What Puritans have you read?

[Iosias]

What Puritans have you read?

[karen freeinchristman]

Not sure if I've read any. Does this (http://www.amazon.com/Plea-Purity-Sex-Marriage-God/dp/0874869609)count? I've read that one.

[Iosias]

Not sure if I've read any. Does this (http://www.amazon.com/Plea-Purity-Sex-Marriage-God/dp/0874869609)count? I've read that one.

I hope it was good, but no he is not a Puritan :)

[gtsecc]

I saw Niki Gumble video once.

[karen freeinchristman]

I saw Niki Gumble video once.
http://www.diamondring.com/forums/images/smilies/moresmiles/weakest.gif

[Iosias]

I saw Niki Gumble video once.

http://www.diamondring.com/forums/images/smilies/moresmiles/weakest.gif

:D

[haulpak]

What Puritans have you read?

"The Crucible" by Arthur Miller




Totally 'Puritanical'.........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucible

Can you have 'Puritanism' without the corruption??? Can you have 'Puritanism' without the isolation???? The Irony of it all, reform to extricate yourself from what you consider one form of corruption only to be engulfed by another (often more spiritually deadly) form.....

Such 'reform' has not been able to inroads into the mainstream and survive with any relevance.

[RadixLecti]

What Puritans have you read?
Would you consider John Bunyan a Puritan?

[Iosias]

Would you consider John Bunyan a Puritan?

Most definitely :)

[Iosias]

"The Crucible" by Arthur Miller




Totally 'Puritanical'.........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucible

Can you have 'Puritanism' without the corruption??? Can you have 'Puritanism' without the isolation???? The Irony of it all, reform to extricate yourself from what you consider one form of corruption only to be engulfed by another (often more spiritually deadly) form.....

Such 'reform' has not been able to inroads into the mainstream and survive with any relevance.

I wouldn't call Arthur Miller (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_CRU.HTM) a puritan :)

Why We Need the Puritans (http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanArticles/JIPackerQuest.htm) by J.I. Packer

Why You Should Read the Puritans (http://spurgeon.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/joel-beeke-why-read-puritans/)by Joel R. Beeke

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Puritans/

[Speculative]

I've read some Bunyan, Owen, and Edwards. That's about it :)

[karen freeinchristman]

Hey, I just stumbled upon this: http://www.puritansermons.com/baxter/baxter22.htm
while doing a bit of research on the greatest commandments passage (Matt. 22:34-40).
This guy Richard Baxter appears to be a puritan, and now I've read him! :)

[haulpak]

Containment for conservatives means the "management of evil." But the management of evil is a lifetime task.

Far from relieving anxiety, it is bound to create more of it -- and the more people who crave the manly certitude that is supposed to relieve anxiety.

Princeton's John F. Wilson explains why. The obsession with managing evil comes from "a concern, often exaggerated, to achieve control over those aspects of life experienced as uncertain."

From the Puritans to the present, people bent on controlling their lives have been haunted by the inescapable fear that they might lose that very control.

When they find that they can't control themselves or their lives or surroundings as completely as they might fervently wish, they feel like failures; and, Albanese adds, if they happen to think they are part of God's chosen people, they may also feel a powerful obligation to live up to God's expectation of perfect self-control. So they end up feeling not just like failures but like guilty sinners.

Who wants to shoulder such a heavy burden? "To admit that too much was wrong could jeopardize America's belief in its status as a chosen nation," Albanese says. "Americans could not admit the deepest sources of their guilt without destroying their sense of who they were." So, instead, they went (and still go) looking for other people to control and blame them for their troubles.

Our most recent candidates are, of course, the terrorists.

Before you know it, you have, in Wilson's scholarly words, "essentially bipolar frameworks for conceiving of the world: good versus bad, us versus them.

The puritan American while tightly disciplined is prone to be uncritical of self and hypercritical of others... [This] presupposes a fundamentally authoritarian pattern of relationships within the world and reinforces that pattern." In other words, when the U.S. military tries to impose a made-in-America order upon Iraq (or anywhere else), it lets us avoid facing up to the abundant ills, evils, and insecurities here at home.


AND this



Puritanism that was apparently a belief in which a man devotes his life in search of salvation and abstain one self from doing any sin, though he will commit sin and do evil. Therefore, the idea of Puritanism was to reform the world by presenting the picture of God’s holy kingdom at the same time teaching that there is no cure for the evils of the world and they are inevitable.

Edmund Morgan in his book, “The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop” expresses the struggle of John Winthrop regarding his desire to join the separatist school of thought to detach himself from the impure part of England. In this book the writer has set up an example for men to struggle for a pure Christian community. Therefore, John Winthrop along his fellow Puritan colonist keeping themselves away from the church physically but spiritually were very much attached to it had struggled for their desire and believe via political means. So in this book the most interesting thing is the amalgamation of spiritual and religious philosophy and its practical experience to take birth and then grow by using political authority. This book, which was published in 1962 is one of the most enduring works of Edmund Morgan’s publications, which gave a starting point to understand the motivations behind the Puritan migration to America along the ideological and political difficulties faced by them once they arrived. Where he introduced the idea to develop a community and city in the hill, which later on brought revolutionary change in the betterment of the country.

Therefore, the book narrates the series of challenges faced by Winthrop, which had flowed from the various aspects of the Puritan dilemma. His first challenge started when he got governing power of Massachusetts, where he was concerned on how to governed the colony. He was basically confused to adopt the Puritan covenant of God that bound the people to His laws, which naturally bound the people to the means to enforce the covenant of God as a source of law to them. While the third challenge was related to the belief that one can influence God and the conflict among the religious ideologies related Puritanism and other ideologies presented in the book, were expressed to be an alarming threat to any society. Another question that Winthrop was facing, was related to the position of the new city that where should it look forward to strengthen to its foreign relation that the religious culture will impact on this new city made on a Hill top.

Therefore, here we find the practical approach of Winthrop, which affected the people and in a comparatively democratic society, Puritans established to its worst form. This book indirectly gives the reader a lesson that, even a state is very holy but the foreign policy needs to be a little flexible. As shown presented the story of Winthrop that he realized and observed that even in such a state the foreign policy should support one evil in order to suppress one worst one. This he realized when he had to choose people for foreign affairs as it was a very difficult task that required rare wisdom to recognize a good person among the multiple evils of the world


Nevertheless, what makes the whole story interesting written by Morgan is the struggle of democratic America even 370 years back in regard to the very core of the political scenario of the country. He very beautifully related the strong religious ideologies at that time with the political set up and the influence that could be on any society due to the diverse evils in the world. Morgan very nicely managed to relate all these areas in his book along the various confrontations faced by Winthrop which ultimately led to a separatist movement resulting to a revolution splitting England with an exploding of a Civil War. So the writer has related the Puritans to the modern America along the impact of various religious and political ideologies as an experience of Winthrop for instance, the Elitism, nihilism, Isolationism etc.



There is nothing of Puritanism that has survived or is even remotely valuable or useful to the average Anglican.

I find nothing remotely attractive or enticing about a brand of Puritanism which is no longer relevant to Anglicanism today, further I find the superficiality of those who wish to re-live the times of the Middle Ages and to promote such 'brands' of Puritanism as relevant today to be unpaletable and draconian. A sharp reminder that the year is 2007 and not 1552 should suffice.

It is however easy to consider how easily corruptable and vain 'Puritanism' is; least of all the vain desire of those who attempt its promotion or 'evangelise' it upon others......even the vunerable and less-educated.

