one end you have spiritual life being imparted and on the other end, glorification."

I have already mostly responded to this, but I stopped short of completing my comments on these words due to the length of the posting. Let me first notice the fact that Winslett defines "regeneration" as being "the conversion from darkness to light," saying that such a conversion "occurs therein." I agree! And, what do we learn about this experience of being converted from darkness to light? Do the scriptures picture this as a subconscious conversion, one of which the one experiencing it is not cognizant? Do the scriptures speak of this as accomplished by God apart from the means of gospel preachers or the proclamation of the word of God? Do the scriptures speak of this as if it excluded any acts of the creature resulting from God's work in this conversion from darkness to light? Let us look at these passages:

"Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." (John 8:12 KJV)

"I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness." (John 12:46 KJV)

"...and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee: To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts 26:17-18 KJV)

"For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (II Cor. 4:6 KJV)

Gill, in his commentary on Acts 26: 18 said:

"by "darkness" is meant, the darkness of nature, the darkness of sin, of ignorance, and unbelief, in which all men by nature are; who are in the dark about, and are ignorant of God, and the perfections of his nature; and about sin, and the evil there is in it, and that comes by it; and the way of peace, righteousness, and salvation by Christ; and the work of the spirit in regeneration and sanctification upon the heart; and about the Scriptures of truth, and the doctrines of the Gospel, and what will be their state and portion in another world; they do not know where they are, what they are, nor where they are going: and in the effectual calling this darkness is in a great measure removed, and they are turned to light; to God, who is light itself, and to Christ, the light of the world, and to the light of the word, and to a participation of the light of grace here, in which they see light, and behold the above things, and of the light of glory hereafter."

The definition of Winslett and today's members of Flint River do not define "conversion" in this manner and yet it is clearly the way the founders of Flint River understood it. I wonder if Winslett will continue to love Dr. Gill when he sees such statements of Gill!

Gill continued:

"Conversion is the end of the Gospel ministry, and illumination is necessary to it; yea, it lies in a turn from darkness to light, as is here expressed: and this conversion is not a mere external one, or a reformation of manners; this is indeed sometimes called a conversion, and is a man's turning from the evil of his ways, from a vicious life and conversation, to a sober way of living, and is often brought about through the ministry of the word; but then this may be where true conversion is not, and where there is no special illumination of the Spirit, nor any true spiritual light; and there may be a turning again to the former course of life; besides, this external conversion, when it is right and genuine, is the fruit and effect of inward conversion, or true grace, and is at most but the evidence of it: nor is it a conversion to a doctrine in a professional way; men may be converted in this sense, and remain wicked; they may have the form, but not the power of godliness; know the doctrine and profess it, and yet be strangers to the experience of it: nor does it design a restoration after backslidings; which sometimes goes by the name of conversion, such as was Peter's after his fall; but the first work of conversion is here meant, which is internal, and is a turn of the hearts of men; and is not the work of man, but of God, who has the hearts of all in his hands, and can turn them as he pleases; and is what man is passive in, he does not turn himself, but is turned by the Lord; though ministers may be, and are instruments in it."

In Winslett's definition of "conversion," is there any illumination? Is there any revelation? Is there any correction of error?  In Winslett's "initial conversion," or regeneration, in the sinner's being converted from darkness to light, what truth does he embrace? What religious error does he forsake?

Gill continued:

"Now though this is all the work of the Spirit, by whom only the eyes of the understanding are enlightened; yet this is ascribed to the apostle, not as the efficient cause, but as the instrument and means through preaching of the Gospel, which the Spirit of God would, and did make use of and to turn them from darkness to light..."

Is all this not plain? Did the first Baptists in Alabama not agree with Gill? Where is Winslett's definition of conversion found in 1808?

Winslett and others of his brethren might want to read Jason Brown vs John Gill and see where Hardshell Brown and I have already had this debate on Gill (Brown lost). In that posting we debated that section where Gill seems to favor the immediate view of regeneration but does not do so actually. Here is what I wrote in that posting:

Let me cite once again the words from that disputed section of Gill's Body of Divinity ("Of Regeneration"), words which follow the section Jason and the Hardshells say taught Hardshell views.

