# Conversion; a process?



## Scott Bushey (Dec 19, 2005)

I find this quote from Shedd to be interesting; not that I agree with it. It seems as if he has confused sanctification w/ conversion:



> W.G.T. Shedd, who I recently quoted:
> 
> "We shall adopt this distinction between regeneration and conversion. Regeneration, accordingly, is an act; conversion is an activity, or a process. Regeneration is the origination of life; conversion is the evolution and manifestation of life. Regeneration is wholly an act of God; conversion is wholly an activity of man. Regeneration is a cause, conversion is an effect. Regeneration is instantaneous, conversion is
> continuous."
> ...



Conversion is wholly an activity of _man_???


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 19, 2005)

Conversion is historically defined as the exercise of faith and repentance.

That is an act of man that results from the work of God (giving faith and granting repentance)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 19, 2005)

Fred,
So, you agree with Shedd's statement?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> So, you agree with Shedd's statement?



At first glance and without long reflection, yes, I think so.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 19, 2005)

> .........conversion is wholly an activity of man. Conversion is _continuous_



You agree with this?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > .........conversion is wholly an activity of man. Conversion is _continuous_
> ...



Again, if we defined conversion as faith and repentance, we can say with Luther that our entire life is to be marked by repentance, and that the exercise of faith is the Christian's daily duty.

I'll think about it some more, but I can see what Shedd is saying. I am also almost certain that he is using the term differently than you normally do.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 19, 2005)

Thanks!

I can understand sanctification being continuous. I understand we repent daily; this is a result of our being converted. Once converted, we have a new spirit. Sanctification, Gods work begins and continues until glorification. 

If conversion is a process, like Shedd is describing, would it not as well follow that justification is also a process?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Thanks!
> 
> I can understand sanctification being continuous. I understand we repent daily; this is a result of our being converted. Once converted, we have a new spirit. Sanctification, Gods work begins and continues until glorification.
> ...



No, because Shedd is using conversion as inclusive of both justification and sanctification. It is a difficult construction. Do you have in front of you what Berkhof or Dabney say?


----------



## DTK (Dec 19, 2005)

> If conversion is a process, like Shedd is describing, would it not as well follow that justification is also a process?


What Shedd has said is pretty much basic to Reformed systematic theology. Reformed systematic theologians have often described regeneration as an act of God which is often (not always) "below consciousness," i.e., not everyone can identify the moment of their regeneration. And Reformed systematic theologians have likewise posited that conversion (repentance and faith) can be gradual in following the act of God's regeneration of our hearts.

Justification is not a process, gradual or continuous, and neither would Fred (or Shedd for that matter) describe justification in that way. As the Westminster standards declare, justification is an act of God as opposed to a process of man. Both faith and repentance are the gifts of God, but God will never believe for a man nor will He ever repent for a man. 

In other words, a man can be regenerated (as Shedd is positing), and only gradually thereafter discover that he no longer thinks or acts the way he used to think and act, and discovers sometimes (albeit it gradually) that he has come to believe and embrace the Christ of Holy Scripture. Moreover, repentance is a continual process, we spend all our life long repenting of our sins. In a certain sense, saving faith is a life long activity as well. Now, it is true that the faith that justifies receives justification as an act of God the very first moment one embraces Christ and His benefits. But faith too remains a life-long process. However, we must not confuse faith (our receiving Christ and resting upon him alone as He is freely offered in the Gospel), with justification itself, which is an act (not a process) of God. Saving faith is inseparably connected to God's act of justification, but they must be distinguished as does Shedd. This is classic Reformed theology.

DTK


----------



## heartoflesh (Dec 19, 2005)

I think there's confusion over the terminology "...wholly the activity of man". I assume he's not denying that God is the 1st cause of all our activity, and any "good" activity we should accomplish can only be attributed to his grace. 

I remember a while back in a thread about sanctification where it was questioned whether it be synergistic or monergistic, and the latter was affirmed. It seems strange to affirm this and at the same time say "wholly the activity of man", does it not?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> I think there's confusion over the terminology "...wholly the activity of man". I assume he's not denying that God is the 1st cause of all our activity, and any "good" activity we should accomplish can only be attributed to his grace.
> 
> I remember a while back in a thread about sanctification where it was questioned whether it be synergistic or monergistic, and the latter was affirmed. It seems strange to affirm this and at the same time say "wholly the activity of man", does it not?



Rick,
This is the issue. The terminology (in my opinion) is inconsistant. 

David,
I don't get it! I am in no way saying that justification is a process. I was questioning Shedds description. Sanctification is a process! 



> repentance is a continual process, we spend all our life long repenting of our sins. In a certain sense, saving faith is a life long activity as well.



