Implications of Neonomianism
Neonomianism’s new law teaches that believing is the first and only good work that springs from faith. But this idea separates faith from believing. It implies that faith gives the potential to believe, and then we must believe in order to be saved.
Separating these also implies a free will to choose to believe. Yet, Calvin teaches that these are twin gifts of grace.
Neonomianism’s justification is only half right
When believing replaces the biblical truth of imputed righteousness of Christ, then one’s justification consists of forgiveness of sins only. This is not quite the justification of the Reformation. Such a justification does not provide us with a righteousness which is not our own.
It’s not enough to say that justification is, ‘just as if I never sinned’. We must also say that justification is, ‘God’s declaration that we are reconciled to God because of Christ’s righteousness’.
Why only half right is still wrong
Mere forgiveness alone is not enough to make us holy. Forgiveness alone cannot bring us to heaven to live eternally with the holy and righteous God. It merely makes us eligible for unending earthly life. Forgiveness alone will not ‘fulfill all righteousness’ as the form for the Lord’s Supper states in the second part of true examination. Forgiveness alone does not transform us to the image of Christ.
The scriptures make clear that only the truly and perfectly righteous can be in God’s presence, and fellowship eternally with God in heaven. We need the double imputation.
If it’s not imputed, it’s inherent
Inherent means that something is your very own, it is now part of your human essence. Inherent righteousness must be infused into you. Only Christ was born with righteousness; as the only begotten Son of God. We must have it either imputed to our account, or infused into us.
Neonomianism teaches an infused righteousness. They ask, how else can one have faith, and thus believe unless they be righteous?
But this downplays the atonement for our sin, and denies penal substitution. Infused righteousness denies that God’s justice is so holy that it requires satisfaction. See the WC, chap. 11, #3.
Neonomianism also teaches that the work of the Spirit is only to convince you of your inherent righteousness. This is their ‘government of affirmation‘. This is similar to Whitten’s teaching that the work of the Spirit is to convince believers of their own righteousness.
But, the scriptures teach that the work of the Spirit is to work faith in you to know and trust in Christ.
A lost distinction about justification and sanctification
Neonomians do not keep the distinction between justifying faith and sanctification in christian obedience. Losing that difference changes our righteousness to a Romish infused righteousness. This is not the imputed righteousness that Paul taught.
For Rome, and Neonomianism, this infused righteousness is how one becomes justified. It becomes how one ‘experiences’ justification. At the same time, sanctification in christian obedience becomes something internally experienced through mere desire; and, without necessarily showing itself in our behavior.
Neonomians applaud faith, and even ‘faith alone’. But, their ‘faith’ is not a depending upon Christ’s imputed righteousness. Rather, it is a faith that earns righteousness by believing. And it believes only in the imputation of sins to Christ.
For the RPs, that kind of justification with its singular imputation of our sins to Christ happened in eternity past.
Richard Baxter
Though still considered a godly pastor whose pastor’s heart others should imitate, most theologians consider Baxter to be an early Neonomian teacher.
He taught that faith and repentance were the new and only laws we are to obey. He taught one’s own personal righteousness saves. And he believed Christ’s obedience procured a change in the law, but did not accomplish a righteousness that he would impute to us.
“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”. ~Meet the Puritans paragraph 18.
No redemption, just lowered requirements
Baxter taught “that Christ has, by his atonement, so lowered the requirements of the law that mere endeavor is accepted in lieu of perfect obedience“. ~Cyclopaedia of Biblical, theological, and ecclesiastical literature, 1880. Bold mine, no link available.
Others on Baxter’s understanding of justification
Quotes below are from Christ URC’s post, under the section, “Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification” (Bold mine)
J.I. Packer writes, “Where orthodox Calvinism taught that Christ satisfied the law in the sinner’s place, Baxter held that Christ satisfied the Lawgiver and so procured a change in the law. Here Baxter aligns himself with Arminian thought rather than with orthodox Calvinism.”
Michael Brown writes, “Baxter takes the position that Christ himself fulfilled the conditions of the old covenant, and thereby purchased for us easier terms within the new covenant. On account of Christ’s righteousness, our own righteousness (faith and repentance) is accounted, or imputed, as acceptable righteousness. We are, in other words, justified by our own righteousness on account of the righteousness of Christ”.
Baxter is too close to Rome
Like Baxter, Rome’s scheme also teaches that Christ’s work purchased a change in the law that makes it more lenient. Thus, making it possible for our personal obedience to become our own righteousness.
Baxter aligns with Roman Catholic thought that we have an inherent [our own] righteousness. Thus, they both say that believers are justified by their own righteousness by believing.
Sproul Sr. explains Catholicism’s righteousness at the Ligonier site, “Trent said that God does not justify anyone until real righteousness inheres within the person. In other words, God does not declare a person righteous unless he or she is righteous”. Bold mine.
Rome views the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as a false teaching that says God sweeps sin under the rug of Jesus’ blood. They call it ‘legal fiction’. Read the RC explanation here as compared to the Reformed beliefs. All 4 parts are accurate and clear. Also, James Akin’s lengthy article explaining the several stages of justification according to the RC.
No double imputation for Baxter either
Like Rome, Baxter affirmed that our sins are imputed to Christ. But also, like Rome, he rejected the idea of double imputation. He thought double imputation was antinomian.
A short rebuttal to Baxter, Neonomianism, and Rome
The gospel is the Good News of salvation by Christ’s penal substitution. It is the good news of reconciliation to God, of peace declared to us, soul and body. Christ takes away our sin, and gives us his righteousness.
The Bible teaches us a double imputation: our sins credited to Christ, and his perfect righteousness credited to us. Our righteousness is not our own, but Christ’s … as we are in Him.
Church
Many Neonomians will allow church attendance, but they consider established churches to be more ‘law’. According to them, churches promote a set of creeds over belief in the finished work of Jesus. Home-churching [like the Duggar family did], meditation, and spending time in nature are also acceptable forms of worshipping God.
So why not just call it legalism?
Because it is not the old-fashioned kind of legalism that everyone thinks of with that word. It’s because legalism doesn’t only exist in suit-and-tie bedecked, pearls-and-hat wearing, picket-fenced, Sabbath-keeping, psalm-&-hymn-singing assemblies.
Legalism can teach those things. But it can deny those things while at the same time teach obedience to the new grace’s law of believing, of ‘expressing faith’. Teaching either of those things as conditions to salvation is legalism. Neonomianism has a more precise meaning that defines a certain form of legalism.
