Puritanism

[KenH]

History is not subjective.

Yet it is subject to review and our understanding is influenced by the extent to which we comprehend it and our own presuppositions in viewing it. Just look at the vast difference in the understanding of what happened mere years ago in the normal flow of events that we actually lived through. Americans cannot even agree on a common set of facts. If people can't agree on recent items that they actually lived through, just imagine trying to do so on just the information that is still available from hundreds of years ago.

 

[DaveXR650]

Again, no answers, just more questions and generalities.
Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all. You deny this basic truth.

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!

 

[DaveXR650]

And don't bring Puritanism into your argument. I was discussing historical Puritans (the Anglican movement to reform England), not neo-Puritanism (modern Puritanism).

The Puritan movement is way more than that and if you want to limit it to that then you can but you won't be telling the story correctly.

 

[DaveXR650]

To be fair, that is exactly what many Calvinists teach (and several hold on this forum).

It is. But when I bring out a view that is different, but well supported, with the quotes from the original writers it is not a valid argument to say that you can't do that. This is especially true when I'm quoting Edwards, or Owen or Calvin himself. Could it be that maybe THEY are presenting Calvinism correctly? Or even if I'm completely wrong, wouldn't it be better to explore as to whether there is some common ground or at least some reason these highly esteemed theologians said what they did? Or point out where I am wrong about what they said?

 

[JonC]

Yet it is subject to review and our understanding is influenced by the extent to which we comprehend it and our own presuppositions in viewing it. Just look at the vast difference in the understanding of what happened mere years ago in the normal flow of events that we actually lived through. Americans cannot even agree on a common set of facts. If people can't agree on recent items that they actually lived through, just imagine trying to do so on just the information that is still available from hundreds of years ago.

True. But saying that Puritanism of the 16th and 17th century was an Anglican movement to purify England and that that Puritan Theology held that they were God's elect chosen to purify England and the colonies as the millennial Church is an objective historical fact.

@DaveXR650 confused my comments to be about neo-Puritanism (what contemporary theology values of historical Puritanism).

 

[JonC]

It is. But when I bring out a view that is different, but well supported, with the quotes from the original writers it is not a valid argument to say that you can't do that. This is especially true when I'm quoting Edwards, or Owen or Calvin himself. Could it be that maybe THEY are presenting Calvinism correctly? Or even if I'm completely wrong, wouldn't it be better to explore as to whether there is some common ground or at least some reason these highly esteemed theologians said what they did? Or point out where I am wrong about what they said?

It is better to discuss beliefs than labels.

Consider that many Calvinists consider Edwards a "moderate Calvinist" (hence Edwardian Calvinism), and that John Calvin never discussed the scope of the Atonement (that was an issue for the next generation).

So who presented Calvinism correctly? Was it Calvin, Edwards, or Owen (as they presented Calvinism differently)?

Calvinism began with John Calvin, but it was systematized by Beza. Edwards took a unique stand in terms of predestination. Owen is the closer to Calvinism as it has developed to be today.

 

[JonC]

The Puritan movement is way more than that and if you want to limit it to that then you can but you won't be telling the story correctly.

It is more than that, I agree. BUT it is ALSO that. Puritanism died out by 1740. What we have today are neo-Puritans extracting what Rey find of value in Puritan Theology.

 

[DaveXR650]

Yet it is subject to review and our understanding is influenced by the extent to which we comprehend it and our own presuppositions in viewing it. Just look at the vast difference in the understanding of what happened mere years ago in the normal flow of events that we actually lived through. Americans cannot even agree on a common set of facts. If people can't agree on recent items that they actually lived through, just imagine trying to do so on just the information that is still available from hundreds of years ago.

This is true and it points out why Jon is wrong. Just looking at the Puritan history, it is completely intertwined with the politics of about 100 years and involves continental Europe, I think 3 civil wars, the killing of a king and the near abolition of a monarchy, emigration to a completely new world. Puritans participated in all this in various ways, in different parties and had severe disagreements with each other as well as the other groups. The "Separatists" discussed early are not the same as the Separatists after the great ejection. Bunyan is claimed by a lot of Baptists as one of their own. There is some evidence he pastored at a Baptist church for a while. Roger Williams was actually a Puritan and did much of his work (which was wonderful work) to get civil government out of the church while he was still a Puritan, not a Baptist. And what do you do with the Levellers, the Diggers and these other groups? Were they Puritan? Did they come from Puritans? Some English historians say they were idiots and fanatics and some say they should get credit for planting the seeds of democracy in England. He has way oversimplified it.

 

[DaveXR650]

It is more than that, I agree. BUT it is ALSO that. Puritanism died out by 1740. What we have today are neo-Puritans extracting what Rey find of value in Puritan Theology.

No. They are not even neo Puritans. You can't BE a Puritan. You are the only one that is saying that. But what you glean from their lives and theology is worth looking at as a Baptist or whatever. I've read some of the late Pope Benedict's writing on the Trinity while he was Cardinal Ratzinger and it was useful. It doesn't make me a Roman Catholic or a neo-Roman Catholic.

