Puritanism

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Oh, I wouldn't want to be in the average Reformed Baptist worship service and have John Owen walk in. Most Reformed Baptist churches are either the result of a new startup, from scratch or of a changeover when an assistant pastor assumes responsibilities after an old guy retires. Most of the members are there because they either got mad at their old church or thought at least they could do better somewhere else. Luther and Calvin were both priests and stayed in the Catholic church for a long time after questioning some teachings. The Puritans seemed to be in a constant state of turmoil and that right there may be the thing we inherited from the Puritans. I think the whole YRR movement is splitting over issues of wokeness and I do think it remains to be seen whether Calvinism as a theological system is able to stand on it's own, merely on the merits of it's arguments, without a background framework of political power structure. You mentioned that Puritanism didn't really last long. That's true, but Calvinism itself quickly came under attack from the Arminians and from Baxter and the neonomians. And Baxter was just reacting to the licentious behavior he saw prevailing amongst so called Christians. And on it goes.

Calvin was a lawyer, not a priest.

 

[JonC]

Question, why do you say the atonement in Doctrines of Grace is limited?

I'm speaking of the doctrine of Limited Atonement (that Christ's death was purposed as an atonement for the sins of only some people). Calvinism developed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, and this would mean Christ suffered only for the sins of some, paying the sin debt of some.

 

[DaveXR650]

Calvin was a lawyer, not a priest.

I stand corrected. I guess I still like him. I don't know!

 

[JonC]

I stand corrected. I guess I still like him. I don't know!

Nobody likes lawyers....except other lawyers.

Knowing Calvin studied philosophy and was a humanist lawyer helps understand why he framed redemption as he did.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I stand corrected. I guess I still like him. I don't know!

Dave, I’m only giving correction because Calvin never went the priestly route that Luther did… and neither payed the ultimate price that Huss did. FYI, I like all of these guys including MLJ, Pink, Sinclair Ferguson, George Whitfield, and New Jersey’s own Albert Martin.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'm speaking of the doctrine of Limited Atonement (that Christ's death was purposed as an atonement for the sins of only some people). Calvinism developed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, and this would mean Christ suffered only for the sins of some, paying the sin debt of some.

Well if God designed an atonement for everyone, wouldn’t that make that a universal atonement… and so, does everyone go to heaven… certainly not! In reality then, wouldn’t the term “Limited Atonement” be better served to address the Universalists doctrine?

My understanding when addressing DOG/Tulip doctrine is that “A Particular Atonement” more accurately represents their Calvinist beliefs.

 

[JonC]

Well if God designed an atonement for everyone, wouldn’t that make that a universal atonement… and so, does everyone go to heaven… certainly not! In reality then, wouldn’t the term “Limited Atonement” be better served to address the Universalists doctrine?

My understanding when addressing DOG/Tulip doctrine is that “A Particular Atonement” more accurately represents their Calvinist beliefs.

Under Calvinism, if Christ died for everybody (the early church said "the whole human family") then yes, that would be universal salvation. BUT that depends on the Calvinistic understanding of Atonement (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement) being correct

If the classic view of Atonement is correct (and if just about ANY view other than the Calvinist view is correct) then Christ dying for the "human family" does not equal universal salvation.

Particular Atonement is accurate for Calvinistic views. It is also the most logical for anybody holding to Calvinistic atonement (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement).

I'm not a Calvinist any more because I reject the Calvinistic theory of Atonement. This means I still affirm passages Calvinists use to support TULIP, but I don't view those passages through Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[DaveXR650]

FYI, I like all of these guys including MLJ, Pink, Sinclair Ferguson, George Whitfield, and New Jersey’s own Albert Martin.

I'm glad you do. Seriously. But this thread which I thought was going to be some light hearted fun (at the Puritan lack of fun) somehow turned into a real slam on them. MLJ, Sinclair Ferguson, and George Whitfield loved the Puritans.

Charles Spurgeon, sermon "Fire! Fire! Fire!":

"Puritan liberty of conscience meant, “The right and liberty to think as they did, but no toleration to those who differed.” The Puritans of New England as soon as ever a Baptist made his appearance among them, persecuted him....No sooner was there a Baptist, than he was hunted up, and brought before his own Christian brethren! Mark you, he was brought up for fine, for imprisonment,confiscation, and banishment"

Fortunately, if you have time, the sermon by Spurgeon is still up in the Spurgeon Archive. It's sermon 393, written in 1861. You would get the impression that it was about the true abusive nature of Puritanism unless you already knew Spurgeon's views of the Puritans. In that case you might go read it. And you will find that it is about suffering and staying strong even in bad times. In Spurgeon's way, and one of the reasons people respect him, he didn't overlook his own camp when pointing out persecution. But there is far more in that sermon than Puritan persecution, including the persecution they received in England and Bunyan specifically is mentioned by name. That sermon has far more praise for Puritans than criticism and it could be misleading to pull one quote out of it.