Also I found this: "Puritanism, a dignified neurosis" http://www.oldandsold.com/articles19/psychoanalysis-15.shtml

[Iosias]

Hey, I just stumbled upon this: http://www.puritansermons.com/baxter/baxter22.htm
while doing a bit of research on the greatest commandments passage (Matt. 22:34-40).
This guy Richard Baxter appears to be a puritan, and now I've read him! :)

:thumbsup:

Baxter was indeed a puritan and wrote some helpful books, The Reformed Pastor (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/baxter/pastor.toc.html)being a well known one as is his Saint's Everlasting Rest (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/baxter/saints_rest.toc.html). However J I Packer rightly warn of his neonomianism.

My favourite Puritans are the mature ones namely Thomas Goodwin and John Owen. The best works to start with by Owen are probably Communion with God (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/communion.toc.html), The Holy Spirit (full (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Holy-Spirit-John-Owen/dp/1857924754/ref=sr_1_7/203-4263486-0006318?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192297446&sr=1-7) or abridged (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Holy-Spirit-Treasures-Todays-Readers/dp/085151698X/ref=sr_1_1/203-4263486-0006318?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192297446&sr=1-1)) and The Glory of Christ (full (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/glory.toc.html) [online] abridged (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Glory-Christ-Treasures-Todays-Readers/dp/0851516610/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/203-4263486-0006318?ie=UTF8&qid=1192297446&sr=1-7) [book].

You can be introduced to Goodwin through both The Greatness of God’s Love to His Elect (http://www.puritansermons.com/pdf/good03.pdf) and The Riches of God’s Love to His Elect (http://www.puritansermons.com/pdf/good07.pdf).

However Thomas Watson is one of the easiest to read so I would suggest you start with him. If you want some good recommendations then just ask but you can get a taste from his Man’s Chief End is to Glorify God (http://www.puritansermons.com/pdf/watson5.pdf).

[Iosias]

There is nothing of Puritanism that has survived or is even remotely valuable or useful to the average Anglican.

You will have to forgive my disagreeing with you. They were giants of pastor-theologians who were mature, who loved the Scriptures and sought to live their lives in accordance with it.

Question 1: What is the chief and highest end of man?
Answer: Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.

[haulpak]

Page 208-209

iii Church and Puritan

The danger to the Church from the Puritans was very different from that offered by the Roman Catholics. while the latter desired to OVERTHROW the Church of England and restore Papal jurisdiction, the former wished to TRANSFORM the Church ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN IDEAS OF WHAT A CHURCH SHOULD BE.

The motive behind them was the influence of Geneva, many of them became disciples of Calvin during their exile from England in Mary's reign.

It was the full Calvanist system which they wished to reproduce in England as Knox was introducting it in Scotland.

This would mean the abolition of episocpacy and the substitution of presbyterial government by assemblies and church-sessions, worship more in accordance with that of protestant communities elsewhere, an increase in teh powers of the laity, and the prohibition of all vestments, ornaments and ceremonies which belonged to the past.

It was indeed to these that Puritan opposition was first directed. The Prayer Book of 1559 smelt of popery it was an "imperfect book, culled and picked out of the popish dunghill" (WH Frere). It allowed such 'improper' ceremonies as the sign of the cross in Baptism, the impostion of hands in Confirmation and the ring in Marriage. It preserved the veneration of the saints through its Calendar and tolerated such customs as bowing at the Name of Jesus and kneeling at Communion. Moreover with the Prayer Book went certain DISAGREEABLE AJUNCTS OF WORSHIP especially the organs and other musical instruments and antiphonal singing - 'the singing, ringing and trowling of psalms from one side of the choir to the other'.

But the greatest dislike of all was to the vestments in which the priest clothed himself. The Ornaments Rubric in the Prayer Book of 1559 had allowed for the wearing of an alb and chasuble or cope at the Eucharist and the surplice for the choir offices. THE PURITANS GREATLY DISAPPROVED OF THIS, and many of the clergy who sympathies lay with this party found themselves prevented by the conciences from appearing in chruch in even so innocent a garment as a surplice, while Edmund Grindal was doubtful whether he could accept a bishopric because it would necessitate the wearing of robes.

In the early years of reign Puritan agitation was mainly confied to such comparitively minor matters, but as the years went by, the dispute moved into a wider sphere in which THE CRITICS OF THE CHURCH BEGAN TO ATTACK NO THE EXTERNALS OF WORSHIP BUT THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH AND THE MINISTRY WHICH LAY BEHIND THEM.

That the Church of England should preserve episcopal government had never for a moment doubted by the framers of the Elizabethan Settlement, BUT TO THE PURITANS IT WAS ANATHEMA; AND THEY SET THEMSELVES TO WORK FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE EPISCOPACY AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PRESBYTERIAN TYPE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT WHICH GAVE COMPLETE LIBERTY TO THE MINISTER.

About the same time those of the clergy and laity who had Puritan sympathies were beginning to take matters into their own hands.

The Prayer Book was enforced by law and must therefore be used; but this need not prevent other forms of worship beign held at other times. Episcopacy was the only legal form of church government but this need not prevent groups of clergy forming themslelves into 'voluntary societies' and placing themselves under a CALVINIST form of discipline.

It was found, in fact, that it was possible for a clergyman to conform to the ordinances of the Church and yet conduct his ministry on what were practically Calvanist lines.

The first develipment was that of the 'prophesyings' which began at Northhampton in 1571. These were meetings of clergy and laiety on week day mornings for the purpose of Biblical study, discussion and prayer. These seemed harmless enough so long as they did not replace the statutory worship of the Chruch. But as they spread throughout the country the danger was to make them a substitute for Morning and Evening Prayer.

The second development was of the "classis' system. Many Puritan clergy, disliking and disapproving of the epsicopacy, began to ignore the bishops as far as possible and put themselves under the discipline of a 'classis' or local commitee of presbyters who came to wield considerable power. Candidates for the Ministry, for example, were selected by these commitees and privately 'ordained' according to the form which they approved, being sent afterwards to the bishops for episcopal ordination in accordance with the law of the land.

The "classis" also exercised great influence over the worship in the churches, criticized sermons and saw to it that exemptore prayer only was used.

By these two developments the strength of the Church and the authority of the bishops was slowly undermined. Clergy were paying lip-service to the Establishment, and living upon its resources, at the same time they were substituting the Prayer Book with their own type of worship and were taking their orders not from their fathers-in-God (bishops) but from local commitees.

While the main bulk of the Puritans wre content to work quietly for the overthrow of the Establishment, there were a few ardent and intolerant souls who could not brook delay and soon found membership in the Church of England more than they could bear. Most of these were either deprived of their benefices or resigned them voluntarily and began to throw their lot in with the Anabaptists, many of whom were refugees from Holland, fanatical protestants and anti-nomans.

Their preaching of civil disobedience lead to stern measures beign taken against them and a few were burnt'. A group of "Separatists" formed independant Congregations at Norwich in 1850 and in London at about the same time.

[haulpak]

You will have to forgive my disagreeing with you. They were giants of pastor-theologians who were mature, who loved the Scriptures and sought to live their lives in accordance with it.




I love the Scriptures and do my best to live my life in accordance with it.

That doesn't make me a Puritan, nor does it reflect 'Puritanical' theology in my life. I am not some radical who says the content of a Prayer Book or the liturgical response to scripture of a Church is.....contrary to scripture or unsupported by scripture and is therefore anathema.

I find it strange that your post is a generalised convergence between what is a 'spiritually mature' Christian and your ideal of what constitutes a "Puritan".

Does a Puritan have television??? or is television a means of Satan to 'enter' their otherwise 'Biblically Pure' life?????? How about electricity.... is it 'Biblically Pure'???

[AngCath]

I have read some Edwards, Bunyan, and Foxe but not in some time.

[higgs2]

I saw Niki Gumble video once.

