What is a Puritan?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dessert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi dessert,

¨The Puritans were a Calvinistic Protestant sect that arose from the Presbyterian movement in Scotland and Britain. Some of them came over to America on the Mayflower and diversified into Congregationalists and Presbyterians.

Verbum
 
A dear old English teacher of mine defined a Puritan as someone with the sneaking suspicion that someone, somewhere, is having fun. :eek:

:rotfl:
tee
 
tee_eff_em said:
A dear old English teacher of mine defined a Puritan as someone with the sneaking suspicion that someone, somewhere, is having fun. :eek:

:rotfl:
tee
Click to expand...
That definition fits a lot of posters on this site, as well as the pope!
 
They were like a ‘ advocates of purity ‘.
The purity of worship.
The purity in the personal and group morality.

In majority they were the Calvinists , right ?

The Evangelical Baptists doctrines of ‘ justification by faith ‘ , and ‘ the Priesthood of all believers’ these are originally the Puritan doctrines.

And that’s interesting that in the country where I live , In Ukraine , the Baptist Union , does not permit to use the word Holy Communion .
The word communion ( Причастие ) is changed by the word - хлебопрeломление ( to split the bread for the share )
Therefore Holly communion is not a Sacrament , and is not an Eucharist.
And its taken from the Puritan understanding.
The Russian and Ukrainian Baptists do not believe in the Puritan doctrine of predestination , though.

Repentance and the Godly life must be visible , and even evidently proved.
The ‘ born again people ‘ must demonstrate that they had experienced true evidence of the workings of God’s grace in their souls.
This ‘’ outward appearance ‘‘or ‘’ outward evidence of repentance’’ is the prove that they are obviously saved , they are chosen , that they are elected .
Only those who gave a convincing account of such a conversion could be admitted to full church membership.

The Baptists also borrowed this Puritanical character of the ‘ boastful Christ’s soldier ‘ from the Puritans.

What is interesting that when from the pulpit , you can hear the quotations from the Church fathers , the Baptists Christians , which seems anti-Catholic in their nature , but when they quoting the Church fathers , you can hear the ‘Church taught’ , the ‘Church fathers taught ‘.
Without noticing the evidence that the Church was not a Baptist or Puritanical Church.

After reading the Tocqueville’s ‘ Democracy in America ‘ , I have found out that the Puritan spirit of working ethics - was just great !
There were very precious things in the Puritan working ethics , which in my opinion are discovering the secret of flourishing and the secret of economic prosperity .

Only , the matter is that as the classical writer says about the birds which are singing on Sunday too, 😃 I mean in this life , the amusements , merriments and entertainments , must exist too.
The things to which the Puritan mind was generally – hostile and unfriendly.
Even now when from the Baptist pulpit , there are the calls to the strict accounting and self – examination , it includes the warnings against some ‘ forbidden amusements’ , which in reality should not be forbidden at all.🙂

The banner of Puritanism , the banner of Baptists is the Sola Scriptura !
And , every bodies duty is to search out the truth for oneself , which is only in the Scripture ( 66 books Canon ) and no where else.

We can say that the Evangelical Christians are the children of the Puritanism.

I think it’s a matter of the real theologist’s more deeply to explore what is positive and negative in the Puritanism and its continuation.
I personally do not believe in the Sola Scripura as only authority which exist beside of the context of the Church.
 
I recall, but can’t find, a quote by an English author to the effect that the Puritan is the grandparent of the Libertine. There would seem to be a bit of truth to that. The descendants tend to find the Puritan’s standards impossible to meet so abandon all effort at trying.
 
tee_eff_em said:
A dear old English teacher of mine defined a Puritan as someone with the sneaking suspicion that someone, somewhere, is having fun. :eek:

:rotfl:
tee
Click to expand...
That’s H.L. Mencken. Like most of the things Mencken says, it’s a lot wittier than it is true!

