Why do people give Baxter a Hard Time on Justification?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I dont know. I just wonder sometimes, when I see people who profess in my own life; who still act just like Pagans, drugs, promiscuity, swearing, drunkenness, ect. all with crosses around their necks... I always remember that there was a time when I claimed to be Christian and did the same things. That there was a time in my life that I was so happy to think of escaping Hell, but had no inkling nor desire to do what the Bible says. This is why I kind of resonate with Baxter. I look at what appears to be the fruits of "resting" in faith, or a Sola Fide of simple belief; as opposed to what Baxter seems to be promoting, a pro-active faith; one where obedience is pre-requisite, and just wonder if he is on to something? Will have to investigate more. I dont believe I am saved by pursuing holiness; but I also dont think I would be saved if I didnt.
 
Last edited:
David, the helpful category for me has been Turretin's distinction between antecedent and consequent necessity. My illustration of this is the sound of the cannon versus the explosion. Is the sound necessary to a cannon going off? Well, I don't think they make silencers for cannons. If you make a cannon go off, it will make a noise. But no one in their right mind would contend that the noise made the cannon explode. Similarly, good works are the noise faith produces, but they don't make faith come into being. Good works are consequently necessary, not antecedently necessary. And they are necessary not in order to retain justification, or to ensure future justification. They are necessary in that they are inevitable for the true believer. This is what Baxter gets all confused. Also, the way he talks about sin, trying to ferret out every possibility and give you a method to fight it seems like a form of legalism to me, in that he uses his experience to generalize to everyone else's experience. The law doesn't work that way when it comes to particular application.
 
David, the helpful category for me has been Turretin's distinction between antecedent and consequent necessity. My illustration of this is the sound of the cannon versus the explosion. Is the sound necessary to a cannon going off? Well, I don't think they make silencers for cannons. If you make a cannon go off, it will make a noise. But no one in their right mind would contend that the noise made the cannon explode. Similarly, good works are the noise faith produces, but they don't make faith come into being. Good works are consequently necessary, not antecedently necessary. And they are necessary not in order to retain justification, or to ensure future justification. They are necessary in that they are inevitable for the true believer. This is what Baxter gets all confused. Also, the way he talks about sin, trying to ferret out every possibility and give you a method to fight it seems like a form of legalism to me, in that he uses his experience to generalize to everyone else's experience. The law doesn't work that way when it comes to particular application.
That does make sense. It seems if we go back to the principle that regeneration is not from self-effort, then it is more clearly seen as to why profession can be void of fruit if it doesnt stem from the source, i.e., those called from God, will have genuine faith, while those who claim profession, but are not elect, will be void of genuineness. We cannot make ourselves genuine; but if our profession is genuine, then works inevitably (despite ourselves) follow. So God blesses man (and glorifies Himself) with present progressive conformity to Christs image, verifying their election; which in turn would nullify self-effort to claim adoption by "trying" to prove it, or cling to it by works.

Basically, a child of God will want to be holy; he doesnt have to be consistently threatened with potential damnation.
 
Last edited:
The unorthodoxy of Baxter on the matter consists in his insistence that justification only contains the forgiveness of prior sins, and that subsequent ones must be washed away with penance.

I've not seen things said quite that way before. Not that it isn't perhaps the case, but can you show where or how Baxter said that?
 
No they don’t. Baxter stood out in his views on justification.
I have had the privilege of looking at a small number of Puritan texts. In almost all of them, they would talk of perpetual sin as being eternally consequential, even in the lives of believers. If then, obedience is "a part" of our pilgrimage to our eternal destiny, this would make our eternal destiny not contingent on profession alone (in the strictest sense.) I dont think they are speaking with a "non-spoken" contrast of genuine and ungenuine belief. But that actual obedience, or pursuing of holiness is required to inherit life; and that if you live your life as a Pagan, though you profess, your profession will mean little on that Day.

There is a reason they were known as Precisians.
 
Last edited:
If then, obedience is "a part" of our pilgrimage to our eternal destiny, this would make our eternal destiny not contingent on profession alone (in the strictest sense.)
There's a huge difference between faith alone and profession alone. A profession may be made apart from faith. Faith, not a profession, is the alone instrument of salvation.
 