It is worth reading just to see how broad minded Spurgeon was as he praises Puritans, Quakers, Baptists and Anabaptists, anyone who actually follows and loves Christ. Spurgeon had used the story of the Baptists in New England to show what persecution does. By 1861 the Baptists had become the largest group in America.

 

[37818]

If it has not been already mentioned in this thread, Roger Williams was a Purtian minister turned Baptist.
Roger Williams - Wikipedia

 

[JonC]

I'm glad you do. Seriously. But this thread which I thought was going to be some light hearted fun (at the Puritan lack of fun) somehow turned into a real slam on them. MLJ, Sinclair Ferguson, and George Whitfield loved the Puritans.

It did, and I didn't intend it to dwell on the negative aspects of the Puritans. I hoped to discuss the group from a historical perspective, to include reasons they were problematic but also what we can learn from them. I have read a lot of Owen (and Beeke).

But I was not willing to deny history in order to simply praise the group. I can't treat history like that. It's dangerous.

So we never got past the problems with Puritans in order to create a fuller picture because some kept denying those issues existed.


Another preacher I enjoy is A.W. Tozier. He lived his life for the gospel. But an honest account of his life would also question whether he took proper care of his family.

 

[JonC]

If it has not been already mentioned in this thread, Roger Williams was a Purtian minister turned Baptist.
Roger Williams - Wikipedia

Yep. He ended up rejecting Puritan Theology over infant baptism, obedience to the Church of England, and the union of Church and State.

The Puritans banished him and had to flee the state to escape prosecution.

 

[Van]

Well, for one thing, I don't deny that basic truth. I tell anyone who will listen that Christ died for them. Why do you think most of the attacks on me come from Calvinists and Primitive Baptists? I'm just explaining to you that you make a mistake when you do the way you do like above. You have in your mind the view that Calvinism can't be true because of the scenario that you have set up. I show you how it can, specifically, and your only answer is that I speak in generalities. What is more specific than the fact the the high Calvinists like Owen taught that you can come to Christ and if you do you will be saved. He said that and I can prove it so you are not free to make up a scenario that is different and then argue against what you made up. Come on!

If you think you can get way with ambiguous deflections, you have another think coming.
Your doctrine says only the elect will listen, so to tell those who will listen, that Christ died for them is a dodge.
I make no mistake when I present the TULIP decoded, rather than encoded.
I did not "set up" a scenario present in published doctrines.
You do state generalities as if they applied. Obfuscation on display.
I never mentioned "Owen" or "high Calvinists" nor do I make up misrepresentations.

That Sir, is your bag.

In summary here is the "decoded" TULIP.
T = total spiritual inability, no capacity to seek God or trust in Christ.
U = Unconditional Election, God chose individuals before creation not based on any of their characteristics.
L = Limited Atonement, Christ provides salvation only for supposedly previously chosen elect individuals.
I = Irresistible Grace, God alters and enables the elect to seek God and trust in Christ.
P= Once saved, always saved.

God's word says the lost seek God.
God's word says everyone believing into Him shall not perish, but have eternal life, thus salvation is conditional.
God's word says Christ became the means of reconciliation for the whole world, all of humanity.
God's word says God credits our faith, rather than instilling righteous faith.
God's word says once saved, always saved, for we shall never perish.

 

[DaveXR650]

It did, and I didn't intend it to dwell on the negative aspects of the Puritans. I hoped to discuss the group from a historical perspective, to include reasons they were problematic but also what we can learn from them. I have read a lot of Owen (and Beeke).

The one thing I think you can learn from them is that anytime you go against what Jesus said in that "My kingdom is not of this world" and try to make if of this world a couple of things happen. One is that you find that the methods of earthly power will not work to enforce spiritual life and health in people. Secondly, humans recognize universally the advantages of power and inevitably when a church gets real political power the more cunning and those with dominate personalities rise to the top and you will end up with corrupt, even evil leadership. This happened with the Catholic church and it happens with all groups that mesh civil and religious authority too much. From the cruel shunning of some Amish and Mennonite groups to the Puritans, it even happens when some Christian leader buys a tract of land and thinks he's going to build a "Christian" community. It will always end in failure.

We can't act smug either in our enlightened days. We have not figured out how to keep our congregations from being corrupted yet always be inviting of those who might become believers. We mess up all the time in "church discipline". Should we even have such a thing? How do we get along with other denominations. When do you break fellowship? So far we haven't starting hurting each other but sometimes I wonder if we are really more enlightened or just less direct.

