Bayes, Jonathan F. A Tidy Faith: Systematic Theology from a Reformed Baptist Perspective. Eugene, Oregon: Resource Publications, 2024. 648 pp. $66.
Introduction
Jonathan Bayes is a pastor in the United Kingdom and has served in Christian ministry for several decades. He has written books on various theological topics, including the Apostles’ Creed, a theology of revival, and exegetical treatises, among other works. He has a PhD from the University of Sunderland and is a lecturer in systematic theology at the Carey International University of Theology.
Summary
Bayes aims to develop what he calls a “tidy faith,” using the analogy of a feast. Everything at this theological feast is properly organized and its proper place, all while maintaining a delicious variety. Bayes states his purpose of exploring what the entire Bible has to say on various themes and to do so from a Reformed Baptist perspective. (vii-viii)
Bayes explores many of the classic loci of systematic theology in an order that roughly follows that of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). He starts with the doctrine of God and the doctrine of revelation. He proceeds to the doctrine of creation and the doctrine of the divine decree. From there, he moves to the doctrine of man and the doctrine of Christ. After this, Bayes spends extensive time on the doctrine of salvation, starting with the atonement, moving to the three tenses of salvation, then the further aspects of salvation (e.g., union with Christ), and concluding with the eternal basis of salvation in election. Bayes concludes his volume with chapters on the Holy Spirit, the church, worship (which he groups with preaching and the sacraments), angels and demons, and eschatology.
Bayes constructs each chapter (or parts in lengthy chapters) with a unique structure: Biblical Foundation, Doctrinal Formulation, Historical Elaboration, and Practical Application. While Bayes does not say so explicitly, the Biblical Foundation section serves as Bayes’ biblical theology (the discipline) for the chapter, where Bayes explores the Old Testament discussion of the chapter’s theme and then moves to the New Testament. He then identifies and briefly exposits key Scriptural passages. (viii) The Doctrinal Formulation section explores what the ecumenical creeds of the church and Reformed confessions say on that topic. One unique element of Bayes’ volume is that he intentionally includes Reformed Confessions from outside the Western Hemisphere, such as the Confession of Faith of House Churches in China. (viii-x) Bayes’ section on Historical Elaboration explores the doctrine throughout Christian history, including controversies, notable debates, or other contemporary questions. (x) Bayes concludes each chapter with a thorough discussion of practical applications for each doctrine. (x-xi)
Strengths
Bayes’ volume has a couple strengths. The first is perhaps the most obvious: there are no other known contemporary volumes whose purpose is to be distinctively Reformed Baptist. While others may be Reformed Baptist-adjacent (e.g. Beeke and Smalley, Wellum), and others have existed historically (e.g. Boyce, Gill), Bayes stands alone in developing such a work of systematic theology in our era of revived interest in confessional Baptist thought.
A second strength is that in each chapter, Bayes studiously grounds his work in the Scriptures and aims to develop a robust biblical foundation for each doctrine. He does this alongside how the doctrine was formulated in the creeds and Reformed confessions of the church (both historic and contemporary). He demonstrates an admirable desire for ecumenicity with Reformed thought and catholicity with the broader Christian tradition while remaining first and foremost grounded in the Scriptures. Bayes does so without losing sight of various challenges Christians have addressed throughout history, and he ensures all doctrine ultimately has a practical application. Bayes maintains a good balance across these four elements, and his unique structure helps readers new to the task of systematic theology understand the constituent elements of the task.
Weaknesses
Despite its strengths, Bayes’ work has numerous problems which must be addressed. There are more issues in Bayes’ volume than can be addressed in this review, so we will focus on two main categories: technical and theological. Within the technical category, we will look at issues of underdeveloped bibliography, unsupported or under-cited assertions, and misinterpretation of primary texts. Under the theological category, we will look at some of the problematic and often contra-confessional stances Bayes takes, and the absence of any meaningful Reformed Baptist covenant theology.
