Tyler Horton runs the Me and Brooks blog, dedicated to things Puritan (generally) and Thomas Brooks (specifically). Tyler is wont to interview various he’s-and-she’s about Puritan-related topics, and I got held up with four questions dealing with how to define Puritanism; the subject of an essay I published in Puritan Reformed Journal. I’m thankful to Tyler for asking good questions and for posting my mediocre responses. The questions are:
1) I absolutely have always held “the notion that Puritanism was a monolithic movement distinguished by its piety, Calvinism, and anti-Anglican posture.” What parts of that definition are misleading?
2) What is the danger in holding that previously mentioned definition of Puritanism?
3) Calling the Puritans “hot Protestants” or the “hotter sort of Protestant” appears to be a comment not just about their passion but also quality. Were the Puritans simply the best Protestants of their day? Are they the ‘hottest Protestants’ in Church history?
4) Can you break down your lengthy definition of a “Puritan” from the article into its essential elements? What are the essential distinguishing features that need to be included in a good definition of the term?
You’ll have to click here to read my answers.