Benjamin Keach Contra Richard Baxter, Justification Contra “Baxterianism”

From the pen of Austin R. Walker:

At the heart of Baxterianism was the teaching that by his death Jesus Christ the Mediator died for all men and merited a new and milder law of grace, the requirements of which were faith, repentance, and sincere obedience. It taught that God now presented the gospel as this new law, replacing the original law under which man was created. Christ, it was alleged, having made a compensation to divine justice and the law of works, effectively removed from the equation the original law that demanded perfect obedience. God will now no longer execute against sinners the punishment due to sin as a result of the breaking of this original law. Instead, the gospel offers an amnesty to penitent breakers of the old law. By virtue of Christ’s work, God now accepts penitent sinners on the basis of a new law of grace, with faith, repentance, and sincere obedience as their righteousness. Sinners are justified insofar as they obey the gospel terms and live holy lives, and not by the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed to them by faith. Justification is no longer by faith alone, by trusting in Christ and in God’s promised pardon. Rather, it is conditional: pardoned sinners accepting this new arrangement must now fulfil the easier gospel terms by their own obedience.

This stands in stark contrast to the teaching of the Reformed confessions. Baxter and others appeared to be trying to formulate a theology of the Christian life that maintained tight links between faith and obedience, justification and sanctification, forgiveness and perseverance. Baxter in particular had a legitimate concern with a real Antinomianism that so emphasised free grace and once-for-all justification that obedience and holiness were seriously neglected. However, he reacted too far by insisting that obedience and holiness were a part of the believer’s justification. Furthermore, his understanding of the work of Christ (which ought to have been the foundation of his theology of the Christian life) was seriously flawed, as was the building that he then tried to erect on that foundation. He was building on a sandy foundation by rejecting the obedience and righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer as the grounds of our justification. Instead of promoting the truth he was trying to defend, he ended up attacking and destroying the very heart of the gospel. Keach, on the other hand, built his foundation on the work of Christ, on his active and passive obedience imputed to the believer by faith, as taught in Rom. 5.19. Keach also wished to maintain the tight link between justification and sanctification. He would never deny that obedience and personal holiness were necessary to salvation, but he firmly insisted that anything done by us was to be excluded from justification. As the Confession stated, faith is the sole instrument of justification, but-where faith is present-it is “ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.” 

According to Keach, Baxterianism was a serious error, sowed seeds of confusion in people’s minds, and had a strong tendency to create a false assurance of salvation. Such assurance built its hope not on Christ and free grace, but on sincere obedience and human effort. What happened, for example, to a Christian’s assurance if he was not sincere or omitted to do certain good works? Justification became more a matter of human performance rather than complete reliance on Jesus Christ. An indignant Keach protested that such teaching was far removed from apostolic doctrine. Keach was jealous to maintain that justification depended entirely on the free grace of God. In the closing words of a lecture on one of the parables Keach pleaded with his hearers and explained to them the dangers of Baxterianism in the following terms:

“And to you, sinners, if you would be found wheat in the day of Christ, then receive Christ’s true doctrine, labour to distinguish between truth and error; beware of that strange and new scheme that darkens the free-grace of God, and tends to destroy the covenant of grace; remember to exalt Christ alone in your salvation. How do some turn the gospel of God’s free grace into a law, by the performance of which, as the conditions of life and justification, tell thee, thy salvation doth depend. See what subtle opposers (of the clearest gospel) are risen up amongst us, and labour to avoid them; though their tongues should seem to be tipped with silver, yet their doctrine is copper.”

In his preaching Keach consistently and stridently opposed any notion that works played a role in the justification of sinners. He was insistent that the Scripture way of justification was the way of free grace and that sinners are justified by a perfect righteousness, that of Jesus Christ…Christ is offered to sinners as sinners and not as righteous persons. Keach said that Baxterianism talked about the good fruits that must be present in people’s lives before they have closed with Christ, and about the sincere obedience performed by an unregenerate person. In contrast, said Keach, “we do not tell you, you must be holy and then believe in Jesus Christ; but that you must believe in him, that you may be holy. You must first have Union with him, before you can bring forth Fruit to God; you must act from Life, and not for Life.”

Walker goes on to offer some obeservations and reflections from this controversy. He writes:

There is little point in studying the history of the church and the struggles and controversies that have been part of her experience unless we are prepared to learn from these events. First, then, we should learn from Keach (and from others who were also engaged in opposing Baxterianism) that they were doing what every generation of Christians, and in particular pastors and preachers, must do. They set out to fullfil their responsibility to teach and defend biblical doctrine (in this case the truth of justification by faith alone). The writings of Keach in the 1690s clearly demonstrate that he accomplished this in a faithful and able manner.

…It is significant that Baxter had an aversion to creeds and confessions of faith. Confessions were a new kind of church document in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. They were declarations of the corporate faith of the church and churches subscribed to them because they were persuaded that these confessions agreed with the teaching of the Word of God in the subject matter they presented. In England, the Presbyterians, the Independents, and the Particular Baptists all drew up their own confessions of faith. There was considerable unanimity expressed in these documents, especially in the statements relating to justification by faith. They were drawn up in order to present to the world what they believed as churches and also to provide answers against their opponents and critics. Baxter’s attitude to confessions of faith only isolated him further from the truth of justification by faith. Sadly, today there is a similar suspicion of and adverse reaction to creeds and confessions, with many regarding them as obsolete and curbing independence of mind. In an age characterised by a pride that produces excessive individualism (including theological individualism), is it not more likely that individuals will be driven to extremes and imperil their own souls by neglecting the corporate and ecclesiological character of confessions of faith? If the confessions from the 1600s were accurate in stating the biblical and apostolic truth, especially in such an important matter as justification by faith, then they remain valid for today’s generation because the truth does not change. This is not to say that a church’s confession of faith may not be changed to reflect a better understanding of the Scriptures, but that is not the business of one individual.