Edwin
 
dessert said:
What is a Puritan?
Is it a religion?
Click to expand...
Puritanism was originally the radical Protestant wing of the Church of England. In the late sixteenth century, as the split with Rome became final (with, for instance, the excommunication of Queen Elizabeth in 1572), many Protestants in England who had been exiles in Geneva and had learned from John Calvin hoped that the Church of England would continue to move in a strict Calvinist direction. They were disappointed. Therefore, they began trying to “purify” the Church of England, through measures ranging from political protests to the formation of Bible study groups (which they called “prophesying”) to promote Calvinist doctrine. Some Puritans were fine with working “within the system.” Others, however, came to believe that there were basic things wrong with the Church of England, including the episcopal polity. They advocated either a “presbyterian” polity (with councils of elders making decisions for the Church as a whole) or a congregationalist polity (with independent congregations). Some of this latter group actually split away and were known as “Separatists.” The Baptists came from the Separatists. Most of the Puritans, though, tried to fight for change within the Church of England. In the early seventeenth century the Church of England took a turn in a more 'high-church" direction (relatively closer to Catholicism), and this upset the Puritans very much. At the same time, the monarchs began making stronger claims for absolute authority over against Parliament. The religious and political struggles were merged, and there was a civil war in the 1640s, which the Puritans won. Unfortunately for them, they started quarreling among themselves. England became a military dictatorship led by a radical Puritan named Oliver Cromwell. After Cromwell’s death, many people were really fed up with the Puritans. They invited the monarchy back. The restored monarchy was understandably very hostile to the Puritans (along with everything else, they had executed King Charles I as a traitor!). In 1662 a new Prayer Book was issued which the Puritans found to be too Catholic. All the clergy who wouldn’t conform to this Prayer Book and the new regime generally were kicked out of their churches. It’s from this point on that “Puritan” (in the English context) usually denotes a separate church, not part of the Church of England. The two main Puritan denominations were the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists, but the Baptists could also be considered a Puritan tradition.

The Puritans are famous for their preaching and their theological/devotional writing. Many of them combined great learning with very deep piety, and although they were very anti-Catholic they drew on Catholic spirituality and often sound a great deal like medieval mystics (while also capable of very abstruse reasoning and careful logic). They’re difficult to read, but generally worthwhile if you have the patience. The most famous Puritan book is John Bunyan’s *Pilgrim’s Progress, *which is one of those books every English-speaker should read! Also, the poet John Milton, who wrote Paradise Lost, was a Puritan.

Perhaps the most important aspect of Puritanism long-term was their emphasis on personal conversion and the role of emotion in the religious life. This deeply influenced later evangelical Protestantism. When fundamentalists come up to you and ask “are you saved,” they are asking a very Puritan question. Although they almost certainly do not have the wide learning or deep spirituality of the great Puritans!

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Puritanism was originally the radical Protestant wing of the Church of England. In the late sixteenth century, as the split with Rome became final (with, for instance, the excommunication of Queen Elizabeth in 1572), many Protestants in England who had been exiles in Geneva and had learned from John Calvin hoped that the Church of England would continue to move in a strict Calvinist direction. They were disappointed. Therefore, they began trying to “purify” the Church of England, through measures ranging from political protests to the formation of Bible study groups (which they called “prophesying”) to promote Calvinist doctrine. Some Puritans were fine with working “within the system.” Others, however, came to believe that there were basic things wrong with the Church of England, including the episcopal polity. They advocated either a “presbyterian” polity (with councils of elders making decisions for the Church as a whole) or a congregationalist polity (with independent congregations). Some of this latter group actually split away and were known as “Separatists.” The Baptists came from the Separatists. Most of the Puritans, though, tried to fight for change within the Church of England. In the early seventeenth century the Church of England took a turn in a more 'high-church" direction (relatively closer to Catholicism), and this upset the Puritans very much. At the same time, the monarchs began making stronger claims for absolute authority over against Parliament. The religious and political struggles were merged, and there was a civil war in the 1640s, which the Puritans won. Unfortunately for them, they started quarreling among themselves. England became a military dictatorship led by a radical Puritan named Oliver Cromwell. After Cromwell’s death, many people were really fed up with the Puritans. They invited the monarchy back. The restored monarchy was understandably very hostile to the Puritans (along with everything else, they had executed King Charles I as a traitor!). In 1662 a new Prayer Book was issued which the Puritans found to be too Catholic. All the clergy who wouldn’t conform to this Prayer Book and the new regime generally were kicked out of their churches. It’s from this point on that “Puritan” (in the English context) usually denotes a separate church, not part of the Church of England. The two main Puritan denominations were the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists, but the Baptists could also be considered a Puritan tradition.

