Was Richard Baxter 'Reformed'?

Particular Baptist · #1 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 06:05 PM

Richard Baxter, one of my favorite puritans for his practicality, wrote The Reformed Pastor during his lifetime while at the same time being an Amyraldism and not holding on to the doctrine of limited atonement. Can Baxter be considered 'Reformed' if he didn't hold on to a staple of the Doctrines of Grace? I personally do believe that he should be considered Reformed, just wondering what the rest of the Puritanboard Citizenry thinks.

John Lanier · #2 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 06:22 PM

I am curious to see how this is answered as well because many say that baptists are not reformed because we do not believe in paedobaptism. It would seem odd that a Reformed Baptist is not reformed but someone that believes in unlimited atonement is.

**Prufrock** · #3 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 06:23 PM

Baxter certainly shared many things in common with Reformed teaching, but in several major areas he was outside Reformed teaching. You mentioned his form of universalism; even more important were his aberrant teachings on Justification.

A quick point of interest, however: the title, Reformed Pastor is probably not referring to Reformed as in "a pastor of a church who teaches the doctrines of the Reformed churches." Rather, it probably indicates a broader sense of the term: the "made-new" pastor, or the "revitalized" pastor. It is not intended as a statement of the pastor's doctrine.

Scott1 · #4 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 06:32 PM

From what I have read, Mr. Baxter is a most profoundly thoughtful Christian writer. While I have only perused The Reformed Pastor it seems well worth reading, even meditating upon.

I'm not sure of his doctrinal position on everything.

To be reformed, at a minimum, one needs:

Doctrines of grace + covenant theology + confession

Many of us would add more- but at minimum it would include the above (which is all "5 points").

But be that as it may, Mr. Baxter's writings, and his his godly and profound insight is well worth every reformed person reading.

Chippy · #5 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Baxter certainly shared many things in common with Reformed teaching, but in several major areas he was outside Reformed teaching. You mentioned his form of universalism; even more important were his aberrant teachings on Justification.

What was his aberrant teachings on Justification? Is it true that, aside from his Amyraldian view, Mr. Baxter had some Arminian "leanings"? It was briefly mentioned in an online article that I read but I can no longer recall the source.

**PuritanCovenanter** · #6 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 08:43 PM

Some old link references.

Baxter and Imputation

Richard Baxter and the Federal Vision

Reformed Baptist Theological Review has an article.

Benjamin Keach and the "Baxterian" Controversey of the 1690's by Austin R. Walker
RBTR III:1 - Reformed Baptist Academic Press

**PuritanCovenanter** · #7 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 09:02 PM

Spencer,

Here is another tid bit from Dr. James Renihan out at Westminter California.
Benjamin Keach on Justification (Part 1) | The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies

Quote:

Benjamin Keach on Justification (Part 1)

We say obedience supposeth a man justified; but these men say, that obedience concurs with faith to justify, or is part of our righteousness to justification: we affirm, as a worthy divine observes, that faith alone perfectly justifies, by trusting in the righteousness of Christ; so that there is no condemnation to them who are in Jesus Christ, Rom. 8.1 or truly believe in him; but they teach that faith and obedience justifie only, as the conditions of the Gospel, i.e. as thereby we doing what the Gospel requires of us. . . . Mr. Baxter . . . saith, that this condition (viz. the Covenant of Grace, by which we have right to the benefits of it) is our faith [mark it] or Christianity, as it is meant by Christ in the Baptismal Covenant, viz. to give up our selves in Covenant, believing in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, renouncing the contraries; and that though this consent to the Christian Covenant (called faith alone) be the full condition of our first right to the benefit of that Covenant (of which justification is one,) yet obediential performances, and conquest of temptations, and perseverance, are secondary parts of the condition of our right, as continued and consummated; . . . Moreover, ’tis worth noting to observe how Mr. Baxter seems to lay the whole stress of our first justification to what is promised in our baptismal covenant, wherein we profess faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. —

Hamalas · #8 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 09:06 PM

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is Amyraldianism?

