Shayla: Is there anything I should be on the look out for in regards to Puritan beliefs and teachings?

Meforshim:

All theologians are dangerous.

Are the Puritans dangerous? Yes, absolutely; but no more than any other human theologians. We routinely read modern theologians:

• The Classics of the 20th Century like Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Paul Tillich, Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner or Hans Urs von Balthasar.
• Those European and American Modernists like the German Wolfhart Pannenberg or Jurgen Motlmann; the British T.F. Torrance; or the American H. Richard Niebuhr and Reinhold Nieburh.
• You have the Catholic Henri J. M. Nouwen, John Paul II, Raymon Brown, William J. Bausch, Walter J. Burghadt, Scott Hahn, Anthony deMello, William Barclay, Richard P. McBrien, Karl Rahner and Mark Link.
• Or the “mainline Protestants” William Willimon, Frederich Buechner, Max Lucado, Eugene Peterson, C.S. Lewis, Marcus Borg, John C. Maxwell, Lyle E. Schaller, Philip Yancey and Walter Brueggemann and Barbara Brown Taylor.
• Or the “conservative Protestants” Charles Swindoll, John MacArthur, Warren Wiersbe, Matthew Henry (a Puritan by the way), or Charles Spurgeon.
• Among women theologians there are the Catholic Kathleen Norris, Marva Dawn, Elizabeth Achtemeier, Roberta Bondi, Sue Bender, Annie Dillard, Dianne Bergant, Joan Chittister, Joyce Rupp and Rosemary Radford Ruether. The only mainline Protestant female theologian I know of is Barbara Brown Taylor and unfortunately, the only conservative Protestant female theologian I can think of is Kay Arthur.

All of these have their unique problems. In fact, I sometimes struggle more with these modern theologians than with most Puritans because they often lack a strict biblical basis.

We must beware of an uncritical approach.

The danger lies in putting too much stock in any human. We should read all these varied theologies without becoming avid fans of any of them. Didn’t Paul specifically rebuke the Corinthians church saying,

• 1 Corinthians 1:10-12 HCSB Now I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing, that there be no divisions among you, and that you be united with the same understanding and the same conviction. 11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by members of Chloe's household, that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I am saying is this: each of you says, "I'm with Paul," or "I'm with Apollos," or "I'm with Cephas," or "I'm with Christ."

Because the Puritans are often touted as being particularly sound in their faith, an undiscerning reader may read them without keeping in mind that they are yet human. Puritans come from many denominational backgrounds and each have varying political agendas. For instance, John Davenant (1576-1641) was the Anglican Bishop of Salisbury. He taught that Christ died for all, but especially for the elect. He had a very low doctrine of reprobation. John Flavel (1630-1691) was a Presbyterian pastor who wrote experimental and systematic theology. Benjamin Keach (1640-1704) was a Baptist who adapted the Westminster Confession and Shorter Catechism for Baptists. He wrote “Tropologia” the largest work on Bible typology ever written and was later succeeded by John Gill and C.H. Spurgeon.

We must take a wide range of theologies into account.

We it might be better off thinking of Puritanism as a mindset, or a culture, than a given set of theology. As I said above, you have Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists and Independents all claiming to be Puritans.

On one hand you have Tobias Crisp (1600-1643), an “independent” who was originally an Arminian, but later became a Supralapsarian Calvinist and the leading Calvinistic 'Antinomian'. He held an exaggerated view of Christ being “made sin”; taught that believers had no responsibility to the Law; that eternal justification before faith is possible; and that Christians had an immediate witness of the Spirit and thus no need for teachers.

On the other, you have the Presbyterian John Ball (1585-1640) who wrote “A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace” which was an early and important work on Covenant Theology.

Therefore, Puritanism is no guarantee of consistent theology. Every author must be approached on his own terms and carefully checked according to Scriptures i.e.:

• Acts 17:11 HCSB The people here were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, since they welcomed the message with eagerness and examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

We must take historical context into account.

Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) was an “independent” Puritan. He represented Cambridge in Parliament and organized the New Model Army, which won the English Civil War. He was a powerful leader who remained tolerant of other churches and was a close friend of John Owen. Though not a true theologian in his own right, he commissioned many leading Puritans to be his chaplains and held strong Puritan religious principles. His political environment drove his theology and he reluctantly approved the execution of Charles II and became Lord Protector (1653).

These type of historical environments drive the definitions these men use in their theology. We must be very careful to not depend upon modern understanding of vocabulary and concepts when reading works that are largely from the 1600s.

We must be careful as to what century our theological battles belong.

We must be careful to not fight old battles once again simply because they are simpler and easier to deal with. Are there a lot of answers to theological issues among the Puritan writers? Yes. Absolutely. But we have moved on since then and there are new questions that were never raised in their century.

I am not saying that they are irrelevant or obsolete. One of the oldest controversies around is the one between Arminians and Calvinists and that controversy remains to this day. The answers to Catholic theology that many of the Puritans struggled to enunciate are still valid to this day for the simple reason that the Catholic Church has not largely changed its doctrine or stance.

I’m saying that there is more to theology than Puritanism. It’s a good place to start but not a good place to park. We should not let our theology become narrow and dated. The best bet is to get a balanced diet of classic, contemporary, conservative and liberal theology. After all,

• Proverbs 15:22 NLT Plans go wrong for lack of advice; many counselors bring success.
• Proverbs 18:15 NLT Intelligent people are always open to new ideas. In fact, they look for them.