Fristoe and "Means"

“Tho’ a Sovereign God, may work above, beyond, and without means, according to his own good pleasure; yet as he hath been pleased to ordain means, and accompanied them by the displays of his power for the conversion and salvation of multitudes of poor sinners…”

The above quotation is taken from A Concise History of the Ketocton Baptist Association by Elder William Fristoe. Along with Watson’s Old Baptist Test it is a very valuable witness to the purpose of the gospel as believed by the Baptists around the turn of the 19th century. This particular statement demonstrates what was believed at one point when the Old Baptists were in one accord on this matter, before the leaven of anti-means theology began to spread. All who know of Baptist history can see that this is simply an extension of the Philadelphia Baptists' confession that effectual calling transpired by way of God’s Word and Spirit. Lest any of our moderns, who would openly defy Fristoe’s statement, should claim that this was simply the persuasion of a lone individual and not the general company, we would remind them that this statement follows the chapter heading, “The doctrines inculcated by the ministers of this association, which have appeared most successful”. It was, therefore, not a rogue “Means” Baptist running loose amongst those of contrary opinion who penned these words. Rather, it was one who inscribed the recognized and accepted position by the preachers of the day!!

Question: Was Fristoe’s statement descriptive of OLD or NEW Baptist doctrine? If OLD, then would not a future departure of it be NEW? If NEW, then what happens to the supposed church lineage many contend for today who are opposed to gospel means? Can it be traced back through the Ketocton, or does it run into an impenetrable barrier?

Searching questions indeed!

It is quite clear from Fristoe’s statement that he admitted the possibility of God working without means:

‘Tho’ a Sovereign God MAY (emphasis mine) work above, beyond, and without means…”

And on this point he is most certainly correct. God, in His sovereignty, reserves the right to operate without means if He should choose to do so. Yet what Fristoe recognized as a possibility in God’s workings is deemed by certain extremists as a definite must with God. He must work without means! Otherwise, according to them God ceases to be the author, the employed means would claim some of the credit, and the outcome of the matter under consideration would be left uncertain. These preconceptions , however, are without ground from anyone who is honest with the scriptures. The author of something must not be confused with the instrument which the author employs. It is by confounding the two that some go astray. Nor is credit taken away from the author while the instrumental, or secondary, cause is employed. Who in their right mind, for instance, would give glory to the hammer and nails in the building of a house? No one. They were merely swayed by the hands of the wise master-builder who made use of them. And as far as the fulfillment of something being left contingent upon the instrument is concerned….

What if God ordained the instrument and so directs the course of history to ensure its success? Under the heading ‘A Summary of the Leading Principles holden by this Association’ Fristoe elsewhere records the fifth point:

FIFTHLY -That in eternity, God out of His own good pleasure chose a certain number of Adam's progeny to eternal life, and that He did not leave the accomplishment of His decrees to accident or chance, but decreed all the means to bring about the event; therefore they are chosen to salvation through sanctification of the spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. Their calling was decreed in the purpose of election: It is said, when called, that they are called according to His purpose and grace given in Christ Jesus before the world began, and all in order to manifest the glory of His grace.

Therein lies the solution to what many of my acquaintances see is a great dilemna. The success of God's great salvation is not in any wise under danger of failure because means are employed. The Sovereign God is dictating the course of history, and has ordained to bring to pass everything which we, in our limited understanding, see as a contingency!

After acknowledging the possibility of God working above and beyond means, Fristoe confesses that it has pleased God to nevertheless ordain means “for the conversion and salvation of multitudes of poor sinners”. “But God”, says one, “does not need to use means to accomplish His purposes! He is Sovereign and has all power!” Correct! No one says otherwise. This is not an issue regarding whether God is sovereign or not. It is a question of whether God has or has not chosen to channel that Sovereignty! God does not NEED to use the laws of nature to regulate his creation, but He does! He did not NEED to use the prophets to deliver messages to Israel, but He did! Christ did not NEED to use the clay to heal the blind man, but HE CHOSE TO DO SO! It is for the very reason that God IS Sovereign, that we as His people, ought to acknowledge that He reserves the right to operate as He deems fit!

Fristoe’s statement would land him in hot water amongst some today, yet it is a historical fact that this was the position of Fristoe and his contemporaries at the time. And facts, as Spurgeon once said, are stubborn things!

We leave off with a few questions meant to stir the mind:

1) Was it God or the ravens who fed Elijah by the brook?
2) Was it God or Moses who delivered Israel from Egypt?
3) Was it God or Paul who ‘turned many from darkness to light’ (Acts 26:18)?
4) Was it BY God or BY Paul and Apollos that the Corinthian believers received
faith (1 Cor. 3:5)?
5) The Bible was written by men. Is it therefore the word of men?
6) Is God or Cyrus to be credited with the remnant’s return to the land (Ezra. 1)?
7) Do the prepositions BY, WITH, and THROUGH signify the means by which something
transpires (Eph. 5:26; James 1:18; John 17:17-20)?