Meet The Puritans

Puritan Moralism?

Posted on 13. Sep, 2009 by Mark Jones in John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Manton, Westminster Assembly

Antinomianism has always been an enemy of the true Christian faith.   As Rabbi Duncan said: “All sin is antinomianism” because all sin is against God’s law.  The recent work of Chad van Dixhoorn has demonstrated that the major enemies of the Westminster divines were not the Roman Catholics or even the crypto-Popish Laudians, but instead Antinomian theologians whose influence in the 1640s was rapidly gaining ground. Other examples, besides the 17thC, would be the Majoristic controversy in 16thC or the Marrow debate in 18thC.  But, in this post, I want to focus on the Puritans and their views on the necessity of holiness for all Christians.

I suppose I’m one of those Presbyterians who believe that salvation is more than justification.  Just as I affirm that we are justified through faith alone, I also affirm that we cannot enter heaven unless we are also sanctified (i.e. made holy).  In other words, moral renovation is necessary!  This may sound to some like Shepherdism, but I think such language sounds more like the majority of our Reformed orthodox forefathers.

Geerhardus Vos has noted that Reformed theologians have, unlike the Lutherans, included evangelical/new obedience as a condition of the covenant of grace because salvation is broader than justification (see “Doctrine of Covenant … p. 234, note 1).  John Owen, for example, argued that faith and new obedience are conditions of the new covenant.  Francis Turretin suggests that “there is not the same relation of justification and of the covenant through all things. To the former, faith alone concurs, but to the observance of the latter other virtues also are required besides faith” (Inst. II.189).  I would commend to you reading Turretin’s argument (17^th Topics) on the question whether good works are necessary for salvation, a question that he affirms.

Consider “A New Confession of Faith”, written after the Westminster Confession of Faith, which was penned by both Congregationalists and Presbyterians in 1654.  Authors included Thomas Goodwin, John Owen, Philip Nye, Sydrach Simpson, Richard Vines, and Thomas Manton.  The language of the Confession on the need for godliness is striking:

XII. All true believers are partakers of Iesus Christ and all his benefits freely by grace, and are justified by faith in him, and not by works, he being made of God righteousness unto us.

XIII. That no man can be saved unlesse he be born again of the holy Spirit, Repent, Believe, and walk in holy conversation and godliness.

XIV. That whosoever do not prize and love Iesus Christ above himself, and all other things, cannot be saved.

XV. Whosoever allows himself to live in any known sin, upon any pretence or principle whatsoever, is in a state of damnation.

They certainly do not deny sola fide; but, importantly, they also maintain that holiness is a necessary component of the Christian life; and they language they use is rather strong.

The famous English theologian, John Ball, makes a similar statement regarding the necessity of good works: “In the Covenant of Nature obedience and workes were commanded as the cause of life and justification: in the Covenant of Grace, Faith is required as the instrumental cause of Remission and Salvation, obedience as the qualification of the party justified, and the way leading to everlasting blessedness” (Covenant of Grace, p. 26).

Robert Shaw, in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, writes similarly: “Good works are essentially prerequisite to an admission into heaven. Though they do not merit everlasting life, yet they are indispensably necessary in all who are ‘heirs of the grace of life.’” (this can be found in the chapter on “good works”).

The Bible is pretty clear on this: “For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live” (Rom. 8:13).  Christ died to make us holy (2 Peter 2:24), which is a blessing since without holiness no one will see God (Heb. 12:14).

We don’t need to mess around with justification to talk about the necessity of holiness.  The doctrine of sanctification will look after that just fine.   Let’s be clear, good works are not necessary for justification, but they are for salvation.  I think the Puritans had such a robust doctrine of sanctification because they believed, like Sinclair Ferguson and Richard Gaffin, that both justification and sanctification were benefits of being brought into union with Christ.  There may be a logical order, but one is as necessary as the other.

Because of the above, not a few people accuse the Puritans of being moralists.  This is regrettable, principally because there were Puritans who were antinomians and there were Puritans who vigorously opposed antinomianism.  As I’ve argued before, theologically speaking, the term Puritanism is as problematic as it is helpful.  But it is even more regrettable that the accusation is completely unfounded.  When people accuse the Puritans of being moralists we might ask them who they are talking about and what they mean by “moralism”.

It seems to me that the Apostle Paul would have preached on justification in such a way that he would have been called an antinomian.  But that same Apostle also wrote Romans 8:13!  He evidently saw no tension with the doctrine of justification when he said that you must put to death your sinful nature if you are to live, and I hope we don’t, either.

Tags: Goodwin, holiness, law, Owen, sanctification