**PuritanCovenanter** · #9 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamalas

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is Amyraldianism?

Basically someone who doesn't hold to limited atonement.
http://www.theopedia.com/Amyraldianism

Quote:

It has also been defined in this manner: "Amyraldianism . . . implies a twofold will of God, whereby he wills the salvation of all humankind on condition of faith but wills the salvation of the elect specifically and unconditionally. The theological difficulty of God's will having been frustrated by the fact that not all are saved is met by the argument that God only willed their salvation on the condition of faith. Where an individual has no faith, then God has not willed the salvation of that person?"[2]

Amyraldism

**Prufrock** · #10 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 09:16 PM

Joel, the quotation helpfully provided by Randy is a good indicator of the problems with Baxter's theology. Neo-nomian literally refers to "the new law," wherein it was held that the gospel, with the condition of faith (defined primarily as consent, or obedience to the gospel) replacing the conditions of the old law. In other words, the Gospel was the new law.

This being said, another PB member has recently referred me to one of Witsius' works wherein he discusses the Neonomian controversy in England. One of the translator's notes was most interesting; I have sought to find the original work in which Baxter makes the following statement, but I have yet to find it. Here is the excerpt provided by the translator:

[Baxter] by his other dangerous notions concerning justification, corrupted the fountain and endangered the faith of many; yet after all came to be of another mind, and had the humility to tell the world so much. "I formerly believed, saith he, the formal nature of faith to lie in consent, but now I recant it: I believe it lies in trust; and this makes the right to lie in the object; for it is -- I depend on Christ as the matter or merit of my pardon, my life, my crown, and my glory." Answers by the twelve Brethren to the Commission's Queries, p.66. Witius, Conciliatory, or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain, p.252 .

I would like to find the original work to see if Baxter makes any more thorough statements regarding a correction of his earlier teachings. The above in itself is at least a most encouraging testimony to the reforming work of the Spirit of Christ.

C. M. Sheffield · #11 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott1

To be reformed, at a minimum, one needs:

Doctrines of grace + covenant theology + confession

Is a Baptist understanding of "covenant theology" included in this criterion?

**armourbearer** · #12 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prufrock

I would like to find the original work to see if Baxter makes any more thorough statements regarding a correction of his earlier teachings.

Paul, see the Appendix to the Marrow, in Thomas Boston, Works, 7:483. The recantation is traced back to his work against Crisp's Errors.

**PuritanCovenanter** · #13 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C. M. Sheffield

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott1

To be reformed, at a minimum, one needs:

Doctrines of grace + covenant theology + confession

Is a Baptist understanding of "covenant theology" included in this criterion?

You decide what sense of the word reformed you are trying to appeal to and then we can discuss whether Particular Baptists stand in the Reformed camp or Reformed Tradition.

I blogged about it here. Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology - The PuritanBoard

JM · #14 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 09:46 PM

The Amyraldian Assocation

**PuritanCovenanter** · #15 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prufrock

I would like to find the original work to see if Baxter makes any more thorough statements regarding a correction of his earlier teachings.

Paul, see the Appendix to the Marrow, in Thomas Boston, Works, 7:483. The recantation is traced back to his work against Crisp's Errors.

Is this the same thing you are referring to Rev. Winzer?

Appendix

If so, which query is it?

**armourbearer** · #16 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 10:08 PM

Randy, yes. It is Query VIII. The paragraph commences, "It is evident that the confidence..."

**PuritanCovenanter** · #17 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 10:11 PM

Answer 2 query VIII

I found it also. Thanks Rev. Winzer.

