Translate

Friday, April 09, 2010

"Means" Baptists?

I think the observation below shines the light on "means" Baptists, of whatever theology or practice.

"Natural men who 'join' churches forget that the true church is not their’s; that it belongs exclusively to Christ, and He alone governs it according to both His secret and revealed will. These 'joiners' want to help get members, preserve the existence of the church, ordain 'capable' ministers, adorn it in outward grandeur, and vehemently defend it, and all that it does, whether it is Biblical or not. So, in truth, there lies within us all, the natural principle of 'means and measures'. Means Baptists are ever changing in both doctrine and in form, and are exceedingly proud of their progress." – Stanley Phillips, in introduction to "Who are 'Means' Baptists?" by William Middleton Smoot, 1906

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I believe the word progress has been misapplied so often and conjures up images of mere natural accomplishments.

For a church to truely progress in the work of our Lord, the heart must be in tune to His Word, with natural objects and numbers far from sight.

In times of old, the mere mention of the word "church" would have an effect upon the believer. I am afraid today it has become only a byword.

Stephen Garrett said...

Dear Brother V:

Stanley is an "anti-means" Baptist and he and Smoot were Absolute Predestinarians, believing that God causes people to sin. So, I would not put too much stock in what they have to say about "means." They denied, contrary to the forefathers, that the gospel is a means in the new birth, affirming that pagans are born again children of God.

Blessings,

Stephen

Anonymous said...

Bro. Garrett,

I would like your opinion on how the early Indian tribes knew there was a supreme being. No one ever told them about one. They certainly never read about one, as this was long before printed materials. You may argue that the devils also believed and trembled. But how did they come to believe? Could it have been anything else but God?

Stephen Garrett said...

Dear A:

Belief in a deity is no proof of regeneration. Belief in Jesus is an absolute essential for regeneration, as the Old Baptist confessions affirm.

The wrath of God abides on all who do not believe in Jesus. John 3: 36. Can one be saved who is under wrath?

Paul says it takes the preaching of the gospel to beget faith in Christ (Rom. 10). Therefore, the Indians had no faith in Christ and the wrath of God was upon them. The bible and the confessions all affirm that all the heathen, who die without the saving knowledge of Christ, are lost. Why do you disagree with this? Is it your view that only atheists are lost?

Blessings,

Stephen

Anonymous said...

I do not believe I said anything of the such.

Your emphasis is on the belief. Is it totally within man to believe, or would God play a part in it perhaps? Just because God allowed the Indians to be born at a time when there was no way for them to hear the gospel or read of it, does that still qualify them as eternally doomed?

To carry the thought further. What about an individual who was born mentally retarded. There is no way they could ever understand anything about our Lord or the gospel. The same goes for an infant that passes away before they have any reasoning or understanding. Are they condemned as well?

When you think about how long civilizations have been around, the ability to read and or hear the gospel is somewhat new. I would be willing to estimate that as late as the early part of the 20th Century there were people in remote areas of North America that still never heard a sermon preached or read a Bible. Think of certain regions of Alaska, Canada, and territories of what would later become the USA. You are talking about some desolate regions without much of anything. Just something to muse over. God Bless.

R. L. Vaughn said...

Brothers A and G:

Enjoying your discussion, even though it has took a different turn from what I was initially thinking about.

I realize that Smoot's writings have an historical context in Primitive Baptist controversy. But when I read Bro. Phillip's comments quoted above, I immediately thought about how many modern Baptists -- from Arminian to Calminian to Calvinist to "Hyper"-Calvinist -- seem catch up in an ever growing larger snowball rolling downhill of using whatever "means" available to help God along with adorning the church in "outward grandeur" and then defending it, regardless of whether they can defend it biblically. The end justifies the "means".

R. L. Vaughn said...

That should say "seem CAUGHT up" instead of "seem catch up".

Stephen Garrett said...

Dear A:

Obviously, you do believe that Pagans, who believe in other gods other than Jehovah, are born again children of God. Yet, as I said, this is totally against scripture and the old confessions. You did not deny that Jesus said all those who do not believe in him are under his wrath. Did the Indians you mentioned believe in Jesus?

The London Baptist confession is clear on this (1689):

"This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the Word of God; neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in a general or obscure way; much less that men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance."

All the heathen who die in heathenism, and without the knowledge of Christ, and faith in him, are lost. The same was affirmed by John Gill.

Can you name a Baptist, prior to 1800, who held your view?

About infants and idiots, again the London confession addresses them.

Blessings,

Stephen

Anonymous said...

Brother Garrett,

Although much can be gained from studying the great writers and writings from the past, they are not the ones who have power to save or condemn.

I would not consider those who lived many ages ago that did not have the opportunity to hear or read the Bible and the teachings of Christianity as heathens. I am sure a lot of the people in question that i mentioned did not worship a false god of any kind. Does that still make them a heathen, just because the time and environment in which they lived did not permit them to be introduced to Christ? When the Indians knew there was a supreme being, it was just that, and nothing else. Remember, this was in the most primitive of times. They did not have any information to form a doctrine. creed, or article of faith in an apparent "false god." All they had was the natural surroundings around them, which of course God created before the foundation of the world. This supreme being they came to sense and believe could not have been anything else than God.

As fleshly creatures, we want the best of both worlds. To give a couple of examples would be this. I have never yet heard a minister at a funeral preach an individual into eternal damnation. Even those who espouse the most freewill of viewpoints. You have heard the phrase time and time again, " God is the ultimate judge," or "We are not the judge." Then on the other side of the coin, someone who could be the most absolute of predestinarians will say things such as, " Always do your best for the Lord," or " Live a life pleasing to Him," which if you take a literal approach to an absolutist view, there is no need to try and do anything, as the Lord is responsible for and will direct every step you take. God Bless.

Mark said...

I think the old definition of heathen was someone who does not worship God. Whether they worship anything else or not would be, I think, immaterial. So, Indians would be heathens by that definition.