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."