Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield: Slaveholding and Calvinism

Jonathan_EdwardsAsking someone to define Jonathan Edwards’ historical and theological legacy can vary from person to person. There is no denying that Edwards was a towering force of intellectual influence in his day. Sadly our public schools have not been kind or fair to him. They greatly underplay his contributions to science and philosophy and wrongly stereotype him as nothing more than a fundamentalist, hell fire and brimstone preacher during the 1st Awakening. He is largely ignored in our public textbooks today and that is unfortunate. While I had long known that Edwards was the founder of Princeton, I was surprised to recently discover that he was also somewhat socially progressive for his time in advocating that Indians be compensated for land taken from them– which placed him in hot water with some of his New England parishioners. 

On the other hand Edwards demonstrated an unnerving talent to be thoroughly inconsistent– for Edwards was also a slave owner! And herein is where the center of my critique will largely focus. Whereas America’s public educational sector underplays Edwards legacy, I believe many Christians–particularly Calvinists– overplay his legacy as being the height of godly virtue and a figure whose life and theology ought to be emulated and followed. It is not my intention to disparage Jonathan Edwards or smear his reputation. There is no doubt Edwards was a great man, a loving father, passionate pastor and a devoted follower of the Lord who faithfully served God in his generation. Sectors of the church today owe him a huge debt of gratitude, for they are building on a foundation first laid down by Edward’s perseverance unto God’s glory.

With that said I find it somewhat troubling that Edwards has largely been given a pass on both his logical and biblical flaws in theology as well as his slave ownership. I am not troubled on the basis that Edwards’ sins and flaws have been forgiven by Christians today. Indeed we all have flaws and we all need to generously grant each other the “love that covers over a multitude of sins” (1 Pet. 4:8). Rather I am troubled by the fact that few pause long enough to consider the strong possibility that Edwards’ Calvinistic, theological determinism may have exerted a strong influence on his decision to unapologetically defend slave ownership– or at minimum blinded him to the horror of being complicit in such a social evil. Edward’s Calvinistic theology led him to believe that everything that occurs in the world is exactly as God predestined it to be–including slavery. The perennial question that plagues Calvinism and which Edwards must have wrestled with is: “What God has predestined has he not more or less condoned?”

Indeed any true Calvinist who wants to distance himself from a particular societal evil and question its moral rightness, must somehow annul himself from all logic that would throw the question back into his face and force him to answer why its logically right to morally question and abhor what God has allegedly divinely determined. Well known Calvinist Puritan, Cotton Mather, certainly thought so for any black slave that desired their (unordained) freedom, saying, “And it is pride that tempts slaves to desire the freedom God did not ordain for them.” [1]

It is only fair to wonder if Edwards thought the same thing, for he did not own just one slave, he and his family owned numerous slaves. To his credit Edwards did not share the view of other slave holders who saw the African blacks as an inferior people or race. Strangely enough Edwards attempted to argue that while all men, including African slaves, are our equal neighbors and possibly even our equal brothers and sisters in Christ in the Kingdom of God, it was not at all sinful to use one’s African “neighbors’s work without wages” in a slave context. [2] For a man much touted by Calvinists as being the exemplar and paradigm of Christian thought, Edwards moral and theological compromise must give us pause.

Roughly a hundred years later, this same absurd notion (forcing one’s neighbor to work without pay is not counter Kingdom) would be articulated by the prominent Calvinist minister, Richard Fuller, one of the principal founders of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845. He asks, “Is it… a crime for men to hold men in a condition where they labor for another without their consent or contract?” Fuller emphatically argues no, stating, “the crime is not slaveholding, but cruelty.” Fuller then goes on to astonishingly declare that nothing in the N.T. (regarding the inauguration of the Kingdom of God) argues against holding a fellow human being in bondage against his will, because slavery is not the right to cruelly abuse another. Rather “slavery is bondage, and nothing more… only a right to his service without consent…”[3] You can’t make this stuff up if you tried! Apparently neither Edwards nor Fuller saw any reason to think holding one’s neighbor or fellow Christian brother in human bondage was by its very nature antithetical to the Kingdom of God set forth in Christ’s words “I have come to proclaim freedom to the prisoners… to set the oppressed free” (Lk. 4:18). 

Despite his many wonderful attributes, Edwards was staggeringly blind to how his life-long unapologetic support for domestic slave ownership was inconsistent with the Kingdom of God. As the conscience of North America became awakened to the evils of slavery and voices began to speak out against its insidious nature, Edwards strangely sought to defend it. At one point Edwards defended a fellow minister named Doolittle whose congregation wanted to oust him because he was too lavish in his lifestyle, was suspected of being an adherent of Arminianism (a label he largely denied), but above all– that he was a slave owner. [4]

american-slavery-31-728This is rather interesting because some seek to defend Edward’s slave ownership on the grounds that America, despite her spiritual awakening, had not yet begun to awaken to the injustice and evil of slavery. However this is simply not true. It certainly wasn’t true for Doolittle’s congregation! They sought to dismiss Doolittle on the basis of slave ownership while Edwards sought to defend him on the basis that it was not inherently wrong to make any slave “work without wages.”

Truth be told, the mid 17oo’s were years of great spiritual awakening and as the movement began to spread critics of slavery began to draw upon it as a foretaste of the glorious Kingdom to come– a Kingdom in which slavery had no place. As such slavery ought now to be abolished from the Christian community. However Edwards disagreed.

Massachusetts historian Minkema Kenneth explains: “Doolittle’s critics apparently repeated claims that the revivals marked the beginning of these glorious times as an argument that slave owning was no longer tolerable. Edwards, more realistically, had to allow that “things” were not yet “settled in peace,” and so the fallen world’s order, which for him included slavery, was still in effect.” [5]

It is actually logically consistent of Edwards to hold this because Calvinism holds that all the affairs of the world are predetermined by God. As such the affairs in the world do not change until the time preordained for them to change comes to pass. Apparently Edwards felt that such a change for the black man in America was not yet upon the stage of the world, and therefore God’s predestination of the enslavement of the black man was still in effect. There is little else one can conclude from Edwards’ remarks.