Okay, this made me laugh! ^_^ You are a piece of work, glen :) :) :hug:

[higgs2]

I read the Scarlet Letter.

[ContraMundum]

John Owen, Bunyan, Edwards and Whitefield.

But the "Best Puritan Writer" (for me) Award goes to Richard Baxter for "The Saints Everlasting Rest". What a book!

[Iosias]

The danger to the Church from the Puritans was very different from that offered by the Roman Catholics. while the latter desired to OVERTHROW the Church of England and restore Papal jurisdiction, the former wished to TRANSFORM the Church ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN IDEAS OF WHAT A CHURCH SHOULD BE.

Not quite, they sought to reform the Church in accordiance with Scripture. But by-the-by, many Puritans were quite happy to work within the episcopal system and let us not forget that most were booted out of the Church of England in 1662. Hence they left the Church of England by force rather than choice.

John Knox used the Prayer Book even if he disagreed with elements of it.

James Ussher (rchbishop of Armagh) wrote the Irish Articles (http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/irish.html) upon which the Westminster Confession was based and also wrote The Reduction of Episcopacy unto the Form of Synodical Government Received in the Ancient Church. (http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/history/ussher/iss_history_ussher_episcopacy.asp)

Joel Beeke writes:

Just who were the Puritan writers? They were not only the two thousand ministers who were ejected from the Church of England by the Act of Uniformity in 1662, but also those ministers in England and North America, from the sixteenth century through the early eighteenth century, who worked to reform and purify the church and to lead people toward godly living consistent with the Reformed doctrines of grace.

Puritanism grew out of three needs: (1) the need for biblical preaching and the teaching of sound Reformed doctrine; (2) the need for biblical, personal piety that stressed the work of the Holy Spirit in the faith and life of the believer; and (3) the need to restore biblical simplicity in liturgy, vestments, and church government, so that a well-ordered church life would promote the worship of the triune God as prescribed in His Word (The Genius of Puritanism, 11ff.).

Doctrinally, Puritanism was a kind of vigorous Calvinism; experientially, it was warm and contagious; evangelistically, it was aggressive, yet tender; ecclesiastically, it was theocentric and worshipful; politically, it aimed to be scriptural, balanced, and bound by conscience before God in the relationships of king, Parliament, and subjects; culturally, it had lasting impact throughout succeeding generations and centuries until today (Durston and Eales, eds., The Culture of English Puritanism, 1560-1700).

He continues:

Let me offer you nine reasons why it will help you spiritually to read Puritan literature still today:

1. Puritan writings help shape life by Scripture. The Puritans loved, lived, and breathed Holy Scripture. They relished the power of the Spirit that accompanied the Word. Their books are all Word-centered; more than 90 percent of their writings are repackaged sermons that are rich with scriptural exposition. The Puritan writers truly believed in the sufficiency of Scripture for life and godliness.

If you read the Puritans regularly, their Bible-centeredness will become contagious. These writings will show you how to yield wholehearted allegiance to the Bible’s message. Like the Puritans, you will become a believer of the living Book, echoing the truth of John Flavel, who said, “The Scriptures teach us the best way of living, the noblest way of suffering, and the most comfortable way of dying.”

Do you want to read books that put you into the Scriptures and keep you there, shaping your life by sola Scriptura? Read the Puritans. Read the Soli Deo Gloria Puritan Pulpit Series. As you read, enhance your understanding by looking up and studying all the referenced Scriptures.

2. Puritan writings show how to integrate biblical doctrine into daily life. The Puritan writings do this in three ways:

First, they address your mind. In keeping with the Reformed tradition, the Puritans refused to set mind and heart against each other, but viewed the mind as the palace of faith. “In conversion, reason is elevated,” John Preston wrote.

The Puritans understood that a mindless Christianity fosters a spineless Christianity. An anti-intellectual gospel quickly becomes an empty, formless gospel that never gets beyond “felt needs,” which is something that is happening in many churches today. Puritan literature is a great help for understanding the vital connection between what we believe with our minds and how that affects the way we live. Jonathan Edwards’s Justification by Faith Alone and William Lyford’s The Instructed Christian are particularly helpful for this.
Second, Puritan writings confront your conscience. The Puritans are masters at convicting us about the heinous nature of our sin against an infinite God. They excel at exposing specific sins, then asking questions to press home conviction of those sins. As one Puritan wrote, “We must go with the stick of divine truth and beat every bush behind which a sinner hides, until like Adam who hid, he stands before God in his nakedness.”
Devotional reading should be confrontational as well as comforting. We grow little if our consciences are not pricked daily and directed to Christ. Since we are prone to run for the bushes when we feel threatened, we need daily help to be brought before the living God “naked and opened unto the eyes of with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:12). In this, the Puritans excel. If you truly want to learn what sin is and experience how sin is worse than suffering, read Jeremiah Burroughs’s The Evil of Evils and Thomas Shepard’s The Sincere Convert and the Sound Believer.

Third, the Puritan writers engage your heart. They excel in feeding the mind with solid biblical substance and they move the heart with affectionate warmth. They write out of love for God’s Word, love for the glory of God, and love for the soul of readers.

For books that beautifully balance objective truth and subjective experience in Christianity; books that combine, as J.I. Packer puts it, “clear-headed passion and warm-hearted compassion” (Ryken, Worldly Saints, x); books that inform your mind, confront your conscience, and engage your heart, read the Puritans. Read Vincent Alsop’s Practical Godliness.

3. Puritan writings show how to exalt Christ and see His beauty. The Puritan Thomas Adams wrote: “Christ is the sum of the whole Bible, prophesied, typified, prefigured, exhibited, demonstrated, to be found in every leaf, almost in every line, the Scriptures being but as it were the swaddling bands of the child Jesus.” Likewise, the Puritan Isaac Ambrose wrote, “Think of Christ as the very substance, marrow, soul, and scope of the whole Scriptures.”

The Puritans loved Christ and exalted in His beauty. Samuel Rutherford wrote: “Put the beauty of ten thousand worlds of paradises, like the Garden of Eden in one; put all trees, all flowers, all smells, all colors, all tastes, all joys, all loveliness, all sweetness in one. O what a fair and excellent thing would that be? And yet it would be less to that fair and dearest well-beloved Christ than one drop of rain to the whole seas, rivers, lakes, and foundations of ten thousand earths.”

If you would know Christ better and love Him more fully, immerse yourself in Puritan literature. Read Robert Asty’s Rejoicing in the Lord Jesus.

4. Puritan writings reveal the Trinitarian character of theology. The Puritans were driven by a deep sense of the infinite glory of a Triune God. When they answered the first question of the Shorter Catechism that man’s chief end was to glorify God, they meant the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They took John Calvin’s glorious understanding of the unity of the Trinity in the Godhead, and showed how that worked itself out in electing, redeeming, and sanctifying love and grace in the lives of believers. John Owen wrote an entire book on the Christian believer’s communion with God as Father, Jesus as Savior, and the Holy Spirit as Comforter. The Puritans teach us how to remain God-centered while being vitally concerned about Christian experience, so that we don’t fall into the trap of glorifying experience for its own sake.

If you want to appreciate each Person of the Trinity, so that you can say with Samuel Rutherford, “I don’t know which Person of the Trinity I love the most, but this I know, I love each of them, and I need them all,” read John Owen’s Communion with God and Jonathan Edwards on the Trinity.

