Puritanism

[JonC]

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.

I think I have.

Puritan theology maintained the RCC doctrine that the government is a part of the church. Puritan doctrine taught that the Puritans were God's elect people charged with purifying the world (hence the name "Puritan").

Puritan doctrine taught that Baptists were heretics and the Puritans Church was charged by God with ending the heresy of "believers baptism" as it placed the souks of men in danger. It taught that Quakers held a greater heresy and they should be killed.

That was not their doctrine as a whole, but it was a part of their doctrine.

 

[JonC]

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.

We do not all know this because that is untrue.

Puritans also persecuted Anabaptists. Anabaptist believed that the Church and government were separate - NEVER to be combined.

The Baptists imprisoned by the Puritans held a theology that taught the separation of Church and State.

The Quakers believed in separation of secular government and church. They were murdered by the Puritans for their anti-Anglican beliefs. The Quakers refused to remove their hats when passing government officials. They believed all Christians were guided by the Spirit.

 

[DaveXR650]

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.

I'm not disagreeing that there was a huge political aspect to Puritan life in the 1600's. We all agree on that. Martyn Lloyd-Jones spent a large part of his address at the Puritan conference one year on the fight over the vestments and so on. We get that. But you have said that there is some deficiency in Puritan theology and you have not shown it. We get it that they were also a political party. But the framework was in place before they came to power. Why do you thing Bunyan spent 12 years in prison.

 

[JonC]

I'm not disagreeing that there was a huge political aspect to Puritan life in the 1600's. We all agree on that. Martyn Lloyd-Jones spent a large part of his address at the Puritan conference one year on the fight over the vestments and so on. We get that. But you have said that there is some deficiency in Puritan theology and you have not shown it. We get it that they were also a political party. But the framework was in place before they came to power. Why do you thing Bunyan spent 12 years in prison.

It goes beyond political.

I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this.

Puritan doctrine (their theology) taught that Puritans were God's elect charged with purifying the world. That was their major distinction.

Yes, the framework was Roman Catholic (as is much of Reformed theology). But they carried it over into their theology. Others did not.


Quakers didn't. Baptists didn't. Anabaptists didn't.

 

[DaveXR650]

We do not all know this because that is untrue.

Puritans also persecuted Anabaptists. Anabaptist believed that the Church and government were separate - NEVER to be combined.

Haven't you ever read about Munster, where the Anabaptists took control. Have you noticed the thriving diversity in Amish country? Yes, it is good that we have separated out the church from the state. I think that is a genuine area of progress that went wrong probably with Constantine. But stop acting like the Puritans were the only ones involved in this and that that is the only contribution they made. It won't fly. Luther didn't like Anabaptists or Jews. Neither did Calvin. For that matter Abe Lincoln never thought races could live together in peace. We are all products of our time and full of sin and error. You wouldn't last a week in a 1650 Puritan run town but they would probably hang you the same day they hung me. We will be judged just as harshly for things we tolerate and things we do if things are still going 3 hundred years from now.

 

[JonC]

Please remember also - we are not talking about neo-Puritanism (what you hold). We are talking about Puritanism.

 

[DaveXR650]

Puritan doctrine (their theology) taught that Puritans were God's elect charged with purifying the world. That was their major distinction.

No. It is not. When these modern reformed guys from Alistair Begg to John MacArthur read the Puritans they are NOT trying to get marching orders to purify the world and take over the government.

 

[JonC]

Haven't you ever read about Munster, where the Anabaptists took control. Have you noticed the thriving diversity in Amish country? Yes, it is good that we have separated out the church from the state. I think that is a genuine area of progress that went wrong probably with Constantine. But stop acting like the Puritans were the only ones involved in this and that that is the only contribution they made. It won't fly. Luther didn't like Anabaptists or Jews. Neither did Calvin. For that matter Abe Lincoln never thought races could live together in peace. We are all products of our time and full of sin and error. You wouldn't last a week in a 1650 Puritan run town but they would probably hang you the same day they hung me. We will be judged just as harshly for things we tolerate and things we do if things are still going 3 hundred years from now.

Yes, I have read of the Munster Anabaptists. They held a theology that was not actually Anabaptist theology (they were not pacifists, for example).

Our theology SHOULD be judged harshly in the future. We don't want our children to make the same mistakes.

 

[JonC]

No. It is not. When these modern reformed guys from Alistair Begg to John MacArthur read the Puritans they are NOT trying to get marching orders to purify the world and take over the government.

But that isn't the topic of the OP.

