Baxter’s writings are a strange theological mix. He was one of a few Puritans whose doctrines of God’s decrees, atonement, and justification were anything but Reformed. Though he generally structured his theology along Reformed lines of thought, he frequently leaned towards Arminian thinking. He developed his own notion of universal redemption, which offended Calvinists, but retained a form of personal election, which offended Arminians. He rejected reprobation. He was greatly influenced by the Amyraldians and incorporated much of their thinking, including hypothetical universalism, which teaches that Christ hypothetically died for all men, but His death only has real benefit to those who believe. For Baxter, Christ’s death was more of a legal satisfaction of the law than a personal substitutionary death on behalf of elect sinners.
Baxter’s approach to justification has been called neonomianism (that is, “new law”); he said that God has made a new law offering forgiveness to repentant breakers of the old law. Faith and repentance—the new laws that must be obeyed—become the believer’s personal, saving righteousness that is sustained by preserving grace. Baxter’s soteriology, then, is Amyraldian with the addition of Arminian “new law” teaching. 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.
Joel R. Beeke and Randall J. Pederson, Meet The Puritans (Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 66. (HT: Tod Ashby)
RESOURCES
- Resources On Richard Baxter
- Subscribe to The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Heidelblog
The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
More by Heidelblog ›
Certainly to conclude Baxters work “Reformed Pastor ” is awful is rather shallow, and I’m surprised that someone hasn’t asked you: what do you mean by awful – give me some examples of the awfulness of this book? Unless of course, you are using the original idea of the adjective awful– to be ‘filled with awe,’ like: profound reverence; as the awful majesty of the King. Webster says that Shakespeare uses ‘awful’ for worshipful, inspiring respect by authority or dignity. For, you certainly cannot mean the modern definition of awful meaning ugly–detestable–disgusting and hopeless. Where would this idea apply in his Reformed Pastor. Is it where he says: that pride is a fatal sin for a minister, stating that “it is a contradiction in terms to be a Christian and not humble” Or, because he believed a Preacher should preach as though he will never preach again,–“Preach as a dying man to dying men.” To Baxter, every Lord’s Day or opportunity to preach could be the last time a listener heard the Gospel. He said that a Pastors life must never contradict his doctrine. The work is based on the Pastors call to take heed to himself and his flock.
Should we all avoid Spurgeons Pastoral work ‘Lectures to My Students,’ and ‘The Soul Winner,’ just because he loved Baxter’s Reformed Pastor? We may disagree with some of his doctrinal positions but he was certainly not the modern idea of an awful Pastor!
Michael,
It’s been 40 years since I read the book and when I did I was not as aware as I am now of some of the problems with Baxter’s theology. So, I as I read Baxter I probably read the book the way many do now, by assuming that he meant by words what the orthodox mean by them. I was naïve, as, I suspect, most lay readers (and perhaps many ministers) are.
This morning as an exercise I looked at part 2, chapter 1 in an edition from the 1830s. I’m looking at page 31. I wanted to see again what Baxter wants the pastor to say to his parishioner in a visit. We might have hoped that he would talk about sin and God’s marvelous grace to sinners, and the good news that Jesus has obeyed and died for sinners, that he would have paused to refresh a weary saint with the good news but he can hardly wait to talk about conditions, which of course fits what I now understand about his theology.
What I see in reading before this passage and after is a lot of methodism, in the broad sense. I see a lot more “do” than I see “done for us.” Obviously, we need some practical instruction in home visitation but we also need some instruction in what it is we bring to the home when we visit. Am I wrong in detecting a legal tenor to the work? Are we to imagine that Baxter left his defective theology at the door when he visited his people or did he spread it house to house, like a carrier of the plague?
I recently wrote about elder visits and I think now that I should have reviewed Baxter again before I wrote that piece. I was focused on CRC/Dutch Reformed sources. Perhaps Baxter is a more important source for explaining why elders of speak as they do in home visits?
I read The Reformed Pastor and wow, how awful! How is that book so revered?
Not only is it revered, it’s required reading in many Reformed seminaries.
Chris, I’m not going to defend Baxter’s Amyraldianism (or worse), but can you explain what was “wow how awful” about Baxter’s book, “The Reformed Pastor,” as opposed to the theological problems for which he has been criticized now for nearly four centuries?
The consensus position in much of the Reformed world for centuries has been that the book, though not perfect, has value, even though the author’s problematic views were well known to those who promoted the book while criticizing those views.
Your take seems to be far more negative and I’d be interested in why.
Paraphrasing, he says to basically burn the candle at both ends. Then he demonstrates how to do that.