Closed Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Richard Baxter and the Federal Vision

  1. #1
    Daniel Ritchie is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,513
    Thanks
    2,011
    Thanked 1,123 Times in 739 Posts

    Richard Baxter and the Federal Vision

    Are the views of FVers on justification the same as those of Richard Baxter, with his view of Neonomianism, or do you consider them to be more extreme?

    The reason I ask is because I was reading today (as part of my exam revision) about a leading Non-Subscribing Irish Presbyterian John Abernethy (1720s) who (so it was alleged) held a view that believing the gospel and our good works was the ground of our justification.
    Daniel Ritchie
    Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
    Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  2. #2
    R. Scott Clark's Avatar
    R. Scott Clark is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    2,166
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 914 Times in 333 Posts
    Hi Daniel,

    The scheme: "in by grace, stay in by faith and works (or faithfulness)" is as old the 1st century rabbis. Baxter may not have taught the FV, but his theology does anticipate elements of the modern moralist theology. I discuss this some in CJPM. You're right to see a connection.

    rsc

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post
    Are the views of FVers on justification the same as those of Richard Baxter, with his view of Neonomianism, or do you consider them to be more extreme?

    The reason I ask is because I was reading today (as part of my exam revision) about a leading Non-Subscribing Irish Presbyterian John Abernethy (1720s) who (so it was alleged) held a view that believing the gospel and our good works was the ground of our justification.
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to R. Scott Clark For This Useful Post:

    Daniel Ritchie (01-02-2008)

  4. #3
    NaphtaliPress's Avatar
    NaphtaliPress is offline. Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    13,447
    Blog Entries
    20
    Thanks
    1,719
    Thanked 2,308 Times in 1,265 Posts
    See also here.
    Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
    Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
    Westminster Letter Press
    The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
    The Blue Banner Archive

    The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  5. #4
    Daniel Ritchie is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,513
    Thanks
    2,011
    Thanked 1,123 Times in 739 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark View Post
    Hi Daniel,

    The scheme: "in by grace, stay in by faith and works (or faithfulness)" is as old the 1st century rabbis. Baxter may not have taught the FV, but his theology does anticipate elements of the modern moralist theology. I discuss this some in CJPM. You're right to see a connection.

    rsc
    Dr Clark

    The problem then is that the FVers could say that since they are only teaching what Richard Baxter taught (though I think some of them go beyond that) then they are not teaching anything outside the bounds of Calvinistic orthodoxy.

    Is it not also true that they (and in particular, Norman Shepherd) say that 3 members of the Westminster Assembly denied the imputation of the active obedience of Christ to the believer (it is alleged William Twisse held such a view)?
    Daniel Ritchie
    Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
    Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  6. #5
    R. Scott Clark's Avatar
    R. Scott Clark is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    2,166
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 914 Times in 333 Posts
    Well, there are two ways to reply:

    1) Richard Baxter is not the norm of Reformed orthodoxy. Baxter was a notorious neonomian in his own day whose doctrine of justification was repudiated by John Owen and the rest of the orthodox.

    2) The Reformed confessions define orthodoxy. The fact that we've become a little sleepy-headed about Baxter's slipperiness and the confessions gives no foothold to the moralists. We confess what we confess and it's quite distinct from what the moralists confess.

    3) Yes, a small number of divines denied IAO. See the relevant chapter in CJPM where I address this.

    rsc

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark View Post
    Hi Daniel,

    The scheme: "in by grace, stay in by faith and works (or faithfulness)" is as old the 1st century rabbis. Baxter may not have taught the FV, but his theology does anticipate elements of the modern moralist theology. I discuss this some in CJPM. You're right to see a connection.

    rsc
    Dr Clark

    The problem then is that the FVers could say that since they are only teaching what Richard Baxter taught (though I think some of them go beyond that) then they are not teaching anything outside the bounds of Calvinistic orthodoxy.

    Is it not also true that they (and in particular, Norman Shepherd) say that 3 members of the Westminster Assembly denied the imputation of the active obedience of Christ to the believer (it is alleged William Twisse held such a view)?
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to R. Scott Clark For This Useful Post:

    Daniel Ritchie (01-03-2008)

  8. #6
    Daniel Ritchie is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,513
    Thanks
    2,011
    Thanked 1,123 Times in 739 Posts
    Thanks Dr. Clark.
    Daniel Ritchie
    Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
    Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69