"Though after all it seems plain, that the ministry of the word is the vehicle in which the Spirit of God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men; which is done when the word comes not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost; and works effectually, and is the power of God unto salvation; then faith comes by hearing, and ministers are instruments by whom, at least, men are encouraged to believe: "received ye the Spirit", says the apostle, "by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith": (Gal. 3:2), that is, by the preaching of the law, or by the preaching of the gospel? by the latter, no doubt."

Gill here gives what he believes is the teaching of scripture on regeneration. He defines regeneration as the receiving of the Spirit of God and his grace into the heart. He believes that regeneration, so defined, is by the means of the gospel being believed! 

The words "though after all it seems plain," follow his speculating about "regeneration" being "strictly" defined, or limited to the first act of God (as was being then done in Gill's day by later Reformed theologians). Those words, fairly interpreted, mean "all speculating aside, it is plain from scripture that regeneration is not strictly defined as such, but is defined broadly as including conversion." Remember that Gill defined "conversion" as including "acts done by them" as a result of God's work and grace. What are those acts? Are they not named in scripture? What does Acts 3: 19 say?

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."

In the Greek text, both verbs, "repent" and "convert" are in the active voice, not passive voice. They are also imperatives. The KJV rendering "be converted" clouds the active voice import. If we want to keep the word "converted" in the passage, then we would be better to say "repent and convert." In this case it is the sinner who is doing the repenting and converting. I can say "God converted me," and at the same time say "I converted," and there is no contradiction. But, this seems to be a simple lesson that our Hardshell brethren either cannot grasp or refuse to see it.

Notice what is promised to the sinner who "repents" and "converts." Is it a mere "time salvation" that has nothing to do with eternal salvation? No, it is in order that "your sins may be blotted out." What happens if the sinner does not repent and convert? Will his sins be blotted out? As if this promise of absolution was not enough to show how this is no mere optional "time salvation," one resulting from "free will" and "human effort," there is added the words "when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." Is that not the second coming? How could it be connected with anything else?

Wrote Albert Barnes:

"And be converted - This expression conveys an idea not at all to be found in the original. It conveys the idea of "passivity," be "converted," as if they were to yield to some foreign influence that they were now resisting. But the idea of being "passive" in this is not conveyed by the original word. The word means properly to "turn; to return to a path from which one has gone astray; and then to turn away from sins, or to forsake them." It is a word used in a general sense to denote "the whole turning to God." That the form of the word here ἐπιστρέψατε (epistrepsate) does not denote passivity may be clearly seen by referring to the following places where the same form of the word is used: Matthew 24:18; Mark 13:16; Luke 17:31; 1 Thessalonians 1:9. The expression, therefore, would have been more appropriately rendered "repent and turn, that your sins," etc. "To be converted" cannot be a matter of obligation, but to "turn to God" is the duty of every sinner."

The same Greek word for "be converted" in Acts 3:19 is better rendered by the KJV in Acts 11:21 where we have the words “a great number believed and turned (converted) unto the Lord.”

Did the first members of Flint River church not believe that this was the conversion that they had reference to in article seven?

In an article titled "An exhortation to young Primitive Baptists" (here) Elder Winslett wrote:

"Tenth, do not think that you are smarter than your forefathers. They were only human. Before criticizing them try to understand them within their time period. Learn from their example, both good and bad. But always remember to be charitable concerning them. Always admit where they might have been wrong, but likewise, never tear-down their fence until you realize why it was built (Proverbs 23:20). They made mistakes, so will you."

I find it highly ironic that Winslett would say "do not think that you are smarter than your forefathers."

Is that not what he thinks about himself in relation to his forefathers? He advises young PBs to "always admit where they might have been wrong." Why not consider admitting that your forefathers may have been right and that you are wrong?

In the next posting I will complete this rebuttal on what Winslett has said about conversion by looking at Luke 22 and James 5. That will be followed by a posting on Winslett's charge that I misrepresented him on his views about being "married to Christ."

