Directions for profitable Reading the Holy Scriptures. Direct. 7
‘Compare one place of Scripture with another, and expound the darkest by the help of the plainest, and the fewer expressions by the more frequent and ordinary, and the more doubtful points by those which are most certain;’ and not on the contrary.
(…to be continued)
From A Body of Practical Divinity, or A Christian Directory, Vol. 3
As I continue to learn more about the Puritans, just like mine some of their warts are beginning to become apparent. Some of these “warts” are serious and some are not. I have found these Ten Directions for profitable Reading the Holy Scriptures to be quite insightful and much of what Baxter wrote and did was productive. I continue to learn more about Mr. Baxter and I have found that, though many hold him in high regard, there is one important question that is brought up about him. From more than one source I have found that Baxter became disturbed by the antinomianism he saw amongst the soldiers in Cromwell’s army. Of course Baxter had every right to be deeply disturbed by the excessive antinomianism he saw but it led him to a position on Justification that seems wrong. He knew the reformed views of Justification in his time, as far as I’m aware, but his views changed over time and he came up with something “original.” Baxter is primarily associated with starting and promoting the theological views that became known as neonomianism. Many who were solid on Reformed orthodoxy found Baxter’s new formulation upsetting. The more I read the more I don’t blame them. For a deeper dive, check out this article and video and go from there:
NOT BY FAITH ALONE: The Neonomianism of Richard Baxter (1615–91)
Was Richard Baxter a Heretic? ***Bow Tie Dialogue with Tom Hicks***
By the way, this is a serious bump in the road but by no means will it keep me from publishing the remaining three directions from Baxter that I think are beneficial. Because I’m finding that Baxter may have been in error on the important subject of Justification, I will probably post the remaining three “Directions” in one post. At the same time, until I find that Baxter’s ideas about Justification were correct (and I’m finding just the opposite at present), I will not put up any other posts about Baxter after that.
Chris Reimers
Research articles about Baxter’s Neonomianiam:
Reformed and Lutheran Responses to Richard Baxter: Theological Heterodoxy and the Synod of Dort
Refuting Arguments for Neonomianism
Neonomian Presbyterians vs Antinomian Congregationalists?
Guilty, Not Guilty
“Richard Baxter accused John Owen of antinomianism, and Owen returned the favor by warning about Baxter’s neonomianism.”
Richard Baxter: A Strange Theological Mix
“Happily, these erroneous doctrines do not surface much in Baxter’s devotional writings, which are geared mainly to encourage one’s sanctification rather than to teach theology.”
Neither Antinomian nor Neonomian
The Grace of the Law
“It is a study of the seventeenth century debates around Antinomianism and Neonomianism in which he guides the reader through the main issues with honesty, letting the participants speak for themselves and demonstrating how our Puritan forefathers brought the teaching of the Bible to combat both errors.”
Baxter’s Soup and Wright’s Soap
Includes interesting thoughts on N.T. Wright’s theology
Richard Baxter on The Importance of Hard Work
Was Richard Baxter Orthodox on Justification?
Wings of the Wind 
Thanks for the post, two videos, and article on Baxter, Chris. From Baxter’s own words, he was trying to make the case for works/obedience as a requirement for salvation, which of course is not the genuine Gospel. We would respond that those who believe they can live like devil because they were supposedly saved never genuinely trusted in Christ as Savior. Baxter reminds me of another theologian who attempted to reconcile Catholic works justification and Biblical justification, Peter Vermigli.
You’re welcome, Tom, and I appreciate your interest in this. I found it very interesting myself. Because I found the same that you have, I’m still going to check for one more good source before giving up on Baxter’s view of Justification. What is interesting to me is how much press Baxter gets with this view of his. Most who like Baxter don’t even mention it and it is important. It reminds me of Ecumenical protestants of our day. It is too important to look the other way.
Thank you for this link. I have to go do some weed whacking but when I get back I will check out the information on Peter Vermigli.
I appreciate your thoughtful input, Tom. It’s always a blessing.
Well, the weed whacking turned into a longer day in the yard than I thought (whew!) but I’m back and the first thing I did was check this link. You have a good memory, Tom. Baxter, if what I have seen so far is correct and I really have no reason to believe it isn’t, and Vermigli were on the same page when it comes to Justification. But, one has to dig a bit to discover this.
I did have to go four sources deep to find the same information the book you reviewed said about Vermigli’s view of Justification.
I finally typed “Martyn Vermigli wrote god also “accepts and rewards Christian works as a necessary constituent of final justification’” into an AI Google search and got this:
“Yes,
Peter Martyr Vermigli
(1499–1562) used this specific phrasing to describe the role of good works in the life of a believer. While he remained a firm defender of justification by faith alone (sola fide), he developed a “double justification” framework to explain how works relate to the final judgment.”
Got Questions says this:
Vermigli was a staunch advocate for the authority of Scripture and the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-Vermigli.html
Wiki says this:
“Vermigli embraced the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone during this time, and he had probably rejected the traditional Catholic view of the sacraments.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Martyr_Vermigli
It then states this:
“Vermigli also seems to have influenced Valdés. Scholars believe that Valdés’s strong doctrine of double predestination, that God has chosen some people for salvation and others for damnation, was learned from Vermigli. Vermigli in turn had acquired it from his study of either Gregory of Rimini or Thomas Aquinas at Padua.”
Later on it discusses this idea of double predestination more in depth.
I found this on my third attempt:
“Convinced that the work of salvation is wholly the work of a sovereign, irresistible, and gracious God, Vermigli defends the implications of this conviction against both ancient heresies and recent Catholic opposition.”
https://heritagebooks.org/products/predestination-and-justification-two-theological-loci-vermigli.html?srsltid=AfmBOopsDGFMo0oSkGg-1fH9nre_GplDg-jPuizf6xhUDq3Rbe7IAYsT
After I found the AI description that fits the same description in the book you read, I looked a bit further and found this:
“Simler recorded the final hours of Vermigli ‘s life and his own last words: “And on the day before he died, some of us his friends being present with him, and specially Bullinger among the rest, he lay a certain space meditating with himself; then turning unto us he testified with speech plain enough that he acknowledged life and salvation in Christ alone, who was given by the Father an only favour unto mankind; and this opinion of his he declared and confirmed with reasons and words of scriptures; adding at the last, This is my faith, in this will I die; but they which teach otherwise and draw men any other way. God will destroy them.”
https://www.wscal.edu/resources/article/peter-martyr-vermigli-international-reformer/
I also read this one and found nothing about the subject but some interesting things not mentioned elsewhere:
https://sb.rfpa.org/peter-martyr-vermigli-italian-reformer/
I checked out one last one and called it a day on this. I found this:
“Although not well known today, there is a growing recognition that Vermigli was one of the most important theologians to give shape to Reformed theology and, in some respects, he was arguably more influential even than Calvin. Indeed, one contemporary, Joseph Scaliger, wrote: “The most important theologians of our day are John Calvin and Peter Martyr.”
https://davenantinstitute.org/brief-history-peter-martyr-society/