…Finally, it should be remembered that in the last analysis it is God who justifies (Rom. 8:33). Men may hope that they are justified in their own eyes and in the eyes of others by their sincere obedience and good works, but no one can be justified in God’s sight by such means. Failure to understand justification by faith alone often results from a failure to understand the holiness of God and his uncompromising demand for perfection and righteousness which is met only in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. If the church becomes forgetful of the fact that it is God who justifies, then she is exposing herself to grave dangers: of losing sight of remaining sin even in the regenerate by promoting an inflated view of human righteousness; of losing sight of faith that looks away from self to Jesus Christ alone; of losing the assurance of faith and giving way to uncertainty, fear, and even despair; and, of losing the gospel, not to mention genuine gospel preaching and the free offer of the gospel that is such a vital part of that preaching. Keach was a free grace, free offer preacher. May God raise up many like him in our day.*

*Vol. 3: The Reformed Baptist Theological Review Volume 3. 2006 (1) (12–13, 21-26). Owensboro, KY: Reformed Baptist Theological Review.


About lalvin1517

I'm married with two children and pastor McCall Baptist Church in McCall, Idaho.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Benjamin Keach Contra Richard Baxter, Justification Contra “Baxterianism”

  1. jm says:

    Reblogged this on Feileadh Mor and commented:
    Reblog with a reblog.

    Baxterianism – A Warning (source linked below)

    December 1991 marked the 300th anniversary of the death of the famous Puritan Richard Baxter.

    There has been much about this man in contemporary Christian magazines, but not a word of warning.

    Professed “Calvinist” articles and reviews have been completely silent about the errors which were mixed with Richard Baxter’s teaching. There has been nothing but praise.
    Our godly forefathers, in our Gospel Standard Articles, felt it needful to write against “Baxterianism.” Neither “Arminianism” nor “Wesleyianism” are mentioned, but “Baxterianism” is.

    Perhaps the strongest adulation for Richard Baxter follows the re-publication of four volumes of his works.

    These are being sold by the Metropolitan Tabernacle, and Dr, Peter Masters writes:
    “To have such a set completed is, for the lover of outstanding theological books, the great event of the year.”

    He writes of Volume 2 as “a wonderful volume” and volume 3 as “a superb volume” and states:
    “The blessing and benefit of these great works to all is enormous.”

    Again, there is not a word of warning as to where Baxter went astray…

    …What then is wrong with Richard Baxter’s teaching?

    It concerns the great doctrine of justification, what one man called “the article by which a church stands or falls.”
    Strangely, though in 1992 Evangelical leaders are silent, the late Dr. Lloyd Jones felt compelled to speak out against Baxter’s teaching on justification, saying that “he went hopelessly astray on this.”

    In a word Richard Baxter taught that the death of Christ purchased a more leniant covenant. As no one can keep the law of works, Christ has (to use Baxter’s terms) procured a lower market; the price is not so high. In other words, Christ has relaxed the terms.
    All that is asked is that the sinner have faith in Christ and he is justified.

    How different from the apostle’s insistence that the law cannot abate one of it’s claims, and that our only hope is in Christ fulfilling the law by His perfect obedience and then bearing the curse.
    This, and this alone, is the ground of justification – Christ’s righteousness imputed to the sinner.

    But Richard Baxter goes on to put such emphasis upon works that he implies that in the long run you are justified by your conduct and behaviour and sanctification. So (to quote Dr. Lloyd Jones) he “virtually taught that men were justified by their own actions.”

    Obviously there is much upon which we do not agree with Dr. Lloyd Jones – but he was concerned about the false teaching on justification , which strikes at the heart of the gospel. (For the above we have made great use of Dr. Lloyd Jones’s lectures on justification.)

    We pass over Richard Baxter’s intemperate attacks on the early baptists and in closing quote our article 28 (which deals with another point): “We reject the doctrine called ‘Baxterianism’; that is to say that while all the elect shall assuredly be saved there is a residuum of grace in Christ for the rest, or any of the rest, if they will only accept it.”

    We just cannot understand why professed calvinist writers, in all that is being said at present about Richard Baxter, have not issued a warning concerning the points where he went astray from the truth.

    By B. A. Ramsbottom
    Gospel standard magazine – April 1992.

  2. markmcculley says:

    Benjamin Keach, The Marrow of True Justification: The Biblical Doctrine of Justification Without Works, Solid Ground Books, Birmingham, Alabama USA, 2007, p 80—”None have an evangelical righteousness, but those who are justified before they have it. Christ is our legal righteousness by a proper imputation of His righteousness to us, and only then is our evangelical righteousness also.

    “Once we are justified, we need not inquire how a man is justified after he is justified. God has not appointed this personal evangelical righteousness, in order to our Justification before Him, though He has appointed it to evidence our Justification before others.

    “By that righteousness of Christ which is out of us, though imputed to us, the Justice of God is satisfied; therefore all Works done by us, or inherent in us, are excluded in our Justification before God.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s