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.