I hear you; we are saved, being saved and qwill be saved. The outworking of sanctification is repentance (which is continual). I cannot wrap my brain around the idea that conversion can be 'gradual'. Sanctification, yes. That makes perfect sense to me. 

What is the difference between conversion (the process) and sanctification?




> Now, it is true that the faith that justifies receives justification as an act of God the very first moment one embraces Christ and His benefits.



Is that not conversion? How much more conversion is needed? One needs to be continually sanctified, yes, but more conversion? 

I understand that it is classic reformed theology; Everytime I think I have something wrapped tightly together, someone moves the pieces around.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Jesus, when talking to Peter, (who had already confessed that Jesus was the Christ) said, "Peter, when thou art converted, strengthen the brothers..." or something to that effect.
> 
> Was Peter already converted at that point, or was he re-converted, or did he need converting at that point?
> ...



Trevor,
Thanks for your thoughts; The verse you cite is more in line with returning. One cannot return to a place they never once inhabited.
See the correlating Greek examples:

Convert
G1994
ÎµÏ€Î¹ÏƒÏ„ÏÎµÌÏ†Ï‰
epistrephoÌ„
ep-ee-stref'-o
From G1909 and G4762; to revert (literally, figuratively or morally): - come (go) again, convert, (re-) turn (about, again).


Repent
G3340
Î¼ÎµÏ„Î±Î½Î¿ÎµÌÏ‰
metanoeoÌ„
met-an-o-eh'-o
From G3326 and G3539; to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction): - repent.


----------



## Vytautas (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Jesus, when talking to Peter, (who had already confessed that Jesus was the Christ) said, "Peter, when thou art converted, strengthen the brothers..." or something to that effect.
> 
> Was Peter already converted at that point, or was he re-converted, or did he need converting at that point?
> ...



Lu:22:32: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Here Jesus says he prayed for Simon because Satan desired to have Simon. I do not think he was converted (with faith and repentance) yet because he denies that he knew Jesus which is sin. 1Jo:3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. I think the sin that is presented here would fall under the category of denying Christ which is bearing false witness. Lu:22:34: And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me. It must be that Peter was converted after this event. I further think that he was fully converted because what he wrote in his letters confirms that he was converted.


----------



## DTK (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> David,
> I don't get it! I am in no way saying that justification is a process. I was questioning Shedds description. Sanctification is a process!
> 
> ...



Scott, you had asked...


> If conversion is a process, like Shedd is describing, would it not as well follow that justification is also a process?


So, I am not saying, and did not say, that *you* ever said "justification is a process." In fact, I never understood you to be saying that. But you did in fact ask that question, and I was simply answering your question respecting that issue, with respect both to Fred and Shedd. Personally, I don't see how it follows (from quote you offered from Shedd) that his language could imply justification as a process. Indeed, Shedd doesn't even broach the subject of "justification" in the quote you gave. The issue of justification is one that *you* raised, which is why I responded as I did. (As a side note, it really does require a great deal of patience here sometimes just to have to repeat what has been posted to clear up the issue of "who said what," as well as make clear what one did or didn't say - It seems to be part and parcel of this kind of internet interaction/communication, which is why I don't post any more than I do).

I'll repeat one of my statements again, and comment...


> In other words, a man can be regenerated (as Shedd is positing), and only gradually thereafter discover that he no longer thinks or acts the way he used to think and act, and discovers sometimes (albeit it gradually) that he has come to believe and embrace the Christ of Holy Scripture.


It can be gradual *in the sense of a man's perception of his own conversion*. Faith, one element of conversion, involves knowledge, conviction, and trust. 1) In the life of faith, our knowledge grows, and as it does, our faith grows with it. 2) We develop convictions as well - not just of our guilt when we've sinned, but increased confidence in the understanding of what we're willing to stand for or against in terms of our convictions concerning the faith once for all received. 3) Indeed, our trust grows when our faith is tested, tried, and refined, and becomes increasingly informed both by Scripture and (yes) our own experience. More and more we learn to look away from ourselves and unto God. I don't think such things are to be ascribed exclusively to sanctification, but can also be shared under the category of conversion as well. In other words, they overlap.

As John Murray once put it, "we are never relieved of the obligation to believe in Christ to the saving of our souls" (p. 113 of _Redemption Accomplished and Applied_). 

Indeed, our repentance grows, as well, as we become better informed of what constitutes sin in other areas of our lives that we never before regarded as sinful. Yes, here conversion and sanctification can overlap. So, the answer to your question is, as I understand it, yes. We need more conversion and more sanctification. We need more of both.

e.g., when one grows in one's convictions regarding a certain practice (such as whether to practice exclusive psalmody or not - a controversy I have no intention of entering), then as one wrestles with that issue and comes down on one side or the other, one can describe it as part of our process of conversion, and not only a milestone in our sanctification. Now, one may argue over the merits of the above example, but I offer it to illustrate the process of conversion.