The first technical issue is Bayes’ underdeveloped bibliography. While his bibliography is large and includes some major Reformed theologians, there are key names who are not listed in Bayes’ bibliography and whom it would be reasonable for readers to expect to be present. A Reformed Baptist systematic theology should have significant engagement with early Reformed Baptists like Nehemiah Coxe and Benjamin Keach, contemporary Second London scholars like James and Samuel Renihan, and other leading Reformed scholars and theologians, both past and present, such as James Petrigru Boyce, Stephen Charnock, James Dolezal, Michael A.G. Haykin, Richard Muller, David Steinmetz, and Geerhardus Vos. Yet every name listed here is absent from Bayes’ bibliography. What makes this especially peculiar is sources Bayes does choose to enlist. Bayes includes Lutheran confessions of faith among the list of Reformed confessions of faith, which he seeks to synthesize. (ix) When discussing impassibility, Bayes only cites Bishop Gilbert Burnet (Anglican), Lactantius (early church), and Kazoh Kitamori (Japanese Protestant). (16-18) He employs Robert Reymond (a Presbyterian) to argue against the Filioque (483-484). He uses the Canons of Dort (written by paedobaptists) to explain the status of infants dying in infancy. (459) These are all topics Reformed Baptist theologians have discussed and topics which the Second London Confession of Faith (2LCF) itself explicitly address! Bayes is free to employ whomever he wishes for his volume, but his eclectic bibliography and the absence of these leading Reformed writers, and in particular the Reformed Baptist ones, necessarily calls into question to what extent this volume is grounded in the Reformed Baptist tradition.
The second technical issue is a pattern of assertions without proper argumentation or citation. One such example appears immediately in Chapter 1, Part 1, where Bayes says that the “key quality which sums of the Old Testament teaching about God is that He is merciful.” (1) While it is possible Bayes is correct, this is a significant assertion. While Bayes attempts to back it up by pointing to the repeated Old Testament references to God’s mercy, an assertion of this magnitude is going to be highly controversial. Bayes does not cite any Old Testament scholars to substantiate his argument, and he fails to engage with other scholars who might present an alternative view. Another example is in Chapter 16, where Bayes asserts without citation that the Reformers were predominantly postmillennial in their eschatology, which he clarifies could include amillennialism (626-627). While Bayes could be correct (Waldron argues that the 2LCF precludes premillennialism[1]), this assertion is by no means a given and must be evidenced.
The third technical issue is the misinterpretation of primary texts. In my cursory review, this occurred on at least three occasions (twice with John Calvin and once with Thomas Aquinas). Bayes does correctly interpret some primary sources, such as Herman Bavinck on angels (590), so the cases where he does misinterpret a primary text are thus more notable. Space precludes a more extensive examination, so we will focus on one example, his interpretation of Calvin’s views of the divine decree in his commentary on Deuteronomy 13:3.
Bayes discusses Deuteronomy 13:3 in engaging with open theistic objections to divine foreknowledge. While open theists would argue that this passage points to God’s lack of knowledge, Bayes cites Calvin as an alternative way to read the text. Citing Calvin’s commentary on the passage, Bayes says, “Calvin cites Augustine, who suggested that the Lord meant that the test would enable the people to know their own hearts. Calvin prefers to distinguish God’s knowledge as it arises from his hidden wisdom, which needed no verification, and his knowledge arising from experience, which the test would provide.” (156) In other words, Bayes reads Calvin as positing two types of knowledge in God (natural and experiential), and this test in Deuteronomy 13:3 reflects this distinction. However, Calvin says nothing of the sort and, in fact, makes the very argument Bayes says Calvin rejects. To quote Calvin: “Moses thus anticipates it, by reminding them, that God does not meanwhile lie idle or asleep, having abandoned the care of His Church; but that He designedly brings the truly pious to the proof, in order to distinguish them from the hypocrites; and this takes place, when they constantly persevere in the true faith against the assaults of their temptations, and do not fall from their standing.”[2] It is true that Calvin cites Augustine and rejects his view, but Calvin’s own view could hardly be more plain when he says, “God proves men’s hearts, not that He may learn what was before unknown, but to lay open what was before concealed.” Calvin objects to Augustine’s view, not because it was wrong, but because it was too limited. Calvin argues God’s purposes in such tests go beyond merely causing us to know, as Augustine argues, but serve God’s greater purposes, that God’s purposes are different from the “malice and wiles of Satan.” Therefore, Calvin’s reference to “experimental” (i.e. experiential) knowledge cannot be to posit two types of knowledge in God, and Bayes has misinterpreted Calvin on this point.
