Puritanism

[DaveXR650]

Regarding the Puritans, Begg always says that the Puritans were the guys that went around making sure no one was having any fun.

 

[tyndale1946]

Regarding the Puritans, Begg always says that the Puritans were the guys that went around making sure no one was having any fun.

Yeah and their attire wasn't to flashy either... Brother Glen

 

[JonC]

But they had drums . . .

They spoke as they were led there, but their words were drowned out by the sound of drums. After they had taken leave of one another, William Robinson ascended the ladder. He told the people it was their day of visitation, and desired them to mind the light within them, the light of Christ, his testimony for which he was going to seal with his blood. At this the Puritan minister shouted, "Hold thy tongue, thou art going to die with a lie in thy mouth." The rope was adjusted, and as the executioner turned the condemned man off, he said with his dying breath, "I suffer for Christ, in whom I live and for whom I die." Marmaduke Stephenson next climbed the ladder and said, "Be it known unto all this day that we suffer not as evil-doers, but for conscience sake." As the ladder was pushed away, he said, "This day shall we be at rest with the Lord."

(Account of Quackers being executed by Boston Puritan church)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

We love Alistair Begg in Ohio. He's at the other end of the state, in Cleveland. I one time heard him say that he had no trouble convincing people that "the Lord" led him to Cleveland, Ohio. What other reason would lead someone to move to Cleveland, Ohio? Have you noticed he rolls his r's. No one else in Ohio does that!

That's the Scotsman in him coming out! I have wondered if he might follow his friend Sinclair Ferguson back to Scotland - we could certainly do with him here! - but his wife is American so I expect he'll stay put. He often comes over to Britain, however and I've heard him preach at conferences many times.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

...and they would dominate the BB if allowed...

Are they now considered Fundimentalists?

 

[tyndale1946]

But they had drums . . .

They spoke as they were led there, but their words were drowned out by the sound of drums. After they had taken leave of one another, William Robinson ascended the ladder. He told the people it was their day of visitation, and desired them to mind the light within them, the light of Christ, his testimony for which he was going to seal with his blood. At this the Puritan minister shouted, "Hold thy tongue, thou art going to die with a lie in thy mouth." The rope was adjusted, and as the executioner turned the condemned man off, he said with his dying breath, "I suffer for Christ, in whom I live and for whom I die." Marmaduke Stephenson next climbed the ladder and said, "Be it known unto all this day that we suffer not as evil-doers, but for conscience sake." As the ladder was pushed away, he said, "This day shall we be at rest with the Lord."

(Account of Quackers being executed by Boston Puritan church)

We take the good with the bad... Weren't these good Christians?... All though out history Christians (or so called that) have bloody hands... Brother Glen

 

[JonC]

Are they now considered Fundimentalists?

They certainly had "fundamentals".

 

[tyndale1946]

They certainly had "fundamentals".

Their own!... Brother Glen

Matthew 5: 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

 

[JonC]

We take the good with the bad... Weren't these good Christians?... All though out history Christians (or so called that) have bloody hands... Brother Glen

You know...I am not sure if they (as a group) were Christians. But I believe there were Christians among them (even as there are Christians in the RCC).

The difficulty is judging their fruits. Could you imagine Jesus hanging Quackers and imprisoning Baptists because of their belief?

But you are right. They had a worldview that taught them to "purify" the world. It was an error, but I do not know that it demonstrated a lost state. At the same time I cannot imagine Christians killing other Christians for what they view as error.

Then again, I know historically there were Christians who were racists. I suppose there still are.

It just seems God would work in their lives to being them closer to the image of Christ.

 

[DaveXR650]

We take the good with the bad... Weren't these good Christians?... All though out history Christians (or so called that) have bloody hands... Brother Glen

Yeah, Unless someone can show that this type of thing was a Puritan doctrine I think you should leave it as an aberration. I haven't come across any Puritan writers advocating hanging. Luther spoke pretty violently about Jews and anabaptists. Some Calvinists I guess tended to drown Baptists. When on a thread about Puritans and it's in the context of what they may mean to some current day Christians, bringing that up seems to me like a cheap shot.