Here's another doozie from Baxter...

Sincere obedience to God in Christ is a condition of our continuance in a state of justification, or of our not losing it. And our perseverance therein is a condition of our appearing in that state before the Lord, at our departure hence. (Of Justification, 78).​
The Particular Baptist theologian Benjamin Keach also wrote a refutation of Baxter on justification.

We ought to keep clean from all errors, but especially such as are capital ones. I am afraid many good Christians are not sensible of the sad danger they are in. I cannot see but that the doctrine some men strive to promote, is but little better than Popery in new dress. Nay one of the worst branches of it too, shall any who pretend to be true preachers of the gospel, go about to mix their own works or their sincere obedience with Christ’s righteousness, nay, to put their obedience in the room and place of Christ’s obedience, as that in which they trust and desire to be found? Let me exhort you all to stand fast in that precious faith you have received; particularly about this great doctrine of justification, give yourselves to prayer, and to the due and careful study of God’s Word. (The Marrow of True Justification, 17)​
 
Here's another doozie from Baxter...

Sincere obedience to God in Christ is a condition of our continuance in a state of justification, or of our not losing it. And our perseverance therein is a condition of our appearing in that state before the Lord, at our departure hence. (Of Justification, 78).​
The Particular Baptist theologian Benjamin Keach also wrote a refutation of Baxter on justification.

We ought to keep clean from all errors, but especially such as are capital ones. I am afraid many good Christians are not sensible of the sad danger they are in. I cannot see but that the doctrine some men strive to promote, is but little better than Popery in new dress. Nay one of the worst branches of it too, shall any who pretend to be true preachers of the gospel, go about to mix their own works or their sincere obedience with Christ’s righteousness, nay, to put their obedience in the room and place of Christ’s obedience, as that in which they trust and desire to be found? Let me exhort you all to stand fast in that precious faith you have received; particularly about this great doctrine of justification, give yourselves to prayer, and to the due and careful study of God’s Word. (The Marrow of True Justification, 17)​
Yes, but Baxter could be responding to what we would call "false professors." Nobody believes Christians are to be like the world. We slide by that by saying we are saved by Faith alone, in Christ alone, and if we are heathenish, we do not have saving faith. Baxter seems to be not letting people off the hook so easily. Instead, he combats the false premise that "only" faith (absent of evidence) justifies, as opposed to a faith that leads to obedience. If I were to read Keachs response without the context of previously understanding genuine faith that leads to good works, I could carry away the belief, that profession apart apart from holiness is sufficient. How many Pastors today still say "Repent and believe," and not just "believe"?
 
Yes, but Baxter could be responding to what we would call "false professors." Nobody believes Christians are to be like the world. We slide by that by saying we are saved by Faith alone, in Christ alone, and if we are heathenish, we do not have saving faith. Baxter seems to be not letting people off the hook so easily. Instead, he combats the false premise that "only" faith justifies, as opposed to a faith that leads to obedience. If I were to read Keachs response without the context of previously understanding genuine faith that leads to good works, I could carry away that belief, apart from works is sufficient.

Baxter is positing that people can lose their salvation, as justification is the very ground of it.
 
Baxter is positing that people can lose their salvation, as justification is the very ground of it.
And we would say people are not saved to begin with though they profess (or have faith.) Thats why it just seems a hot mess of semantics.
 
And we would say people are not saved to begin with though they profess (or have faith.) Thats why it just seems a hot mess of semantics.
Justification is a legal state before God. To say you can lose your justification is not the same thing as saying someone can profess faith and then fall away.

Baxter is claiming that our legal standing before God depends upon more than the imputed righteousness of Christ, received by faith alone. It's an undoing of the Reformation.

There's a reason Reformed publishing houses only reprint his practical works.
 
And we would say people are not saved to begin with though they profess (or have faith.) Thats why it just seems a hot mess of semantics.

As has already been pointed out, Baxter freely acknowledged that he was at variance to what is taught in the WCF, and by replication the 2LBC. By his own admission, then, it is more than just semantics.
 