5. Puritan writings show you how to handle trials. Puritanism grew out of a great struggle between the truth of God’s Word and its enemies. Reformed Christianity was under attack in Great Britain, much like Reformed Christianity is under attack today. The Puritans were good soldiers in the conflict, enduring great hardships and suffering much. Their lives and their writings stand ready to arm us for our battles, and to encourage us in our suffering. The Puritans teach us how we need affliction to humble us (Deut. 8:2), to teach us what sin is (Zeph. 1:12), and how that brings us to God (Hos. 5:15). As Robert Leighton wrote, “Affliction is the diamond dust that heaven polishes its jewels with.” The Puritans show us how God’s rod of affliction is His means to write Christ’s image more fully upon us, so that we may be partakers of His righteousness and holiness (Heb. 12:10–11).
If you would learn how to handle your trials in a truly Christ-exalting way, read Thomas Boston’s The Crook in the Lot: The Sovereignty and Wisdom of God Displayed in the Afflictions of Men.

6. Puritan writings explain true spirituality. The Puritans stress the spirituality of the law, spiritual warfare against indwelling sin, the childlike fear of God, the wonder of grace, the art of meditation, the dreadfulness of hell, and the glories of heaven. If you want to live deep as a Christian, read Oliver Heywood’s Heart Treasure. Read the Puritans devotionally, and then pray to be like them. Ask questions such as: Am I, like the Puritans, thirsting to glorify the Triune God? Am I motivated by biblical truth and biblical fire? Do I share their view of the vital necessity of conversion and of being clothed with the righteousness of Christ? Do I follow them as far as they followed Christ?

7. Puritan writings show how to live by wholistic faith. The Puritans apply every subject they write about to practical “uses”―as they term it. These “uses” will propel you into passionate, effective action for Christ’s kingdom. Their own daily lives integrated Christian truth with covenant vision; they knew no dichotomy between the sacred and the secular. Their writings can assist you immeasurably in living a life that centers on God in every area, appreciating His gifts, and declaring everything “holiness to the Lord.”

The Puritans were excellent covenant theologians. They lived covenant theology, covenanting themselves, their families, their churches, and their nations to God. Yet they did not fall into the error of hyper-covenantalism, in which the covenant of grace becomes a substitute for personal conversion. They promoted a comprehensive worldview, a total Christian philosophy, a holistic approach of bringing the whole gospel to bear on all of life, striving to bring every action in conformity with Christ, so that believers would mature and grow in faith. The Puritans wrote on practical subjects such as how to pray, how to develop genuine piety, how to conduct family worship, and how to raise children for Christ. In short, they taught how to develop a “rational, resolute, passionate piety [that is] conscientious without becoming obsessive, law-oriented without lapsing into legalism, and expressive of Christian liberty without any shameful lurches into license” (ibid., xii).
If you would grow in practical Christianity and vital piety, read the compilation of The Puritans on Prayer, Richard Steele’s The Character of an Upright Man, George Hamond’s Case for Family Worship, Cotton Mather’s Help for Distressed Parents, and Arthur Hildersham’s Dealing with Sin in Our Children.

8. Puritan writings teach the importance and primacy of preaching. To the Puritans, preaching was the high point of public worship. Preaching must be expository and didactic, they said; evangelistic and convicting, experiential and applicatory, powerful and “plain” in its presentation, ever respecting the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit.

If you would help evangelicals recover the pulpit and a high view of the ministry in our day, read Puritan sermons. Read William Perkins’s The Art of Prophesying and Richard Baxter’s The Reformed Pastor.

9. Puritan writings show how to live in two worlds. The Puritans said we should have heaven “in our eye” throughout our earthly pilgrimage. They took seriously the New Testament passages that say we must keep the “hope of glory” before our minds to guide and shape our lives here on earth. They viewed this life as “the gymnasium and dressing room where we are prepared for heaven,” teaching us that preparation for death is the first step in learning to truly live (Packer, Quest, 13).
If you would live in this world in light of the better world to come, read the Puritans. Read Richard Baxter’s The Saint’s Everlasting Life and Richard Alleine’s Heaven Opened.

[ContraMundum]

I love your work AV1611, even when I don't agree with it (I'm not disputing the above).

[haulpak]

Not quite, they sought to reform the Church in accordiance with Scripture.




Ahh yes... but you left out the "THEIR INTERPRETATION OF" part.

But thats integral isn't is AV. Require change/reform according to what you interpret the scriptures to be.

An expectation that the "Reform" will conform to the 'intepretation' of scripture which you find acceptable but which others do not is a difficult reality.

The Book I quoted from "A History of the Church in England" was written by Bp+ J R H Moorman, Bishop of Ripon.

After all any action to "Reform in accordiance(sic) with Scripture" requires interpretation as function and indeed a catalyst for the 'action' in the first place.

Bluntly speaking the reformists werent happy and decided that their "interpretation" is better and that the majority of people MUST accept this view and accept the 'reform' required......because (wait for it) its "in accordance with scripture". Never mind the circular nature of the argument, thats irrelevant its "reform reform" from every bell tower!! Again its an expectation devoid of reality.

Once again we listen to the noisy clap trap of a minority intent on forcing itself on the rest of us and expect us not to ask questions but to 'reform'.......because we hear the old circular argument that its 'in accordance with scripture'.

Around and around it goes... where it stops ... no body knows......

Nice work.

[Iosias]

Ahh yes... but you left out the "THEIR INTERPRETATION OF" part.

But thats integral isn't is AV. Require change/reform according to what you interpret the scriptures to be.

An expectation that the "Reform" will conform to the 'intepretation' of scripture which you find acceptable but which others do not is a difficult reality.

The Book I quoted from "A History of the Church in England" was written by Bp+ J R H Moorman, Bishop of Ripon.

After all any action to "Reform in accordiance(sic) with Scripture" requires interpretation as function and indeed a catalyst for the 'action' in the first place.

Bluntly speaking the reformists werent happy and decided that their "interpretation" is better and that the majority of people MUST accept this view and accept the 'reform' required......because (wait for it) its "in accordance with scripture". Never mind the circular nature of the argument, thats irrelevant its "reform reform" from every bell tower!! Again its an expectation devoid of reality.

Once again we listen to the noisy clap trap of a minority intent on forcing itself on the rest of us and expect us not to ask questions but to 'reform'.......because we hear the old circular argument that its 'in accordance with scripture'.

Around and around it goes... where it stops ... no body knows......

Nice work.

But as I pointed out, the Puritans were not defined by their desire to get rid of episcopalianism because many Puritans were in fact Anglican!

Furthermore, desiring to see ones life increasingly reformed in accordance with Scripture is not a bad thing.

John Calvin was not against episcopacy in England, and is said to have recommended it as the best form of church government for Poland. Even John Knox (contrary to what many people think) did not do away with episcopacy completely. (see (http://www.theologian.org.uk/church/bishops_presbyters_women.html))

[haulpak]

But as I pointed out, the Puritans were not defined by their desire to get rid of episcopalianism because many Puritans were in fact Anglican!



I did not dispute the fact that many Puritans were in fact Anglican.

It has been suggested that todays 'Puritans' are those of the "Forward in Faith Movement" - A novel but appropriate comparison. Accurate to the extent that the organisation is within the Church but outside its episcopal juridiction. FIF is a body politic in the same vein as the Puritan dominated secular Parliament was; secular legal control of the episcopacy (how ironic).

Historically the English Puritans wholly desired the destruction of the Episcopacy, the elimination of the Prayer Book and the dispensing of liturgical practice and rubrics and everything else that went with it.