 

[JonC]

Yeah, Unless someone can show that this type of thing was a Puritan doctrine I think you should leave it as an aberration. I haven't come across any Puritan writers advocating hanging. Luther spoke pretty violently about Jews and anabaptists. Some Calvinists I guess tended to drown Baptists. When on a thread about Puritans and it's in the context of what they may mean to some current day Christians, bringing that up seems to me like a cheap shot.

It was Puritan doctrine. That is one reason it died out. Puritanism held that they were an elect people of God to purify the Church of England. In America this grew to the doctrine that they were God's elect people with the duty to purify the world.

When we discuss history we include the good and the bad. Puritanism is no different. They had a lot of good teachings, but also a lot of bad doctrine.

The problem comes in when we idolize men (whether the Puritans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists).

We extract the good and dismiss the bad. But we should not ignore error lest we end up repeating it in some form.

 

[DaveXR650]

It was Puritan doctrine. That is one reason it died out. Puritanism held that they were an elect people of God to purify the Church of England. In America this grew to the doctrine that they were God's elect people with the duty to purify the world.

When we discuss history we include the good and the bad. Puritanism is no different. They had a lot of good teachings, but also a lot of bad doctrine.

The problem comes in when we idolize men (whether the Puritans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists).

We extract the good and dismiss the bad. But we should not ignore error lest we end up repeating it in some form.

I'm just saying that in the 1600's there is no group on this planet that if or when they had control of the government and political side of things that this kind of thing did not occasionally happen. Everyone around you is dying. Starvation is always a possibility. The tensions from the wars in Europe always managed to arrive in the New World unlike aid and assistance which was very unreliable. You have an unreliable food supply, weapons that are unreliable if it rained and always slow, disease that killed two thirds of your children, 20 percent of your women dying in childbirth and only two things in your favor. If you could count on God's favor for your life and almost just as important - an absolute group interdependence and cohesiveness that meant more than anything in this world. In these conditions, I can understand how this could happen. It sounds like some of the things that you read about in the Old Testament and judging them by our standards makes about zero sense.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Personally, I like to read about the good news - the gospel of Christ - and how dirty, rotten sinners, such as I am, are saved by the sovereign grace of God - regardless of when such writings were published.

You mean you don’t want to imitate Oliver Cromwell or Cotton Mather, the Puritans who chased out Roger Williams from Boston and had Salem witch hunts? Could it be you seek your purity in emulating Christ?!? What heady stuff your into!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Puritan… I used to buy their dress shirts at my local Walmart till they discontinued the line (made me so sad ). And that’s about the extent of my wish to be apart of that puritanical nonsense. If that’s a lifestyle, you can have it. Must be kinda like that “Lordship Salvation” crowd that MacArthur preaches about. Look I like beer & wine, not to excess, just enjoy the taste. I do swear on occasion, but I try hard to contain that. I don’t gossip which is judgemental. My scriptural knowledge isn’t perfect, I was raised Catholic and so there is lots of missed ground to cover. I’m not throwing out all the trappings of Christmas but I concentrate on the incarnation…. So yea, not perfect and I don’t want to be. I’d rather be a child of God than be that ilk. And now that I’m retired I don’t have to dress up… life is good.

 

[DaveXR650]

The beginnings of what you see in the cases in history of these atrocities is an end game of the idea of dismissing everything someone or some group is all about and then letting the disagreement fester within our fertile brains until it becomes contempt and hatred. Then, if you are in the right conditions and are men who tend to act you can have murder.

First you demonize someone's teachings. Then you lump them together with people who you know and disagree with. That way you can transfer your hatred to them. Throw in a few things about how you have it all together, unlike the other group. Make sure you explain how YOU are elect and in close with God, unlike that other bunch. And there you go.

Only thing is, not only does that sound like what happened in some of the Puritan towns, but it could describe some of the posts on here. I would not like to live in a Puritan town in the 1600's. I wouldn't want some of you guys in control either.

 

[JonC]

I'm just saying that in the 1600's there is no group on this planet that if or when they had control of the government and political side of things that this kind of thing did not occasionally happen. Everyone around you is dying. Starvation is always a possibility. The tensions from the wars in Europe always managed to arrive in the New World unlike aid and assistance which was very unreliable. You have an unreliable food supply, weapons that are unreliable if it rained and always slow, disease that killed two thirds of your children, 20 percent of your women dying in childbirth and only two things in your favor. If you could count on God's favor for your life and almost just as important - an absolute group interdependence and cohesiveness that meant more than anything in this world. In these conditions, I can understand how this could happen. It sounds like some of the things that you read about in the Old Testament and judging them by our standards makes about zero sense.