Other Good Songs To Share

Armor Music Ministry (here) has a group of six singers singing acapella the following song

Lyrics for The Sweetest Song I Know by Russ Taff

I've heard them sing "He Paid The Price" and "Jesus Bore It All" I've heard them sing "I'm Coming Home"

and "Hear The Master's Call" I've heard them sing the modern songs and songs of long ago But "Amazing Grace, How Sweet The Sound" is the sweetest song I know Amazing grace (Amazing grace, how sweet the sound) How sweet the sound (Oh how sweet is the sound) No sweeter song (sweeter song, sweeter song) Could e'er be found (In this life could be found) I've heard of a fountain (Heard of the dear Savior's blood) Filled with blood (That washed us white, white as snow) But "Amazing Grace" ("Amazing Grace, How Sweet The Sound") Is the sweetest song I know It was the song my momma sang in sweet and humble voice Like music from the world above, it made my soul rejoice Its soothing words and melody like rippling waters flow Oh, "Amazing Grace, How Sweet The Sound" is the sweetest song I know Repeat x2 Repeat 2 Repeat x2 Repeat 2 Repeat

Here is Another Good Song

Let The Lower Lights Be Burning
By Mt. Pleasant Quartet

Here is Another Good Song

Old Time Religion
By Heralds of the Morning

Winslett and Conversion

Well, it did not take long to hear from Elder Winslett. Shortly after my previous posting Winslet & Flint River On Conversion he responded on his blog (see here).

This posting will be an enlargement upon the former posting relative to the issue of "conversion." It will then be followed by another posting dealing with Winslett's accusation that I misrepresented what he said in that sermon on what it means to be either "espoused" or "married to Christ."

Winslett On Conversion

In looking at what Ben said about the experience of conversion we must remember where we are in this disagreement (perhaps we may be able to call it a "discussion" at some point?) on what Flint River Baptist church intended to teach by her seventh article of faith (1808), an article that Flint River PB church's pastor, Ben Winslett, said dealt with "the new birth" (even though that was not one of the four terms used in the article, those four being called, converted, regenerated, and sanctified).

Items of Agreement

1. Whatever is meant by "converted" in the article, it is something that all the elect will experience.

2. The view of today's Hardshells that repentance and faith (excluding baptism) constitute conversion.

Items of Disagreement 

1. Both terms in the article of confession, "regenerated" and "converted," are used as virtual synonyms, referencing the same thing.

2. "Converted" is not "gospel conversion" (or becoming a Christian) in the article (though this is the view of Winslet).

Winslett's False Assertion #1

Here is the definition of "converted" that Winslet gave in his sermon on the article (as transcribed from his video sermon):

"To be converted one must believe and repent and be baptized."

"Did they believe that every child of God would be converted in the sense of baptized church members?"

"To be fully converted, to be a baptized disciple...that is conversion as we define it today."

Response

A person is not converted (or a disciple) until he is baptized? That is not Old Baptist doctrine! It is Campbellite doctrine.

Baptists have always taught that conversion came on the heels of repentance and faith, before baptism. In fact, Flint River church in her beginning, like all other Baptist churches, taught that one must be regenerated and converted before baptism! One of the many scriptures that Baptists have always used to teach conversion before baptism comes from the words of Jesus in the great commission - "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them." (Matt. 28:19) First, make disciples (converts, believers), then "baptize them." That is the divine order. The pedo Baptists reverse that order, saying "baptize (infants) and then make them disciples."

The words also show that becoming a disciple is not equated with being baptized! This view of the Hardshells and Campbellites (the infamous "twins") is therefore false. Here then is another difference between the present members of Flint River church and their founding members. They did not define being "converted" or becoming a "disciple" as necessitating water baptism as do the present members of Flint River PB church.