Instead, he combats the false premise that "only" faith justifies, as opposed to a faith that leads to obedience.
David, it's time to be careful here. This is not new territory. One of the chief concerns of the Westminster Assembly was the danger of antinomianism. Members of the Assembly refuted it extensively. And yet they still said (WCF 11):

1. Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth;a not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous: not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor 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,b they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.c

a. Rom 3:24; 8:30. • b. Jer 23:6; Rom 3:22, 24-25, 27-28; 4:5-8; 5:17-19; 1 Cor 1:30-31; 2 Cor 5:19, 21; Eph 1:7; Titus 3:5, 7. • c. Acts 10:44; 13:38-39; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:7-8; Phil 3:9.

2. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification;a yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.b

a. John 1:12; Rom 3:28; 5:1. • b. Gal 5:6; James 2:17, 22, 26.

3. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf.a Yet inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them,b and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead,c and both freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace;d that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.e

a. Isa 53:4-6, 10-12; Dan 9:24, 26; Rom 5:8-10, 19; 1 Tim 2:5-6; Heb 10:10, 14. • b. Rom 8:32. • c. Mat 3:17; 2 Cor 5:21; Eph 5:2. • d. Rom 3:24; Eph 1:7. • e. Rom 3:26; Eph 2:7.

4. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,a and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:b nevertheless, they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.c

a. Rom 8:30; Gal 3:8; 1 Pet 1:2, 19-20. • b. Rom 4:25; Gal 4:4; 1 Tim 2:6. • c. Gal 2:16; Col 1:21-22; Titus 3:4-7.

5. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;a and although they can never fall from the state of justification,b yet they may by their sins fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.c

a. Mat 6:12; 1 John 1:7, 9; 2:1-2. • b. Luke 22:32; John 10:28; Heb 10:14. • c. Psa 32:5; 51:7-12; 89:31-33; Mat 26:75; Luke 1:20; 1 Cor 11:30, 32.

6. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.a

a. Rom 4:22-24; Gal 3:9, 13-14; Heb 13:8.

Note especially paragraph 2.

There is a very big difference between "you made a profession of faith that was not genuine" and "you were justified and didn't continue in that state." Dismissing that as semantics is irresponsible. First of all, "semantics" has to do with meaning, and it's a bit rich to say that meaning is meaningless. Second, it shatters the logic of Romans 8. Or how about the precise approach of Thomas Manton, commenting on James 2:20:

Mark, he doth not say, ‘faith is dead without works,’ but ‘faith without works is dead:’ there is a difference in these predications; as if he said, ‘faith is dead without works,’ it would have argued that works are the cause that gave life to faith, whereas they are effects that argue life in faith. As, for instance, ‘a man without motion is dead,’ is proper, but a ‘man is dead without motion,’ is a predication far different. Briefly, in this dispute the apostle proceedeth upon the supposition of several maxims. As (1.) That the way to know graces is by their effects and operations, as causes are known by their necessary effects. (2.) That works are an effect of faith; ‘faith without works is dead,’ and works are dead without faith. So that works that are gracious are a proper, perpetual, and inseparable effect of faith; they are such effects as do not give life to faith, but declare it; as apples do not give life to the tree, but show it forth.
 
I would definitely encourage you to read this article as well on Baxter’s erroneous view of justification David. Although I will preface this by saying that I have not personally read Baxter (and likely won’t bc of his neonomian views), just reading the excerpts on justification from Baxter in this article makes my stomach turn. His views on justification are no different from that abominable popish doctrine.

Another note: I have seen individuals who note a problem in modern evangelicalism (people thinking they have legitimate saving faith while living in complete lawlessness) and thus trying to say that believers whom Christ died for can actually lose that salvation he has given them. Please don’t misread me: I’m not saying you are doing the same with sola fide by any means at all. However, I think we should all guard against any overreaction to antinomianism and nominal Christianity that would cause us to count works as a condition of our free and gracious justification in Christ, rather than looking at works as the fruit of our free and gracious justification in Christ. The glory of the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the reason why it has been assaulted so often through the centuries.
 