Let me again Quote from Bp+ Moorman's excellent historical account (widely used, quoted from and accepted since it was first published in 1953)

Page 213 "(Matthew Parker's) successor, Edmund Grindal (1576 -83), who had been Bishop of London and Archbishop of York, was a much less sucessful leader of the Church. In his days a noticable deteriation set in, and , in spite of Grindals efforts, bishops and clergy showed signs of a growing materialism and worldliness which gave some excuse to the Puritan demands for the abolition of the episcopacy altogether. Grindal himself was honest enough, but he was weak. His sympathies lay really with the Puritans rather than with the chuchmen , and his support of the 'prophesyings' aroused the royal disapproval and lead to his sequestration and to his spending the greater part of his primacy in retirement and disgrace"

AND

From Page 215 "Bishop Jewel made it his business to educate a number of boys, among whom was Richard Hooker who grew up to be Master of the Temple. By the time Hooker entered the field of controversy the danger from Rome was very much less than it had been in Jewel's day, while the Puritans had grown greatly in influcence and prestige. Hooker set himself to provide Anglicanism with a philisophical and logical basis which he did in his book 'Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity". This eight volume work of which the first four, published in 1594, deal with law in general and Church Law in particular. Hooker refutes the Puritan argument that Scripture is the only test of what is correct, and defends the Church's right to make her own laws as long as they are not contrary to Scripture."

AV Just because a Puritan is an Anglican does not meant that the episcopacy is a sacred cow.

Your assertion that the episcopacy (let alone the liturgy and Prayer Book) was always 'safe' from the designs of the Puritans is misleading at best and at worst an outright distortion of fact.

[haulpak]

Furthermore, desiring to see ones life increasingly reformed in accordance with Scripture is not a bad thing.



"reformed" according to whose interpretation of Scripture?

There are a large number of Christian groups who claim to live their lives in accordance with 'Scripture'. On that basis you would agree with their 'biblical lifestyle' given that it has been "increasingly reformed in accordance with the Scripture" yes??? After all THAT is your position, that it is "not a bad thing"....

For example, the Waco Community, or the Jonestown Community..... they were all "reformed in accordance with Scripture".... its "not a bad thing".... is it??? this 'reform' and the 'pure living' and 'biblical lifestyle' that goes with it its all in accordance with Scripture is it not???

Ah yes...once again it comes down to the interpretation doesnt it. And on that basis the 'reform' could be as much a corruption as it is a conformity of the Scriptures, the business of 'living a 'biblical life'.

BUT there are 'Reforms' and there are 'Reforms'.....right... right????.... a bit like "All pigs are created equal, some are more equal than others".

Anything that is "reformed in accordance with Scripture" cannot POSSIBLY be a BAD thing..... can it?? After all such 'reform' is 'pure' living according to biblical principals.........

Ahhh but wait theres more... My crystal ball is telling me that YOU are about to tell me that the "Authority" of the "Interpretation" COMES FROM the Scriptures themselves...... im WAY ahead of you.... and might I compliement you on such a fine circular argument that is; I doubt that even Old Pythagorus could determine the Radius of THAT woopsy!!!!

Nice work.

[Albion]

Reforms[/i]'.....right... right????.... Anything that is "reformed in accordance with Scripture" cannot POSSIBLY be a BAD thing..... can it??

Ahhh but wait theres more... My crystal ball is telling me that YOU are about to tell me that the "Authority" of the "Interpretation" COMES FROM the Scriptures themselves......

Can't speak for him, but I'd say that first it is necessary to admit that reform can be needed. After all, the extreme faction doesn't agree that anything could ever have been wrong with the Medieval Church. So once we get over that and admit that reform was necessary, and that reform is not wrong in itself, we are on track.

Then what? Well, I can't agree that what comes next is telling you that the authority of interpreting scripture comes from scripture, etc., as you put it, because this never was the POV of the Reformation era reformers. Nor does it automatically follow, even if you may have encountered people who personally think as you've outlined (in bold, above).

[haulpak]

Can't speak for him, but I'd say that first it is necessary to admit that reform can be needed. After all, the extreme faction doesn't agree that anything could ever have been wrong with the Medieval Church. So once we get over that and admit that reform was necessary, and that reform is not wrong in itself, we are on track.

The 'extreme faction' probably doesn't agree that anything could be wrong in the Medieval Church because they have a distinct desire to 'reform' us all the away back to the Dark Ages.

Probably in the vain belief that if they could turn back the clock it might somehow have a more scripturally appealing and biblically enobled response.

I have never said that I disapprove of 'reform' nor do I think that "necessary" 'reform' ought to be biblically ultruistic.

There were OBVIOUS Reforms which had they been embraced by the Roman Catholic Church the "Protestant Reformation" would have been a blip on the history books of civilisation (if you can call some Religous historical events civilised). However such obvious and necessary reforms were not adopted, probably for both self indulgent and political reasons and NOW the we face the historical "today" result.

This does not mean we ought be held hostage to every well meaning 'reform' which proclaims consistancy and accord with 'Scripture'; to the extent that those who do not 'reform' are burned at the stake for being "heratics".

Again, there are reforms which serve the Church and there are reforms which serve the poltical ideals and goals of individuals. Which is Which is like trying to find the little ball under three shuffling shells.

A person should seek 'reform' in their own life according to their concisience and to what they hold true to be 'scripturally' correct and thereby translating to a 'biblical life of scriptural purity'.

However such a person has NO right to enforce that 'reform' on any one else. A persons Journey with Jesus/Almighty God is a matter for themselves to determine and the acceptance of 'reform' and what that entails is to be assessed and merited in that light and that light alone.

After all that is 'reasonable reform' as opposed to a 'radicial reform'...wouldn't you say?

[haulpak]

Then what? Well, I can't agree that what comes next is telling you that the authority of interpreting scripture comes from scripture, etc., as you put it, because this never was the POV of the Reformation era reformers. Nor does it automatically follow, even if you may have encountered people who personally think as you've outlined (in bold, above).



My understanding is that there are three ways to 'interpret' Scripture.

1) A literal word for word interpretation - as is written

2) A passage of scripture which is supported by other passages (hermenutic approach)

3) Letting "Scripture interpret Scripture" which has ALWAYS been the most ambiguous and least appealing of the three. Simply because of the potential corruptibile nature of the interpretation - that you can make it say anything you want. That is, it will support your view because you'll cut-and-paste it to ensure it does so. Otherwise known as "taking it out of context".

But of course the 'reformist' does not care about context, only that it is "in accordance with Scripture".

Again, the interpretation and process thereof is the critical catalyst.

[Albion]

The 'extreme faction' probably doesn't agree that anything could be wrong in the Medieval Church because they have a distinct desire to 'reform' us all the away back to the Dark Ages.

Do you mean "therefore" they have a desire, rather than "because" they have a distinct desire to reform us all the way back to the Dark Ages?

Probably in the vain belief that if they could turn back the clock it might somehow have a more scripturally appealing and biblically enobled response.

No, that's isn't what excites them. Rather it is the idea that whatever was, was good. Sort of Alexander Pope applied to the Holy Spirit. There's no reform sought in that.

There were OBVIOUS Reforms which had they been embraced by the Roman Catholic Church the "Protestant Reformation" would have been a blip on the history books of civilisation (if you can call some Religous historical events civilised). However such obvious and necessary reforms were not adopted, probably for both self indulgent and political reasons and NOW the we face the historical "today" result.

OK

This does not mean we ought be held hostage to every well meaning 'reform' which proclaims consistancy and accord with 'Scripture'; to the extent that those who do not 'reform' are burned at the stake for being "heratics".

I'm sure no one holds to that position. No one here, at least.

A person should seek 'reform' in their own life according to their concisience and to what they hold true to be 'scripturally' correct and thereby translating to a 'biblical life of scriptural purity'. However such a person has NO right to enforce that 'reform' on any one else. A persons Journey with Jesus/Almighty God is a matter for themselves to determine and the acceptance of 'reform' and what that entails is to be assessed and merited in that light and that light alone.

I thought we were speaking of churches, not individuals apart from the churches. Yes, that is correct. We were. In most of this thread, the focus has been on Puritans and the institutional church, not upon a personal lifestyle only.