So, we agree, article #7 of Flint River's articles do not mean that all the elect will be "converted" in the sense of being baptized in water. But, why, mention this point since it was never disputed? Is it not a diversion tactic? His reasoning is typical of Hardshell reasoning and logic. His reasoning, though not well expressed, is based upon these two premises (which are supposed to be true):

1) All the elect will be converted
2) All the converted are baptized

Now, what is the logical conclusion of these syllogistic premises? It is not that all the elect will be baptized? Is that conclusion upheld by scripture or by the first Baptists in Alabama? It is not. Winslet and I can agree on that. But, how can excluding baptism from the requirements of conversion lead one to conclude that faith and repentance likewise are excluded? This is a clear case of "jumping to conclusions," or what is called a "leap frog in logic."

The question then remains - did Flint River's founders, like their brethren with similar articles, intend that the word "converted" refer to something totally distinct from the way Baptists have always defined it? How can we find out? Did not Winslet admit that the way to discern the answer is by looking at the writings of Flint River's brethren of the time period and see how they used and defined the term? But, if this is the criteria, how can Winslet, even with all his Hardshell sophistry, with its red herrings, false reasoning, etc., ever possibly win the day? We have much evidence from historical records that show that the first Hardshells in Alabama believed that all the elect would be converted by the gospel. We have presented that evidence here in this blog and at the end of this posting I will give the reader a sample of that vast amount of evidence.

The question however still remains; did the first Baptists in Alabama, the ones who wrote the first articles of faith such as those of Flint River PB church, believe that a sinner was "converted" before and without faith? Or, rather, did they believe that a sinner was converted in repenting and believing?

Remember that Winslet told his congregation that the "writings of the period" would show that the word "converted" was understood as not denoting a person consciously becoming a disciple of Christ or Christian. Did he provide that evidence to his congregation or did they just take his word for it? Did the first members of Flint River church divorce conversion from an "experience of grace," or from an experience of repentance and faith?

We have produced many articles from the time period Winslett speaks about, and we have found none that took his neo Hardshell view on what the article of faith means nor on what they understood "converted" to mean. On the other hand, we have found all kinds of evidence from the period that flatly contradicts what Winslett says and have posted it here hundreds of times. We have cited from the first issues of the first leading Hardshell periodicals of the period, such as the Signs of the Times, the Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor, the Primitive Baptist, and other such sources to show how they understood the word "convert."

Does Winslett not know that most of his founding fathers, such as Wilson Thompson, believed that regeneration and the new birth were distinct and separated in time and experience? And, that the new birth was equated with evangelical conversion? And, that both were necessary? And, that this is what is reflected in the words of the article? Does he not know that all these first "Primitive" Baptists believed that all the elect would not only be regenerated, but would be converted, that is, born again and brought to faith and repentance?

Winslett equates the term "converted" in the article with "regenerated," which is also in the article along with "called" and "sanctified." But, obviously, the first members of Flint River did not believe that regeneration and conversion were the same thing. So, Flint River church today believes they are the same thing, yet her founders did not! Thus, our point is proven!

Said Winslett (emphasis mine):

"Are they (who wrote the first articles of Faith) saying that every elect person will be a baptized disciple before their death? That is not what they are saying. How you know that? Because these people who framed this, if you read their writings of the time, they would speak about people who God had elected and that Christ died, that are redeemed by him, and yet they never come under the sound of gospel preaching. Their never baptized and they never become church members. Please understand. To be converted is to repent and to be baptized in his name."

Where is that evidence? Boy, do I want to see that! But, have we not been waiting for years for such evidence? I do not deny that some individual may have had speculations about heathens being saved apart from the ordinary means (such as Zwingli), but such a belief has never been accepted by any denomination as an article of faith until the rise of the Hardshells and Universalists.

Now, it may be, that Winslett may find some citation where, in the case of those who die in infancy, or "elect infants" (LBC 1689), a Baptist in 1808 may have spoken of them as fitting this description, yet they would never say this of those who did not die in infancy.

Said Winslett:

"The conversion of this article excludes repentance and baptism."

That conversion excludes baptism as an essential element of it no one doubts! But, how does it exclude repentance? Is that not a leap?

Winslett includes, in his definition of conversion (and in that of today's members Flint River) the element of repentance. But he says that the first members excluded repentance in how they defined and used the term. He thus agrees that the definition that is given today by Flint River church is different from that of their founders! Where is your historical evidence to prove that the first members of Flint River believed that conversion was disconnected from repentance?