Last edited:
I would definitely encourage you to read this article as well on Baxter’s erroneous view of justification David. Although I will preface this by saying that I have not personally read Baxter (and likely won’t bc of his neonomian views), just reading the excerpts on justification from Baxter in this article makes my stomach turn. His views on justification are no different from that abominable popish doctrine.

Another note: I have seen individuals who note a problem in modern evangelicalism (people thinking they have legitimate saving faith while living in complete lawlessness) and thus trying to say that believers whom Christ died for can actually lose that salvation he has given them. Please don’t mishear me: I’m not saying you are doing the same with sola fide by any means at all. However, I think we should all guard against any overreaction to antinomianism and nominal Christianity that would cause us to count works as a condition of our free and gracious justification in Christ, rather than looking at works as the fruit of our free and gracious justification in Christ. The glory of the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the reason why it has been assaulted so often through the centuries.
Indeed
I am noticing that as well, namely the JMac crowd.
 
How many Pastors today still say "Repent and believe," and not just "believe"?
This is a true concern. But is equally - if not more of - a concern to state that our obedience plays any role in our justification (and subsequent perseverance) instead of relying solely upon Christ's obedience. We are indeed saved by works, but it is wholly the works performed by Christ.
 
I've not seen things said quite that way before. Not that it isn't perhaps the case, but can you show where or how Baxter said that?
Here are some quotes from him along those lines from his Confession:
"Ʋnderstand therefore (as I shall say more anon) that pardon of past sins, is a step to our future Sanctity and Obedience, as one of its ends. Therefore doth Christ pardon what is past, that we may be in a capacity accept∣ably to return to God by obodience."
(p. 39)

"Our first general pardon is, that we may escape Gods wrath, and be capable of acceptable Obedience for the future: Our following particular pardon of each particular sin, is that we may escape Gods wrath for that sin, and may have the blemishes and defects of our obedience supplied, and healed, and covered, and may be continued in a capacity of acceptable obeying for the future; which else we could not be, seeing the defect of the best duty deserveth con∣demnation; and therefore it is through pardoning grace that the de∣fects must be covered, that it may be accepted."
(p. 40)

"29. Therefore it is that every Christian must first bend the pow∣ers of his soul, for holiness and obedience, and for these lay out the first of his care and labour, and but consequentially for Remission of sin, because of his unavoidable failing in his first attempts for obedi∣ence.*Otherwise, if before the sin is committed, the Righteousness of Remission were in order to be referred and desired before the Righ∣teousness of obedience, then a man that should use his utmost endea∣vour to commit as many sins as he could, or at least, as he could hope should be pardoned, and he that sinned most, that he might have the most use for pardon, did take the most pleasing course to God, and so men should sin that grace might abound. Then which wicked imagi∣nation, nothing is more contrary to Gospel-Grace.

30. Therefore it is also, that God doth deter men from some grea∣ter*sins, as more difficult to be pardoned in some respects, then less: that is, They shall not have the pardon of them, at least fully, on so quick and easie terms, as the other: nay he deterreth them from go∣ing far in sin, either as to the intensive increase, or the continuance of time, lest he cut them off, or withdraw his Grace, and give them up to themselves, and pardon them not at all..."
(p. 42)

"There is much more goes to the continuing and consummating*our Justification, then doth at first to justifie us, as to the condition on our parts, to be performed to that end. Faith alone without ex∣ternall acts of Obedience, doth suffice to our first Justification: Yea, the first solitary numericall act of faith: But so it doth not to the continuance. For there is still requisite thereto, 1. The continuance of the Habit, 2. And renewing the act of that faith, 3. The additi∣on of sincere Obedience: and many particular Materials of that Obedience (but not all) are made so necessary, that without them, the obedience cannot be sincere; as to be Humble, to forgive others, to love one another in Christ, to be merciful, to confess Christ, and suffer for him, if called to it, &c. these must be in the Habit, and ordinarily prevalent in act, upon opportunity."
(p. 47)

"3. That Covenant-keeping by sincere Love, Thankfulness and O∣bedience to God▪ Redeemer is a Condition of the Continuing, or not∣losing our state of Iustification.

