As far as I know, Puritans were devout Calvinists. According to Theopedia, [Antinomianism](http://www.theopedia.com/Antinomianism) is associated with disobedience to the established authority, so it may be connected with the idea of lawlessness, immorality, or licentiousness. Was this term merely a pejorative adjective for people who disagreed with the established religious authority, like legalism? Or did the Puritan antinomians really have their own theology on justification before God, and if so, how did the Puritan antinomians thought they were justified? What was the purpose of God's moral laws then? This question was previously posted on the History.SE , but it was closed for being off-topic. Hopefully, it's on-topic here.

Some form of pietism and Puritanism are definitely identifiable within the spiritual practice of Evangelicals today, whether theologically they identify as Pentecostal, Wesleyan, Reformed, or Lutheran (in reverse order of appearance). Evangelical theologian Donald Bloesch [identifies 4 characteristics of Evangelical pietism](https://cameronshaffer.com/2022/04/16/evangelicalism-and-pietism-versus-confessionalism/) : - Conversion experience - Bible only for spirituality [typically meditated upon in private or small groups] - Moral earnestness - Social consciousness Two streams of centuries-earlier spirituality are often cited by scholars as the precursors of the current Evangelical practice, described as a fusion by Baptist scholar [Lewis Drummond](https://archives.sbts.edu/the-history-of-the-sbts/our-professors/lewis-drummond/) in his 1980 paper [The Puritan-Pietistic Tradition: Its Meaning, History, and Influence in Baptist Life](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003463738007700404) : 1. Various streams deriving from [**Pietistic Lutheranism**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietism) (excluding fringe ones like the Quakers) flowering in German, Switzerland, Scandinavia, and the Baltics, which can be traced to Martin Luther himself (early 16th century). See [Chapter One: Arnold's Protestant Heritage](https://archive.org/details/pietistsprotesta0000erbp/page/10/mode/2up) of [Peter C. Erb](https://www.librarything.com/author/erbpeter) 's 1989 book (based on his dissertation) [Pietists, Protestants, and mysticism : the use of late Medieval spiritual texts in the work of Gottfried Arnold (1666-1714)](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0810822814) for the story of the early origin of Lutheran Pietism. 1. **Puritan spirituality** of various ecclesiastical stance (but mostly Reformed) starting in the late 16th century with those who were dissatisfied with insufficient reformation in the Church of England, which then flowered outside England in Netherlands and North America. (For an intro see the "Puritan Spirituality" section of ["Chapter 1: Who were the Puritans"](https://www.academia.edu/1803192/Who_Were_the_Puritans_) of the 2004 book [The Devoted Life: An Invitation to the Puritan Classics](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830827943) edited by Kelly M. Kapic and Randall C. Gleason). My question is for a short history of **how did the 2 types of spirituality from 2 major Protestant theological traditions made their way and got transformed into the characteristic Evangelical spirituality we see in Evangelical churches today**. The answer needs to identify the elements of the practice (such as the 4 above) and show how each element is re-appropriated from the 2 streams into Evangelicalism through a process of theological integration.

In 1648 John Owen (1616-1683) published his definitive work The Death of Death in the Death of Christ which produced an almost immediate response, in the next year, from Richard Baxter (1615-1691) and an ongoing, controversial, public debate between the two. In a summary, in 1846, of Baxter's theology, Thomas W Jenkyn states part of Baxter's views as follows : >The atonement of Christ did not consist in his suffering the identical but the equivalent punishment (i.e., one which would have the same effect in moral government) as that deserved by mankind because of offended law. **Christ died for sins, not persons**. *The benefits of substitutionary atonement are accessible and available to all men for their salvation.* I have highlighted two parts with bold and italics. Paul specifically says that 'the Son of God loved me and gave himself for me', Galatians 2:20, and Peter says of Christ, that 'he bore our sins (not just 'sins' - 'our sins') in his own body on the tree', 1 Peter 2:24. This appears to be personal, to me. I cannot see how it could be more 'personal'. But I can see in Richard Baxter's theology the beginnings (or the first strong public expression) of what would later become a very widely accepted 'gospel' - that of a 'universally available' 'salvation' which, actually, applies to none, and has to be 'accessed' to 'activate' its efficacy. I am interested in how Richard Baxter supported his view, particularly regarding such texts as the ones I have quoted, where it would seem that scripture is not on his side in saying 'Christ died for sins, not persons' and 'the benefits are accessible and available to all' (when we are told that 'a sword turns every way to keep the way to the tree of life', Genesis 3:24.). This view is certainly the antithesis of what John Owen published and I am interested in what arguments Baxter relied upon to counteract Owen's theology. ------------------------- Personal Note : I have never agreed with the term 'limited atonement' since Jesus says, Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, that the Son of man 'gave his life a ransom for many' (though 'strait is the gate that leads to life and and few find it' Matthew 7:14) and since John saw in vision, Revelation 7:9, 'a great multitude whom no man can number'. 'Many' and 'no man can number' does not sound 'limited' to my own ear. My own understanding is that some limit themselves, through unbelief, and exclude themselves from benefit and have only themselves to blame. That some are chosen 'before the foundation of the world', Ephesians 1:4, is irrelevant to the culpability of those who spend their life in activity contrary to their own humanity and detrimental to their own, ultimate, destiny. Perhaps Richard Baxter has arguments against what I have just written in which case I am interested in hearing about them.