Said Winslett:

"They use the word convert here to have reference to the initial conversion of the soul from death in sin to life in Christ."

How does he know this? Is that how it was described in their first periodicals and books from the period? Have we not produced citations galore from those writings to show how wrong is Winslet? And, how he and other of his brethren, are deceiving the people about their history? If he deceives them in one thing, will he not in another?

So, "convert" means the same as "regenerate"? But, clearly, the confession makes them not to be the same! I agree that all four terms, i.e. called, converted, regenerated, sanctified, are describing the experience of salvation. That experience, however, is multifaceted and this is why the scriptures use several metaphors to describe it. We could add other words, ones not mentioned in the article of faith, such as quickened, renewed, born again, recreated, etc., but we would still be talking about the same salvation experience.

Said Winslett:

"You see the word convert means to turn or to divert." 

Yes, it does. Did your first members in 1808 not know that? Did they deny that it meant that? If convert means to turn, how is that unconnected with repentance? How can you divorce conversion from repentance? Both words denote practically the same thing. A change is made. What kind of change? A change of the substance of the soul? No. A change in the faculties? No. Is it not a moral change? A change of mind or belief? And such a change of mind and belief that brings instantly a change in behavior?

Further, if God in conversion "turns" a man, is that man turned or not? Can we define "turning" by what causes it alone to the exclusion of the effect, or the actual turning of the sinner's heart? Wrote Jeremiah: "Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old." (Lam. 5:21) It seems that the first use of the word "turn" focuses on the cause of turning ("turn us"), while the second use of the word focuses on the effect, or the actual turning of the sinner (we shall be turned). Can we say a man has been turned who is not actually turned?

So, all the elect will be converted or turned. Was this not understood by the original members of Flint River church? Or, was this a truth that later members of the church discovered?

What about being "turned from idols to serve the living God"? (I Thess. 1:9) Notice the two elements in "turning": there is a turning "from" and a turning "to." I believe that Winslett would say that not all the elect will be turned (converted) from idols and to the living God? From religious error to religious truth?

To affirm that the first Baptists of Alabama (mostly resulting from missionary efforts from the Sandy Creek Baptists via Daniel Marshall, and from the Charleston Association) conceived of "conversion" as devoid of evangelical knowledge, faith, and repentance, is to show gross ignorance of historical facts, willing or otherwise. The citations to be given at the end of this post will show that clearly. To think that those first Baptists thought that God turning or converting a man did not convert him from heathen faith is a slander on those good Baptists.

Now, I am not in the least condoning the evil that some (not all!) of the first members of Flint River Baptist church were guilty of, such as declaring non fellowship against bible teaching, usurping authority over the consciences of individual members (by not allowing them to be members if they contribute one cent to help print the Bible, or support a missionary), etc. That kind of deviation in practice, though great, was not as great as it is now. That makes perfect sense, however.

Divergence, though small at first, grows and magnifies as time passes. Two lines, though starting from the same point, yet going in slightly different directions, will become further separated as those lines continue. The deviation of the first Hardshells who separated and formed the first Flint River Primitive Baptist Church though great, was not as great as it has now become after the past 210 years. The first Hardshells, though rejecting many modern means of spreading the teachings of the bible, nevertheless did not deny what was stated in all their leading confessions (Philadelphia and London), and by nearly all their first leaders (Thompson, Osbourn, Leland, Gadsby, Beebe, Trott, Clark, Watson, Lawrence, Fain, C.B. Hassell, etc.), that the preaching of the gospel was God's ordained means to convert or to give birth to the elect.

Said Winslett:

"As we draw the distinction between regeneration and conversion, before we do that I want to share with you a quote from John Gill's Body of Divinity, just to say to you that this is not something that 20th, or 21st century Primitive Baptists came up with. That there is a difference between regeneration, the new birth, and conversion, our turning to God, which is, we'll clarify in a moment, happens over and over and over again in their lives." 