4. That the Renewal of our Faith and Repentance, upon our lapses into discerned wounding sins, is a Condition of the particular pardon of those sins, and our Discharge or Justification from the guilt of them.

5. That all the foresaid Conditions, Faith, Repentance, Love, Thankfulness, sincere Obedience, together with final Perseverance, do make up the Condition of our final Absolution in Iudgement, and our eternal Glorification."
(p. 56)


"Conclu. 11. No sins of Believers are actually pardoned before they are committed, or in being.

Conclu. 12. Though all true Believers are under Grace, and as to their state and all their former sins, are delivered Actually from the Condemnation, or Obligation of the Law, being truly forgiven, and so lyable to none of its threatnings, yet when new sins are by these believers committed, this moral Law is so far in force against them, as to make them guilty of Death, till the Promise come in and remove that guilt by a fresh pardon: It makes death their due, though God by his Gospel do presently Re∣mit it."
(p. 109-110)

"NO sin to come is actually pardoned, it being no sin, nor capable of actual pardon: Though fu∣ture pardon be certain, and in Causis, (which some call a Virtual pardon, but scarce well) yet it existeth not. Par∣don is perfect in its kind, when all sin is pardoned, though that which is not yet sin or guilt, must have a future par∣don, when the necessity aris∣eth."
(p. 172)

Regarding his scruples with the Westminster standards, he says in the preface that his work contains "[his] subscription to the Assemblies lesser Catechism. Sect. 4▪ [his] Consent to the larger Catechism of the Assembly; supposing a Liberty of Expounding four Pas∣sages. Sect. 5. [his] Consent to the Assemblies Confession of Faith, supposing the Liberty of expounding six Passages, as is expressed. Sect. 6"
 
Keeping it simple: what does Scripture say justifies us? What does Baxter say justifies us?

While I understand the desire to guard against an antinomian disposition, that guarding cannot undercut the very ground that makes any of this an issue. Namely, justification by faith and faith alone. It is Romans 6. Paul, by divine inspiration, is able to hold both justification by faith alone and the need to live in light of that reality in perfect harmony.
 
Thank you everybody for your thoughtful responses. I am glad I asked, as now I get a better and completely more descriptive view of the contrast between the orthodox view of justification and Baxters view of it. That is, it seems Baxter wasnt merely trying to correct Antinomianism by shedding light that a fruitless faith is not genuine. But he takes leaps in the wrong direction by adding obedience as a further step of our justification, instead of obedience being an offshoot of already being justified. If this takes its natural course, it would seem to rob people of the assurance Sola Fide gives, and instead leaves a person in want every time they encounter not only the Bible, but someone more progressed in their sanctification. Looking at this more closely, and thinking about it at work, I can see why the Reformed view of justification is attacked, because it is our natural tendency to want to reject the free gift and establish a righteousness of our own. Again, thank you all for commenting, and the thoughtful and insightful responses.
 
Thank you everybody for your thoughtful responses. I am glad I asked, as now I get a better and completely more descriptive view of the contrast between the orthodox view of justification and Baxters view of it. That is, it seems Baxter wasnt merely trying to correct Antinomianism by shedding light that a fruitless faith is not genuine. But he takes leaps in the wrong direction by adding obedience as a further step of our justification, instead of obedience being an offshoot of already being justified. If this takes its natural course, it would seem to rob people of the assurance Sola Fide gives, and instead leaves a person in want every time they encounter not only the Bible, but someone more progressed in their sanctification. Looking at this more closely, and thinking about it at work, I can see why the Reformed view of justification is attacked, because it is our natural tendency to want to reject the free gift and establish a righteousness of our own. Again, thank you all for commenting, and the thoughtful and insightful responses.
Amen, brother. Legalism isn't the cure for antinomianism; the Gospel of grace is. I highly recommend this brief address from Sinclair Ferguson on the subject.