Quote:

It is evident that the confidence or persuasion of faith for which we plead, includes, or necessarily and infallibly infers consent and resting, together with all the blessed fruits and effects of faith, in proportion to the measure of it. And that we have mentioned consent, we cannot but be the more confirmed in this matter, when we consider, that such a noted person as Mr. Baxter, though he had made the marriage consent to Christ, as King and Lord, the formal act of justifying faith, as being an epitome of all gospel obedience, including and binding to all the duties of the married state, and so giving right to all the privileges: and had thereby, as well as by his other dangerous notions about justification, and other points connected therewith, scattered through his works, corrupted the fountain, and endangered the faith of many; yet after all, came to be of another mind, and had the humility to tell the world so much; for Mr. Cross informs us [Serm. on Romans 4:2, p. 148,] that Mr. Baxter, in his little book against Dr. Crisp's errors, says, "I formerly believed the formal nature of faith to lie in consent; but now I recant it. I believe," says he, "it lies in trust: this makes the right to lie in the object; for it is, I depend on Christ as the matter or merit of my pardon, my life, my crown, my glory."

VilnaGaon · #18 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 10:27 PM

While Baxter's theology may be suspect on some points, his ""Christian Directory"" is IMHO the best volume of Practical Divinity in existence. I continue to use it with great profit.

nleshelman · #19 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 11:01 PM

I believe Baxter had some theological errors, but also has a lot to teach us about ministry.

SermonAudio.com - Los Angeles Reformed Presbyterian Church

JM · #20 (**permalink**) 10-28-2009, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VilnaGaon

While Baxter's theology may be suspect on some points, his ""Christian Directory"" is IMHO the best volume of Practical Divinity in existence. I continue to use it with great profit.

I'm reading it now and agree so far.

**py3ak** · #21 (**permalink**) 10-29-2009, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Answer 2 query VIII

I found it also. Thanks Rev. Winzer.

Quote:

It is evident that the confidence or persuasion of faith for which we plead, includes, or necessarily and infallibly infers consent and resting, together with all the blessed fruits and effects of faith, in proportion to the measure of it. And that we have mentioned consent, we cannot but be the more confirmed in this matter, when we consider, that such a noted person as Mr. Baxter, though he had made the marriage consent to Christ, as King and Lord, the formal act of justifying faith, as being an epitome of all gospel obedience, including and binding to all the duties of the married state, and so giving right to all the privileges: and had thereby, as well as by his other dangerous notions about justification, and other points connected therewith, scattered through his works, corrupted the fountain, and endangered the faith of many; yet after all, came to be of another mind, and had the humility to tell the world so much; for Mr. Cross informs us [Serm. on Romans 4:2, p. 148,] that Mr. Baxter, in his little book against Dr. Crisp's errors, says, "I formerly believed the formal nature of faith to lie in consent; but now I recant it. I believe," says he, "it lies in trust: this makes the right to lie in the object; for it is, I depend on Christ as the matter or merit of my pardon, my life, my crown, my glory."

Is the "little book" referring to The Scripture Gospel Defended, v.2?

Scott1 · #22 (**permalink**) 10-29-2009, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C. M. Sheffield

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott1

To be reformed, at a minimum, one needs:

Doctrines of grace + covenant theology + confession

Is a Baptist understanding of "covenant theology" included in this criterion?

Defining this way, broadly, it would. I think that both fair, charitable and keeping with the sense of the term.

Understand that many Baptists (not reformed Baptists), broad evangelicals, virtually all Pentecostals/charismatics would not. They might "lean" that way, or be trending that way, but are not reformed.

There is an internal consistency, both biblically and logically in reformed theology.