In my previous inquiry regarding the history of the doctrine which states that Jesus Christ, in the days of his flesh, kept the law on behalf of others as 'passive obedience' (which law-keeping is then regarded as 'transferrable' to others) I discovered that John Owen is the first to state this doctrine, as such, and it first appears in creed-form - as far as I have yet found - in the Savoy Declaration of 1658. I am now interested in what John Owen makes of scriptures which state that justification by faith is not accomplished by means of the works of the law. These scriptures appear to be categorical and are stating that, whether 'actively' or whether 'passively', justification by faith is simply not a matter - at all - of the works and deeds of the law. >... a man is **not justified by the works of the law** but by faith of Jesus Christ [Galatians 2:16 (a), KJV] >For by the works of the law **shall no flesh be justified** [Galatians 2:16 (b), KJV] >But that **no man is justified by the law** in the sight of God, it is evident [Galatians 3:11 (a) KJV] >... for, the just shall live **by faith** [Galatians 3:11 (b) KJV] >... by the deeds of the law there **shall no flesh be justified** in his sight [Romans 3:20 (a) KJV] >... for by the law is the knowledge of sin [Romans 3:20 (b) KJV] >Now, the righteousness of God, **without the law**, is manfested ... [Romans 3:21 (a) KJV] >... even the righteousnss of God **by faith** of Jesus Christ [Romans 3:21 (b) KJV] *These texts appear to preclude the possibility of any means of justification which involves law.* How does John Owen (or those who were his contemporaries) treat of these texts in the propagation of the concept of Jesus Christ keeping law, during the days of his flesh, in order that others may be justified ? ---------------------------------------- [NOTE : *The concept of Jesus Christ 'fulfilling' the law is another concept. The law is fulfilled by righteous means. But it is not 'fulfilled' by flesh submitting to it, in order to seek justification. There seems to be some confusion on this point. I think scripture is quite clear about this, as the above texts show.*]

I've known for a while that theatre was banned under Cromwell, because the Puritans disapproved of it. What was their objection? Wikipedia adds this information: > Pastimes such as the theatre and gambling were also banned. However, some forms of art that were thought to be 'virtuous', such as opera, were encouraged. These changes are often credited to Oliver Cromwell, though they were originally introduced by the Commonwealth Parliament; and Cromwell, when he came to power, was a liberalising influence. Assuming that's true, in what sense is the opera more virtuous than the theatre?

Nathaniel Hawthorne's (fictional) book, the Scarlet Letter, in my opinion, has seared a characterization in people's minds that Puritans were dour, hypocritical, legalistic, and shame-driven Christians. Having read many of the actual writings of the Puritans, this characterization seems completely foreign, almost to the point of thinking that Hawthorne was deliberately inventing a horrible community so he could drag the Puritans down. Are there any real historical examples of scarlet letters (figuratively or literally) on sinners for their sins? It is hard to imagine that the religious movement that produced Richard Baxter (himself a notorious drunk before conversion), Hugh Binning, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, or Jeremiah Boroughs would be associated with something as antithetical to their doctrine as the public shaming of notorious sinners as a form of penance.

In college, many of my Presbyterian brothers wouldn't study on Sunday, seeing that as a violation of the Christian Sabbath. But I heard that at least one of them, if he had a test on Monday morning, would wait until midnight Sunday night, and *only then* study for the test for a few hours before going to sleep. The strict use of midnight in my brother's Sabbath observance has led me to wonder about the *timing* of the Sabbath in Puritan sabbatarianism more broadly. So, I'd like to know – **at what time did the Sabbath start and end for the Puritans?** I'm open to responses from both English and American Puritans, up to the 18th century. If there isn't agreement, then I'd like an overview of common positions.

I was studying the Puritans recently, and discovered something interesting about William Bradford. According to Wikipedia , he married his wife in a civil ceremony, because "the Separatists could find no example of a religious service in the Scriptures", which I immediately found interesting. So my question is this: Is there any account of a *religious* marriage ceremony in scriptures? Did the Separatists miss something/exclude a book that is typically considered canonical?

Recently I listened to the introduction of Russell Shorto's _The Island at the Center of the World : The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America_. When he talks about the New England colonies, he uses language such as: > Something was happening that was quite unlike the unfolding of society at the two English colonies to their north, where the _rigid_ Puritans, who arrived in 1630, and the even more _rigid_ Pilgrims maintained, in their _wide-brimmed piety_, _monocultures_ in the wild.—p. 61 (emphasis mine) Given that the Puritan movement was escaping religious persecution in England, it's surprising that in they persecuted Quakers (including executing four martyrs ). Further, especially in New England , they largely dedicated themselves to pious amusements and hard work rather than a broad range of culture. On the other hand, they universally rejected the principle of Erastianism , which justified placing the church under the authority of the government. Many Puritans were Calvinists , but by no means were all. The very name, "Puritan", began as an insult bestowed by outsiders. Did Puritans see themselves as "rigid"? Was their mission to create an island of monoculture on the edge of the American wilderness?