Puritans are Long Gone? Not Exactly

[Kokavkrystallos]

If you look up Puritans today on Google you get this:

"Puritanism as such is long gone, and their churches in the US mostly evolved into Unitarians or Congregationalists. But other Protestant groups had similar ideas. Probably the closest groups today to the Puritans of the 1600s would be the conservative branches of the Presbyterians, like the PCA and such"

and,

"In America, the Puritan settlers of Mass Bay Colony, and New England in general, lost their theocratic hold on colonial governments, particularly by the last 1600s. But they still were the majority faith in New England in the 1700s, while transitioning into what was to become the Congregationalist Church."

or,
"Apr 1, 2021 — There is no Church denomination that is from the Puritan Religion today. . Congregational, Baptist, Presbyterian and Methodists all claim..."

This is quite sad, as well as very misleading. To equate the Puritans with the contemporary Congregational church is horrible. A look at Congregational Churches across the US today, you find many are "open and affirming" with rainbow flags on their websites, and some with pastors in same sex "marriages." (Which in God's eyes are NOT marriages at all, but are abomination: that is what the Word says)
United Church of Christ (UCC) is what you find in most Congregational Churches today, and many, many of these are also "open and affirming."

Now, let's keep in mind, Jonathan Edwards was Congregational, and also considered a Puritan. In fact Puritans were not/are not any specific denomination, but basically adhere to reformed theology, the Westminster Statement of faith, but can be Congregational, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.

But to say there are no Puritans today is plain wrong:

I like going on this website, and it's been around awhile:

Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind | Search the Scriptures... (John 5:39)

Here's some quotes from the site:

"Since 1998 A Puritan’s Mind has been the largest Puritan and Reformed Christian website on the internet. It exists to offer free resources on Reformed and Puritan literature for the Christian’s spiritual growth in Christ to the glory of God; and to encourage reformed and puritan reading on our newest resources."

"Today, many Christians are turning back to the puritans to, “walk in the old paths,” of God’s word, and to continue to proclaim old truth that glorifies Jesus Christ. There is no new theology. In our electronic age, more and more people are looking to add electronic books (ePubs, mobi and PDF formats) to their library – books from the Reformers and Puritans – in order to become a “digital puritan” themselves. "

"The Puritans: All of Life to the Glory of God
by C. Matthew McMahon
Christians would do well to study the life, theology and practice of the 17th century Puritans.[1] It is, no doubt, a most profitable exercise. The Puritans were biblical precisionists, desiring to love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength. In fact, the puritans believed that all of life is to be lived to the glory of God and the majesty of Jesus Christ.[2]

It is true that the Puritans have received an unpleasant reputation in pop-culture.[3] But, if one understands even a cursory understanding about the life, theology and practice of the Puritans, they would not be “so amazed” that such receive as many false accusations as they do.[4]

These Puritans were followers of the Bible and the Reformation, especially of the articles of religion penned under the Calvinistic system of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, as well as the favorable outcome of the party of Predestinarians during the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619) that condemned the false teaching of Arminianism. They were also overwhelmingly Presbyterian in their form of government and ridiculed every form of prelacy that was current in its day. Though the adjective “Puritan” became commonly used, especially by those in opposition to the Reformation party, it was simply a derivation of a more commonly used term by Bishop Laud and his minions as these Protestant clergy began to write vehemently as Doctrinal Puritans. “Puritan” is a word that is really an afterthought to the instrumental means by which these clergy opposed the state. Before they were known as “Puritans” formally, they were labeled with a term that has long been forgotten – the Precisionist.

The “Precisionist” is a very important term indeed. Its etymology derives from a Middle English word which first stems from the Middle French precis, and from Latin praecisus, (the past participle of praecidere means “to cut off” which in turn is a derivation from prae + caedere “to cut”). In its final form, it means “exactly or sharply defined or stated”. It retains the idea of being “minutely exact,” and pertains to one who strictly conforms to a pattern, standard, or convention. Precisionists, then, are men marked by a thorough consideration or minute measurement of small factual details. Puritans are Precisionists. It is because they are Precisionists that Puritans were, in fact, Puritans. Without being a Precisionist, one could never be a true Puritan. Some of the greater “histories” written about the Puritans use the label doctrinal Puritans for the term “Precisionists”.[15] However, the phrase “doctrinal puritans” is less descriptive than scholars would like, and it would be more helpful to use the term “precisionist.”

Then there's Joel Beeke who has a Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

https://prts.edu/profile/joel-beeke/

Joel Robert Beeke (born December 9, 1952) is an American Reformed theologian who is a pastor in the Heritage Reformed Congregations and the chancellor of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. Under the oversight of the Heritage Reformed Congregations, Beeke helped found Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary in 1995, where he served as president until he assumed the chancellorship in 2023.

 

[The Liturgist]

Jonathan Edwards was a Congregationalist, not a Puritan, and not all Congregationalists are ultra-liberal members of the UCC. The CCCC consists of traditional Congregational churches in the US, such as Park Street Church, which I greatly love.

Puritanism on the other hand I have an extremely low opinion of. The Puritans were iconoclastic and superstitious, for example, conducting the shameful Salem Witch Trials on the basis of “spectral evidence”, literally if one member of the community had a dream, or claimed to have a dream, that another member was a witch, that could be used as evidence to have that person hanged. It was astonishingly wicked, as bad as anything that happened during the Inquisition. Then there is the matter of Oliver Cromwell, the hypocritical regicidal tyrant who fought a war for the rights of Parliament, largely due to Puritan issues and objections to the legitimate actions of Archbishop Laud and the episcopate of the Church of England only to appropriate those rights for himself.

