Puritanism

[JonC]

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.

Again, you miss the point of this thread.

It is not looking at what can be gained from Puritan writings but Puritanism (not neo-Puritanism).

Spurgeon was not a Puritan. MacArthur is not a Puritan. Lloyd-Jones and Begg....not Puritans.

The Puritans sought to establish a comprehensive church that would have purified the nation of "heresies". There are no Puritans after 1740.

Puritans viewed themselves as the recipients of God's prophecies to Israel. They inherited New Jerusalem and were charged with creating the "new Millennium' in England (and the English colonies) by purifying the Church of England. They viewed America as "new Zion's. (Mather....a Puritan theologian).

What you are doing is exactly the reason I started a thread to look at history. You are rewriting history.

 

[JonC]

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.

Not really within Anabaptist Theology. You are simply using the Roman Catholic view that any group holding to believers baptism are "Anabaptists". Anabaptist Theology does include several groups, but the theology itself is fairly concise.

For example, there are Baptists who baptize infants (one in TX comes to mind). But infant baptism is not Baptist theology.

 

[JonC]

The issue here is history.

Too often Christians look back to groups and try to find an identity in those groups rather than in Christ. They ignore history and hold to a fictional ideal of past groups. This is common in neo-movements.

I'm not saying "don't read Puritan writings". I'm saying eat the meat but spit out the bones. If you done realize there are bones you will choke and it will kill your spiritual life and witness.

This is what happened with the Puritans. Their theology of coventalism and a new Zion proved false. They were not God's elect chosen to purify England and the colonies in order to create a pure millennial Church. And Puritanism quickly died out.

 

[DaveXR650]

I'm not saying "don't read Puritan writings". I'm saying eat the meat but spit out the bones. If you done realize there are bones you will choke and it will kill your spiritual life and witness.

Well. I'll ask again. Maybe you could give an example of these "bones". Owen talks a little, in his arguments about Arminianism about the possible problems it could cause in society. Baxter complained about the antinomianism of the soldiers he served with. Bunyan spent 12 years in prison for preaching without permission so maybe he learned from someone else. Did Bunyan advocate the same tactics? I know there was warfare and political intrigue and plots at high levels but that isn't new. And it isn't unique to try to motivate your troops to think God is on your side. But you have tried to make a case that this is what the Puritans were all about. I need to see the teachings.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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!"

Harris was a very passionate & intense actor in that movie. I liked the portion in the church, who did this, who did this… then he throws a candle stick at a Roman Catholic style of alter. Also Alec Guinness was of interest for his portrait of a particularly effeminate and weaselly King Charles. Makes you root for the time Cromwell decides to execute the pathetic excuse for a monarch. In all, I enjoyed the movie.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The issue here is history.

Too often Christians look back to groups and try to find an identity in those groups rather than in Christ. They ignore history and hold to a fictional ideal of past groups. This is common in neo-movements.

I'm not saying "don't read Puritan writings". I'm saying eat the meat but spit out the bones. If you done realize there are bones you will choke and it will kill your spiritual life and witness.

This is what happened with the Puritans. Their theology of coventalism and a new Zion proved false. They were not God's elect chosen to purify England and the colonies in order to create a pure millennial Church. And Puritanism quickly died out.

Yay!

 

[KenH]

Harris was a very passionate & intense actor in that movie. I liked the portion in the church, who did this, who did this… then he throws a candle stick at a Roman Catholic style of alter. Also Alec Guinness was of interest for his portrait of a particularly effeminate and weaselly King Charles. Makes you root for the time Cromwell decides to execute the pathetic excuse for a monarch. In all, I enjoyed the movie.

Yeah, I think Alec Guinness was fantastic as the antagonist. Even though at the end Cromwell ended up as an authoritarian, the rest of the movie was instrumental in the development of my political philosophy as a minarchist.

 

[JonC]

Well. I'll ask again. Maybe you could give an example of these "bones". Owen talks a little, in his arguments about Arminianism about the possible problems it could cause in society. Baxter complained about the antinomianism of the soldiers he served with. Bunyan spent 12 years in prison for preaching without permission so maybe he learned from someone else. Did Bunyan advocate the same tactics? I know there was warfare and political intrigue and plots at high levels but that isn't new. And it isn't unique to try to motivate your troops to think God is on your side. But you have tried to make a case that this is what the Puritans were all about. I need to see the teachings.