For example in examining Edward’s sermon notes for, “Christian Liberty” Minkema Kenneth notes that Edwards opening sentence originally stated that when the Messiah came “he should proclaim a universal liberty to all servants, slaves, captives, vassals, [and] imprisoned [or] condemned persons.” But before he stood up to deliver his sermon Edwards evidently had second thoughts and “went back and, in an apparent tactical withdrawal, deleted the word “slave” from this litany. All the same, the Messiah was not yet come; the time of jubilee had not arrived, nor would it likely come for some time, and until then slavery was sanctioned.” [6]

The fact of the matter is that a Calvinist must shelve his belief about God’s unconditional, meticulous determination of all things in order to condemn anything as “against God’s will.” Apparently Edwards was a true believer to the end because he did not will his slaves free upon his death. Perhaps he felt the time would come slaves_in_cotton_field_1that America’s domestic use of slaves would end, but if that day did come it would be a result of a new era in God’s preordination coming to pass. It would appear that Edwards felt that until that time came it was not wrong to subject one’s black neighbor to slavery and he remained an unapologetic defender of America’s domestic slave trade until his death.

On a side note, many have pondered why Edwards, who zealously opposed Arminianism, would be willing to come to the aid of a minister who was suspected of having Arminian leanings. It could be that upon discussions with Doolittle, Edwards was satisfied that his theology was not suspect. But it is more likely the case that Edwards felt so strongly that a congregational threat to a fellow minister on the basis of lavish living and slave ownership was a threat against his own livelihood as a slave owning minister. In fact within a few short years in 1744, “a number of his parishioners insisted upon an account of his own expenditures, an action suggesting the jealousy and resentment aroused by the family’s taste for jewelry, chocolate, Boston-made clothing, children’s toys—and slaves.” [7]

Again it is not my intention to be uncharitable and unfair to Edwards. I’m not here to judge anyone because they bought chocolate and toys for their kids. Edwards had eleven children and if he had a whole room full of toys I would not think him any less of a man! But history is history and it reveals that he was at odds with certain members in his congregation over his personal ownership of slaves. As alluded to earlier the most troubling feature of Edward’s legacy is the fact that he did not will freedom to his slaves upon his death– something which was not at all uncommon in his day as America’s moral conscience began to awaken in the North. In fact Doolittle later had the last word against his detractors by relenting of slave ownership, freeing his one slave Abijah Prince and generously granting him his legacy and his personal land title estates in Northfield–which truly was unheard of at that time! [8] 

Strangely enough Edwards, the voice of America’s spiritual awakening, sought to defend America’s domestic slavery of Africans while at the same time denouncing the Transatlantic slave trade that was decimating many African countries in bringing slaves to America. The disparate thinking of Edwards and his abject failure to see how one could not have existed without the other is thoroughly bewildering. 

Thabiti Anyabwile, himself a present day Calvinist theologian, sums it up well, saying, “Edwards attempted to thread a needle between ending the Transatlantic slave trade, on the one hand, and supporting the domestic servitude of Africans on the other. When he wrote the congregation in defense of Doolittle, he chided them for their hypocrisy, for condemning slavery but enjoying the fruits of slave economy. Perhaps it’s fitting to simply state: It takes a hypocrite to know a hypocrite. Or, more charitably, Edwards saw the inconsistency of others more clearly than he saw his own in this case.” [9]

One more note on Edward’s misgivings of the Transatlantic slave trade bears mentioning. Edwards purchased one of his slaves, a 14 year old girl named Venus, from the captain of an African slave trader ship in New England. [10] But to be fair to Edwards his purchase of Venus was made in 1731 and presumably before he deemed the Transatlantic slave trade to be wrong. So why didn’t he later release Venus, his purchased Transatlantic-African slave girl, once his feelings on the African slave trade evolved? Why have her be held in the grip of slavery up until his death? We cannot press this point too strong. It is uncertain if Venus was still a household slave in family’s possession upon his death. Information is scarce and while some of his personal slaves are mentioned in later documents, the name Venus is not mentioned. But that may be because he gave her a Christian name, or she could have died young while enslaved. Another possibility is that he sold her or traded her in for another female slave, such as Leah or Sue, two other slaves that show up in documents. 

While there is much virtue in the man–well beyond my own– to be praised and admired, I find it interesting and a bit telling that leading Calvinists like Edwards as well as George Whitfield supported and defended America’s enslavement of blacks and were totally blind to how such support was inconsistent and diametrically opposed to the character of God as revealed through Christ. Was there something more going on beyond mere cultural contamination blinding them?

I believe so. I believe there was theological contamination. For Calvinists adopting inconsistent views that run afoul of God’s character is nothing new. Calvinism has long been criticized for its stiff-necked embrace of incoherent contradictions and inconsistencies concerning the character of God and then appealing to “inscrutable mysteries” every time they are challenged to unravel their self-contained conundrums. Conundrums like how God’s mind can be the logical origin of every person’s sin in virtue of decreeing each sin, and yet not be the author of the very sins he unilaterally decrees.

This leads to another issue, and that is Edwards’ theologically bankrupt position in condemning the Transatlantic slave trade. It has already been highlighted how Edwards hypocritically approved of and supported the continuance of America’s domestic slave trade but was disenchanted with the Transatlantic merchant ship slave business– the same business that fathered America’s domestic slave trade of which he approved. But that aside it is additionally beyond bewildering that Edwards would attempt to condemn any practice as “wrong for the world” when his theology mandates the view that God sovereignly preordained and rendered certain all the social evils of that present world– such as the Transatlantic slave trade that he finds fault with and denounces! This is cognitive dissonance par excellence.

calvinismAs alluded to earlier, the question begs to be asked: How is it logically right for any Calvinist, like Edwards, to condemn what God has allegedly divinely determined? How is logically right for any Christian to seek to put to rights and redress the very evils God has sovereignly instituted should be part of the fabric of our world? Would it not be to put one’s self in the position of fighting against Almighty God? For many Calvinists such a question asks far too much of them to reflect upon. More on this soon.

