# Neonomianism



## timfost (Jan 5, 2016)

In what work/s of Baxter does he explain his neonomianism? Is his neonomianism different from that of Daniel Williams?

Thanks!


----------



## Justified (Jan 5, 2016)

My guess is his treatise on justification.


----------



## MW (Jan 5, 2016)

timfost said:


> In what work/s of Baxter does he explain his neonomianism? Is his neonomianism different from that of Daniel Williams?



It is unsystematically developed through a number of his works, beginning with Aphorisms of Justification. As this volume sparked the controversy it might be the best place to start. His Apology against Thomas Blake et al. reveals the way he integrated his law-gospel view into a number of doctrinal and practical areas. This was written during the Commonwealth period, which marks the first stage of the neonomian controversy. At a later period he wrote Catholic Theology, which indicates his intentions to offer a "via-media" view between reformed and non-reformed positions on a variety of related subjects. After his death Universal Redemption was published, but this was supposedly written prior to the Commonwealth period.

Daniel Williams took up Baxter's mantle and contended for his views in the division amongst the nonconformists after the Revolution. This would mark the definitive stage in the controversy. Historically he has been regarded as the recognised successor to Baxter as representative of the neonomian position. He gave more systematic and apologetical form to the doctrine.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 5, 2016)

Matthew,

Why was Baxter sought out by other ministers to participate in Confessions and such? It seems that he was held in some regard as a Puritan. What was the attraction? It almost makes me wonder if the period wasn't much like our own with a number of Reformed ministers who didn't realize how dangerous Baxter's stuff was but just appreciated him for his practical theology.


----------



## MW (Jan 5, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Why was Baxter sought out by other ministers to participate in Confessions and such? It seems that he was held in some regard as a Puritan. What was the attraction? It almost makes me wonder if the period wasn't much like our own with a number of Reformed ministers who didn't realize how dangerous Baxter's stuff was but just appreciated him for his practical theology.



Rich, There are a number of historical factors to consider: (1) England possessed a broad ecclesiastical communion, of which Puritanism was one force, with a variety within the Puritan tradition. (2) The movements of the 40s and 50s did not create the type of ecclesiastical settlement in which confessionalism could function effectively. Many within Puritanism tended to look on subscription as a prelatic burden, and there was a broad stream which desired only the Apostles' Creed as binding (including Baxter). (3) The various sects and factions meant that anyone upholding the old profession and piety would have been considered orthodox in the main, and their erroneous tendencies would have been tolerated for the sake of maintaining the front-line. (4) Baxter was "catholic" and well-read, and could present his views within orthodox categories of thought. (5) After the ejection he was one of the chief apologists for the dissenters. (6) He was also a very active and effective pastor with a genuine concern for practical Christianity and one who encouraged associations of ministers.


----------



## timfost (Jan 5, 2016)

Thanks, Matthew, this is really helpful.

The Belgic Confession seems to contradict neonomianism in Article 22 and Dort strongly refutes it under the Second Head, Rejection, Paragraph 4. Did Baxter and his successors develop it as a kind of synthesis between Calvinist and Remonstrant theology or did he find this useful under his particular brand of Amyraldianism? Or something entirely different?


----------



## MW (Jan 5, 2016)

timfost said:


> Or something entirely different?



Perhaps something a "little" different. The preface to the Catholic Theology in the 70s gives a kind of retrospect for Baxter. It paints a man concerned for "piety" and "catholicity." He had been raised in the practice of godliness with little regard for doctrinal controversies, and this seems to have shaped his vision for the church. He came to see his anti-Arminian training as prejudicial, although he was as forthright as others in rejecting certain Arminian tenets. I think he saw the controversy as distracting the church, or puffing men up with knowledge at the expense of charity. When serving the army in the civil war it was Antinomianism which he came to see as the great enemy, and especially the tenet that faith was an assurance of election. This is what led him to formulate his reactionary view of a "working" faith in justification, and of morality as the goal of salvation.

Baxter is intriguing as an auto-biographer and the preface to the Catholic Theology is like an auto-biography in doctrinal development. I think he gives an insight into the types of causes which lead men to reduce doctrine to its "moral usefulness." The anti-neonomians who opposed him saw the need to preserve the doctrine of the gospel as pointing sinners to Christ's righteousness "extra nos" -- without us. Sinful human morality can never satisfy God's righteous demands. No matter how much progress a believer makes in this life towards holiness, he still needs an alien righteousness to justify him. This alien righteousness makes Christ all in all to the believer, so that, evangelically, the believer is transformed as he looks unto Jesus, and becomes more like Jesus in a way that makes mere morality look positively immoral.


----------