The Puritans are famous for their preaching and their theological/devotional writing. Many of them combined great learning with very deep piety, and although they were very anti-Catholic they drew on Catholic spirituality and often sound a great deal like medieval mystics (while also capable of very abstruse reasoning and careful logic). They’re difficult to read, but generally worthwhile if you have the patience. The most famous Puritan book is John Bunyan’s *Pilgrim’s Progress, *which is one of those books every English-speaker should read! Also, the poet John Milton, who wrote Paradise Lost, was a Puritan.

Perhaps the most important aspect of Puritanism long-term was their emphasis on personal conversion and the role of emotion in the religious life. This deeply influenced later evangelical Protestantism. When fundamentalists come up to you and ask “are you saved,” they are asking a very Puritan question. Although they almost certainly do not have the wide learning or deep spirituality of the great Puritans!

Edwin
Click to expand...
Hmm! This is interesting, we have a 1st Congregational Church in our city, that was started in 1847. I have been wondering if they were seperatists or not. My husband was baptized in it in 1949 (at one year of age) (because his dad was overseas) so I wondered what kind of baptism he had. I believe his parents said normal one. The Church is now called 1st Congregational Church UCC United Church of Christ now. Would you believe they have all their baptismal records, awesome to me. I got a copy of his. I never cared before but have been doing a lot of checking on this.
 
dessert said:
Hmm! This is interesting, we have a 1st Congregational Church in our city, that was started in 1847. I have been wondering if they were seperatists or not. My husband was baptized in it in 1949 (at one year of age) (because his dad was overseas) so I wondered what kind of baptism he had. I believe his parents said normal one. The Church is now called 1st Congregational Church UCC United Church of Christ now. Would you believe they have all their baptismal records, awesome to me. I got a copy of his. I never cared before but have been doing a lot of checking on this.
Click to expand...
American Congregationalists trace their history to the New England Puritans, many of whom were strict Separatists (the Pilgrim Fathers, for instance), though they had had various stances back in England. In America they created a Congregationalist established Church, though their Puritanism led to some difficult dilemmas (to have full rights of citizenship you had to belong to the Church, but to belong to the Church you had to have had a conversion experience–eventually they compromised on this). Then in the 18th century there were evangelical revivals that led to a more emotional and experiential version of Congregationalism. At the same time, other Congregationalists were moving in a rationalistic direction, and many of them became Unitarians. By the 19th century relatively few Congregationalists were old-fashioned Calvinists. And today the number is even smaller. But that is in fact their heritage.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Puritanism was originally the radical Protestant wing of the Church of England. In the late sixteenth century, as the split with Rome became final (with, for instance, the excommunication of Queen Elizabeth in 1572), many Protestants in England who had been exiles in Geneva and had learned from John Calvin hoped that the Church of England would continue to move in a strict Calvinist direction. They were disappointed. Therefore, they began trying to “purify” the Church of England, through measures ranging from political protests to the formation of Bible study groups (which they called “prophesying”) to promote Calvinist doctrine. Some Puritans were fine with working “within the system.” Others, however, came to believe that there were basic things wrong with the Church of England, including the episcopal polity. They advocated either a “presbyterian” polity (with councils of elders making decisions for the Church as a whole) or a congregationalist polity (with independent congregations). Some of this latter group actually split away and were known as “Separatists.” The Baptists came from the Separatists. Most of the Puritans, though, tried to fight for change within the Church of England. In the early seventeenth century the Church of England took a turn in a more 'high-church" direction (relatively closer to Catholicism), and this upset the Puritans very much. At the same time, the monarchs began making stronger claims for absolute authority over against Parliament. The religious and political struggles were merged, and there was a civil war in the 1640s, which the Puritans won. Unfortunately for them, they started quarreling among themselves. England became a military dictatorship led by a radical Puritan named Oliver Cromwell. After Cromwell’s death, many people were really fed up with the Puritans. They invited the monarchy back. The restored monarchy was understandably very hostile to the Puritans (along with everything else, they had executed King Charles I as a traitor!). In 1662 a new Prayer Book was issued which the Puritans found to be too Catholic. All the clergy who wouldn’t conform to this Prayer Book and the new regime generally were kicked out of their churches. It’s from this point on that “Puritan” (in the English context) usually denotes a separate church, not part of the Church of England. The two main Puritan denominations were the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists, but the Baptists could also be considered a Puritan tradition.

