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.
This is interesting. Can you please explain further? Thanks.With regard to the Puritans, the one mistake they not only avoided, but actually provided a great deal of inoculation against is the highly artificial divisions that exist in theology today, most notably between exegesis and systematic theology; and between doctrine and practice. The latter one is especially important today, since myriads of church-goers think of doctrine as abstract and irrelevant, refuse to study the doctrine, and thus become weak and spiritually anemic. The Puritans are the best antidote to this kind of thinking.
Ajay, I will add a few other thoughts.
C.S. Lewis once enjoined upon people to read older books in general, because, although they made mistakes, they didn't make the same mistakes we do. Obviously, if we think the modern era is without mistakes, then we are engaging in a chronological snobbery.
With regard to the Puritans, the one mistake they not only avoided, but actually provided a great deal of inoculation against is the highly artificial divisions that exist in theology today, most notably between exegesis and systematic theology; and between doctrine and practice. The latter one is especially important today, since myriads of church-goers think of doctrine as abstract and irrelevant, refuse to study the doctrine, and thus become weak and spiritually anemic. The Puritans are the best antidote to this kind of thinking.
The Puritans were profound thinkers, and above all, wanted Christ to be formed in people. Their appeals are to the whole person.
I don't for a moment think that we ought to read only Puritans. However, as devotional material goes, surely their works rank at the top.
C.S. Lewis once enjoined upon people to read older books in general, because, although they made mistakes, they didn't make the same mistakes we do. Obviously, if we think the modern era is without mistakes, then we are engaging in a chronological snobbery.
My question is simple, why I need to read puritans? In what way puritans writings differ from the modern reformed authors?
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
Jake and Ryan, sure, I will expound a bit.
Modern theology took a wrong turn with the Enlightenment and Johann Gabler's take on the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology. To put it in a nutshell, modern theology drives a wedge between the two. Biblical theology is generally seen as historically based, and closer to the text. Systematic theology is seen as a philosophizing tendency, where the categories are imposed on Scripture from philosophy, rather than utilizing categories the Scriptures themselves propound.
What it looks like today is this: two groups of theologians that view each other with great suspicion. Exegetes don't like having the "fetters" of systematic theology preventing them from "going where the evidence leads." Systematic theologians are then tempted to discount the discoveries of exegesis, because there is no control on the boundaries of exegesis. During the days of the Pete Enns controversy at WTS, this was one of the foundational issues.
The problem with the exegetes is that EVERY exegete uses a systematic theology of sorts in order to narrow down the exegetical possibilities to those he finds most genial. The question is not whether an exegete will have a systematic theology, but whether it will be a good one or a bad one.
Conversely, the systematician who ignores exegesis in favor of philosophy has forgotten than exegesis is the lifeblood of ST.
While I don't see the Puritans directly addressing this particular rift in a conscious way, unconsciously, the Puritans practiced a highly unified theological method. You don't find them taking off their exegetical hat in order to do ST, or vice versa. It's all happily jumbled up together in a fully integrated, completely interdependent way.