Neonomism?

Grillsy · #1 (**permalink**) 07-29-2009, 03:10 PM

Neonomism?

Can someone give a concise definition?
Why do I always here this term associated with Baxter?
Is neonomism a false or aberrant teaching?

**PuritanCovenanter** · #2 (**permalink**) 07-29-2009, 03:16 PM

He held to a form of Neonoism near the end of his ministry, if I remember correctly. He turned to this understanding to supposedly ward off antinomianism. It is recently taught by Sanders and some who hold to the New Paul Perspective.

rbcbob · #3 (**permalink**) 07-29-2009, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Neonomism?

Can someone give a concise definition?
Why do I always here this term associated with Baxter?
Is neonomism a false or aberrant teaching?

See Amyraldianism, Neonomianism and Antinomianism

***Semper Fidelis*** · #4 (**permalink**) 07-29-2009, 04:09 PM

Recommend you purchase the 3rd Edition of the CPJ: The Confessional Presbyterian 3 (2007) – USA Individual Subscription | The Confessional Presbyterian

Page 118 has an excellent article: John Brown of Wamphray, Richard Baxter and the Justification Controversy. By Bruce R. Backensto

In a nutshell, Baxter taught that the faith that justifies is one that is perfected and completed - a faithfulness that has been lived out and demonstrated itself. In a sense, the faithfulness itself is seen as fulfilling the NC requirements for the Law. John Brown of Wamphray battled against this error upholding the Confessional (read Biblical) principle that the faith that justifies is always a begging and simple laying hold of Christ's righteousness. Faith itself is not the grounds for our justification but the Person and work of Christ is. Conversely, neonomianism includes the faithfulness and perfected faith of the individual as the grounds for justification. The fact is that the most perfected Saint can never offer his faith or faithfulness to God as something "Law fulfilling".

Note the bolded portion in the Confession:

Quote:

CHAPTER XI.

Of Justification.

I. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

I am willing to have my statement refined by others but this is the basic gist.

**PuritanCovenanter** · #5 (**permalink**) 07-29-2009, 05:29 PM

Also there is an article in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review in Volume III No. 1 titled Benjamin Keach and the "Baxterian" Controversy of the 1690's by Austin R. Walker that discusses this also. The link is down on the page right now so I can't link to it. But it can be purchased through RBAP -- Reformed Baptist Academic Press.