albion's seed

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom
No, not all Puritans were Calvinists !



Thomas Crosby, the oldest English Baptist historian, in commenting about the London Confession and Particular (Calvinistic) and General (non-Calvinistic) redemption said:

"And I know that there are several churches, ministers, and many particular persons, among the English Baptists, who desire not to go under the name either of these heads; because they receive what they think to be truth, without regarding with what human schemes it agrees or disagrees."

Thomas Crosby--History of the English Baptists, Vol. I p. 174. 1740.



Let us turn to Thomas Armitage, respected Baptist historian from America to give us the details of the London Confession:

"By 1643, the Calvinist Baptist Churches in and about London had increased to seven, while the non-Calvinistic Churches numbered thirty-nine, forty-six in all. The English Calvinistic Churches, together with a French Church of the some faith, eight in all, issued a Confession of Faith in 1643."

History of the Baptists by Thomas Armitage, 1887, p.460.

http://www.learnthebible.org/baptist_calvinists.htm

baptist!= Puritan

[molly bloom]

I'm just showing that Separatists too could be divided between those who followed a more Calvinist doctrine and those who didn't.

You still have yet to show that all Puritans were invariably Calvinist, by the way.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I'm just showing that Separatists too could be divided between those who followed a more Calvinist doctrine and those who didn't.

You still have yet to show that all Puritans were invariably Calvinist, by the way.

Defining Puritan for this purpose as the 20,000 or so folks who settled in Massachusetts Bay (NOT Plymouth Colony) in the years 1630- 1640, David Hackett Fischer says that virtually all followed the religious leadership of the colony (though there were a few hangers on who came for economic reasons , eg some channel islanders who established the fishing industry in Gloucester) and that the religious leadership of the colony were all Calvinists. (afraid i dont have the page cite handy)

DHF is an established historian, with tenure at Johns Hopkins, and affiliation at Oxford. Now can you cite a historian who says the Massachusetts Puritans were NOT Calvinists?

[lord of the mark]

nm

[Ramo]

Read it over the weekend (stupid Kraut library only lets you check out books over a weekend ). An interesting book (albeit, obscenely long, for someone trying to read it quickly). Very well-researched, extensive categorization, but not very illuminating uses of this categorizations in describing the dynamics of these social groups in American history. Maybe Fischer couldn't have done better, and that I expected more of a point after reading 800-pages of painstaking categorization, but it was something of a disappointment.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Read it over the weekend (stupid Kraut library only lets you check out books over a weekend ). An interesting book (albeit, obscenely long, for someone trying to read it quickly). Very well-researched, extensive categorization, but not very illuminating uses of this categorizations in describing the dynamics of these social groups in American history. Maybe Fischer couldn't have done better, and that I expected more of a point after reading 800-pages of painstaking categorization, but it was something of a disappointment.

IIUC, he was planning to develop the historical dynamics more in further books, which he never wrote.

Ive heard that one of the reasons he didnt write them is cause Albions seed wasnt that well received by academic historians - aside from some possible "PC" objections, its claimed that he neglects internal migrations within Britain, making him see the originating British regional cultures as more clearcut than they really were.