Neonomism?
- Thread starter Grillsy
- Start date
- Status
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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:
I am willing to have my statement refined by others but this is the basic gist.
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:
I am willing to have my statement refined by others but this is the basic gist.
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. It can be purchased through http://www.rbap.net/theological-journals/reformed-baptist-theological-review-iii1-january-2006/
Last edited:
- Status