But first a little disclaimer is in order. It is impossible and indeed misguided to attempt to denounce the merits of Calvinism or extol the virtues of Arminianism solely on the basis of whose historical theologians had more slaves– for there will always be exceptions. However it cannot be denied that the early, “trailblazing” abolitionists in the Church were by and large Arminians– men like Wesley, Asbury, Wilberforce and Finney. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards were both born in the same year, 1703, and Wesley in particular was not at all a “product of his time” and passionately spoke out against the evils of British and colonial American slavery in tract and speech. And he did so on the grounds that slavery was antithetical to Christ’s death which procured freedom for all and his desire to have mercy on all– as taught in Arminianism. [11] One will not find greater reasons to condemn the unjust enslavement of one’s neighbor and advocate for the freedom of all. Sadly such divine tenants are glaringly absent in Calvinist theology. 

Moreover I find it troubling that Wesley’s contemporaries on the other side of the theological spectrum, Edwards and Whitefield, not only owned many slaves but advocated for slavery to continue at a time when many were questioning the morality of holding their fellow human being in dehumanizing bondage. But the larger question I find myself pondering is, should it really be all that surprising to us that principal, Arminian leaders like Wesley, Asbury, Wilberforce and Finney opposed slavery– and did so on Arminian theological grounds?

RossMoreover should we simply consider it a strange anomaly that Calvinist leaders like Mather, Edwards and Whitefield, who preached God’s determinative decree of all things (which necessarily must include slavery) should then be seen to approve of slavery? Should it really surprise us that Calvinist leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention defended slavery–and did so on Calvinist theological grounds, with telling title defenses like, “Slavery Ordained by God.” [12]   Should it surprise us that white, Afrikaner Calvinists long used their Calvinist theology of unconditional election and God’s meticulous, sovereign predestination of all things as an aid in identifying themselves as God’s special elect in order to justify racial discrimination and eventual apartheid in South Africa?[13] 

I would say not. Whether one can admit it or not, the fact is there is very little logical space Calvinism can offer by way of motivation and incentive to put to right the wrongs of the world. If there are what would they be? For in Calvinism nothing can be said to be truly blameworthy because all things–including the evils of slavery–have been decreed by God for his glory. The world is the way it is because God predestined it so. God predestined that whites would be the masters of blacks. Consequently if God didn’t want a black person to be subjected to slavery pre-Civil War he would have sovereignly decreed for them to be white. Given a belief in God’s predestination of all things what other logically consistent conclusion can be drawn if you were a Calvinist in that day?

To their credit many Calvinists did join the ranks of abolitionists in time, but in my opinion that shift in thought was due more to getting caught up in the surrounding culture’s evolution in progressive, enlightenment thinking than to Calvinism per se. This is not to say there did not exist any slave holder who espoused Arminian ideas–there undoubtedly were. But all things considered I think it is accurate to say the pioneers of abolitionism were largely Arminian– and we shouldn’t dismiss this as mere coincidence. Doctrines like God’s universal, redemptive benevolence towards all men, his desire to extend mercy on all, his death to procure the freedom of all and a rejection of meticulous, divine determinism simply provides a greater logical and theological basis to condemn slavery than does Calvinism. 

As already noted above, a belief in theological determinism, like that in Calvinism, leaves little room to truly condemn anything or anyone. Again– to give an event in the world your disapproval is to call into question what God has predetermined ought to occur. As such who are you, a mere man, to do that? It would seem much more fitting and proper to acquiesce to all things in view of the fact that God has sovereignly predetermined them. Calvinism’s problem is that what God predestines is so closely aligned to what God condones that a Calvinist must step outside his theology to condemn it and redress it. 

Historian and author Douglas Harper explains how Calvinist theology dovetailed with condoning slavery:

“Massachusetts, like many American colonies, had roots in a scrupulous fundamentalist Protestantism. Christianity was no barrier to slave-ownership, however. The Puritans regarded themselves as God’s Elect, and so they had no difficulty with slavery, which had the sanction of the Law of the God of Israel. The Calvinist doctrine of predestination easily supported the Puritans in a position that blacks were a people cursed and condemned by God to serve whites. Cotton Mather told blacks they were the “miserable children of Adam and Noah, “for whom slavery had been ordained as a punishment.” [14]

To be fair we can commend Whitefield in speaking out against the excessive mistreatment of slaves in his day and for promoting the belief that black slaves also had souls of value and therefore should be evangelized and even educated (a progressive view in Georgia). However at the end of the day Whitefield opted for moral and theological compromise because he felt the economy of Georgia needed the backs of slaves to hold it up. After acquiring his own plantation and buying numerous slaves Whitefield became one of the most vocal proponents to reintroduce slavery to Georgia after it was banned.

whitefieldIn a day when a growing tide of moral conscientiousness began to call into question the morality of slavery Whitefield actually traveled throughout Georgia  advocating for slavery to be allowed to continue. In 1749 slavery was indeed outlawed in Georgia, but Whitefield saw this as an economic travesty and intentionally campaigned for it to be legally legislated once again! Historians agree that Whitefield’s pro-slavery campaigns and written pleas to the Georgia Trustees advocating for the necessity of slavery were instrumental in overturning the law of 1749, resulting in the enslavement of blacks being reintroduced to Georgia in 1751. The following selection from a letter Whitefield wrote to an associate is an astounding example of how a great man can become so self-deluded as to use spiritual sentiments to justify the moral bankruptcy of bigotry and slavery:

“Though liberty is a sweet thing to such as are born free, yet to those who never knew the sweets of it, slavery perhaps may not be so irksome. However this be, it is plain to a demonstration, that hot countries cannot be cultivated without negroes. What a flourishing country might Georgia have been, had the use of them been permitted years ago? How many white people have been destroyed for want of them, and how many thousands of pounds spent to no purpose at all? Had Mr Henry been in America, I believe he would have seen the lawfulness and necessity of having negroes there. And though it is true, that they are brought in a wrong way from their own country, and it is a trade not to be approved of, yet as it will be carried on whether we will or not; I should think myself highly favoured if I could purchase a good number of them, in order to make their lives comfortable, and lay a foundation for breeding up their posterity in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” [15] 

Like Edwards, Whitfield’s thinking was plagued with morally entangled inconsistencies that cannot be unraveled or justified. Whitefield’s defenders may counter that it is recorded that his slaves were devoted to him, or that Whitefield saw his role as their master as an opportunity to be their evangelist too. But such sentiments cannot excuse the fact that Whitefield’s actions in advocating that a “hot country” like Georgia needed slaves to be “a flourishing country” helped to consign thousands of blacks to a future enslavement whereby many suffered under cruel masters who did not share Whitefield’s view in “making their lives comfortable, and lay a foundation for breeding up their prosperity in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” What is most astonishing is that Whitefield laments the fact that slaves weren’t introduced into the hot, Georgian farmland earlier, saying, “What a flourishing country might Georgia have been, had the use of them been permitted years ago? How many white people have been destroyed for want of them…” 

john wIn contrast to Whitefield, John Wesley, who also lived in Georgia for a time always opposed slavery and called America’s enslavement of the blacks, “that execrable sum of all villanies.” [16]

I find it profoundly touching that the last letter Wesley wrote before he died was to William Wilberforce who was converted under his ministry. In the letter a frail and sickly Wesley seeks to encourage his friend to stay the course and not give up on his mission to purge the British Empire of the sinful scourge of slavery. He writes:

Dear Sir:

Unless the divine power has raised you us to be as Athanasius contra mundum, I see not how you can go through your glorious enterprise in opposing that execrable villainy which is the scandal of religion, of England, and of human nature. Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of men and devils. But if God be for you, who can be against you? Are all of them together stronger than God? O be not weary of well doing! Go on, in the name of God and in the power of his might, till even American slavery (the vilest that ever saw the sun) shall vanish away before it. [17]

Recently Roger Olson wrote a critique of Edwards legacy. Olson also rightly argues that while the American public school system has wrongly downplayed Jonathan Edwards contributions, American evangelicalism has overblown his legacy as being America’s greatest preacher and theologian that we should emulate and follow. Olson believes that Edwards has become the darling of Christian thought for many evangelicals due in no small part to receiving a “pass” on many of his unfortunate logical and theological blunders– not to mention his glaring hypocrisy in defending slave ownership. But the substantive meat of the article is Olsen’s keen insight in skillfully dissects Edwards theology and reveals his logical inconsistencies and tantamount theological blunders that make his underlying theology wholly untenable for Christian thinkers to embrace. The following is a section of Olson’s critique. (For the full article please go here.)

“Without doubt, Edwards was a great man and deserves more and better respect than he gets in American public education.

Having said all that, I still do not understand why so many of his fans overlook or excuse Edwards’ very significant errors. I can identify with Charles Finney who said of Edwards “The man I adore; his errors I deplore.” It seems to me that many of Edwards’ fans (especially among American evangelicals) are too quick to pass over the obvious logical flaws in his theology.

For example (and here you will have to trust me or look at my chapter on Edwards in The Story of Christian Theology and my many allusions to him and his theology in Against Calvinism): Edwards argued that God’s sovereignty requires that he create the entire universe and everything in it ex nihilo at every moment. That goes far beyond garden variety creation ex nihilo or continuous creation. It is speculative and dangerous. He also asserted that God is space itself. And he came very close to denying that God’s creation of the world was free in any libertarian sense as if God could have done otherwise. (He said that God always does what is most wise, something with which few Christians would argue, but somehow one must admit the possibility that God might not have created at all. Otherwise the world becomes necessary even for God which undermines grace.)

All of those ideas can perhaps be dismissed as the speculations of a mind obsessed with God’s greatness, glory and sovereignty. But things get much, much worse when Edwards deals with free will. Free will, according to him, only means doing what you want to do–following the strongest inclination provided to the will by the affections. It does not mean being able to do otherwise. In fact, Edwards seemed to deny the whole idea of “otherwise”–even in God. He did not merely argue that libertarian free will as ability to do otherwise was lost in the fall; he argued that the very idea is incoherent. If that’s true, then we cannot attribute it to God, either. And the fall becomes not only inevitable but necessary.

The question that naturally arises is: from where did the first evil inclination come? Edwards claims a creature formed it; it arose from a creature’s (Lucifer’s and later Adam’s) own nature. God simply “left ‘em to themselves” so that sin and evil followed inevitably or necessarily. That is to say that God withdrew or withheld the grace creatures needed not to sin. God rendered the fall and all its horrible consequences inevitable or even necessary. And yet, creatures are to blame for sinning even thought they could not do otherwise.

Edwards wanted to get God off the hook for being the author of sin and evil, but ultimately he couldn’t. And he didn’t draw back from admitting that IN SOME SENSE God is the author of sin and evil. But he insisted that God is not guilty of sin or evil because…God’s motive in rendering them certain was good.

Now, let’s stop and examine this line of reasoning a bit. First, the very idea of libertarian free will is incoherent so even God cannot have it. God, too, is controlled by his strongest inclination/motive. Where do God’s inclinations come from? If one says “from his nature,” then, with the denial of libertarian free will, God becomes a machine. Everything God does is necessary–including rendering sin and evil certain. And why does God render sin and evil necessary? For his glory. (See Edwards’ Treatise Concerning the End for Which God Created the World.) So, sin and evil are necessary and serve God’s glory.