This thread is about Puritanism, NOT neo-Puritanism.

 

[DaveXR650]

Please remember also - we are not talking about neo-Puritanism (what you hold). We are talking about Puritanism.

No. The guys are reading the theology. They all know the political aspect. You complained about the theology. So come up with something that is not the politics or drop it. Do not relabel it for me and then redefine it in your terms. We are reading the actual writers - not about them.

 

[Van]

Reformed Baptists experienced more interest among many Baptists recently, but this occurred at a time when Reformed Theology itself was within a significant decline and experiencing movements from within to approach theology more biblically. .

Hard to find evidence to that trend toward enlightenment on our Baptist Board.

I have yet to met a Reformed Advocate who agrees that one or more doctrines of the TULIP are flawed.

 

[DaveXR650]

Yes, I have read of the Munster Anabaptists. They held a theology that was not actually Anabaptist theology (they were not pacifists, for example).

No. If I can't say there were excesses and errors in specific groups of Puritans you can't do it with the Anabaptists. I would say don't do it at all.

 

[DaveXR650]

Hard to find evidence to that trend toward enlightenment on our Baptist Board.

I have yet to met a Reformed Advocate who agrees that one or more doctrines of the TULIP are flawed.

I have, repeatedly. But I do admit that one of the advantages of having a theology completely made up by yourself is that you never get put in such a position.

 

[JonC]

No. The guys are reading the theology. They all know the political aspect. You complained about the theology. So come up with something that is not the politics or drop it. Do not relabel it for me and then redefine it in your terms. We are reading the actual writers - not about them.

You don't get it

It is not about politics but about how theology effects our lives.

The fundamental aspect of Puritan theology was that God had chosen them to purify the nation of heresy.

 

[JonC]

No. If I can't say there were excesses and errors in specific groups of Puritans you can't do it with the Anabaptists. I would say don't do it at all.

Sure I can. Anabaptist is a broad group. Puritans were not.

The Munster Anabaptists revised Anabaptist theology (they obviously got rid of pacifism and separation of Church and State). This is in the 1500's. They were labeled Anabaptist because they held to believers baptism.

BUT we are talking about the Anabaptists who existed in America.

Puritan Theology taught that it was the God given duty for Puritans to purge the world of Baptists, Quakers, and Baptist. It was their duty to bring the Church of England in a right theological standing before God. Their theology taught that they had entered into a covenant with God and this purification was part of that covenant.

 

[Van]

I have, repeatedly. But I do admit that one of the advantages of having a theology completely made up by yourself is that you never get put in such a position.

This post made me smile.

Did the poster say which points of the TULIP are flawed? Nope, so the "repeatedly" was not to be found in this post.

Did the poster imply I made up my views, as opposed to adopted the views of scholars such as Dr. Dan Wallace? And have I admitted that some of my views missed the mark when shown from scripture I was wrong? You bet.

On the other hand, those pushing published views cannot say those views are unbiblical, because they usually do not know how to study scripture and arrive at an understanding independently derived.

Returning to subject, Baptists come from Separatists. not Puritans. What are the Puritan doctrines of disrepute?

Baptists think congregational polity is biblical, not Presbyterian.
Baptist think it is important to separate State from Church.

 

[KenH]

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!

I love the movie "Cromwell" with Richard Harris playing the lead part. My favorite line is when he says, "The king is not England, and England is not the king!" Which I apply to our country with "The president is not the United States, and the United States is not the president!"

 

[DaveXR650]

Puritan Theology taught that it was the God given duty for Puritans to purge the world of Baptists, Quakers, and Baptist. It was their duty to bring the Church of England in a right theological standing before God. Their theology taught that they had entered into a covenant with God and this purification was part of that covenant.

Jon. That's just baloney. All these people on here from MacArthur to Begg, who many members read and like, from Spurgeon, Bonar, Ryle, Lloyd-Jones and all the rest, don't seem to understand the purpose and value of what they are reading until Jon comes along and straightens it all out. They were unable to discover the true design behind those guys.

 

[DaveXR650]

Sure I can. Anabaptist is a broad group. Puritans were not.

There were divergent views on the atonement, the doctrines of grace, how to handle the political issues of the day. No, as far as I am aware no group of Puritans ever burnt down a town, ran an armed revolt against the government, and then set up a kingdom that resembled David Koresh more than a church.

 

[DaveXR650]

Did the poster say which points of the TULIP are flawed? Nope, so the "repeatedly" was not to be found in this post.

Did the poster have to stop and completely change the subject to answer your of topic comments?