Thanks Tony for sharing. I have a slight problem with the Puritans and how, in my opinion, they missed showing the grace and love of Christ under the New Covenant and in their attempt to purify the Church they would use Old Convent punishment. Even though Matthew 7:15-20 is referring to the bearing of good or bad fruit of prophets, I believe the same can be said for anyone who confesses they are a follower of Christ. At the time, were the Puritans following more of the Mosaic law than the New Covenant in their attempts to make the church more "pure", and to implement some power?
The Puritans strongly condemned any understanding of salvation through works. God's grace was the center of all that they did—indeed, the very calvinistic view of God's providence and predestination is predicated on the belief that salvation comes only from God's sovereign will and grace, independent of our own works. They did, it is true, aim to hold church members to a high standard, as Morgan displays in his book. But in this, they weren't guided by the Mosaic law—though whoever subscribed to the Westminster Confession of Faith would most certainly have believed in the import of the Ten Commandments even for Christians post-resurrection. They would have been guided more by the ethical statements found within the New Testament, along with the general idea that, if one is saved by God's grace, one's life ought to reflect that. (This was one of the main ways Anne Hutchinson's opponents disparaged her—they called her beliefs antinomian, that is, they claimed that her understanding of God's grace led her to live however she wanted to.) The Puritans get somewhat of a bad rap—they weren't quite as puritanical as their reputation would have it. In fact, it was the work of Morgan and his mentor Perry Miller who first revealed this to the broader public.
Thanks Tony for sharing. I have a slight problem with the Puritans and how, in my opinion, they missed showing the grace and love of Christ under the New Covenant and in their attempt to purify the Church they would use Old Convent punishment. Even though Matthew 7:15-20 is referring to the bearing of good or bad fruit of prophets, I believe the same can be said for anyone who confesses they are a follower of Christ. At the time, were the Puritans following more of the Mosaic law than the New Covenant in their attempts to make the church more "pure", and to implement some power?
The Puritans strongly condemned any understanding of salvation through works. God's grace was the center of all that they did—indeed, the very calvinistic view of God's providence and predestination is predicated on the belief that salvation comes only from God's sovereign will and grace, independent of our own works. They did, it is true, aim to hold church members to a high standard, as Morgan displays in his book. But in this, they weren't guided by the Mosaic law—though whoever subscribed to the Westminster Confession of Faith would most certainly have believed in the import of the Ten Commandments even for Christians post-resurrection. They would have been guided more by the ethical statements found within the New Testament, along with the general idea that, if one is saved by God's grace, one's life ought to reflect that. (This was one of the main ways Anne Hutchinson's opponents disparaged her—they called her beliefs antinomian, that is, they claimed that her understanding of God's grace led her to live however she wanted to.) The Puritans get somewhat of a bad rap—they weren't quite as puritanical as their reputation would have it. In fact, it was the work of Morgan and his mentor Perry Miller who first revealed this to the broader public.