These technical issues could potentially be overlooked if there were not theological problems with Bayes’ volume as well. These theological problems are not isolated to subtle, debatable matters; those and others we will leave aside. Problems arise in theology proper, Christology, soteriology, and the atonement, all on topics addressed by the 2LCF.
The first issue we encounter is the absence of key Reformation doctrines. Chapter 2, Part 1 on the doctrine of Scripture contains no reference to sola scriptura. While Bayes clearly holds to it (otherwise, his section on scriptural sufficiency (70) would be different than it is), its absence from this chapter, including in the Doctrinal Formulation and Historical Elaboration sections, is a strange omission. Likewise, Chapter 1, Part 1 on the nature of God fails to meaningfully discuss God’s attributes of love, holiness, aseity, and simplicity. Love and holiness are absent entirely except as passing references in the discussion of God’s mercy. (20) Aseity receives only three sentences. (16) Simplicity is reduced to the idea of divine unity, where the idea that God has no parts results from God not having a body. (16) This contrasts with the confessional view, which, Renihan says, asserts that God is altogether free of parts and that all that is in God is God.[3] Finally, in Chapter 9, Part 1 on justification, Bayes provides a definition of faith as “the personal appropriation of the promises [of God].” (325) No reference is made to the historic Reformed view of the three parts of true faith: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.[4]
Another issue is that Bayes denies the historic Reformed understanding of divine immutability and impassibility. Bayes asserts that God is immutable (20) and not subject to change. (11, 19) While these statements are good, Bayes makes other comments which not only undermine divine immutability, but which call into question what he means by immutability. Bayes openly denies divine impassibility. Bayes argues that God is passible and capable of suffering, but that He does so voluntarily. (16-18) Bayes concedes to open theists that “[God] is not unaffected by human decisions.” (161) He asserts that “Christ’s atonement made an impact upon God.” (275) Moreover, it should be noted that in those aforementioned where places Bayes does affirm immutability, they are placed under the umbrella of God’s sovereignty. What we see, then, is a pattern where immutability is not inherent in God’s very nature but is instead derived from God’s sovereignty. Bayes makes key concessions to open theism by allowing change in the divine nature in God’s suffering and in the atonement. It becomes difficult to square Bayes’ assent to immutability with his assertions that God can change in light of human decisions, the atonement, and His own sovereign choices. What we can say for certain is that Bayes’ views do not comport with the 2LCF. The 2LCF is plain that God is both immutable and impassible, which is due foremost to His aseity, but also His infinity and spirituality.[5]
Likewise, Bayes makes concerning comments regarding the person of Christ. Bayes expressly affirms the unity of Christ’s person, that there is no human person of Jesus, and that Christ’s human nature never acted independently. These statements are orthodox. The trouble is that in this same paragraph, Bayes acknowledges and questions the idea of Christ’s “impersonal humanity” to guard against a gender-neutral Jesus. It is clear that Bayes is referencing the idea of the hypostatic union being anhypostatic. But where Bayes begins to show signs of Christological trouble is when he states that it is inconceivable to imagine a human nature which is not personal, whereas “he [Jesus] is an authentic human personality”. (245-246) A charitable reading would assess that Bayes is attempting to articulate the hypostatic union as being enhypostatic,[6] though it is unclear as to why he does not employ this terminology.
