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."