After all that is 'reasonable reform' as opposed to a 'radicial reform'...wouldn't you say?

No, I don't consider it unreasonable to reform the church when error has crept into it. Indeed, it is something that we are called to do as Christians.

[haulpak]

I thought we were speaking of churches, not individuals apart from the churches. Yes, that is correct. We were. In most of this thread, the focus has been on Puritans and the institutional church, not upon a personal lifestyle only.



A "Church" is but a collective of individuals who share a common 'faith' (reformed, liberal or otherwise - even a belief in Krispy Kreme).

The Puritans were one such collective, not dissimilar to the collective we have today (Forward in Faith). The Puritans sought Secular power by controling and influencing Parliament from where they desired to 'legally' rid themselves of the epsicopacy and statues surrounding the Church of England which they believed to be anathema and contrary to "Scripture". All this in accordance with an over riding desire to import and enforce Calvanism upon the Church of England.

It is in no small mercy that they failed. Otherwise you can forget the lovely liturgy and sung Psalms on Sunday let alone the spriturally valuable rubrics of Divine Service, copes chasubles etc. Oh and you can ditch the Prayer Book as well, definately one of the Puritan sore points - formal service.

You see it starts as an individual desiring a 'pure' life which in their eyes is in accordance with Scripture; Biblical Living. They are Puritan. They meet other like minded individuals and become a collective ("church"). How would you feel if this "Puritan" group turned up at YOUR parish church, attended, became regular 'registed' members... and one day decided that.... YOU needed to "Reform" and be like them...... and if you didn't like it YOU had to leave because they had the 'numbers' and controlled the votes.

Not very nice is it.

[haulpak]

I'm sure no one holds to that position. No one here, at least.



Could I have that in writing, duly notarised and sealed in hot wax with Royal Warrant?????

I am sorry if I am mistaken in my observation BUT earlier today I read a rather disturbing post from someone called Phineas (well, close enough) which basically went along the lines of

1) Your opinion doesn't count and your opinion is invalid because my response is "in accordance with Scripture" and is therefore 'correct' .

2) Because your stated view is 'not in accordance with Scripture' you are by default a "Non-Believer" (heratic).

And there was a lot of cut-and-paste quotes from Scripture which seemed to be drawn from all over the place but ultimately supported Phineas... but could easily have supported the existance of Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster depending on which one you were trying to prove a case for at the time!!!

Well thats the shortened version but you get the drift.

If it wasnt so 'serious' it would be comical. But if we are to be truely "Puritan" or 'pure'.... such things are non-jokable and must be treated with the most sincere reverence as befits the biblical life 'in accordance with Scripture'.

:crossrc:

[Albion]

Could I have that in writing, duly notarised and sealed in hot wax with Royal Warrant?????

I am sorry if I am mistaken in my observation BUT earlier today I read a rather disturbing post from someone called Phineas (well, close enough) which basically went along the lines of

1) Your opinion doesn't count and your opinion is invalid because my response is "in accordance with Scripture" and is therefore 'correct' .

2) Because your stated view is 'not in accordance with Scripture' you are by default a "Non-Believer" (heratic).

And there was a lot of cut-and-paste quotes from Scripture which seemed to be drawn from all over the place but ultimately supported Phineas... but could easily have supported the existance of Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster depending on which one you were trying to prove a case for at the time!!!

Well thats the shortened version but you get the drift.

Well, yeesss

However, that seems a different problem. When you wrote this: This does not mean we ought be held hostage to every well meaning 'reform' which proclaims consistancy and accord with 'Scripture'; to the extent that those who do not 'reform' are burned at the stake for being "heratics" I took it to refer to reform movements or the idea of church reform.

There are always people who will call others heretics or read them out of the church for disagreeing with them. That doesn't really relate to the validity of reform IMO.

[Albion]

A "Church" is but a collective of individuals who share a common 'faith' (reformed, liberal or otherwise - even a belief in Krispy Kreme).

We know that there are several ways of looking at the idea of "church," but I can't agree that we here have not been considering, mainly, the institutional church, whether that be the CofE, ECUSA, or any other such entity.

The Puritans were one such collective, not dissimilar to the collective we have today (Forward in Faith).

Except that their values were totally different from each other, huh?

The Puritans sought Secular power by controling and influencing Parliament from where they desired to 'legally' rid themselves of the epsicopacy and statues surrounding the Church of England

You see what I meant about the discussion having been mainly about the institutional church(es), not just the force of ideas.

You see it starts as an individual desiring a 'pure' life which in their eyes is in accordance with Scripture; Biblical Living. They are Puritan. They meet other like minded individuals and become a collective ("church"). How would you feel if this "Puritan" group turned up at YOUR parish church, attended, became regular 'registed' members... and one day decided that.... YOU needed to "Reform" and be like them...... and if you didn't like it YOU had to leave because they had the 'numbers' and controlled the votes.

Not very nice is it.

Not that particular scenario, I suppose, but what does that have to do with reform (OK, it doesn't) or contemporary Anglicanism (again, nothing except that AV1611 favors the low church position within the Church)? There are no Puritans asking the rest of us to leave our parishes. And if AV1611 suggests that there might be a value in reading up on Puritan theologians, I don't see any connection to this take-over notion.

[haulpak]

Well, yeesss

However, that seems a different problem. When you wrote this: This does not mean we ought be held hostage to every well meaning 'reform' which proclaims consistancy and accord with 'Scripture'; to the extent that those who do not 'reform' are burned at the stake for being "heratics" I took it to refer to reform movements or the idea of church reform.


There are always people who will call others heretics or read them out of the church for disagreeing with them. That doesn't really relate to the validity of reform IMO.

Gosh I am sorry you 'took it' the wrong way, mistinterpreted my meaning or just jumped to the wrong conclusion about my writing.

The second part of your response was funny stuff, it had me rolling on the floor laughing - but in the Puritan theme of the thread, I was laughing "in accordance with scripture", it was a laugh supported by 'scripture' and wholly consistant with leading a 'pure' "Biblical Life".

Heres an idea lets "Reform" the Theology of the Anglican Church and validly prove the existance of the Loch Ness Monster..... Scripturally. After all, such a 'Reform' is harmless right?? We could even have "Nessie Society" meetings, they can share space with the Mothers Union!!!!!

Would you have a problem with this reform"?? Ok you can call me a Heratic and point to its relevancy or how its is detracting from your spiritual journey but that does not "relate to the validity of the Reform"......does it?????

After all... your view is not as 'valid' as the 'reform' itself??? is it???? oh wait.. mmmm let me think about THAT...

Or maybe we should just 'Reform' the whole thing back to the dark ages and disenfranchise the entire population. Now THERES an Idea!!!!! Oh wait, that wheelbarrow is already being pushed..... sorry, i'll take a number.

Thanks Albion, great stuff.

[haulpak]

We know that there are several ways of looking at the idea of "church," but I can't agree that we here have not been considering, mainly, the institutional church, whether that be the CofE, ECUSA, or any other such entity.


Theres no difference, its still a 'body' of the faithful in whatever form. By the way the term "Reform" is not exclusive to Religious entites, you seem to want to put it in that box to which it does not belong.


Except that their values were totally different from each other, huh?


Are they?? oh.. gosh.. wow. What you fail to grasp is that both bodies exist within the Church itself but the Church has no 'jurisdiction' over them.

The situation is EXACTLY the same in a historical context.

Lets look at what Bp Moorman says in the "A History of the Church of England" (1953, page 208)

"There was therefore nothing political with their (Puritan) activities. Though many of them were in touch with Geneva they were not commissioned by any foreign power, nor did they show any hostility to the Queen herself. They could not therefore be tried for treason or imprisoned; on the contrary there was nothing to stop them holding positions of great power and responsibility within the Church which they wished to reform. To them the Elizabethan Settlement was wholly unsatisfactory, having set up a Church which they regarded as tainted with Romanism and untrue to Scripture."

