» Site Navigation | | | » Online Users: 72 | | 21 members and 51 guests | | Beth Ellen Nagle, biggandyy, Bladestunner316, JDWiseman, jogri17, kalawine, Lauren Mary, mshingler, nleshelman, pmkadow, raekwon, satz, Southern Presbyterian, Webservant | | Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM. | |  | 
01-01-2008, 05:17 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 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)
| 
01-01-2008, 09:34 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 1,744
Thanks: 2
Thanked 328 Times in 122 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 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. |
__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Professor of Church History and Historical Theology 
"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor Oceanside URC The Heidelblog | | The Following User Says Thank You to R. Scott Clark For This Useful Post: | | 
01-01-2008, 09:46 PM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 8,020
Thanks: 887
Thanked 843 Times in 531 Posts
| | | | 
01-02-2008, 10:11 AM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark 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)
| 
01-02-2008, 10:04 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 1,744
Thanks: 2
Thanked 328 Times in 122 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 Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark 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)? |
__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Professor of Church History and Historical Theology 
"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor Oceanside URC The Heidelblog | | The Following User Says Thank You to R. Scott Clark For This Useful Post: | | 
01-03-2008, 06:07 AM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
| |
Thanks Dr. Clark.
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
|  | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | |