Southern Baptist Theology in the Late Twentieth Century
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 54, No. 2 – Spring 2012
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By D.B. Riker Studies in Baptist History and Thought 35. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2009. 257 pages. Softcover, $32.00.
In another valuable installation in the recent renaissance of Benjamin Keach studies, D.B. Riker has attempted to locate Keach as a theologian, not just a pastor. This book is the culmination of Riker’s Ph.D. studies at the University of Aberdeen, and he now serves as the president of the Equatorial Baptist Theological Seminary in his native Brazil. In summary, Riker denies James Berry Vaughn’s assertion that Keach was merely a practical theologian. He argues that Keach was neither sectarian nor Calvinist, but rather a catholic Reformed theologian in the Reformed Orthodox tradition. To do so, he presents a very helpful biography, then a thorough study of Keach’s theology of covenant and baptism, concluding that “Keach is a theologian, working as a Reformer, to restore the church to what he perceives to be the biblical pattern” (127).
To make his argument, Riker begins by painting the Reformation as a continuation of that element of the medieval church that did not emphasize the oral tradition. The Reformed Orthodox tradition (which included the Puritans) highlighted its continuity with Scripture and the catholic tradition embodied in the ecumenical creeds and systems. Riker identifies the central beliefs of Reformed Orthodoxy as the five points of Calvinism, the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, and paedobaptism. It primarily disputed with Socinians, Papists, Anabaptists, and Arminians. An important emphasis of this tradition is the covenant, monopleuric in its commencement but dipleuric in its continuance. Riker specifically locates Keach in the high (middle) stage of Protestant Orthodoxy as a movement. He clarifies that “Orthodox” refers to the content of teaching and “catholic” refers to its Christian adherers.
Riker presents a full exposition of Keach’s own federal theology and baptismal theology with an eye toward several claims. First, Keach spoke positively about the ecumenical creeds, and the Reformed Federalist John Owen was his “most cherished” author (52). Second, Keach rejected both Baxterianism as Arminianism and Antinomianism. Third, Keach moved away from the Reformed tendency of conflating the covenant of grace with the covenant of redemption. Fourth, Keach made believers’ baptism a central element of his own federalism. Riker draws some very important conclusions from these claims: Keach was neither a Biblicist nor successionist, making him catholic; Keach held to a middle way of Orthodox thinking; Keach’s rejection of paedobaptism did not exclude him from mainstream Reformed thought. These are very interesting conclusions sure to generate discussion among students of Baptist thought.
On the positive side, Riker is absolutely correct that Keach cannot be labeled a Biblicist, a practical theologian, a sectarian, or a Calvinist. Keach’s thought and intentions were much more diverse than historians have sometimes given him credit. However, Riker may have oversold his case that Keach should be primarily classified a “catholic Reformed theologian.” It seems that Riker wants to make Keach an intentional part of a broad tradition (as in more than Particular Baptist; Timothy George evens uses the word “ecumenical” in his foreword), but his own arguments do not support this conclusion. In the first place, he does not fully appreciate the importance of Keach’s belief in believers’ baptism by immersion. This is not merely a blip in Keach’s Reformed Orthodoxy, but the foundation of a wholly unique way of thinking in which Biblicism does trump a system. For Keach, paedobaptism completely undermined the congregational nature of the church, something Riker notes without fully exploring. Riker even relates Keach’s quote, “I am for Catholick communion and charity with all Saints, tho not for church communion with any unbaptized, as I believe you all are that have only had infants rantism” (126). There is nothing “catholic” (or ecumenical) about this statement in the sense that Riker tries to use it. Keach would not hold communion with most of the Reformed tradition— how could be then be catholic Reformed? He even maintained a separation from other Particular Baptist churches which rejected his views of congregational hymn singing and the laying on of hands.
Most importantly, Riker tries to confine Keach to the magisterial Reformation. He looks at Keach’s positive estimation of the work of the great Reformers (particularly Luther and Calvin) as proof that Keach sees himself in that same sense, concluding that “he only departed from the earlier established Reformed Orthodox thought where necessary to continue the work of the Reformation” (127). He later argues, “Keach understands catholicity not as maintaining ties to particular institutions, but rather conscientious adherence to what he perceives to be catholic truth” (220). These statements simply cannot be held to mean what Riker says they mean. Keach was not “catholic” in the sense that Riker uses the term. Keach did not see himself in the same boat as other Protestants; his ministry is filled with disputes against almost every Christian tradition. He was not continuing the Reformation, he was correcting it; he was making it more biblical, not maintaining its system.
Those concerns aside, there is no doubt that Riker’s book is a valuable contribution to any student of Benjamin Keach or early English Baptists. Filled with excellent footnotes and a practical index, this book is well designed and easy to follow. Riker has left plenty of work, however. He does not explore what it means that Keach was inconsistent and indiscriminate in his use of sources. He also does not mine the majority of Keach’s sermons, his hymns, or his study of tropes and figures. Those elements will play a large role in future Keach studies.
