Soli Deo Gloria: For the Glory of God Alone What’s in a name? what’s

Posted: Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:29 pm

The Messenger, September 24, 2009
By RB TOLAR
Special to The Messenger
 If a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a Puritan by any other name would be as disagreeable to some Englishmen of the 16th and 17th centuries. The name “Puritan” was an epithet coined for those who defended the purity of the Gospel (and thus the Church) as presented in the Bible. 
 Sidetracked by persecution during the reign of the Roman Catholic queen “Bloody Mary,” the English Reformation resumed during the reign of her Protestant sister Elizabeth. Immediately, there arose those impressed with the urgency of completing the Reformation of the Church of England. English Puritans worked to continue in Britain church reforms begun by Luther and Calvin on the continent and by John Knox in Scotland. 
 Errors and extra-biblical teachings still remained part of the Church’s doctrine. These included a works-based salvation (incorporating the sacraments as necessary to salvation), rather than salvation by faith alone. Disagreement over church government also fueled the argument.
 The Puritans raced to evangelize all England, eager to rid the Church of corruption. Many in the church were not ready for so much change, so fast. More importantly, neither were the monarchs of England — first Elizabeth, then James.  
 Devout though they may have been, these English monarchs desired, first and foremost, a stable throne and a strong, united nation. They felt rapid change would breed dissension, which in turn would breed disunity. Instead, they desired conformity and, in an era when religion was of all-consuming importance, they wanted a church that would promote that conformity.
 The dilemma facing the Puritans was whether to work for reform from within the church or to separate from the church and so disassociate themselves from the sin of apostasy. Since preaching of the Word of God was a cornerstone of Reformed worship, the struggle centered on control of the pulpits of the local congregations, a struggle which continues in some denominations even today. 
 The Crown controlled the bishops by royal appointment and, theoretically, the bishops controlled the livings of the individual pastorates in the same way. Pastors were forbidden to preach on certain subjects if they wished to retain their positions. 
 The Calvinistic Puritans believed that, based on the ninth chapter of the book of Romans, God exercises His sovereign choice in electing who will obtain salvation. (See Calvin’s commentary at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.xiii.html) However, the Crown banned preaching of predestination on the grounds that the doctrine was divisive.  
 The teachings of Jacobus Arminius had already crept into the Church of England, and Puritan teaching was anathema to the Arminian point of view. Arminianism taught that man was ultimately responsible for his own salvation, that the famous painting of Jesus standing and knocking on the knob-less door of some sinner’s heart was accurate. In other words, Christ may have shed His precious blood upon the cross so that, conceivably, no one may choose to be saved.
 The monarchy felt discussions of such hot-button topics were not conducive to national unity and therefore attempted to squelch any preaching with the potential to aggravate the unstable church situation. Ongoing struggles for power between the Crown and Parliament only heightened tensions. When James I ascended to the throne, he inherited a powder keg with a lighted fuse. 
Was England due for an explosion?
Editor’s note: RB Tolar is a resident of Union City and attends Grace Community Church.