And yet, Edwards insisted that God abhors sin and evil. Why? If they are determined by his wisdom and necessary for his glory, why would he abhore them? Edwards tried to resolve this by appealing to God’s larger and narrower views. In the grand scope of things, seen from the widest perspective possible, sin and evil are part of the grand scheme of God to glorify himself. On the other hand, in the narrower perspective, God abhors them and commands creatures not to do them. And punishes them with eternal suffering for doing what serves his glory and is necessary.

Need I go on making my case that Edwards’ theology contains massive flaws? The single greatest flaw is the character of God. This inevitably makes God the author of sin and evil (something Edwards reluctantly admitted) and makes sin and evil not really awful at all but necessary for the greater good. It’s not just that God brings good out of them. For Edwards they are necessary for God’s full glorification.

Now don’t anyone say “Only in this creation; not overall or in general.” That won’t work. This creation is necessary if God does not have libertarian free will which he cannot have if the concept itself is logically impossible (incoherent).

In attempting to pay God too many and too large metaphysical compliments, Edwards ends up chasing his tail and contradicting himself. Is that the mark of a great mind? Well, I’m not saying he didn’t have a great mind. I’m only saying that he either didn’t seem to notice his own contradictions or he chose to overlook them while vehemently pointing out and condemning contradictions he thought he saw in Arminianism. [18]

[1] Cotton Mather, cited in Emerson, Michael and Smith Christian, Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. Oxford University Press, p. Jul 20th, 2000. See also:
[2] Anyabwile, Thabati. “Jonathan Edwards, Slavery, and the Theology of African Americans” See:  (p.6)
[3] Rev. Fuller, Richard. “Domestic Slavery as a Scriptural Institution” 1860. See:
[4] Doolitttle rejected the label Arminian, saying, “I am no papist to make either Calvin or Arminius
my pope to determine my Articles of faith for me.” See: Minkema, Kenneth. Massachusetts Historical Review Vol. 4, Issue NA. p.32 
[5] MinkemaKenneth. Massachusetts Historical Review Vol. 4, Issue NA. p.29
[6] MinkemaKenneth. Massachusetts Historical Review Vol. 4, Issue NA. p.34
[7] MinkemaKenneth. Massachusetts Historical Review Vol. 4, Issue NA. p.24
[8] MinkemaKenneth. Massachusetts Historical Review Vol. 4, Issue NA. p. 37
[9] Anyabwile, Thabati. “Jonathan Edwards, Slavery, and the Theology of African Americans” See: 
[10] p.30
[11] Note Wesley’s Arminian anchor points for denouncing slavery: “O thou God of love, thou who art loving to every man, and- whose mercy is over all thy works; thou who art the Father of the spirits of all flesh, and who art rich in mercy unto all; thou who hast mingled of one blood all the nations upon earth; have compassion upon these outcasts of men, who are trodden down as dung upon the earth! Arise, and help these that have no helper, whose blood is spilt upon the ground like water! Are not these also the work of thine own hands, the purchase of thy Son’s blood? Stir them up to cry unto thee in the land of their captivity; and let their complaint come up before thee; let it enter into thy ears! Make even those that lead them away captive to pity them, and turn their captivity as the rivers in the south. O burst thou all their chains in sunder; more especially the chains of their sins! Thou Saviour of all, make them free, that they may be free indeed!” -John Wesley, “Thoughts upon Slavery”, 1774. See: 
[12] Rev. A. Ross, Fred. Slavery Ordained by God, 1857. See:
Further thoughts on the matter are helpful. It is true that disagreement over slavery did not only split the Baptist Church but also the Methodist church along North and South lines. However southern, Methodist clergy (largely Arminian) did not defend slavery as an institution sovereignly decreed by God, as their fellow Calvinist Baptists were often prone to do. Rather southern Methodists who opted to defend slavery did so on the grounds that it was a states right issue. Their Calvinist, Southern Baptist compatriots took it a step further and defended slavery along theological lines–chiefly God’s sovereign foreordination of all things. Two well-known sermons from Calvinist Baptist preachers during the Civil War bear this out. On January 27, 1861, standing before a packed house Ebenezer W. Warren, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Macon, Georgia, gave a stirring message in defense of God’s ordination of slavery entitled “Scriptural Vindication of Slavery.” He is quoted as declaring, “Both Christianity and Slavery are from heaven; both are blessings to humanity; both are to be perpetuated to the end of time …. because their Maker has decreed their bondage, and has given them, as a race, capacities and aspirations suited alone to this condition of life ….”
On August 21, 1863, Isaac Taylor Tichenor, one of the most influential (Calvinist) Baptist ministers of his day, and who also fought in the bloody battle of Shiloh, was asked to give prepare sermon that would be delivered before the General Assembly of the State of Alabama. He invokes Calvinism’s view of meticulous divine sovereignty throughout his sermon to exhort his listeners to bear in mind that God was governing the war against the South’s wicked foes who would seek to subvert her freedom and remove her institution (slavery). Note his following remarks seeded throughout his sermon: “The continuance of this war does not depend upon the result of battles, upon the skill of our generals… but upon the will of our God… If God be not the Sovereign Ruler of the universe, then the sacrifice of His Son would have been almost in vain… there sits enthroned in inscrutable majesty the Power that moves and controls the world, and that power is God’s…If God governs the world, then His hand is in this world in which we are engaged. It matters not that the wickedness of man brought it upon us…to deprive us of our rights and institutions [slavery]… God in His own way will save our Southland… the day has come that he will vindicate His long ignored rights as Sovereign of the world.” See p. 89-101 Tichenor believed one reason God was sovereignly delaying the victory of the South was that the South had too much pride “in the bulwarks of self-confidence” and was not demonstrating enough reliance on prayer and “reliance on God.” He saw this in part as the South ignoring God’s rights as Sovereign over the world. One wonders what this means? Tichenor has stumbled into the perennial absurdity of Calvinistic sovereignty. If God is sovereign in the sense that he is controlling all things, it would necessarily include the dispositions men have to pray or not pray, trust in God or trust in human might. If God sovereignly controls every human event, how then can his sovereignty be ignored by such people–unless of course God sovereignly determines that such people ignore his sovereignty? In what sense does Tichenor’s “Sovereign of the world” lose his rights as “Sovereign of the world” and vindicate himself? The entire construct of Calvinistic divine sovereignty is self-defeating no matter the oratory it is wrapped in or the century it pops up in.
[13] To see this historical connection explicated further see:
[14] Harper, Douglas.
[15] Whitefield, George. Works, volume 2, letter DCCCLXXXVII
[16] Wesley, John. See: 
[17] Wesley, John. Letter to William Wilberforce. Balam, February 1791. See
[18] Olson, Roger.