I am not making a case that politics were what Puritans were all about.

Please take a moment to read what I wrote and then reply.

There are many good things in Puritan theology. There are in their enemies as well (Presbyterians, Quakers, Anabaptists, Baptists).

I am not sure that you even understand the difference between the Nonconformist sects. You are able, but I don't think you care to make the effort.

Episcopalians were members of the Church of England.

Puritans were members of the Church of England who wanted to purify the Church. Due to their eschatology, this meant England and it's colonies.

Presbyterians were English (and Scottish) dissenters.

This is why the theology of John Knox and John Calvin is different from the theology of Cotton Mather and John Owen.

They held to similar ideas, but their purpose was different. NOT politics but how they understood themselves within a theological context.


When looking at history we have to do so with honesty. We have to remain objective.

If you hold to historical Puritan Theology then you need to answer exactly why you view the king of England as the head of the Church. How do you justify England and the Americas as the "New Zion"? What gives you the authority to punish Baptists for not baptizing infants?

My point is you are ignoring history and creating a myth in order to identify with a sect of Christians who have not existed for over three and a half centuries.

Why do that when you have the Bible? You have Christ. Identify with Him. Be not "of Paul" or "of Apollos". Be of God.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yeah, I think Alec Guinness was fantastic as the antagonist. Even though at the end Cromwell ended up as an authoritarian, the rest of the movie was instrumental in the development of my political philosophy as a minarchist.

However the movie is not historically accurate, especially the battles… of course budgets played allot to limit the scope. If you’ve watched the NAPOLIAN Film with Rod Stiger & Christopher Plummer you see a bigger budget with historical accuracy being the goal of the film. I liked them both however.

 

[DaveXR650]

If you hold to historical Puritan Theology then you need to answer exactly why you view the king of England as the head of the Church. How do you justify England and the Americas as the "New Zion"? What gives you the authority to punish Baptists for not baptizing infants?

My point is you are ignoring history and creating a myth in order to identify with a sect of Christians who have not existed for over three and a half centuries.

Why do that when you have the Bible? You have Christ. Identify with Him. Be not "of Paul" or "of Apollos". Be of God.

This is what you tend to do. You reset what someone else's position and then refute that. I said exactly what two things I valued the Puritans for in post #8. Here it is:

We all have to be aware that we are influenced by things that came before us. As you get older you are able to actually see some of this in operation. Two areas that Puritan teaching has been of big help to Baptists are these. One. They put a premium on looking at every passage of scripture and trying to actually apply it to their lives. Theologians call it experiential or experimental theology. They viewed life after you were saved as a pilgrimage and never rested or abused the idea that you were justified and thus "safe". Christianity was something to be lived. Two. They believed that the Holy Spirit was instrumental in any chance a person would come to Christ. The Baptists had drifted into semi-Pelagianism and some were publicly saying that "you give me 30 minutes with anyone and I can get them saved". "Soul winning" had become a sales presentation with aggressive tactics. For me, those things were it.

"For me, those two things were it" means in plain language that those two things were it. Not that I view the King of England as the head of the Church, or that America is the New Zion. And I haven't punished any Baptists for not baptizing infants since I am one. As for ignoring history, while I don't claim to be an expert, the history is more complicated than you make it out to be. The group we call Puritans went through a lot of division and forming and reforming alliances. The groups that were involved in the crimes in America were part of the earlier group from Holland and were still committed to the idea of the state being directly involved in church discipline. There were later groups of Puritans and the groups that they split into that were for complete separation of church and state. If anyone is really interested in learning about this they can start by listening to Lloyd-Jones's talk on this very subject. He of course speaks highly of Cromwell and Roger Williams and doesn't at all sugar coat what happened in the New England colonies. Of course you wouldn't expect that from someone who was as the very center of the Puritan resurgence and helped organize the Puritan conferences from the late 50's till the early 70's, especially if you went by what you see on this thread.
Church and The State (3) - a sermon from Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones

 

[JonC]

This is what you tend to do. You reset what someone else's position and then refute that. I said exactly what two things I valued the Puritans for in post #8. Here it is:

