https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc907/
https://churchandfamilylife.com/podcasts/scripture-applied/681b88f593d37c3f67415b85
Regarding the Salem Witch Trials of 1692/93, it was evident early on that the host of the show was not familiar with the subject when he raised the question of whether Britain had its witch episodes as well. I guess he's never heard of Matthew Hopkins (d.1647).
The 17th century represented probably the height of the witch craze in the Western world. Many wrongly think of the Middle Ages when it comes to witches. Most of the episodes actually occur in the post-Renaissance context and the phenomenon seemed to equally afflict both Protestant and Roman Catholic circles.
There was discussion regarding the problems of today's Materialist default which governs how most people (including Christians) think and interact with the world, but the real issues at hand (at least for Confessional Calvinists) were not touched on. The truth is their theology cannot easily accommodate the complexities of a supernatural worldview as causality is always subsumed under the aegis of decretalism.
The podcast speaks in terms of the New England Puritans losing their way in the realm of 'speculative theology' and while the point is valid and well taken, a counter argument or appeal can be made regarding a failure to take the full scope of Scriptural data into account when forming theology. The Scriptures certainly affirm the Sovereignty of God but also speak a great deal regarding the supernatural realm and its complexity as well as its reference to various means and intermediary forces which are not always consistent with how modern systematic theologians wish to shape and order its doctrines.
I was pleased to note the show references not only Cotton Mather but respected Calvinists such as Richard Baxter and William Perkins. Their views demonstrate the epistemological divide that exists today between pre-Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thinking, epistemology, and approaches to theology. I would argue these lines were further hardened in the 19th century and it was during this time that Confessionalism itself began to be defined in more narrow terms that are taken as a given by its 20th century proponents, who view these questions through the lens of the aftermath of the downgrade of Theological Liberalism, the Fundamentalist response, and the rise of post-war Evangelicalism.
The pre-Enlightenment Reformed world professed Sola Scriptura but had not yet abandoned the epistemology of an older supernatural-embracing world. Some might argue they actually took it (in some respects) more seriously than today. Contemporary theologians might celebrate the abandonment of the older way of thinking but it presents a problem for them in terms of their heritage as we see not only Puritans thinking in terms of supernaturalism - that would seem superstitious today, but we also find a great deal of thinking that would seem charismatic in today's context. One thinks of not only the the degenerate Huguenot theology of the Camisards but also celebrated figures like John Knox who seemed to view himself as some kind of prophet. It was also very common to find both Catholic and Protestant aristocrats, statesmen, and military leaders relying on astrology and other means that would be viewed as occultic today. The epistemology of the time also lent itself to the embrace of alchemy and other like endeavours which (rightly or wrongly) leave modern thinkers both baffled and embarrassed.
And so as the podcast reveals, figures like Perkins, Baxter, and Mather believed in the supernatural realm and its effects on their world. They did not shy away from this. Bucey is right that today's Christians functional as Materialists - but then offers little to counter this. Again, post-19th century Reformed and Confessional theology is of a different stripe and style and it struggles to embrace nuance and duality - a point that is evident in other areas of doctrine as well. At best it seems only able to pay lip-service to the realities of the supernatural and spiritual warfare but because the Scriptural data (as it were) defies attempts at systematic theology, especially in light of previous theological commitments - the answer is (it would seem) to simply acknowledge these realities but then more or less relegate them to irrelevance.
Without elaborating on it here, I will simply state again that not only did theology shift from the era of Humanist Reformers to Scholastic theologians, it shifted again in the post-Enlightenment context and took very different turns in both 19th century Anglo-America and on the Continent. The effects of these shifts are still with us and being debated - though are not often understood.
In addition to the theological and epistemological shift, the embrace by 'conservatives' of the New Testament Critical Text and in some cases new canons of translation have furthered this secularisation of Scripture. Passages such as the one in John 5 regarding the angel and the Pool of Bethesda have been excised - which many find convenient as the idea of supernatural and angelic-related healing waters strikes the modern reader as uncomfortable and superstitious while I would argue that not only does the longer traditional reading stand historically (and even Confessionally!), the passage makes little sense otherwise. This is by no means the only example of this.
And in terms of translation, we think of a passage like Matthew 17 in which some modern translations trade 'lunatick' or moon-struck for epileptic or mere 'seizures'- implying that his condition is medical or lending to the argument that conditions we understand in physiological terms were misunderstood in the past as spiritual/demonic conditions. Or conversely it could also lead to a misunderstanding that a condition like epilepsy is therefore indicative of demonic possession. I would hope most readers would acknowledge these questions are far more complicated than a simple reading might suggest. It's best to leave the translation alone even if it results in ambiguity.