As someone who has been a Congregationalist, I am embarrassed by the Puritan heritage of Congregationalism and my only consolation is the knowledge that most of the worst Puritan churches wound up converting from Christianity to Unitarianism in the 18th century, including Harvard University, whose president Increase Mather and his son Cotton Mather were instrumental in the conduct of the Salem Witch Trials, and Harvard today is a bastion of far-left ideology.

I believe it is imperative to distinguish between traditional Christianity and Puritanism. Traditional puritanism was superseded by other similar iconoclastic-Nestorian groups such as Fundamentalists. There is no point in reviving puritanism.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

Jonathan Edwards was a Congregationalist, not a Puritan, and not all Congregationalists are ultra-liberal members of the UCC. The CCCC consists of traditional Congregational churches in the US, such as Park Street Church, which I greatly love.

Puritanism on the other hand I have an extremely low opinion of. The Puritans were iconoclastic and superstitious, for example, conducting the shameful Salem Witch Trials on the basis of “spectral evidence”, literally if one member of the community had a dream, or claimed to have a dream, that another member was a witch, that could be used as evidence to have that person hanged. It was astonishingly wicked, as bad as anything that happened during the Inquisition. Then there is the matter of Oliver Cromwell, the hypocritical regicidal tyrant who fought a war for the rights of Parliament, largely due to Puritan issues and objections to the legitimate actions of Archbishop Laud and the episcopate of the Church of England only to appropriate those rights for himself.

As someone who has been a Congregationalist, I am embarrassed by the Puritan heritage of Congregationalism and my only consolation is the knowledge that most of the worst Puritan churches wound up converting from Christianity to Unitarianism in the 18th century, including Harvard University, whose president Increase Mather and his son Cotton Mather were instrumental in the conduct of the Salem Witch Trials, and Harvard today is a bastion of far-left ideology.

I believe it is imperative to distinguish between traditional Christianity and Puritanism. Traditional puritanism was superseded by other similar iconoclastic-Nestorian groups such as Fundamentalists. There is no point in reviving puritanism.

I know Jonathan Edwards was Congregationalist, but he's considered Puritan by many.
Also we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. It's true some, like the Mathers were instrumental in persecutions that should not have been. In fact the Salem witch trials were not the worst. There was a incident in New England where the militia massacred 600 Native Americans, mostly women, children, and elderly men, while the men were off hunting. One of the so called Puritans in charge (I thought it was a Mather, but could be wrong) wrote in his journal, "Thus I sent 600 red devils to hell today."

It might be in here, which is interesting; by Increase Mather "A Brief History of the Warr with the Indians in New-England (1676)", and I also see a bit of superstition in there, as well as claiming America as Israel.

"THAT the Heathen People amongst whom we live, and whose Land the Lord God of our Fa-thers hath given to us for a rightfull Possession, have at sundry times been plotting mischievous devices against that part of the English Israel which is seated in these goings down of the Sun, no man that is an Inhabitant of any considerable standing, can be ignorant. Especially that there have been (nec injuriâ) jealousies concerning the Narragansets and Wompanoags, is notoriously known to all men. And whereas they have been quiet untill the last year, that must be ascribed to the wonderfull Providence of God, who did (as with Jacob of old, and after that with the Children of Israel)
lay the fear of the English, and the dread of them upon all the Indians. The terror of God was upon them round about. Nor indeed had they such advantages in former years as now they have, in respect of Arms and Ammunition, their bows and arrows not being comparably such weapons of death and destruction, as our guns and swords are, with which they have been unhappily furnished. Nor were our sins ripe for so dreadfull a judgment, untill the Body of the first Generation was removed, and another Generation risen up which hath not so pursued, as ought to have been, the blessed design of their Fathers, in following the Lord into this Wilderness, whilst it was a land not sown. As for the Grounds, justness, and necessity of the present War with these barbarous Creatures which have set upon us..."

By and large the Puritan material I read is from those who were non conformists to the established state church, and were seeking to live strictly according to Scripture and to have freedom to worship in that way.
I looked up CCCC last night. In fact it was mentioned on the Puritan board as being one of the probable closest to Puritan today.

 

[FireDragon76]

Puritans were a Protestant movement in England that transcended denominations. There were Puritans in the Church of England, also Puritans that became Separatists. Those that settled New England were Separatists. They didn't really differ in their beliefs or practice of their religion, except that the Separatists objected to the structures in the Church of England, where the laity had little say over who their clergy were.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

Puritans were a Protestant movement in England that transcended denominations. There were Puritans in the Church of England, also Puritans that became Separatists. Those that settled New England were Separatists. They didn't really differ in their beliefs or practice of their religion, except that the Separatists objected to the structures in the Church of England, where the laity had little say over who their clergy were.

It is strange how the Puritans that were separatists had such problem with the Church of England, yet J.C. Ryle is considered by many as the "Puritan Bishop" and was Anglican - Church of England. Of course he was alive during the 1800's whereas most of the persecutions were in the 1600s-1700s, as John Bunyan wrote of.
J.C. Ryle is also one of my favorite old time authors of Biblical messages.

 

[FireDragon76]

It is strange how the Puritans that were separatists had such problem with the Church of England, yet J.C. Ryle is considered by many as the "Puritan Bishop" and was Anglican - Church of England. Of course he was alive during the 1800's whereas most of the persecutions were in the 1600s-1700s, as John Bunyan wrote of.
J.C. Ryle is also one of my favorite old time authors of Biblical messages.

Puritans were not of one mind about whether to stay or leave the established church.