 

[JonC]

No. They are not even neo Puritans. You can't BE a Puritan. You are the only one that is saying that. But what you glean from their lives and theology is worth looking at as a Baptist or whatever. I've read some of the late Pope Benedict's writing on the Trinity while he was Cardinal Ratzinger and it was useful. It doesn't make me a Roman Catholic or a neo-Roman Catholic.

I didn't say you can be a Puritan.

I said that there is historical Puritanism (a theology not held today) and neo-Puritanism (a theology based on historical Puritanism which is held today).

This is what Joel Beeke (president of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary) does with his book A Puritan Theology: Doctrines for Life (where he extracts teachings from Puritan Theology that he finds valuable to Reformed Theology).

I already said that the Puritans died out by 1740. They were a short lived sect within the Anglican Church.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650 ,

Of the following - the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, the New Covenant - which do you believe is the primary covenant?

 

[DaveXR650]

Consider that many Calvinists consider Edwards a "moderate Calvinist" (hence Edwardian Calvinism), and that John Calvin never discussed the scope of the Atonement (that was an issue for the next generation).

So who presented Calvinism correctly? Was it Calvin, Edwards, or Owen (as they presented Calvinism differently)?

Calvinism began with John Calvin, but it was systematized by Beza. Edwards took a unique stand in terms of predestination. Owen is the closer to Calvinism as it has developed to be today.

Exactly. And I get killed by the Calvinists on here when I mention that. Edwards is even accused by some of not having justification right. There is a big question as to whether Edwards or Calvin believed in a limited atonement as some of these guys do today.
But here's my question to you and Van. If I quote John Owen, a high Calvinist who wrote the definitive defense of penal substitutionary atonement and is considered the classic Puritan Calvinist, do any of you have a right to say oh no, the definition of Calvinism has been defined as TULIP by the Baptist Board and the internet "scholars" so you can only use that as a definition of Calvinism? Could it even be possible that you have the wrong view of Calvinism?

Not to mention the more moderate Calvinists like the Marrow Men, Robert Traill, and the later guys like Bonar, Ryle and Spurgeon. I guess they don't count? Well, they don't if you want a very narrow definition that you think you can successfully debate.

 

[JonC]

Exactly. And I get killed by the Calvinists on here when I mention that. Edwards is even accused by some of not having justification right. There is a big question as to whether Edwards or Calvin believed in a limited atonement as some of these guys do today.
But here's my question to you and Van. If I quote John Owen, a high Calvinist who wrote the definitive defense of penal substitutionary atonement and is considered the classic Puritan Calvinist, do any of you have a right to say oh no, the definition of Calvinism has been defined as TULIP by the Baptist Board and the internet "scholars" so you can only use that as a definition of Calvinism? Could it even be possible that you have the wrong view of Calvinism?

Not to mention the more moderate Calvinists like the Marrow Men, Robert Traill, and the later guys like Bonar, Ryle and Spurgeon. I guess they don't count? Well, they don't if you want a very narrow definition that you think you can successfully debate.

Yes, we do have that right. You may look to Owen as providing the definitive definition of Calvinism while I may look to Calvin. Or the Five Points, I would look to the Canons of Dort (the actual points defined).

Same with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. You may look to Owen but I could look to John Calvin as he developed the theory (and articulated it very well).

My point is that you may consider Owen the definitive defenses of those doctrines but others may not.

I have no issue with Owen's definitions, but I do not know that Owen is the universally accepted expert (but John Calvin is on Calvinism proper and the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, and the Canon of Dort is the actual "five points" (which were an answer to the five articles of the Remonstrance).

Bty - Of the following - the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, the New Covenant - which do you believe is the primary covenant?

 

[DaveXR650]

Of the following - the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, the New Covenant - which do you believe is the primary covenant?

I'm not being dogmatic here because I am not used to explaining things in these terms. To us, living now, the New Covenant is the only covenant that we directly are involved in. And like I said, most of us as Baptists are unfamiliar with that terminology although I don't see anything wrong with it.
As a teaching tool, the covenant of redemption is between the Trinity and so to us is mostly instructive in nature. If you are a strict Calvinist is lays a framework for a deterministic view of salvation. The covenant of works and the covenant of grace are the main overlaying framework of God's dealing with men as you read the whole Bible. I have found that studying the Old Testament in that framework (that an overlaying covenant of grace was in operation all along) seems to bring the Old Testament alive to me as a Christian in 2023. Of course it all culminates in the work of Christ but NCT to me anyway seems to devalue the Old Testament stories as having any relevance other than background and foundation. Like I said, I like Piper and know some folks who I think went to Clear Creek when this was being taught (NCT) and I'll ask them next time I see them but I know they are solid for sure. (I could be completely wrong on the definition of the covenant of redemption because all I know of it came from that great theologian called "the internet".