Let me respond first to the words "this is not something that 20th, or 21st century Primitive Baptists came up with." What exactly is Winslett referring to by the pronoun "this"? Is it a reference to the fact that a distinction between regeneration and conversion is made? But, whoever affirmed that the idea that they were not, in all cases, exactly the same, was new with the PBs? Lots of Calvinistic, Particular, or Predestinarian Baptists (use whatever term you like) have made a distinction. The question is this however; did they believe that a man could be said to be fully regenerated who was not brought to faith in Christ, or converted? Many of these Baptists taught like many today also do, like James White (Baptist) and R.C. Sproul (now deceased, Presbyterian) that "regeneration precedes faith" only in a logical sense, not in a chronological sense. Thus regeneration and conversion were simultaneous, or if you will, "two sides on the same coin." A half coin (regeneration) was often, in this sense, sometimes called "first regeneration" (Gill), while the other half (conversion) was "final regeneration." Gill, as well as Berkhof, and others also, have said that the dividing up of regeneration into these two parts was not something that can be traced back to the first Reformers or first Baptists, but was something that their later followers did. In those oldest writings, regeneration was used as a synonym for conversion, and conversion was connected with evangelical faith and repentance.

No, what the Hardshells "came up with" was the total divorcing of regeneration from gospel conversion! What they came up with was the view that heathen may be saved without gospel conversion! What they came up with was the view that faith and repentance have no place in the scheme of salvation. What they came up with was the view that one could fail to persevere in his faith and still be saved! Do I need to go further?

But, I will have more to say about Gill and his views on regeneration and conversion shortly.

Notice that Winslet 1) defines "regeneration" as being the same as "the new birth" and 2) defines "conversion" as "our turning to God." From these definitions we may observe

1) Who makes a distinction between regeneration and conversion?
2) What is the nature of that distinction, if any?

I have shown in numerous citations how the first Hardshells believed that regeneration preceded the new birth, that the former brought on conviction of sin, while the latter brought conviction of gospel truth (faith or conversion). To the first Hardshells, "regenerated" meant that experience that produced conviction of sin without any as yet cleavage to, or faith union with, Christ; "converted" denoted however conversion proper, when a person becomes a Christian.

I firmly believe that there has been no change in views on what is conversion between Flint River's first members and those who are now members of Flint River PB church (excepting the view that water baptism is part of what it means to be converted). Both believed that to be converted meant one was made a follower of Christ by hearing and believing the gospel. The change in belief about conversion, therefore, is not in what constitutes a "convert" to Christ, but in whether or not it is necessary or not to be converted to be one of the elect and called.

Notice also that Winslett says that we are "converted over and over again" in our lives as Christians. On that important point, let me respond under the heading

Winslet's False Assertion #2

What can we say about Winslett's repeated assertion that "we are converted (gospelly) over and over"? In analyzing the views of Winslett, let us state his assertions of belief.

First, he says that "initial conversion," which he says is the same as "regeneration," or "the new birth," is a one time act, never to be repeated, is not something experienced "over and over" (a point we agree on, as would his forefathers). Second, he says "final conversion" will occur at the resurrection. Third, that there are "over and over again" conversions, coming between regeneration and the resurrection.

How are these various stages of conversion like or unlike? According to the understanding of Alabama's first Baptists (before the division over missions et als)? According to the understanding of the first anti missionaries?

Here are my observations on this paradigm:

1) How can we exclude God's work in the "over and over again" conversions as do today's Hardshells? Why would he exclude the progress in conformity to Christ in between regeneration and resurrection? Does he give them life and then leave them in a spiritual or moral "vegetative state"? Is all the moral transformation of the soul and spirit to be found only in regeneration and final resurrection and not in between? Is that how the scriptures view it?

2)  Flint River's first article says all the elect will be converted and sanctified. Will sanctification also be divided up like conversion into: a) initial sanctification b) over and over again sanctification and c) final sanctification in the resurrection? Is God not as much the author and efficient worker of progressive conversion as he is in progressive sanctification?