Sure it makes sense. It was not a product of the time but RCC doctrine (they were Reformed, trying to get rid of RCC influences but blind to those influences within their own theology).

Point is it was a part of their doctrine.

Puritans set up their governments. So did Quakers. They executed Quakers for being Christians who held different views.

Quakers set up their governments in Pennsylvania. They did not kill Puritans. Quakers viewed killing men for their beliefs to be murder, and they believed murder to be a sin.

Granted, if Quakers would have fought back then Puritans probably would have thought twice about killing them. But Quakers were pacifists.

 

[DaveXR650]

Point is it was a part of their doctrine.

It may be part of the trouble you get into when you combine your religion with the government but it really was not part of Puritan doctrine. I'm in agreement that it's a good study to look into a whole bunch of concepts of human government under extreme conditions, the merits and pitfalls of diversity in such conditions, the disadvantages and advantages of religion and how it relates to group cohesiveness under those conditions. And don't forget, the problems that come from mandatory church membership which results in a largely unsaved membership. I am just saying that there were predictable reasons why this happened under the conditions it did. I find a lot to admire in the Quakers and the early Baptists but the good that I have gotten from writings, mostly from English and European writers with the exception of Edwards does not seem to come from Quakers. If you see it different then that's OK.

I don't see what that has to do with a resurgence of interest by college students and the republishing of books long forgotten and how they have influenced modern churches in America and England. I don't think anyone's gotten hung or even flogged so far although some of the church discipline I hear about is abusive. I hope they don't read this.

 

[JonC]

The beginnings of what you see in the cases in history of these atrocities is an end game of the idea of dismissing everything someone or some group is all about and then letting the disagreement fester within our fertile brains until it becomes contempt and hatred. Then, if you are in the right conditions and are men who tend to act you can have murder.

First you demonize someone's teachings. Then you lump them together with people who you know and disagree with. That way you can transfer your hatred to them. Throw in a few things about how you have it all together, unlike the other group. Make sure you explain how YOU are elect and in close with God, unlike that other bunch. And there you go.

Only thing is, not only does that sound like what happened in some of the Puritan towns, but it could describe some of the posts on here. I would not like to live in a Puritan town in the 1600's. I wouldn't want some of you guys in control either.

The issue is that there were unbiblical ideas inherent in Puritan theology. For all of their devotion to Scripture they often missed Christ

This does not mean that everything they observed or thought should be dismissed. As I noted earlier, I like reading their writings.

My point is that we have to be very careful not to become disciples of these men (or any "camp") but to be disciples of Christ.

We look back through history and see what the Puritans had right and what they had wrong. We can use what they had right, but if we cannot identify the error in their theology then we will end up repeating in some form what they had wrong.

 

[DaveXR650]

The issue is that there were unbiblical ideas inherent in Puritan theology. For all of their devotion to Scripture they often missed Christ

This does not mean that everything they observed or thought should be dismissed. As I noted earlier, I like reading their writings.

My point is that we have to be very careful not to become disciples of these men (or any "camp") but to be disciples of Christ.

We look back through history and see what the Puritans had right and what they had wrong. We can use what they had right, but if we cannot identify the error in their theology then we will end up repeating in some form what they had wrong.

If you want to attack their theology lay it out and explain it. But use specific theology. And give specific examples. Do not use the fact that EVERYONE believed at the time that the government and the church were comingled together. We all know that. No one is advocating that.

 

[JonC]

It may be part of the trouble you get into when you combine your religion with the government but it really was not part of Puritan doctrine.

I'm sure they (individually) practiced things differently. But this was a part of their doctrine insofar as their doctrine taught them that they were God's elect charged with purifying the Anglican Church (later the world under their influence) from improper doctrine.

It isn't that the worldview had no affect on their interpretations but that the worldview was a part of their doctrine.

Today Puritanism probably wouldn't result in murdering Quakers and imprisoning Baptists. But it would result in that same type of hatred. That is the issue - not how sin is manifested but sin itself.

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not saying all aspects of their theology was bad. I'm saying we need to honestly look at their theology, identify the good and the bad. Learn from both so as to appreciate the good and not repeat the bad.