"For me, those two things were it" means in plain language that those two things were it. Not that I view the King of England as the head of the Church, or that America is the New Zion. And I haven't punished any Baptists for not baptizing infants since I am one. As for ignoring history, while I don't claim to be an expert, the history is more complicated than you make it out to be. The group we call Puritans went through a lot of division and forming and reforming alliances. The groups that were involved in the crimes in America were part of the earlier group from Holland and were still committed to the idea of the state being directly involved in church discipline. There were later groups of Puritans and the groups that they split into that were for complete separation of church and state. If anyone is really interested in learning about this they can start by listening to Lloyd-Jones's talk on this very subject. He of course speaks highly of Cromwell and Roger Williams and doesn't at all sugar coat what happened in the New England colonies. Of course you wouldn't expect that from someone who was as the very center of the Puritan resurgence and helped organize the Puritan conferences from the late 50's till the early 70's, especially if you went by what you see on this thread.
Church and The State (3) - a sermon from Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones

You are posting as if I were arguing against the theology of neo-Puritan theology of Joel Beeke. I am not.

I am simply talking about the historic sect of Anglicans called the "Puritans". This was a short lived movement within the Church of England. They ceased to exist by 1740.

What I see is you arguing as if historical Puritan Theology is the same as neo-Puritanism. It is not. If you believe otherwise then I suggest you study that theology. If you know Puritan Theology is not the same as neo-Puritanism (or Reformed Puritanism) then I have to wonder why you are posting off topic.

AGAIN (hopefully for the last time) - there is a difference between Puritanism and neo-Puritanism. There are no Puritans today as Puritanism died out over three centuries ago.

neo-Puritanism looks to revive certain aspects they find valuable within Puritanism. They keep some of its doctrines but not the whole thing.

This thread is about Puritanism (the Anglican movement that started in England, moved to the Colonies, and died out by 1740).

 

[JonC]

This is what you tend to do. You reset what someone else's position and then refute that.

Note - it is not about resisting what others have said but about objective history.

I have presented facts. What other men extract from any particular group is fine with me. But history is history.

You are white washing history. That is never a good idea.

Eat the meat, but spit out the bones.

 

[DaveXR650]

You are posting as if I were arguing against the theology of neo-Puritan theology of Joel Beeke. I am not.

Beeke is not doing some kind of new Puritan theology. He's reading the actual writers of the stuff. Calling this neo-Puritan is meaningless and it confuses people because everyone is using that to describe the new wokesters in charge of popular culture.

 

[JonC]

Beeke is not doing some kind of new Puritan theology. He's reading the actual writers of the stuff. Calling this neo-Puritan is meaningless and it confuses people because everyone is using that to describe the new wokesters in charge of popular culture.

Beeke is doing a new form of Puritan Theology.

Calling neo-Puritanism "Puritanism" is confusing.

Not, mind you, when talking about contemporary theology. But when discussing history it is inaccurate. Puritans were first and foremost Anglicans. Puritan theology is a form of Anglican theology (to include Anglican eschatology, infant baptism, and such). Puritan theology differed from Anglicanism in that they sought to rid the Church of England of RCC influences.

The reason calling neo-Puritanism "Puritan theology" when discussing history is the fact that nobody today holds to historic Puritan theology.

 

[KenH]

However the movie is not historically accurate, especially the battles… of course budgets played allot to limit the scope. If you’ve watched the NAPOLIAN Film with Rod Stiger & Christopher Plummer you see a bigger budget with historical accuracy being the goal of the film. I liked them both however.

Oh, I know that it is not historically accurate, just as John Wayne's "The Alamo" is not but it has such great acting, as does "Cromwell". I also like the 2003 film, "To Kill a King". It is more from the vantage point of Thomas Fairfax.

 

[KenH]

If you’ve watched the NAPOLIAN Film with Rod Stiger & Christopher Plummer

Are you talking about the 1970 film, "Waterloo"? If so, no, I have not seen it.

 

[JonC]

Oh, I know that it is not historically accurate, just as John Wayne's "The Alamo" is not but it has such great acting, as does "Cromwell". I also like the 2003 film, "To Kill a King". It is more from the vantage point of Thomas Fairfax.

What???!!!! John Wayne's The Alamo not accurate!

 

[tyndale1946]

What???!!!! John Wayne's The Alamo not accurate!

Ah get over it... PILGRIM!... Brother Glen

 

[kyredneck]

Ah get over it... PILGRIM!... Brother Glen

...Pilgrims were Puritans...

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Are you talking about the 1970 film, "Waterloo"? If so, no, I have not seen it.

Yes