Yet Bayes’ Christological problems do not end here. While the previous paragraph could be seen as a misunderstanding, this becomes more difficult to maintain when Bayes repeatedly refers to Christ as a “divine-human person.” (248, 251, 255) Moreover, in discussing the Chalcedonian Definition, Bayes says that Christ “had a unified experience of life and the world” and that when the Definition says that Christ was not “parted or separated into two persons”, this means that Christ was psychologically an integrated personality. (253) It is difficult to understand Bayes’ intent here. Chalcedonian orthodoxy speaks of Christ as a divine person,[7] and the 2LCF in Chapter 8 clearly sees Christ as a divine person. While such language from Bayes, combined with his statements about Christ being an authentic human personality, would suggest Nestorian tendencies, Bayes enthusiastically embraces Mary as theotokos (252) and affirms the communicatio idiomatia (255-256), which would militate against a Nestorian Christology. Charity would assume Bayes intends Christological orthodoxy. Yet his imprecise and contra-confessional language is not only confusing but concerning for a work of systematic theology and demonstrates some form of disconnect from the theological tradition in which he seeks to ground himself.
Likewise, Bayes seems confused on the classic Reformed law/gospel distinction. In Chapter 2, Part 1, in establishing the Old Testament foundation for the doctrine of Scripture, Bayes expounds Psalm 19:7-11. In this exposition, Bayes says, “The Bible recognizes no antithesis between law and gospel.” He makes this statement in contrast to what he sees as the Dispensational tendency to see the Old Testament as law and the New Testament as grace, rather than seeing the gospel message as being proclaimed even as early as Genesis. (55) While his assessment of Dispensational theology may be true, to flatten the law and gospel as he does is not only concerning, but contrary to historic Reformed thought.[8] A charitable reading of Bayes, especially in light of his discussion of the tripartite division of the law in a later chapter (352-356), suggests that Bayes means something different in this statement than an outright rejection of the law/gospel distinction. We can certainly hope so. Nonetheless, Bayes’ statement is imprecise at best, and contra-confessional at worst.
One surprising issue is found in Bayes’ discussion of Exodus 3:14 and the covenantal name of God. Bayes argues that the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14 is an incomplete statement which God must later complete, which He does in Exodus 33. To quote Bayes, “But on its own the verb ‘to be’ is incomplete. The way in which the LORD introduces himself to Moses leaves us asking, you are – what? What word or phrase will complete the sense?” (2) Yet historic Reformed commentators had no such difficulty with this passage. Matthew Henry, for example, uses this to explain that God is self-existent and absolute and thus the “inexhaustible fountain of all being and bliss.”[9] Moreover, Bayes’ view is contrary to the confessional view. The 2LCF cites Exodus 3:14 in defense of God’s infinity and incomprehensibility,[10] something Bayes’ view of Exodus 3:14 cannot do. Confessional and theology proper issues aside, Bayes’ view presents exegetical problems. If God’s covenantal name is incomplete, what are we to do with the repeated use of this name throughout the Old Testament? What are we do to with Jesus’ use of ἐγὼ εἰμί in John 8:58? Moreover, God uses this “incomplete” name later in this same conversation with Moses in Exodus 4:11, without any hint that it is incomplete.
One of the more bewildering issues in Bayes’ book is his assertion that Christ’s death served to appease the wrath of God against creation as a whole, not just against sinful humanity. Citing 1 John 2:2, Bayes argues that the genitive construction of the phrase ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου means that creation itself was in a condition of sinful fallenness, and Christ’s death served to preserve the world for the preaching of the Gospel. (301-302)[11] Setting aside the fact that Bayes provides no evidence for this beyond his own reading of the Greek text (see the discussion earlier of underdeveloped argumentation), what makes Bayes’ view astounding is that it is one proposed by no less than Thomas Collier, as cited by Nehemiah Coxe.[12] While neither Collier nor Coxe appear in Bayes’ bibliography, it is astonishing that Bayes would adopt a view of the atonement that overlaps significantly with one of the great opponents of the early Reformed Baptists.
These are not the only theological issues present in Bayes’ work. We could have explored others, such as his views on the unknowability of revelation in creation (94-96), regeneration as a temporal rather than instantaneous process (378-379), fatherhood as a creedally-defined attribute of God (12-13), the efficacy of Noah’s sacrifice (281), a peculiar view of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (479), some questionable language on perseverance and “final salvation” (438), and his dismissal of the Filioque as “speculative” (481-484). Nonetheless, the areas discussed highlight some of the serious concerns surrounding the doctrines expounded by Bayes.