3) Winslett says that both initial conversion (regeneration) and final conversion (resurrection) are certain for the elect, because God only is active and the sinner is passive. But, he says that in the "over and over again" conversions there is no certainty in this life for the elect, for these conversions require not only that God be active but that the elect also be active and not merely passive.

How Many Times Converted To Christ?

Said Winslett:

"Regeneration is once, conversion happens over and over. This is not a distinction that we invented. Listen to what Dr. Gill said - "regeneration is the sole act of God." There is only one way to understand that sentence. Amen? Regeneration is the sole act of God!" There is no other interpretation of that without being deceitful. "Conversion consists of both God's act upon men in turning them and" - and the sense of the word "and" here means in addition to. Additionally "to acts done by men under the influence of converting grace." And, that comes from chapter thirteen of John Gill's Body of Divinity."

Conversion to Christ happens over and over again? If that is Winslett's experience, then we are sorry to say that all is not well with his soul. God help him. For myself, and for those I read about in the new testament stories of conversion, conversion to Christ happens only once! I don't have conviction today of that truth, then lose it tomorrow, only to be reconverted back to that conviction, in a cycle "over and over again." I no longer have to keep laying the foundation of my converting faith. It was once laid when I gave my heart to Christ in rebirth. I am building on that foundation, but the initial laying of the foundation in conversion need not be repeated.

The conversion of the Thessalonians, as before observed, consisted in their act of turning from idols to the living God. Did they turn back to those idols so that they needed to be turned again? Did they do this often so that they needed to be converted "over and over again"? Honest people know the answer.

It seems that Winslett obverts not only propositions but definitions of words, a common Hardshell practice. He seems to be equating the word "convert" with the word "correct." Do we need to be corrected regularly as children of God? Absolutely. But, is correction "conversion" in the biblical sense? Yes, conversion brings correction, as in turning people from paganism to faith in the one true and living God and his Son Jesus the Christ. And, if we equate these two terms, then yes, we may experience many conversions. About the few verses that Winslett refers to specifically (Luke, James, etc.) to support his position, I will address shortly. First, let us proceed to a few other points of rejoinder.

Do the scriptures define regeneration, rebirth, conversion, sanctification, etc. as consisting in merely what causes it, or by the effect too? Like I said about the word "turn," we cannot define such terms by restricting their definition to the action (cause) that brings about the effect. The bible definition of these terms, as our forefathers taught also, includes the effect. See my post Regeneration-Cause Alone?

It is surprising to me that Winslett wants to be nothing but a parrot preacher and to keep parroting misinformation about the great John Gill and his views on regeneration and conversion. It is obvious that he is either 1) ignorant of Dr. Gill (and the evidence we have presented here on his views), or 2) he knows of that evidence but is willingly deceiving either himself, others, or both. Let me cite a little from Gill. In Chapter 13 of his Body of Divinity (that Winslett referred to), titled "Of Conversion" Gill wrote (emphasis mine):

"Conversion, though it may seem, in some respects, to fall in with regeneration and the effectual calling, yet may be distinguished from them both. Regeneration is the sole act of God; conversion consists both of God's act upon men, in turning them, and of acts done by men under the influence of converting grace; they turn, being turned. Regeneration is the motion of God towards and upon the heart of a sinner; conversion is the motion of a sinner towards God, as one expresses it." 

First, let me ask - were the first ministers in the South, including Alabama, not familiar with the views of Gill? Did they not adhere to Gill? Did not even those who agreed with Andrew Fuller, like Fuller himself, otherwise adhere strongly to Gill's basic Calvinism? Another question of probably greater importance is this - Did Fuller and Gill disagree on what constituted "conversion"? Did they not both agree that conversion consisted of becoming, through faith and repentance, via gospel knowledge, a open and confessed follower of Jesus? Yes, they both agreed. And, this being so, how can we imagine that the first Baptists of Alabama gave a definition of it that neither Gill nor Fuller would endorse?

Seeing that this reply on conversion is now so lengthy, I will post the following in part two, and then follow up that with a posting on the accusations of Winslett that I misrepresented him on what he said about being "married to Christ."