 

[DaveXR650]

My point is that you may consider Owen the definitive defenses of those doctrines but others may not.

I have no issue with Owen's definitions, but I do not know that Owen is the universally accepted expert (but John Calvin is on Calvinism proper and the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, and the Canon of Dort is the actual "five points" (which were an answer to the five articles of the Remonstrance).

They certainly don't have to but Owen had a lot more to do with the WCF, which is the confession still in use by a lot of reformed churches and from that it follows that the London Baptist Confession of Faith in it's versions is almost identical so I'm just saying that using Owen is just as valid as anyone else. I think you need to give a lot of grace to anyone trying to figure out exactly what someone who is dead the past several hundred years meant when you get into the fine points of theology. I am amazed sometimes at how much is still the same.

 

[JonC]

I'm not being dogmatic here because I am not used to explaining things in these terms. To us, living now, the New Covenant is the only covenant that we directly are involved in. And like I said, most of us as Baptists are unfamiliar with that terminology although I don't see anything wrong with it.
As a teaching tool, the covenant of redemption is between the Trinity and so to us is mostly instructive in nature. If you are a strict Calvinist is lays a framework for a deterministic view of salvation. The covenant of works and the covenant of grace are the main overlaying framework of God's dealing with men as you read the whole Bible. I have found that studying the Old Testament in that framework (that an overlaying covenant of grace was in operation all along) seems to bring the Old Testament alive to me as a Christian in 2023. Of course it all culminates in the work of Christ but NCT to me anyway seems to devalue the Old Testament stories as having any relevance other than background and foundation. Like I said, I like Piper and know some folks who I think went to Clear Creek when this was being taught (NCT) and I'll ask them next time I see them but I know they are solid for sure. (I could be completely wrong on the definition of the covenant of redemption because all I know of it came from that great theologian called "the internet".

I think personal experiences comes into play. I am a traditional Baptist so the New Covenant is something I have always assumed to be the greater covenant (even before I read that in Scripture).

I have found the opposite to be true in terms of CT and NCT.

NCT and CT both treat the Old Testament seriously. But they do so differently. Trading Scripture as a narrative - Adam's sin, God's covenant with Noah, then Abraham, then with Israel (the "Old Covenant'), then with David (kingship) and those progressing to the Promise revealed in the New Covenant makes the Old Testament more alive to me than imposing a system into Scripture could.

Now, if you were to say that Covenant Theology reinforces ideas specific to Reformed Theology then I would agree. But I believe that detracts from Scripture itself.

I think you misunderstood some of NCT. It does not devalue the Old Testament at all (NCT churches I've attended seen to preach and teach more from the Old Testament than the New Testament....I'm not sure why).

And a major point of NCT is that the Old Covenant is not the foundation for the New Testament but it's the other way around. The Old Testament was a shadow of what was to come - it looked to the Promise fulfilled with the New Covenant.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the three primary "covenants" in CT could be wrong? Covenant Theology is a relatively new idea (in terms of Christianity) and those three "covenants" are not actually in the Bible. If men made a mistake then you are laying a false framework over Scripture which could mean you are missing a lot of the depth that is in the biblical narrative.

 

[JonC]

They certainly don't have to but Owen had a lot more to do with the WCF, which is the confession still in use by a lot of reformed churches and from that it follows that the London Baptist Confession of Faith in it's versions is almost identical so I'm just saying that using Owen is just as valid as anyone else. I think you need to give a lot of grace to anyone trying to figure out exactly what someone who is dead the past several hundred years meant when you get into the fine points of theology. I am amazed sometimes at how much is still the same.

It is interesting to consider.

You know, Reformed Baptists have traditionally rejected the WCF. Traditionally Presbyterians held CT while Reformed Baptists held NCT (under PC). But for a long time now they have been gravitating towards Presbyterian doctrine.

I wonder if Reformed Baptists make more of a kinship than really existed centuries ago.

I think we all may, to a degree. We even typically read Scripture as if "they" were like "us" (in reality, they didn't even hold a Western worldview).

 

[DaveXR650]

I wonder if Reformed Baptists make more of a kinship than really existed centuries ago.

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I halfway agree. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is, IMHO, a "trojan horse" for Calvinism.

I say this because the five points of Calvinism are interdependent. Penal Substitution Theory is the foundation for Calvinism (and the logic of Penal Substitution Theory leads to Calvinism by way of Limited Atonement).

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

 

[JonC]

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.

A few points (maybe nit picking, but you may find it interesting).

John Calvin was never a Catholic priest. He studied philosophy and was a humanist lawyer.

And Arminianism existed within orthodox Calvinism until 1619 (James Arminius was a Calvinist teacher, and died before Arminianism was deemed unorthodox). Arminianism came about almost a century after Calvinism.

Calvinism is based more on Theodore Beza's work with Calvin's Institutes. (For example, Calvin did not place salvation under the doctrine of divine sovereignty...that was Beza).