DTK

[Edited on 12-19-2005 by DTK]

[Edited on 12-19-2005 by DTK]


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 19, 2005)

In your process of thinking about conversion do we ever go on a strait line toward greater conversion? The concept of conversion is different than the concept of sanctification. In a sense if we fall back by sin then we could be unconvered in that area that we obtained in conversion. I dont like that word conversion because the antitheise is being in a state of unconversion. It would seem that it would make that line fuzzy?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mybigGod_
> In your process of thinking about conversion do we ever go on a strait line toward greater conversion? The concept of conversion is different than the concept of sanctification. In a sense if we fall back by sin then we could be unconvered in that area that we obtained in conversion. I dont like that word conversion because the antitheise is being in a state of unconversion. It would seem that it would make that line fuzzy?



Exactly; it would be a lot easier if there was more uniformity in regards to definitions. For instance, Matt calls all the components of the ordo 'conversion'. The historic position says that it is a component of salvation in the life of Gods elect. Shedd et. al. say that it is an ongoing process. Sanctification is an ongoing process which ultimately will lead to glorification. 

What is the difference between ongoing sanctification and ongoing conversion???


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 19, 2005)

Well we are definitatively sanctified at the time of regeneration. Can we say that we are definitatively converted? I dont think that concept is the same with us being sanctified. I like the word renewal better.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mybigGod_
> Well we are definitatively sanctified at the time of regeneration. Can we say that we are definitatively converted? I dont think that concept is the same with us being sanctified. I like the word renewal better.



Tom,
Here is the reformed view of the Order of Salvation :
1) election
2) predestination
3) gospel call 
4) inward call 
5) regeneration, 
6) conversion (faith & repentance)
7) justification 
8) sanctification
9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30) 

Salvation is an ongoing process in that through sanctification (which is continuous) we are being changed into the image of Christ Jesus.

My opinion, one can be regenerate and not yet converted. 



> renewal



Uhhhh, please don't add another word for us to deal with!


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 19, 2005)

Im not sure i agree seeing that salvation involves that chain which is a point and time happening. We are dealing with mystery when we talk about regeneration at that point and time so its a matter of us humans understanding what occurs in experience. I would trust in His word to inform my experience which i would say is an unbroken chain in the Rom. 8 passage. Technically Shedd is right here is the word from the dictionary Main Entry: conÂ·verÂ·sion 
Pronunciation: k&n-'v&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin conversion-, conversio, from convertere
1 : the act of converting : the process of being converted -- compare GENE CONVERSION
2 : an experience associated with a definite and decisive adoption of religion
But there still are some questions that are raised in my mind as to its biblical application.


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 20, 2005)

I think it is proper to say that i was saved as an arminist and later converted to calvinism. That would be a major conversion and would include a gradual change of mind i guess you could say little conversions that worked to have a major conversion. And then i am still being converted from pragmatism to dependence on God for every thing. What is involve is a repentance from my former way of thinking and acting. Then there is this area of renewal and how it affects conversion. I can experience the work of the Spirit in an immediate way that can change my disposition in a dramatic way. If that renewal affected my dependence on God in a dispositional way i could say it had a power to convert. If i experience this power in a continued renewal i would have a dramatic conversion in my disposition.


----------



## AdamM (Dec 20, 2005)

> My opinion, one can be regenerate and not yet converted.



Scott, are you saying a person can be regenerated and yet not justified? I don't see how that is possible, because an unjustifed person would still be under the wrath of God, while at the same time being in union with Christ. Another way to look at it is how can a renewed nature (regenerated) do anything but immedately turn to Christ in faith and repentance (justification)? It seems to me that the idea that a regenerated person, with a renewed nature could still hate God insofar as despising the work of the Son on the cross would be very problematic.


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 20, 2005)

How can the Spirit work in an unbeliever as a work of God without having a process of regeneration?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > My opinion, one can be regenerate and not yet converted.
> ...



Adam,
Review this thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11042#pid158060


----------



## AdamM (Dec 20, 2005)

Hi Scott, I don't see where in that thread that you ever answered my questions. 

As I reviewed your ordo, I think you are leaving out the whole loci of it, which is our union with Christ. I am curious, where in your ordo do have union with Christ? in my opinion, if you understand the ordo from the perspective of our union with Christ, it makes much clearer which benefits by necessity are conferred at outset of that union and those which are being and will be conferred. 

