Featured The Puritians

THe article is factually wrong in that Barrow and Greenwood (and John Penry) were executed in the reign of Elizabeth I. It is poor on some other things as well. I'll write some more when I get time.

 

We have a Congregational church in NJ that was at the brink of closing until a guy from the neighborhood stepped in to function like a minister. He lasted about 4 years but his background was RC so it just wasn’t working. The history of the place however is interesting. Allot of the Puritans from Connecticut and Long Island moved to NJ and started the church and they are the oldest Congregational church in the state.

Where they are going is a crapshoot. Probably down the liberal shoot.

 

Our Church loves the Puritans. We go through a lot of Puritan study books in our small groups. We adhere to the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which is a Baptist version of the Savoy Declaration which Puritans largely adhered to.

What I know about them is they took their faith very seriously, and were Post-Millennial Theonomists and Paedobaptists. A lot of modern Christians think they're "legalists" because they largely follow what God's Word says and didn't try to fit it into their modern times.

1. They did not find slavery sinful
2. They actually believed women were to be silent in Church, as it the Apostle Paul says.
3. They believed men were heads of households and had spiritual authority and responsibility for their family.
4. They believed the Sabbath was still applicable and treated the Lord's Day as the Lord's Day.
5. They took Biblical education of their children seriously
6. They fenced the Lord's Supper table
7. Strong view of Church Membership and Church Member Responsibility - I.E affirming doctrine
8. Emphasis on perseverance

 

Closed or restricted communion,
Communion provided only to those members in good standing

Rob

 

It means that the Pastors/Elders make it plain to any unbelievers visiting the congregation that unbelievers who eat and drink at the Lord's Supper will suffer severe consequences and be guilty of the Lord's death. In addition members must be in good standing, and those in unrepentant sin are not allowed to partake in the Lord's Supper. In our specific Church the table is open to all believers regardless of membership status, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist while being fenced from unbelievers for their own good, and fenced from members that are believers, but are in unrepentant sin.

We had a situation in our Church recently where there was an unsaved, but regular visitor at the Church. The visitor had 0 knowledge of the gospel, yet was partaking in the Lord's Supper. One of our Elders spoke to her and told her that unless she believes and is born-again, and has faith in Christ Jesus she cannot partake of the table.

My Church is more fenced than most nowadays, but is far less fenced that the Puritans were.

John Piper has a good article on it here:
What Happens to Non-Christians Who Take the Lord’s Supper?

 

Correct. I would just add that in my specific Church's case the members of my Church are "fenced" as the Elders are involved in their lives. Members must be in good standing. Members in unrepentant sin cannot partake in the Lord's Supper and the Elders have and do enforce that.

On the other hand born-again visitors are fenced only by a profession of faith with the assumption that they are being truthful and are not currently in sin, nor under discipline by their home church.

 

The Primitive Baptist Church I grew in was the same, restricted to members and visiting member of other sister churches who are also Primitive Baptist in good standing... Brother Glen

 

I don't know if this shows that Puritanism in American was not as strict as we think it was or if it shows that it quickly fell apart but Jonathan Edwards wrote about issues he had with members wanting to take communion who did not even profess faith. Also there were troubles with non professing members demanding their children be baptized. The whole Puritan era didn't really seem to last that long in Europe or America. This is just my own opinion but while it might have worked for helping family groups survive in the 1600's in America for those who were here, by the mid 1700's it just didn't seem to work. It might have worked if Puritan groups had moved beyond the frontier as a group but I don't think they did unless you have other information.

In Europe the Puritan Calvinism was being eroded by the time Owen did a lot of his writing. The Church of England seemed to be a lot like the Catholic church in that they emphasized doing the forms of worship over strict personal standards. I'm not so sure you couldn't argue that Puritanism really doesn't work long term and I say that as a huge fan of their theology. I have noticed in the Reformed Baptist Churches I'm familiar with there is a marked decrease in interest in them in the past 10 years.

 

Yes, I skimmed the start of the article and it seemed to reflect my vague understanding. I agree the puritans wanted to purify the Church of England to remove RCC influence and enhance Reformed influence. On the other hand, the Separatists thought the Church of England was too far gone, and they needed to separate from that malignancy and start afresh. These separatists are the founding fathers of our independent Baptist movement.

 

Of course. If someone would deny that, then they don't know history and their pedigree.

 

Yes. Most Baptists claim Puritan John Bunyan as one of our own.

 

Yup. I was at a church that taught that. The first I heard that Baptists were Protestants was from article in a National Geographic Magazine on the Reformation. To be called a Protestant was a huge insult, almost as bad as being called JW's when you showed up at someone's door!

 

Well that's silly. Were you very young when you heard that? Hopefully you don't believe that any longer.

 

It is obviously silly that there is an unbroken line from new testament times. I don't accept that even from Roman Catholicism. But the idea that there were always groups of Christians who were outside the predominate known church at the time, whether it be the Roman Catholic church or the main branches of the reformation is probably true. Baptist churches as we know them are often formed independently and by people not even ordained by any person or group so you can't have a recordable succession. But that works both ways. If a church arose spontaneously from a couple of believers they have every right to claim that they are not the result of or an heir of the Reformation if they want to. Take a given independent Baptist church anywhere and look into it's history and you may find some Puritan influence, Methodist influence, some revivalist influence from Finney down to Billy Sunday and it will vary by who started it and where they came from. Much of the influence comes from books and we hope, especially the Bible.

The fundamental Baptist church that taught me that was maybe a little proud of not caving to modernism and worldliness as much as the reformed churches in the area had and they consciously attempted to remain Biblical so I just figure they were maybe a little "exuberant" in that particular teaching.

 

Yes, their founding members protested some of the Church of England doctrines. The reason some say Baptists are not Protestants, if they did not split from the RCC. A distinction without a difference as the Church of England split over divorce from the RCC.