The Puritans are famous for their preaching and their theological/devotional writing. Many of them combined great learning with very deep piety, and although they were very anti-Catholic they drew on Catholic spirituality and often sound a great deal like medieval mystics (while also capable of very abstruse reasoning and careful logic). They’re difficult to read, but generally worthwhile if you have the patience. The most famous Puritan book is John Bunyan’s *Pilgrim’s Progress, *which is one of those books every English-speaker should read! Also, the poet John Milton, who wrote Paradise Lost, was a Puritan.

Perhaps the most important aspect of Puritanism long-term was their emphasis on personal conversion and the role of emotion in the religious life. This deeply influenced later evangelical Protestantism. When fundamentalists come up to you and ask “are you saved,” they are asking a very Puritan question. Although they almost certainly do not have the wide learning or deep spirituality of the great Puritans!

Edwin
Click to expand...

The only thing to add to that (excellent) post, is that they really are not that difficult to read. Thomas Goodwin’s book on Justifying Faith is not “reading for the beach”, perhaps - there are nearly 600 pages of it :), & his English is a bit involved at times; but the English of Ralph Venning, Thomas Watson, Thomas Brooks, or John Flavel is quite straightforward.The best way to become used to their style, is to read them. Doing so is helped by the arrangement of their books: anyone who can find his way around the Summa Theologiae should have no difficulty finding his way through the divisions & subdivisions of Thomas Brooks or Ralph Venning - the Puritans are systematic writers, at a time when theology & preaching were both highly systematised. This has the advantage of allowing them to be quoted quite briefly.​

As long as one does not read the overtly polemical stuff, the remarks upsetting to Catholics are not difficult to avoid - if a book contains sermons about Revelation or 2 Thessalonians, it will probably not be favourable to Catholic notions in these matters. There is far more & far better matter in the Puritans than their opinions of the Papacy & matters thereunto pertaining.

Some of the differences - not all, obviously - are no greater than between different schools of theologians within Catholicism. And not all references to Catholic things are uncomplimentary - Thomas Goodwin has some gracious remarks about Aquinas.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

The only thing to add to that (excellent) post, is that they really are not that difficult to read. Thomas Goodwin’s book on Justifying Faith is not “reading for the beach”, perhaps - there are nearly 600 pages of it :), & his English is a bit involved at times; but the English of Ralph Venning, Thomas Watson, Thomas Brooks, or John Flavel is quite straightforward.The best way to become used to their style, is to read them. Doing so is helped by the arrangement of their books: anyone who can find his way around the Summa Theologiae should have no difficulty finding his way through the divisions & subdivisions of Thomas Brooks or Ralph Venning - the Puritans are systematic writers, at a time when theology & preaching were both highly systematised. This has the advantage of allowing them to be quoted quite briefly.​

As long as one does not read the overtly polemical stuff, the remarks upsetting to Catholics are not difficult to avoid - if a book contains sermons about Revelation or 2 Thessalonians, it will probably not be favourable to Catholic notions in these matters. There is far more & far better matter in the Puritans than their opinions of the Papacy & matters thereunto pertaining.

Some of the differences - not all, obviously - are no greater than between different schools of theologians within Catholicism. And not all references to Catholic things are uncomplimentary - Thomas Goodwin has some gracious remarks about Aquinas.
Click to expand...
I think the main reason I find Aquinas easier is simply that I get more for my time. I can sit down with Aquinas for ten minutes or half an hour and get through a substantial amount of content. I spend that much time with a Puritan author and he’s just getting warmed to his subject! It’s the wordiness (or in other words, the ratio of words to thought), not the difficulty of the words.

But to be honest I haven’t tried reading a lot of Puritan writing for years. I used to read them some in my teens and early 20s, before I was used to reading a lot of theology. And you are of course right that it depends on which Puritan you are talking about.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top