Can you stop with the lies about traditional Christianity?

[bbbbbbb]

The Puritans were big on the regulative principle of worship. If the Bible didn't explicitly tell you to worship in a certain way, then you shouldn't. For related reasons, they did not believe in marriages inside the church.

I assume you mean the church as a building. The Puritans were quite circumspect to define the church as the called-out congregation of God's elect people. These people could meet anywhere and still be the church. In New England, as well as in England, they called their buildings meeting houses, simply because they were not churches in a biblical sense, but merely houses were the church would meet. These same building were also used for all meetings and business of a community. Following the American Revolution some meeting houses became merely secular in nature and the church in a town would construct an meeting house (which they began to call a church) elsewhere, or vice versa, or both with the church occupying the upper portion of the meeting house, which was originally the balcony level, and the town having its offices on the ground floor.

In any event, the Puritans were quite circumspect in insisting on Christian marriage within the church, the called-out congregation of God's elect.

 

[Radagast]

In any event, the Puritans were quite circumspect in insisting on Christian marriage within the church, the called-out congregation of God's elect.

No, the Puritans saw marriage as a purely civil contract, not involving the Church as an institution. Weddings were a simple ceremony before a magistrate.

AFAIK, intending marriages were announced at church services, however.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, the Puritans saw marriage as a purely civil contract, not involving the Church as an institution. Weddings were a simple ceremony before a magistrate.

AFAIK, intending marriages were announced at church services, however.

Although this is true, the Puritans did not draw a sharp line between ecclesiastical and civil authority. To be quite certain, they did not countenance immorality of any sort.

 

[Radagast]

Although this is true, the Puritans did not draw a sharp line between ecclesiastical and civil authority.

I would have thought they did.

To be quite certain, they did not countenance immorality of any sort.

I'm 100% in agreement there.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I would have thought they did.



I'm 100% in agreement there.

Actually, they modeled themselves much after Calvin and his life in Geneva which, being modeled after Augustine's, "City of God" maintained a theocracy in which God was Lord in all aspects of life - both ecclesiastical and civil. One obvious result was the construction of meetinghouses which were used for both civil and ecclesiastical functions. The only division occurred at a higher level in relation to the kingdom of Great Britain which maintained an appointed governor for the Massachusetts Bay Colony. He, being a civil servant, was a loyal member of the Church of England and, as such, struggled with governing a people who, on one hand, submitted themselves to his authority according to scripture, but on the other hand, refused to obey English law which forbade any form of dissent from the Church of England.

 

[Radagast]

Actually, they modeled themselves much after Calvin and his life in Geneva which, being modeled after Augustine's, "City of God" maintained a theocracy in which God was Lord in all aspects of life - both ecclesiastical and civil.

I think that:

• You're misunderstanding City of God.
• You're misunderstanding Geneva.
• You're misunderstanding the Puritans.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think that:

• You're misunderstanding City of God.
• You're misunderstanding Geneva.
• You're misunderstanding the Puritans.

That said, please tell me how the Puritans related civil activities and ecclesiastical activities apart from each other. Thank you.

 

[Radagast]

That said, please tell me how the Puritans related civil activities and ecclesiastical activities apart from each other. Thank you.

The Puritans wanted a separation of Church and State that England did not have. Civil activities were up to the magistrate; ecclesiastical ones up to elders and ministers.

The fact that different functions were often carried out in the same meeting house doesn't alter their logical separation.

Marriage, in particular, was a civil matter.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Puritans wanted a separation of Church and State that England did not have. Civil activities were up to the magistrate; ecclesiastical ones up to elders and ministers.

The fact that different functions were often carried out in the same meeting house doesn't alter their logical separation.

Marriage, in particular, was a civil matter.

The Puritans certainly did not want religious freedom in the modern sense of a separation of church and state where the state was entirely neutral in religious matters. The Puritans persecuted all who dissented from them, including Quakers and Baptists, not to mention that great scourge, Roman Catholics. The Puritans used civil authorities to enforce their theological conformity. One of their greatest challenges was their relationship to the Church of England, which they only tolerated because they had to.

As a result you find folks such as Roger Williams who was once a Puritan and then was hounded out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony to what became Rhode Island where he established a colony with a genuine separation of church and state.