About StriderMTB

Hi, I'm Matt. "Strider" from Lord of the Rings is my favorite literary character of all time and for various reasons I write under the pseudonym "StriderMTB. As my blog suggests I seek to live out both the excitement and tension of a Christian walk with Christ in the 3rd world context of Asia. I am unmarried yet blessed to oversee an orphanage of amazing children in South-East Asia. I hate lima beans and love to pour milk over my ice-cream. I try to stay active in both reading and writing and this blog is a smattering of my many thoughts. I see the Kingdom of God as Jesus preached it and lived to be the only hope for a broken world and an even more broken and apathetic church.
This entry was posted in Critiquing Calvinism and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield: Slaveholding and Calvinism

  1. Alton hardy says:

    Wow!!! A great article and timely written…
    Could you send to my email more info on Edwards and Whitefield’s allegiance to American slavery and their blinds spots…this is revolutionary…

  2. If you abhor slavery, you should also abhor Pauline corpus for Paul himself did not refute slavery. Neither was Jesus Christ. What a lame argument!

    • StriderMTB says:

      Hi Jobar, thanks for reading and commenting. There is vast difference between O.T. and N.T. period slavery and New World Slavery. To see them as equivalent and synonymous is to commit an equivocation fallacy. To understand why I would like to refer you to Glen Miller’s great article at Moreover in Philemon Paul makes himself pretty clear as to how he expects Philemon to do the right thing by way of Onesimus, saying, “Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good-no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother… So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do…Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.”

    • yruymi2 says:

      I am glad that some folks in this day and age oppose the evils of racist, chattel slavery. If you support it, I think you need to read the New Testament over again

  3. johnshelley says:

    I find this post somewhat disturbing, above and beyond the nature of the topic. What concerns me here is that your idea of Calvinism seems to be the equivalent of some kind of determinism. I am not defending Jonathan Edward’s view of slavery, rather I’m questioning the obvious bias to what seems to be taken to an extreme in this post against Calvinism in general. I actually find it difficult to work through, what would otherwise be a decent historical review of Edwards because of the apparent lack of understanding concerning Calvinistic theology. Calvinism does not equal determinism. I can, however, understand that if you oppose Calvinism that you might want to argue that it is equivalent to determinism, but that would mean that you ought to be intellectually honest and say that it is what you believe, think, or conclude. This way, the reader is able distinguish between your personal views and what you are declaring to be absolutely true. If however, you are confident that Calvinism is equivalent to determinism, I would appreciate direct quotes in each instance or at least a footnote in each instance where this is stated in Calvin’s theology. Having said all of that, I appreciate your willingness to draw attention to an issue that is rarely discussed in Evangelical circles.

    • StriderMTB says:

      Hi John, thanks for your honest inquery and assessment. Of course I am not without my own remarks 🙂 You state that I have a “lack of understanding concerning Calvinistic theology.” Then you go on to state, “Calvinism does not equal determinism.” I’m afraid John that I understand Calvinism all to well. You need to know that Calvinism is a two-faced theology that has a public and private face. The public face is probably your experience and is grounded in seemingly biblical phraseology (i.e. God is sovereign). The private face qualifies the public remarks with very fine print hardly discernable to the average Calvinist (i.e. We define sovereignty as meaning God decrees and determines all things–which necessarily encompasses your sins…but shhh…don’t let that out in public). John very few of Calvinism’s adherents ever bother to dig deeper into the sinister aspects of its logical implications–which is indeed divine determinism over all your sin. I have posted a recent post (here) in response to your honest request for quotes that prove Calvinism holds to divine determinism over all things. Yes because I am not a Calvinist I am biased against it. However my assertion that Calvinism is a theology that holds to divine determinism is not an example of that bias–it is simply a statement of fact conceded by their own scholars. Lastly as I mentioned there is a lot we can appreciate about Edwards life and preaching ministry. I don’t mean to be unnecessarily unkind to him. I have tried to make the point that both Edwards and Whitfield’s defense of slaveholding was not so much a result of character deficiency as it was a logical extension of their Calvinistic, theological determinism. God bless.

  4. johnshelley says:

    Let me try to be a bit more clear. When I say determinism I mean a type of theology. To borrow from Wayne Grudem, it is “the idea that acts, events, and decisions, are the inevitable results of some condition or decision prior to them that is independent of the human will.” Calvinism, on the other hand is again, borrowing the definition from Grudem, “a theological tradition named after the sixteenth-century French reformer John Calvin (1509-64) that emphasizes the sovereignty of God in all things, man’s inability to do spiritual good before God, and the glory of God as the highest end of all that occurs.” My point is that “determinism” is one perspective and Calvinism another. It will not do, to just equalize them, because they are separate theological ideas. In order for one to be mixed with the other requires an argument followed by a set of ideas from one and a set of ideas from the other, whereby the reader is able to identify that they are one and the same. I think you might not alienate your Calvinist brothers in Christ if you were to respect the doctrine, even if you disagree with it. Otherwise, Calvinists like myself read your clearly angry and flippant statements concerning Calvinism and realize that you obviously are reacting to some kind neo-Calvinistism. Your blog looks interesting, but I am unlikely to return to read future posts that have things do with the Reformation or Calvinism because it does not appear that you respect others enough to give a fair presentation of the doctrines themselves. I will certainly admit to Calvinism having some weak spots, particularly if we look to Calvin’s “double predestination.” Though, in order to win the ear of your audience, you must be fair. This post, is far from it.