Many of us would like to also include a spiritual view of the sacraments, church discipline, infant baptism, and a more thoroughgoing view of covenant community, but would consider the two main baptism views an in-house discussion amongst reformed brethren, albeit a passionate one.

johnbugay · #23 (**permalink**) 10-29-2009, 07:35 AM

The work "The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter," by C. Fitzsimons Allison, gives some indication that Baxter had slipped a bit in his doctrine of justification. In the conclusion, Allison says:

Quote:

Until 1640 English theologians were in substantial agreement in their understanding of the Gospel, but following the upheavels in society which began with the Long Parliament a new soteriology began to emerge. Richard Baxter, as a young chaplain in the army, became alarmed by what he considered to be a lawless and libertine gospel being preached to the soldiers. To counteract such libertarian practices he produced his first work, Aprhorisms on Justification. Although he belatedly excused himself by noting that this work was written without the benefit of libraries, he nevertheless spent much of his career defending it without ever appreciably modifying his position. (190-191)

As for "what that position was," Allison explains that "Refutation of antinomianism was the motive of his first as well as of his last work.":

Quote:

Fundamentally, Baxter takes the position that Christ himself fulfilled the conditions of the old covenant, and thereby purchased for us easier terms within the new covenant. On account of Christ's righteousness, our own righeousness (faith and repentance) is accounted, or imputed, as acceptable righteousness. We are, in other words, justified by our own righteousness on account of the righteousness of Christ. Baxter distinguishes two kinds of righteousness: legal (old covenant), and evangelical (new, or Gospel), covenant. When we fulfil the conditions of the new covenant by "our own actions of Faith and Gospel Obedience", legal righteousness is automatically ours because "Christ has fulfilled the first covenant" for us. Asked whether Christ's righteousness or our faith is imputed to us for righeousness, Baxter answers that

Quote:

Christ's Righteousness is reputed the meritorious Cause ... And our Faith is reputed the Condition ... and all that is required in us to our Justification ... Are we any way Justified by our own performed Righteousness? Answer: yes; Against the charge of non-performance (as Infidels, Impenitent, Unholy), and so as being uncapable of the free-gift of Pardon and Life in Christ. (citing "A Treatise on Justifying Righteousness," pg 88)

Baxter, then, differs from the classical Anglicans who held that the imputation of Christ's righeousness is the formal cause of justification.

(He is), then, in accord with the "holy living" Anglicans that faith includes obedience and charity, that the new covenant is more lenient than the old, that Christ's righteousness is the meritorious and not the formal cause of justification, and that antinominianism is to be shunned by an emphasis upon holy living. He agrees as well that justification is the imputing of our faith for righteousness on account of the obedience of Christ which has purchased for us the new covenant. Our own inadequate righteousness (repentance and faith) is made acceptable under the more lenient terms of the new covenant. (156-157)

Quote:

Baxter was criticized for his soteriology by at least sixteen other theologians and divines, and he produced six works devoted to the subject over a period of forty years. He never, however, really came to grips with the criticism of his interpretation of the formal cause of justification. ... How did Richard Baxter manage to write so much about justification over such a long period of time and end up nevertheless with such an ambiguous doctrine? Baxter began his work on justification, as we have seen, to counteract antinomianism in the Army. The doctrine which most perniciously manifested such libertine tendencies to Baxter was the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Throughout his career he therefore sought to deny: that we are reputed personally to have suffered on the cross and to have satisfied God's justice for our own sins; that Christ had repented and believed for us; and that our faith and repentance are no more to be questioned than is Christ himself. ... Baxter affirms that justifying faith must include sincere Christian obedience. He was promptly accused of Pelagianism, and to defend himself against this grave charge he is subsequently diligent to make plain that the righteousness of faith, which is ours and which is "imputed for righteousness", is accomplished only by God's grace.

... Baxter comes perilously close to carrying the point into a further dangerous area. He concedes that St Augustine had required righteousness only after justification, and in trying to reconcile this limitation with his own volition he suggests that St Augustine actually meant sanctification. This argument contains certain ominous implications. If we are justified only by a righteousness of our own (made acceptable on account of Christ's sacrifice), and if our own righteousness is in fact directly given to us by God, as Baxter seems to say, then it is difficult to distinguish Baxter's position from that of the Council of Trent.(162-163)