No – for many reasons. For one thing, Bozeman is writing about the pre-civil war period of the 17th century. For another, I am hard-pressed to think of any pastor in 17th century England (or today) whose life and practice are always in 100% conformity with the Westminster Standards. It seems entirely possible to articulate orthodox theology and practice in creedal form, and yet fall short of it in practice. Don’t we do this on a daily basis in our Christian lives? For yet another, it seems to me that there would have to be such a thing as Puritanism with a creed that summarizes what it means to be a Puritan, and that all Puritans would have to subscribe that creed – in order for your question to necessarily follow from what I said.

Please note that I am not claiming any kind of infallibility for Bozeman. He may very well be wrong about many things. But he provides enough primary source evidence for enough points to convince me that he is not all wet. I am concerned that his book has been in print for almost a decade now, and no one seems to have seriously engaged it – least of all conservative, Reformed historical theologians.

Thanks.

Does this mean then that the Westminster Standards express a “rigid, unrelenting and unforgiving moralism, legalism and pietism”?

It is also fascinating to observe that the antinomian controversy was its fiercest in 17th century England. I think that the contested nature of the Church of England and the failure of puritans to both unify and to wrest the sword of the state in enforcing Reformation account for this. There were licentious people on the continent, but the continental Reformed – including Witsius, who was asked to moderate a debate between English disciples of Richard Baxter and Tobias Crisp – had tranquil ecclesiastical environments in which to respond pastorally to authentic rejections of the third use of the law.

T.D. Bozeman has written an amazing book entitled “The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion and Antinomian Backlash in Puritanism to 1638. The silence of contemporary Reformed historical theologians on Bozeman’s work is deafening. I say that, not quite sure myself, whether the book is an altogether helpful or unhelpful “amazing.” Still, I think he demonstrates well enough that many alleged antinomians were simply reacting against a rigid, unrelenting and unforgiving moralism, legalism and pietism. And I think those things characterized 17th century English churches because puritans could not get the State to enforce the Reformation in England, so they turned inward and attempted to Reform individuals with a vengeance. If that has the ring of truth at all, then even when we disagree with men like Tobias Crisp, we need to see that most of them were simply reacting against something truly disgusting and bad.

Enter men like Michael Horton and Tullian Tchividjian. They are not antinomians, if words mean anything. They both affirm the third use of the law. If there is any comparison to be made between them and the majority of the 17th century English antinomians, it is that they are reacting against a “leading with the sanctification foot,” or a confusing of justification and sanctification, or an obscuring of justification by sanctification.

In that regard, at the very least, I am with them.

Here’s a direct link: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mos.alliancenet.org/M001.mp3

Sounds like a great idea for an episode of Christ the Centre! (Although a discussion between Mark Jones and Michael Horton on anti-nomianism and covenant theology might be even better)

Thanks for posting, David. I wonder if there will be any response or healthy interaction. Perhaps some sort of sit-down discussion might be the best sort of format for this type of thing.

Thanks for posting this. Where did you find it? They sure didn’t make it easy!

That’s not to say that the historical assessment is not correct, nor that there isn’t any cause for concern, of course.