1) FIF can't be called a 'Non-Anglican Body' nor can the proponants be 'tried for treason'.

2) FIF participants are able to hold positions of great power and responsibility - nothing preventing that.

3) FIF, once it holds this "great power" can make all the "Reforms" that it wishes

4) FIF sees the current "settlement" as wholly unsatisfactory and regard it as being tainted by the "gay" Debate and the "Female Influence" debate and that they consider them "untrue" to Scripture.

So Albion, whats the difference?????


You see what I meant about the discussion having been mainly about the institutional church(es), not just the force of ideas.


Yet it is the 'force of ideas' which is the key driver behind the 'institutional church(es)'.

Your convergence is an interesting oxymoron. But perhaps you could explain it a bit better, to avoid any misconception or confusion.


Not that particular scenario, I suppose, but what does that have to do with reform (OK, it doesn't) or contemporary Anglicanism (again, nothing except that AV1611 favors the low church position within the Church)? There are no Puritans asking the rest of us to leave our parishes. And if AV1611 suggests that there might be a value in reading up on Puritan theologians, I don't see any connection to this take-over notion.

It has EVERYTHING to do with "Reform".

The whole concept of "reform" within the Church as an Institution is wholly driven by individuals whose 'awakening' has such fervour and self-rightous belief of their interpretation of scripture and the correctness of that interpretation that they see it as some 'holy mission' or some 'God-inspired' cause from which they must go forth and "REFORM".......Bring the 'Church' BACK from the brink etc etc etc oh the melodrama!!! Its SO Mills and Boon.

I have to be careful I might give Mrs Haulpak heart flutters or awaken her 'inner reformer' if she reads this- then im REALLY in trouble.

You don't have to get "Puritans" to ask you to leave the Parishes. What you GET is the Puritans "Reforms" altering the liturgical and spiritual life of your Parish so that the parish does not resemble that which you first started out with. On that basis you would probably leave voluntarily and leave the 'nuts' to themselves.

A friend of mine was a member of a particular parish and that parish was middle of the road Anglican, Broadchurch I guess, good ministry etc etc. A group of 'Apostolics' decided to make it their home, there were about maybe 15 of them. Within two years those 15 people controlled Vestry, Nominations and were Synod Reps. When it came time for the Vicar to retire and a new appointment to be made GUESS what sort of Minister was appointed - ahh yes, the ONE with an Apostolic slant. IT was REFORM BY STEALTH and it was enforced upon the majority by a tiny eeny weeny group of trouble makers. It SPLIT the Parish, to the extent that it no longer exists - it went broke and sold up.

SO this little group of Apostolics who unilaterally decided that the Parish was not "biblical" enough and required "Reform" certainly got their way. The only thing is it destroyed the previously vibrant Parish and drove people AWAY from their spiritual journey.

But thats ok to you isnt it because after all provided it does not relate to the "Validity of the Reform" is perfectly acceptable. Thats what you said a moment ago?? right?? or did I misinterpret your writing?

You can read who you like, Puritans, Spong, Theiring, Packer, Ryle or even Robert Ludlum or Wilbur Smith!!! Who am I to stop your reading!! It's not about reading of ideas is it.... books are written to 'influence' people, the writings 'influence' and to an extent 'educate' and provide 'perspective'. However its the "next step" and what happens if it is taken which is the dangerous territory - the result of fervour and melodrama - "Reform"; because your newly found interpretation of scripture and the biblical pure life that you now espouse requires it!!!!!!

Thats the problem with Reform, it starts with individuals and ends up in the institutions. Don't mind the damage it does along the way, broken communities, people walking away from their faith in disallusionment (how can you justify that? oh its 'reform') and the list can fill the Yellow Pages.

You don't see the connection between Puritanism and a 'take over' because its not obvious until its too late and irreversible. Thats why Puritanism failed in the Church of England and why the Church historically withstood the onslaught of the Calvanists who sought to impose their brand of 'reform' on the institution (and the people by default).

Moormans historical account is a worthwhile read if you can find a copy. We could all do with learning from history rather than letting history repeat itself.

Perhaps you should ask AV what his 'low church' position is before you so readily agree to his brand of 'chocholate cake' and start asking for the recipie. After all, the Puritans were very happy to extricate and destroy Liturgy, Prayer Book, Rubrics and everything that went in it in favour of their 'Calvanist brand' of worship ALL in the name of "Reform".

I see it this way, you can't be Presybyterian AND Anglican your simply "Renting" one or the other and as a result are neither. Such is the dilema, but one which is not corrected or 'fixed' by "Reform" or the delusion thereof.

[ContraMundum]

"reformed" according to whose interpretation of Scripture?


In all fairness, not much within the Puritan works that have maintained popularity among the wider Church have theological error.

Besides, Jesus endorses personal reading and interpretation of the scriptures (Lk 10:26), so it's not a bad thing and is something we as a Church have inherited from the Jewish tradition.

Obviously, when it comes to doctrinal things we need to consult the ancient consensus of the Church when reading our scripture, but that's another topic. Most of us agree with that anyway.

[haulpak]

In all fairness, not much within the Puritan works that have maintained popularity among the wider Church have theological error.



It is not a question of 'error' but a question of the resulting 'action' or activity from which THAT theology is the catalyst.

For example the Puritan works may be theologically sound, but on that basis do you decry the value of the Prayer Book and litugical function because it does not conform with a 'reformed' interpretation of 'Scriptural Worship' (i.e a view grounded in 'Puritan' theology)????

Further, does this 'theology' place each persons method of worship and spiritual journey on a pecking order or scale of ranking? It is like saying "mine is better than yours because mine is scripturally and biblically correct" and then expecting the remainder to fall into line and 'reform'.

It is for that reason, as I read Moorman's work, that Richard Hooker defended the Church against the onslaught of the Puritan Anglicans (with calvanist ideals/theology) which resulted in the Anglican Church retaining both the Prayer Book and Catholic traditions. BOTH of which the 'Reformists'/Puritians/Calvinists were bitterly opposed too.

I do not suggest that the theology is incorrect or valueless but it is the potenial corruptibility and destructive force of the ensuing "Reforms" that are the greatest cause of concern.

There is no such thing as a Presbyterian Anglican, those that hold this view may share common ground (as Anglicans do with Catholics and other 'christian' denominations) but to suggest a convergence is delusion at best and schizophrenic at worst.

[ContraMundum]

It is not a question of 'error' but a question of the resulting 'action' or activity from which THAT theology is the catalyst.

For example the Puritan works may be theologically sound, but on that basis do you decry the value of the Prayer Book and litugical function because it does not conform with a 'reformed' interpretation of 'Scriptural Worship' (i.e a view grounded in 'Puritan' theology - please dont give me the circular argument of 'provided it is in accordance with scripture' ....again its a dead horse which does not require beating.)????

Further, does this 'theology' place each persons method of worship and spiritual journey on a pecking order or scale of ranking? It is like saying "mine is better than yours because mine is scripturally and biblically correct" and then expecting the remainder to fall into line and 'reform'.

It is for that reason, as I read Moorman's work, that Richard Hooker defended the Church against the onslaught of the Puritan Anglicans (with calvanist ideals/theology) which resulted in the Anglican Church retaining both the Prayer Book and Catholic traditions. BOTH of which the 'Reformists'/Puritians/Calvinists were bitterly opposed too.

I do not suggest that the theology is incorrect or valueless but it is the potenial corruptibility and destructive force of the ensuing "Reforms" that are the greatest cause of concern.

