Originally Posted by Pilgrim72

One more thing... which might be off the topic of the OP. But have you noticed that some Puritans can sometimes be a little over-dramatic to prove a point? I've sorta noticed this with Watson, although I think he may be one of my favorites.

Like, what does he mean when he says in A Christian On The Mount, "The meditation of God's holiness would have this effect; it would be a means to transform us into the similitude and likeness of God. God never loves us till we are like Him."
If he's just saying that God doesn't love us until He saves us, thus making us more like Christ, I can see that. But if he's saying that God doesn't love us unless we spend more time in meditation on God's holiness (which makes us more like Him), then I would see a problem with that. But even if he meant it in that way, I would just think that he phrased it that way to urge Christians to meditate...

And also, in The Art Of Divine Contentment, he states, "The doctrine of contentment is very superlative, and until we have learned this we have not learned to be Christians."
It seems, once again, that to stress his topic he goes a little overboard and says something that may not be true. Not all Christians have learned contentment, and we are always learning. Does that mean that these Christians don't know what it is to be Christians?

I've seen this in a lot of Puritan works and have learned that it may just be a way for them to state the importance of their topic at hand. And may not really be as dogmatic as it sounds.

Anyway, your thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks!!!