Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
From my understanding they were mostly credo. But we'll forgive them for that
The Puritans were padeo as far as I know.
If I'm not mistaken the Puritans started as a movement to reform the Church of England. The Church of England was formed when Henry 8 seperated from Rome and the Roman Catholic Church. Since Rome baptized infants so did the Church of England and the Puritan's. The Puritan's wanted to clean (Popery) out of the Church of England but never did. They were driven out of the Church of England and they still practised infant baptism. Then along came the Baptist movement who wanted a pure church free from Popery. The Baptist were needed due to the Protestants not truly Rreforming the church from Rome.
At least this is how baptism was explained to me, by an Episcopal preist who practiced infant baptism.
My understanding is that it is very difficult to prove conclusively that Bunyan was a credobaptist.
My understanding is that it is very difficult to prove conclusively that Bunyan was a credobaptist.
Who disputes his being credo???
My understanding is that it is very difficult to prove conclusively that Bunyan was a credobaptist.
Who disputes his being credo???
I read somewhere that his church allowed both practices and that we don't have his own view in writing. I don't know if it's true and I don't remember where I read it. Googling it didn't help much, except to confirm that his church did accept paedobaptists into membership.
My understanding is that it is very difficult to prove conclusively that Bunyan was a credobaptist.
Who disputes his being credo???
I read somewhere that his church allowed both practices and that we don't have his own view in writing. I don't know if it's true and I don't remember where I read it. Googling it didn't help much, except to confirm that his church did accept paedobaptists into membership.
Perhaps with such uncertainty on what you thought you knew about Bunyan & his views, you might not have made such a strong statement about whether he in fact was credo or not?
It would seem that there are multiple uses of the word "puritan." If we use it to refer to the group of people in 17th century England who sought for greater purity of worship in the Church of England, then Bunyan, being a separatist, wouldn't fit the bill, and neither for that matter would paedobaptist Jonathan Edwards, seeing he was American and from a later period. However, in retrospect, we might call these men "puritans" because they hold the theology, in whole or in large part, of the 17th century English Puritans. Likewise I'm sure many of us consider ourselves puritans in theology.
It would seem that there are multiple uses of the word "puritan." If we use it to refer to the group of people in 17th century England who sought for greater purity of worship in the Church of England, then Bunyan, being a separatist, wouldn't fit the bill, and neither for that matter would paedobaptist Jonathan Edwards, seeing he was American and from a later period. However, in retrospect, we might call these men "puritans" because they hold the theology, in whole or in large part, of the 17th century English Puritans. Likewise I'm sure many of us consider ourselves puritans in theology.
I agree. In some sense we can talk about American Puritans (who were congregationalists); Scottish Puritans (Covenanters); English Puritans (Church of England; OR English Presbyterians like Thomas Watson); or even Dutch Puritans!
That is the broad usage that I use, and I believe most people use when thinking about Puritans- Puritanism was an ecumenical movement- it was not specifically in the Church of England, although it started there.
I once heard Mark Dever refer to John Bunyan (lovingly) as a "proto-EV minister". Seems to fit.
My understanding is that it is very difficult to prove conclusively that Bunyan was a credobaptist.
Who disputes his being credo???
I read somewhere that his church allowed both practices and that we don't have his own view in writing. I don't know if it's true and I don't remember where I read it. Googling it didn't help much, except to confirm that his church did accept paedobaptists into membership.
Perhaps with such uncertainty on what you thought you knew about Bunyan & his views, you might not have made such a strong statement about whether he in fact was credo or not?
I didn't make a statement about whether he in fact was credo or not. I'll leave that question open until the burden of proof can be satisfied. I just read a bit of his treatise on admittance to communion. Bunyan doesn't seem to care whether a person thinks it desirable to be rebaptized or not. This fits well with the practice of his church.
---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 PM ----------
In any case, I'll make sure to track down my source first next time.
On this issue, my heart is with Bunyan.
I once heard Mark Dever refer to John Bunyan (lovingly) as a "proto-EV minister". Seems to fit.
Help me out. I'm a little slow, what's a "proto-EV"?
The Puritans did not see infant baptism as part of "popery" though. Look at the Westminster Confession of Faith, the finest Puritan document, and you do not see a rejection of infant baptism. Even the Independents at the Assembly (and later in the Savoy Declaration) do not see infant baptism as popery; but as a biblical expression of what Christ commands.
Puritans were paedo; but not because they didn't do their job.
---------- Post added at 01:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 AM ----------
By the way, I love your schnauzer in your avitar. I always smile when I see him/her. What's his/her name? How old? I heart schnauzers.
I read somewhere that his church allowed both practices and that we don't have his own view in writing. I don't know if it's true and I don't remember where I read it. Googling it didn't help much, except to confirm that his church did accept paedobaptists into membership.