    I was once a militant Arminian. And perhaps, 15 years or so ago, I probably said things like you wrote above. I was frustrated by what “appeared” to be a harsh set of doctrines. Ultimately, I found I needed a great deal of philosophy to support some of the Arminian positions and over time became quite uncomfortable by this fact. So I decided to take another look and truly try to break through some the surface barriers often created in the debates by the two camps and just look at the doctrines themselves through the lens of Scripture. I share this with you because it may provide a glimpse from someone from a differing view on things from yourself. I’ve had this debate about at thousand times and not too eager to jump into it again. All I’m saying is if you can tone down the anti-Calvism rhetoric you may gain a few more ears and perhaps, in the end with a few too. Blessings to you,
    John Shelley

    • StriderMTB says:

      Hi John, thanks for the reply. I’m honestly having trouble assessing where you are coming from. If you have ever engaged scholarly Calvinism (as opposed to popular writings) you would not be denying that Calvinistic sovereignty is founded on a strict adherence to divine determinism in which everything that occurs is merely the effect in time of God’s prior sovereign foreordination or decree. Did you not read the list of Calvinist quotations advocating divine determinism? You state that I am not presenting Calvinism “fairly.” Well if “unfair” means quoting Calvinist scholars and calling them out on the logical implications of their beliefs I plead guilty. While some may not use the exact term “divine determinism” their statements are nonetheless synonymous with divine determinism–which is the belief that nothing occurs that God has not sovereignly decreed in eternity past.

      Please feel free to engage that post and tell me where my conclusions are remiss. One of my frustrations with Calvinism is they seek to gather in new adherents by extolling God’s sovereignty… while simultaneously smuggling in a host of presuppositions as to what “sovereignty” entails. For example, your own quote of Grudem finds him saying Calvinism “emphasizes the sovereignty of God in all things…” Well what does that mean John?? It means God has predetermined, through a sovereign decree, everything that occurs! If you can’t embrace it then welcome back to Arminianism. If you still want to insist that I am misrepresenting Calvinism then please interact with the quotes I provided from your own leading Calvinist voices and explain to me how Calvinism doesn’t collapse into divine determinism. More to the point, let me ask you a very simple question: “Have you ever committed any sin that was outside God’s sovereign, determinative will?”

      If you say “yes” than you need to stop calling yourself a Calvinist. It only shows that you have only engaged popular level Calvinism that shields the novice reader from the horrific implications of Calvinist theology–which is the very target of many of my posts. If you say, “no” than your points are mute are they not? Many who call themselves Calvinists simply aren’t aware of the dark side of Calvinism where one’s only recourse is to “punt” to mystery. I would not consider my posts on Calvinism angry per se but you may be picking up on some passion and frustration 🙂 Moreover I am a 100% sure some of my posts have too much “flesh” and I hope to grow in greater maturity in that area.

      Roger Olson has my great respect because he says everything I want to say but comes across very peaceful, lol. (I would recommend his new book “Against Calvinism). Lastly I do believe there is concerted effort, rooted in both fear and dishonesty, on the part of Calvinists to water-down their teachings in the public forum, borrow Arminian theology (while demonizing Arminianism) so as to gather a greater hearing. Arminians believe in God’s sovereignty but our interpretation doesn’t malign God’s holy character by logically entailing that God has decreed every evil event in order to be qualified as sovereign. I appreciate and respect your tone even though I feel you are failing to connect the obvious dots intrinsic to your own theology. Blessings to you as well.

  5. Peter says:

    Wonderful post and very informative!

  6. Cheryl says:

    I think all the debate surrounding Arminianism vs Calvinism can get one’s focus off the “simplicity that is in Jesus Christ.” I honestly don’t have all the answers to understanding the vastness of God’s wisdom and ways. I think the real key questions are: Do you see yourself as a sinner, guilty of God’s wrath, apart from Christ? Do you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins and completely satisfied God’s punishment for the penalty of your sins? Have you trusted Christ alone to save you apart from works? These are the real questions pertaining to life and death.

    • StriderMTB says:

      Thanks for the thoughts. It is easy to assume that the debate surrounding the merits or lack thereof concerning Calvinism is a distraction to the “simplicity that is in Jesus.” However as I see it the very character of God is at stake which in turn throws into jeopardy the simplicity of the gospel. Did God divinely ordain every sin and evil–including the Transatlantic slave trade? Has God unilaterally and unconditionally chosen to create and consign countless people to an eternal damnation before the creation of the world? Did Jesus die only for the sins of Christians? Is the gospel really a bracketed theology akin to “God so loved [the elect only] in the world that whosoever [among the elect] believes in Him will be saved.” To its shame Calvinism says “yes” to these questions and therefore in my opinion is a libel against both God’s character and the simplicity of the gospel. God bless.

  7. Prometheus says:

    While I appreciate that Jonathan Edwards and Whitefield were pro-slavery, some Calvinists, who were much less forceful (not less ardent) about their Calvinist beliefs, were quite anti-slavery. Among them were John Newton a former slave trader who wrote “Amazing Grace” and William Wilberforce, who more than anyone in England at the time is known for dismantling the British slave trade. There was Methodist Daniel Whedon who was against the slave trade as well, but another Methodist Minister of the same name is mentioned by Frederick Douglass as one of the most brutal slave masters he knew of. Anyways, it seems that many Calvinists have felt that their doctrines actually contribute to their work in the world. John Newton in his “More Than a Calvinist” makes clear why he thinks that this is so (though most of what he says, I think an Arminian could easily say). The Dutch Calvinists were responsible for opening non-sectarian and sectarian Christian schools all around the United States. It was because of their vision of bringing in the kingdom, their confidence in what God was calling them to do. Anyway, while I do agree that Edwards gets too little credit and too much in various quarters, the doctrines of Calvinism have not gotten in the way of Abolition any more than the Arminian. After all, the Methodist church in the United States split over the issue . . . as did the Baptist church.