Further the critical text removes v.21 that suggests 'means' are employed - prayer and particularly fasting to combat demonic activity, notions that don't always sit comfortably with Calvinist understandings of causality and the nature of spiritual warfare.
I would also add that as an adherent of the First Reformation and the historical Old Testament canon, the Magisterial Reformation and Confessional impulse effectively did away with a greater body of Scripture (and created a false Tridentine narrative to back it) that contains not only more information regarding the nature of the spiritual and angelic realm, but also the related questions of means and spiritual warfare - and indeed the mystery of it all. It's clear enough the Early Church also looked to this larger canon for doctrinal instruction and application. It was not until Jerome that it was seriously called into question as he embraced anti-Christian Jewish approaches to the Old Testament canon - arguments picked up over a thousand years later by the Magisterial Reformers. In the meantime, Jerome would not dare to dispense with these books which were already established as canon.
As I have consistently argued, the Old Testament (however understood) is fulfilled and must be read in light of the New Covenant writings - which are an active canon and thus authoritative vis-a-vis the Old Covenant. The Old Testament is Scripture but as it has been fulfilled, it cannot faithfully be read isolated from the New Testament writings which elucidate it. And I would additionally argue the New Testament in no way explains away these 'supernatural' passages in the Old. I say this thinking of how many theologians treat the Witch of Endor and other such passages - stripping them of meaningful content - not to mention the passages in 2 Peter and Jude which refer to not only the angels in Genesis 6 but additional narratives regarding Michael in dispute with the devil over the body of Moses.
I might agree with the podcast angle that we must avoid incorporating perceived understandings of spiritual phenomena into our theology and that we cannot interpret Providence, but I would simply add that we must also be careful not to erect theological walls that will not allow the Scriptures to speak and reveal what they will - even if it leaves many loose ends and unanswered questions. Once again, we're back to fundamental questions regarding the nature of theology.
Others such as Scott Brown, will take the Salem episode and try to extrapolate Domestic Theology and family ethical lessons from it - since this is a driving issue for his 'ministry'. The real problem in Salem was (it would seem) a breakdown of fatherhood.
The Salem episode smacks of excess, dubious and corrupt testimony - as is often the case when it comes to such questions, but none seem willing to even entertain the simple possibility - what if it's true? What if some of it is true and things got out of hand? In no way do I mean to suggest the response by Christian leaders in New England, Britain, or on the Continent were warranted. I'm not arguing for the burning or hanging of witches. Not a bit of it, but just because the response contained multiple layers of abuse - that doesn't mean it wasn't true to some extent in Salem or in other cases. I reject the assumption being made by these moderns. I even reject the assumption of absurdity made by the likes of Brown regarding the dogs. It may seem silly today to think of demon possessed canines but the Scriptures certainly present a scenario in which animals can be possessed and one can think of other episodes in history that defy explanation. From the Lions of Tsavo to the Beast of Gevaudan, history is actually replete with such examples. In the case of the latter, I'm not even certain it was something that could be called a demonic-inspired animal - it may have been something more overtly demonic - defying scientific notions and conventional biological taxonomy.
It's also amazing to me how men like Brown will be so quick to dismiss such 'myths' as they see it and yet at the same time will embrace (contrary to Scripture) myths regarding America, and a larger mythology which justifies not only their idolatry regarding the empire, but the promotion of anti-New Testament ethics and even the defense of atrocity. I thought of this in particular as we near Memorial Day which always drives him to promote such filth - in combination with his version of the Christian faith.
Returning to the context of Salem, others will point (with some justification) to the epistemological crisis of the 17th century and the collapse of social consensus. The Magisterial Reformation had shattered this and some celebrate the subsequent rise of the so-called Age of Reason. Many have (both past and present) proudly connected this course of events and civilizational shift to the Reformation legacy. Others in more recent times have come to doubt this narrative and without knowing it have actually embraced Romantic-inspired paradigms which (for all their problems) contain seeds of truth.
Traditionalist Catholics also have a point (if one assumes the validity of Latin Christendom) that the Reformation smashed the cultural foundations and unleashed not only scientism and political revolution but the epistemological chaos (as mentioned) also helped re-birth not only ancient philosophy but also the occult. There's something to the argument even if we reject their moral and theological premise.
Ultimately it was a disappointing podcast. They referenced 'Haunted Cosmos' another Calvinist-rooted podcast I tried to listen to and wanted to like but gave up on - the hosts are too immature and treat the subject in too trivial a manner. I found a lesser degree of the same also on display here.
This is a serious topic and one that should not only challenge modern Reformed and Evangelical thinking but drive something of a re-assessment of their history and tradition and how doctrines and concepts they view as rock-solid and unassailable were actually understood a bit differently in the past. This is not to say it's all better now, or even that it was 'better' then. But an honest accounting will allow for a little more reflection, broader thinking, and more profound application.