 
As a an interesting aside, WCF 16 provides a corrective for any of our works having anything to do with our justification. Our works, even as regenerate and justified, are "...defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God's judgment." The fact is that there still rages a battle within us between flesh and Spirit that all that we do is still tainted to some degree with our sinfulness. The only way they are acceptable to God is by virtue of our union with Christ: "Yet, notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him, not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreprovable in God's sight: but that He looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections."

Baxter's confusion with regard to works and justification produces a system that destroys assurance. It must be so, for we will always have a consciousness of the fact that we cannot do enough and even that good which we do still has wrapped up in it a degree of sinfulness. Justification by faith alone, alone can produce any assurance at all. Resting in Christ through faith, we are in right standing with God. Resting in Christ through faith our works are acceptable before God, tinged with weakness and imperfection though they are. This provides for us so much less a reason to sit on our laurels or to freely engage in sin without fear of judgment so that God's grace may abound, but a reason for us to pursue with diligence the holiness without which we cannot see the Lord in full assurance that we are pleasing in God's sight and in right standing with Him.

Baxter would have us rest in Christ AND our works. God would have us rest in Christ alone.
 
Last edited:
Justification is a legal state before God. To say you can lose your justification is not the same thing as saying someone can profess faith and then fall away.

Baxter is claiming that our legal standing before God depends upon more than the imputed righteousness of Christ, received by faith alone. It's an undoing of the Reformation.

There's a reason Reformed publishing houses only reprint his practical works.
I don't mean to move the thread in a completely different direction, but I've always been surprised by the fact that Baxter's practical works are so highly recommended as though his theological errors on a doctrine as foundational as justification by faith alone are not going to infect and impact them. Admittedly, I've largely avoided The Reformed Pastor for that reason (though I trust the good brothers who love it and recommend it) but I simply cannot imagine how such a problematic view of justification would not lead to a problematic approach to pastoring people.
 
There is a difference between evidence on one side and grounds/instrumentality on the other. That might be one reason.
Right. The distinctions are necessary theologically let’s say, but occur to me to be a largely unhelpful distinction on a practical daily Christian living perspective.
 
Right. The distinctions are necessary theologically let’s say, but occur to me to be a largely unhelpful distinction on a practical daily Christian living perspective.
Oh I think they're incredibly important distinctions at the practical level. It deeply impacts your motivation for godly living as well as your assurance of salvation, for a start.
 
Right. The distinctions are necessary theologically let’s say, but occur to me to be a largely unhelpful distinction on a practical daily Christian living perspective.

I would change it to "not immediately obvious." Since they are from the Westminster standards, I am reluctant to call them unhelpful for Christian living.
 
David, the helpful category for me has been Turretin's distinction between antecedent and consequent necessity. My illustration of this is the sound of the cannon versus the explosion. Is the sound necessary to a cannon going off? Well, I don't think they make silencers for cannons. If you make a cannon go off, it will make a noise. But no one in their right mind would contend that the noise made the cannon explode. Similarly, good works are the noise faith produces, but they don't make faith come into being. Good works are consequently necessary, not antecedently necessary. And they are necessary not in order to retain justification, or to ensure future justification. They are necessary in that they are inevitable for the true believer. This is what Baxter gets all confused. Also, the way he talks about sin, trying to ferret out every possibility and give you a method to fight it seems like a form of legalism to me, in that he uses his experience to generalize to everyone else's experience. The law doesn't work that way when it comes to particular application.
Is that in his eclectic theology or can one find it in his various monographs?
 
I remember reading in the original preface to the Gospel Mystery of Sanctification that Walter Marshall struggled with assurance for many years, and some of this had to do with Baxter's writings. He even visited Baxter to seek help, but to no avail. Baxter said he took his writings too legally. It was not until Marshall visited Thomas Goodwin that clarity on the doctrine of justification was better understood by him.
Screenshot 2024-02-02 at 3.04.23 PM.png
Screenshot 2024-02-02 at 3.05.00 PM.png


The link to this PhD paper on Walter Marshall below reference the same thoughts as well.

https://chesterrep.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10034/620373/A New Creation in Christ PhD Thesis Final.pdf?sequence=8&isAllowed=y


Blessings!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top