I would highly recommend reading John Murray's book Redemption Accomplished and Applied, because this issue seems to be sticking point for you and Murray's treatment of the subject is hands down the best work on it available.


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 20, 2005)

These areas of whether a person is regenerated and justified at a point in time are not to be measure by experience first. It is in the area of assurance that the instruction of scripture on the instantaneousness of salvation answers the suspension of assurance in that seperation of the two of what is told us is instantanous. It comes down to a trusting in that instruction that brings about the understanding of the change in our state instanteously.This will lead to experiencing because we are resting in His pronouncement by faith in His word on the instantaneousness of that experience of salvation.The clear line of instantaneousness is either having a false assurance that you are justified which is deadly or being justified and you do not rest in that state which is sin. What makes assurance sure is what His word says about our salvation that instructs our experience.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Hi Scott, I don't see where in that thread that you ever answered my questions.
> 
> As I reviewed your ordo, I think you are leaving out the whole loci of it, which is our union with Christ. I am curious, where in your ordo do have union with Christ? in my opinion, if you understand the ordo from the perspective of our union with Christ, it makes much clearer which benefits by necessity are conferred at outset of that union and those which are being and will be conferred.
> ...



The thread did answer your question; you are hung up on how someone whom is regenerate could not be justified, correct? Speaking of John the Baptist (again); we know he was regenerated in the womb. He could not have been converted. Conversion requires certain propositions. I will quote McMahon from the other thread:



> "...and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb..."
> 
> At what point, in the womb, did John exercise cognitive belief based on biblical propoistions?
> 
> Can we all say together - "At no time!"


----------



## Steve Owen (Dec 21, 2005)

Has anyone read _A Golden Chaine_ by William Perkins?
Prkins saw regeneration as an elongated process as opposed to the 'instantaneous' view put forward by John Murray.

The WCF and BCF seem to agree with Perkins in their chapters on Effectual Calling..
BCF 10.2: _[God] enlightens their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God. He takes away their heart of stone and gives them a heart of flesh. He renews their wills, and by His almighty power, causes them to desire and pursue that which is good. He effectually draws them to Jesus Christ, yet in such a way that they come absolutely freely, being made willing by His grace._

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## DTK (Dec 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Has anyone read _A Golden Chaine_ by William Perkins?
> Prkins saw regeneration as an elongated process as opposed to the 'instantaneous' view put forward by John Murray.
> 
> ...



I would be inclined to disagree with you with respect to the WCF on effectual calling and regeneration...

WCF 10:2 This effectual call is of God´s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

WCF 13:1 They, who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ´s death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

WLC Question 67: What is effectual calling?
Answer: Effectual calling is the work of God's almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he does, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his Word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer: his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein. 

It is true though that Some Reformers and post-Reformation Reformed writers spoke of regeneration sometimes in its more narrow meaning (as an instantaneous act of God) and sometimes in its more broad meaning (emcompassing the whole of the Christian Life this side of glory).

DTK


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Dec 21, 2005)

[It is true though that Some Reformers and post-Reformation Reformed writers spoke of regeneration sometimes in its more narrow meaning (as an instantaneous act of God) and sometimes in its more broad meaning (emcompassing the whole of the Christian Life this side of glory).

DTK [/quote]

I agree with Pastor DTK!


----------



## non dignus (Dec 22, 2005)

There are false conversions and multiple conversions. The Mormon has a 'burning in the bosom' which is definitely an emotional experience. 

I was a NEW AGE believer. I was 'converted' to a Christ that in my mind was a very new age 'Christ consciousness' sort of idea. I am certain I was born again at that time because immediately I felt the need to read the Bible exclusively and be with real Christians.

Later I had a definite conversion experience to Reformed Theology- I felt like I was born again _again_. And I think it is right to refer to coming out of Arminianism as a conversion.


----------



## JWJ (Dec 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Tom,
> Here is the reformed view of the Order of Salvation :
> ...




Scott, 

I know we have discussed this before, but I am compelled to bring this point up again regarding the order of salvation. The order you listed is not necessarily the order common to all reformers. Due to different emphasis on terms and definitions (e.g., regeneration defined narrowly or broadly; immediate versus mediate; and calling"”internal or immediate versus external and mediate) it is really impossible to paint an exact order common to all reformers. 

Moreover, and generally speaking, the reformers began the order with either calling or regeneration (see Hodge, Berkhof, and Geerhardus Vos) depending on the above applied definitions and emphasis. Therefore, I personally follow the thinking of Geerhardus Vos and others that the order is better understood as:

Regeneration
Calling
Conversion
Faith
Justification
Sanctification
Glorification

Jim

PS. God willing, I will be smoking an Anejo on Friday-- my first.


----------