The final theological issue we must address is that Bayes’ treatise has no meaningful development of a Reformed Baptist distinctives, outside of a few pages in the sections on baptism (548-552), doctrine of the church (524-525), and sanctification. (352-356) Even this section on sanctification is common to those who confess the WCF, Savoy Declaration, and other Reformed confessions; even Lutherans could affirm it. There is no dedicated discussion of covenant theology and how Reformed Baptists and Reformed paedobaptists differ on this subject. Covenant theology is vital to understanding the differences between Reformed Baptists and paedobaptists on baptism and ecclesiology, yet Bayes gives no attention to this subject.
This lack of covenant theology has a corollary weakness, namely, that Bayes does not establish what “Reformed Baptist” means. It appears that Bayes assumes the reader will understand the term, but since the volume is meant to be specifically Reformed Baptist (as stated in the book’s title), this term requires both definition and contrast to some of the theological traditions to which it is adjacent.
And perhaps this is the book’s most significant shortcoming – it is not distinctly Reformed Baptist. It is not distinctly anything. What it gets right is not particularly unique to the Reformed Baptist tradition, and other times it takes contra-confessional and sometimes bizarre stances. The various errors we discussed raise the question of how familiar Bayes is with his own theological tradition. It is not that Bayes understands his theological tradition and rejects it; sometimes he seems entirely unaware of it. A truly “Reformed Baptist” work should reasonably be assumed to have extensive engagement with the Reformed Baptist tradition. There ought to be an organic link between this volume and the two seventeenth-century Baptist confessions of faith. And so, while Bayes aims for a kind of Reformed ecumenicity, he ends up unmoored from any Reformed theological tradition.
Conclusion
Bayes should be applauded for attempting the monumental task of developing a contemporary work of systematic theology that is distinctly Reformed Baptist, especially where no such other work exists. As the interest in confessional theology among Baptists grows, Bayes has made a worthy effort to fill the void with a work that is biblically faithful, historically grounded, and pastorally helpful. However, Bayes’ tome has shortcomings that will limit its usefulness, not only in the academy, but in the pulpit and the pew as well. Its underdeveloped bibliography and argumentation, its inaccurate engagement with key authors, its non-confessional stances, and its absence of covenant theology means Bayes’ volume lacks both the rigor to be used in the academy and the thoroughness to be used in the church. Despite its shortcomings, though, we can pray that God will use Bayes’ work to inspire more theologians to engage our confessional heritage to develop a robust work of Reformed Baptist systematics.
About the Book Reviewer
Paul is a ThM student at CBTS. He lives in Florida with his wife, Felicity, and serves as a deacon in his church. A systems engineer by trade, Paul loves Lord of the Rings, strategy games, and reading all things theological (especially systematic theology). “Come, Lord Jesus!”
[1] Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 5th ed (Welwyn Garden City, UK: EP Books, 2016), 473.
[2] John Calvin and Charles William Bingham, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 445. Logos.
[3] James M. Renihan, To the Judicious and Impartial Reader (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2022), 85.
[4] Renihan, To the Judicious and Impartial Reader, 309.
[5] Renihan, To the Judicious and Impartial Reader, 84–85.
[6] Stephen J. Wellum, God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ, ed. John S. Feinberg, Foundations of Evangelical Theology Series (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 318.
[7] Wellum, God the Son Incarnate, 321–322.
[8] Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Spirit and Salvation, vol. 3, Reformed Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021), 293–294.
[9] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 78–79.
[10] Chad Van Dixhoorn, Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms: A Reader’s Edition (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022), 243.
[11] Strangely, Bayes follows this by asserting that 1 John 2:2 in no way teaches the universal atonement for every man in the sense of providing propitiation for every man’s sins.
[12] Nehemiah Coxe, Vindiciae Veritatis, ed. James M. Renihan (1677; repr. Broken Wharfe, 2023), 81–82, 95–96.
This blog post is authored by a student of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.
