No. They got up and left. Thus they are not lineal heirs in the same sense as unitarians are.
Except that the evangelicals, even Arminian ones, have always been theologically closer to Puritanism.
No they aren't. They share only in biblical literalism of the very loosest sense. In application of that theology, in worship services, and in their religious culture the two are virtually nothing alike.
I have now demonstrated that the ONLY reason you can give to exclude evangelicals as "lineal descendants" of Puritans applies equally to Unitarians.
No you haven't. You've simply made the gratuitous claim that evangelicals are closer to Puritans than Unitarians and provided a link to a unitarian text that, apparently unbeknownst to you, supports exactly what I said. Go look around the thread, AJ. You are the ONLY one here who denies that unitarianism is the direct lineal heir of puritanism. It's a common fact and a commonly known fact, yet you deny it. That leads me to believe that you are embarrassed of this association for other unstated reasons and therefore desire to hide it.
As of #137, you lost.
Curious. The contender decides to make himself the referee as well the moment his own chosen source material is shown to contradict what he's been obnoxiously yelling about since the moment he arrived here.
!!!
Here's a clue. Puritans: Trinitarian. Evangelicals: Trinitarian. Unitarians: not Trinitarian. This is SIMPLE. If you don't grasp this you have no business pretending to tell us about anything related to, well, any form of Christianity at all.
You've simply made the gratuitous claim that evangelicals are closer to Puritans than Unitarians and provided a link to a unitarian text that, apparently unbeknownst to you, supports exactly what I said.
I quoted it for the specific purpose of refuting your false claim that "the" lineal descendants of Puritanism are Unitarians. Which it did, conclusively. That issue is over. Now, you think it "supports" you because the guy that wrote it equated Unitarianism with individualism, rationality, and probably apple pie and motherhood (all of which the Puritans had). If you wish to accept that equation, fine, just be aware that you would logically have to either embrace Unitarianism or reject rationality and individualism.
The contender decides to make himself the referee as well the moment his own chosen source material is shown to contradict what he's been obnoxiously yelling about since the moment he arrived here.
Here, you complain about me supposedly making myself referee, while arrogantly asserting that you have "shown" the source contradicts me. No it doesn't. As I said above, it was for the specific purpose of showing the Unitarians split with the Congregationalists. They did. You can try to evade it, but it's still there. Now, the source does attempt to prove the Puritans were "really" Unitarians all along because... they weren't irrational, and weren't collectivists. And you pretend to take this seriously.
It doesn't take any presumption to declare you the loser. You've become tedious. Now, let me summarize your real argument: "The Puritans are EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL, therefore anything bad said about them is true. I said they 'logically' became Unitarians, I said Unitarians were 'the' lineal descendants of Puritanism. This is bad. Therefore it must be true."