There is no such thing as a Presbyterian Anglican, you may share common ground (as Anglicans do with Catholics and other 'christian' denominations) but to suggest a convergence is delusion at best and schizophrenic at worst.

I understand where you're coming from.

I guess I was saying that classic Puritan works that have remained popular among the wider church tend to be less riddled with the radical spirit than the stuff that Hooker had to deal with. Most of that stuff hasn't survived the test of time, yet works like Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Baxter's The Saint's Everlasting Rest have survived the test of time, and works like those have been great sources of inspiration to Christians of many hues. I've never considered them Anglican though. :)

[haulpak]

I guess I was saying that classic Puritan works that have remained popular among the wider church tend to be less riddled with the radical spirit than the stuff that Hooker had to deal with. Most of that stuff hasn't survived the test of time, yet works like Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Baxter's The Saint's Everlasting Rest have survived the test of time, and works like those have been great sources of inspiration to Christians of many hues. I've never considered them Anglican though. :)

I completely agree with the sentiment and the observation.

Anyone for "Martin Marprelate"??

Just like "Martin Marprelate" many of the 'biblical life according to scripture and "reform" proponants will eventually be consigned to the dustbin of history and looked upon as nothing more than a historic curiosity.

You can't get meaningful "reform" without engaging the majority. So much for being 'relevant'.

[Albion]

Except that their values were totally different from each other, huh? Are they?? oh.. gosh.. wow. What you fail to grasp is that both bodies exist within the Church itself but the Church has no 'jurisdiction' over them.


Of course there is a difference. The two stand for totally different ideas and have or had totally different approaches to their objectives. Not to understand such obvious differences is as silly as saying that Democracy and Dictatorship are the same since, after all, they are both kinds of government.

If you are trying to tar some modern day Anglo-Catholics by comparing them to some Puritans from another time, it doesn't work.

By the way the term "Reform" is not exclusive to Religious entites, you seem to want to put it in that box

That's only because we are discussing religious reform here. If we were talking about reform of the public school system, we'd have an entirely different discussion.

[haulpak]

Of course there is a difference. The two stand for totally different ideas and have or had totally different approaches to their objectives. Not to understand such obvious differences is as silly as saying that Democracy and Dictatorship are the same since, after all, they are both kinds of government.

If you are trying to tar some modern day Anglo-Catholics by comparing them to some Puritans from another time, it doesn't work.



You miss the point completely.

If you hadn't noticed I attend and Anglo-Catholic Church plus I have already made mention to Contra that if it were not for my loyalty to and belief in the Anglican Church in Australia. I myself WOULD be a member of the TAC.

That and I have been a member of a FIF parish before my move interstate.

The point, to clarify, is that both the organisation of the Puritans and the organisation of FIF can be paralleled. I did not say they stood for the same thing, you just assumed that.

In fact I did say this in Post #32 "The Puritans were one such collective, not dissimilar to the collective we have today (Forward in Faith). "

Plus in Post # 37 I have outlined in point form the organisational parallels between the two adjunct groups (Puritans/FIF) which operate outside the jurisdiction of the Anglican Church but at the same time are integral to many Anglican adherants (individuals and parishes).

I am surprised that you seem to think that I am suggesting that FIF is a "Puritan" organisation when I have not at any stage made such a comment.

It is clear the 'political methods' (but not adgenda) and 'organisation' (outside the jurisdiction of the Church) of the two are similar.

[haulpak]

That's only because we are discussing religious reform here. If we were talking about reform of the public school system, we'd have an entirely different discussion.

Actually it would be essentially the same.

You would just be discussing curriculum and administration matters and perhaps even drawing comparisons to which external system you think best achieves the 'reforms'.

[Albion]

Actually it would be essentially the same.

You would just be discussing curriculum and administration matters and perhaps even drawing comparisons to which external system you think best achieves the 'reforms'.

But we wouldn't be dealing with the church, which is what you are concerned with. And if we want to pursue that, it would require knowing the apples from the oranges and not making blanket arguments that one reformer is exactly the same as any other reformer, no matter the circumstances, objectives, methods used, or principles advanced.

[haulpak]

But we wouldn't be dealing with the church, which is what you are concerned with. And if we want to pursue that, it would require knowing the apples from the oranges and not making blanket arguments that anyone who wants to restore or reform anything is the same as anyone else who wants to change anything.

In order for something to be 'restored' you must first demonstrate that it existed in the (restored) form in the first place.

If it is about "Reform", it may include restoration, but ultimately it is CHANGE. What is more it is the entity or body politic who's interpretation of what that Change entails, the 'authority' of the basis for change and the corruptibility and difficulties which come with it are the REAL problem.

I don't understand why your arguing about semantics. The tennor of your post is quite confusing.

[Iosias]

AV Just because a Puritan is an Anglican does not meant that the episcopacy is a sacred cow.

1. Prove episcopacy from Scripture.
2. For Hooker bishops were "a remedy of schism" and not essential to the existence of the Church. He also recognised the validity of presbyteral ordination.

To argue that Puritans were wholly opposed to episcopalianism is false, no where have I stated that all Puritans supported episcopalianism. Some did, some did not.

The issue is a moot one anyway because episcopacy as understood by the Church of England has been that a bishop is simply a presbyter consecrated to a wider sphere of responsibility.

[Iosias]

My understanding is that there are three ways to 'interpret' Scripture.

1) A literal word for word interpretation - as is written

2) A passage of scripture which is supported by other passages (hermenutic approach)

3) Letting "Scripture interpret Scripture" which has ALWAYS been the most ambiguous and least appealing of the three. Simply because of the potential corruptibile nature of the interpretation - that you can make it say anything you want. That is, it will support your view because you'll cut-and-paste it to ensure it does so. Otherwise known as "taking it out of context".

Hermenutics is the science of interpretation hence the literal word-for-word interpretation is an hermenutic. Furthermore the Reformers and Puritans taught the hermenutical rule that Scripture interprets Scripture. For the Puritans, "a text taken out of context is a pretext". :)

The Reformers’ Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centered (http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/03/the_reformers_hermeneutic_gram.php) by Nathan Pitchfordhttp://www.monergism.com/directory/track_click.php?free_link=13760

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Hermeneutics/

[ContraMundum]

1. Prove episcopacy from Scripture.

Easy- but what constitues proof for one does not necessarily make proof for another!

2. For Hooker bishops were "a remedy of schism" and not essential to the existence of the Church. He also recognised the validity of presbyteral ordination.

This is true- almost every old Anglican text sees the episcopacy in different lights with difference bearings on the essence of the Church.

It is also true that we find examples in the fathers of presbyterial ordination and even didactic examples stating that ordination being reserved for bishops is of human institution only.

The issue is a moot one anyway because episcopacy as understood by the Church of England has been that a bishop is simply a presbyter consecrated to a wider sphere of responsibility.

This, in its barest form, is generally true. The Anglo-Catholic movement takes another view, which is one reason why in the end we should retain the episcopacy even if we understand it differently.

[Albion]

In order for something to be 'restored' you must first demonstrate that it existed in the (restored) form in the first place.

OK.

If it is about "Reform", it may include restoration, but ultimately it is CHANGE. What is more it is the entity or body politic who's interpretation of what that Change entails, the 'authority' of the basis for change and the corruptibility and difficulties which come with it are the REAL problem.

I don't understand why your arguing about semantics.

I'm not. I'm trying to get you to understand that you should not be diverting the discussion into an unfruitful concern with semantics. ;)

I had assumed that we were speaking of Anglican doings. That's what I am focused on here.

The tennor of your post is quite confusing.

I was apparently wrong to point out that your concern with semantics and how a word that means something here could theoretically be used with a totally different subject was taking us off our topic.

Let's just confine the discussion to church matters and there won't be any confusion.