Austin
Puritan Board Freshman
Here's an interesting thought I was kicking around:
Was there something in the historical experience of the Puritans that led them to largely (functionally) abandon the Reformers' desire to reform the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church"?
In the Magisterial Reformed churches (e.g. in Scotland & the Netherlands) reformed churches maintained a lot of the Reformers' zeal in looking at membership covenantally. In the puritan churches (and their heirs) there has been a lot of emphasis on 'boundary markers' and praxis. The one followed Calvin, who assumed that all those who would hear him were among the elect (if for no other reason than that the only ones "with eyes to see & ears to hear" were elect). The other became more and more of a church formed on the basis of joining, rather than belonging.
Could this have a lot to do with the different experiences of the Reformed folks in Scotland, Holland, etc (where they won the day theologically and became the sole official church), and those in England (where they were always discriminated against by the established Anglican Church?
If so, how does this play out in our day as we see the differences between Reformed Baptists (heirs of the Dissenters) and the Reformed Presbyterians (heirs of the established Presbyterian and Reformed Churches)?
I would appreciate y'all's thoughts?
Was there something in the historical experience of the Puritans that led them to largely (functionally) abandon the Reformers' desire to reform the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church"?
In the Magisterial Reformed churches (e.g. in Scotland & the Netherlands) reformed churches maintained a lot of the Reformers' zeal in looking at membership covenantally. In the puritan churches (and their heirs) there has been a lot of emphasis on 'boundary markers' and praxis. The one followed Calvin, who assumed that all those who would hear him were among the elect (if for no other reason than that the only ones "with eyes to see & ears to hear" were elect). The other became more and more of a church formed on the basis of joining, rather than belonging.
Could this have a lot to do with the different experiences of the Reformed folks in Scotland, Holland, etc (where they won the day theologically and became the sole official church), and those in England (where they were always discriminated against by the established Anglican Church?
If so, how does this play out in our day as we see the differences between Reformed Baptists (heirs of the Dissenters) and the Reformed Presbyterians (heirs of the established Presbyterian and Reformed Churches)?
I would appreciate y'all's thoughts?