 

[JonC]

The one thing I think you can learn from them is that anytime you go against what Jesus said in that "My kingdom is not of this world" and try to make if of this world a couple of things happen. One is that you find that the methods of earthly power will not work to enforce spiritual life and health in people. Secondly, humans recognize universally the advantages of power and inevitably when a church gets real political power the more cunning and those with dominate personalities rise to the top and you will end up with corrupt, even evil leadership. This happened with the Catholic church and it happens with all groups that mesh civil and religious authority too much. From the cruel shunning of some Amish and Mennonite groups to the Puritans, it even happens when some Christian leader buys a tract of land and thinks he's going to build a "Christian" community. It will always end in failure.

We can't act smug either in our enlightened days. We have not figured out how to keep our congregations from being corrupted yet always be inviting of those who might become believers. We mess up all the time in "church discipline". Should we even have such a thing? How do we get along with other denominations. When do you break fellowship? So far we haven't starting hurting each other but sometimes I wonder if we are really more enlightened or just less direct.

I have found reading the Puritans is very much like reading early Jewish (and even post-WW2 Jewish) writings. While they shared similar problems with their theology, they had a keen sense of morality and passion for the holiness of God. We can learn from them.

 

[DaveXR650]

If you think you can get way with ambiguous deflections, you have another think coming.
Your doctrine says only the elect will listen, so to tell those who will listen, that Christ died for them is a dodge.
I make no mistake when I present the TULIP decoded, rather than encoded.
I did not "set up" a scenario present the published doctrines.
You does state generalities as if they applied. Obfuscation on display.
I never mentioned "Owen" or "high Calvinists" nor do I make up misrepresentations.

Of course I can get away with it. Calvin, Owen, Bonar, Spurgeon, Ryle and everybody else gets away with it. If you can't discuss what people really are saying fine. Maybe you aren't up to it. But stop trying to redefine what someone else HAS to believe in your mind and then refuting that. If you want to disagree or ask why I believe what I believe the we can talk. But YOU do not define what my "bag" is. What is the matter with you? Why don't you go off and start your own thread where you brilliantly destroy the truth of your own "decoded" T.U.L.I.P. But please put me on ignore first.

 

[JonC]

But YOU do not define what my "bag" is.

I keep picturing Austin Powers....

 

[Van]

Just a quick not on "Roger Williams.

He was not banned because he rejected infant baptism. He taught the native peoples should be treated justly and not with deception, such as worthless exchange for their land. He pushed for the separation of church and state.

Williams' defense of the Native Americans, his accusations that Puritans had reproduced the "evils" of the Anglican Church, and his insistence that England pay the Native Americans for their land all put him at the center of many political debates during his life. He was considered an important historical figure of religious liberty at the time of American independence, and he was a key influence on the thinking of the Founding Fathers.​

 

[Van]

Of course I can get away with it. Calvin, Owen, Bonar, Spurgeon, Ryle and everybody else gets away with it. If you can't discuss what people really are saying fine. Maybe you aren't up to it. But stop trying to redefine what someone else HAS to believe in your mind and then refuting that. If you want to disagree or ask why I believe what I believe the we can talk. But YOU do not define what my "bag" is. What is the matter with you? Why don't you go off and start your own thread where you brilliantly destroy the truth of your own "decoded" T.U.L.I.P. But please put me on ignore first.

Another total deflection, addressing me and not the TULIP. This is all they have, folks, falsehoods defended with falsehoods.

In summary here is the "decoded" TULIP.
T = total spiritual inability, no capacity to seek God or trust in Christ.
U = Unconditional Election, God chose individuals before creation not based on any of their characteristics.
L = Limited Atonement, Christ provides salvation only for supposedly previously chosen elect individuals.
I = Irresistible Grace, God alters and enables the elect to seek God and trust in Christ.
P= Once saved, always saved.

God's word says the lost seek God.
God's word says everyone believing into Him shall not perish, but have eternal life, thus salvation is conditional.
God's word says Christ became the means of reconciliation for the whole world, all of humanity.
God's word says God credits our faith, rather than instilling righteous faith.
God's word says once saved, always saved, for we shall never perish.

 

[DaveXR650]

I have found reading the Puritans is very much like reading early Jewish (and even post-WW2 Jewish) writings. While they shared similar problems with their theology, they had a keen sense of morality and passion for the holiness of God. We can learn from them.

Well, I think that there were a lot of things about the first generation Pilgrims and Puritan groups in New England that would make it quite possible to end up with excesses that they may have gotten from Old Testament stories of the Israelites. I'm just guessing but you have a group of people in a wilderness they have no idea how to survive in and a belief that they are especially chosen and will be kept as long as they stay true. When half of you are in a state of starvation and there is a massive dark continent before you and you don't have so much as a flashlight I can see where the discovery of witchcraft going on could cause a violent reaction. Same with someone who causes division in you church and then has a baby stillborn that word goes around it was a "monster". I'm not excusing them but just saying that then you read where Achan's whole family needed to be killed, with the belief and community system they had, along with the stress they were under - well, I like to think I would have been above it and would have tried to stop it, but I honestly don't know.

 

[DaveXR650]

I keep picturing Austin Powers....

Yeah, baby.