    So, while I agree that logically Calvinism in the sense you have described, a doctrine of divine determinism (as I agree Calvin, Luther, and others, as well as the Westminster Confession of Faith seem to imply – certain Jonathan Edwards), should dampen and discourage anyone’s spirit from service to God, nonetheless, this does not seem to have been the case. And let’s not forget, also, the founder of modern missions who was Calvinist – William Carey.

    • Cheryl says:

      The thing that bothers me most about Edwards is his characterization of God. How can a God of love – the epitome of love hate anyone? In Edwards’ sermon, “Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God”, which caused a few suicides, he basically says that God hates some people and has ordained them to Hell? What?? How can that be when scripture says that “Christ tasted death for EVERY man” (Hebrews 2:9), “The Lord is not willing that anyone should perish, but EVERYONE to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9) – Just to name a few verses…I could go on and on…If Christ tasted death for every man, which means that ALL can come to Him, and God is not willing that ANYONE should perish, won’t God’s will ultimately be fulfilled (as the Calvinists say?) Or is God’s will thwarted and Satan power victorious over Christ’s death and resurrection, dragging the majority of mankind to Hell? I think not.
      When I read Edward’s, I wonder if he REALLY knew God. I mean REALLY knew him in a personal sense. He was obviously intellectual and philosophical, but what about truly spiritual in the sense of knowing God? Because when you KNOW Christ, you are consumed with His love. Not only to love Him back and worship HIm, but you obtain a supernatural love for ALL mankind. This lack of love is what troubles me most about Edwards.
      I realize that we all have some errors in our thinking and theology, but how can you miss the fact that God sent His only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world and to redeem mankind for HImself and think that God has ordained anyone to wrath? I have trouble with that one.

      • Prometheus says:

        Agreed. And this is why I don’t like the Calvinist system. Yet somehow many of them read scriptures well enough to realize that they ARE to love their neighbors as themselves, that they are to pray for their enemies, that they are to stand up for those who have no voice, and (to get at your main point) they feel so personally touched by his great love that they do all for his glory! I don’t think I’ll ever understand how they think their theology hangs together in a coherent or even good way, but the fact is they do, and they have in many instances put Arminians to shame (not to deny that Arminians haven’t done the same to Calvinists at times).

  8. Prometheus says:

    PS The cruel slaveholder’s name was Daniel Weeden, not Whedon. 🙂 But the name sounds the same.

  9. StriderMTB says:

    Thanks for the comments Prometheus. I am wondering why you say William Wilberforce was a Calvinist—especially when he explicitly said he was not? In a letter to friend dated Dec. 17th he states, “But you and I, who are not Calvinists, believe that even where the influence of the Holy Spirit was in the heart, that Spirit may be grieved and quenched.”
    Wilberforce was good friends with John Wesley and was converted under Wesley’s ministry. He was also good friends with the Calvinist John Newton, but he was assuredly not a Calvinist. In a sense he is a good example to us all on the importance of “keeping the main thing the main thing” (i.e. love for one another).

    You do bring up some good points which I appreciate. I have added some more detail to the article–especially in the footnotes to expand upon my central contention, which is that Calvinist theology provided a more fertile ground for pro-slavery sentiment than Arminianism. Why? Because Calvinism cannot provide a LOGICAL basis to disapprove of societal evils that God determinatively approved of when he predetermined the evils of the transatlantic slavetrade unto his good pleasure and glory. A Calvinist must step outside his theology (in a logical sense) to alter what God has decreed. While it is undoubtedly true that certain Calvinists (like John Newton) were opposed to slavery and certain Arminians were past slave owners, by and large leading Calvinists arrived “late to the game” in terms of the Abolitionist movement. I grant there were exceptions on both sides, but you will not find Arminians (such as southern Methodists who had slaves) justifying slave ownership in Arminian theology. (They saw it strictly as a state’s rights issue–as did many) The reason is quite simple. Oppression of another human being is antithetical to a consistent theology of God’s love for all, atonement for all, and desire for all to be saved, etc. In contrast you will find Calvinists repeatedly anchoring their justification of slaveholding in Calvinistic theology– namely God’s foreordained decree. So I would have to disagree with you that “the doctrines of Calvinism have not gotten in the way of Abolition any more than the Arminian.” I don’t believe history bears that out–especially in the earlier years of the Abolitionist movement.

    As for William Carey, I have searched in vain to discover one thing he has said that I could not agree with as an informed Arminian. That he sought to wake up his fellow Calvinists who were mired in apathy and indifference to missions is well known. His denominational upbringing was Calvinistic in its orientation and there is no doubt he never jettisoned that affiliation. I would never deny that. However in reading his writings and correspondence I have yet to find any statement of his that affirms unconditional election. And while he makes general statements about the necessity of God’s grace to bring about conviction of sin and God’s providential governing of his life and mission, his statements could just as easily have been made by any well-informed Arminian. Most surprisingly there are some statements that I believe lean towards unlimited atonement and are very inclusive. He had no problem telling entire gatherings of indigenous people that Christ died for all their sins. Note the following journal entry: “I then told them how God sent his son, to save Sinners, that he came to save them from Sin, and that he died in Sinner’s stead, and that whosoever believed on him would obtain everlasting life, and would become Holy.” He was very fond of using the phrase “whosoever” when he preached. (Journal entry, Feb. 22, 1795), 53-54.)

    He also wrote his sisters saying, “And the acceptance of that sacrifice of atonement was testified by the resurrection of our Lord from the dead and by the commission to preach the Gospel to all nations with a promise, or rather a declaration, that whosoever believeth on the Son shall be saved…” (Carey to Sisters, Oct. 25, 1831), 251-52.)

    All that to say I think Carey was inspired towards missions because of his great love for the Lord and his great heart for lost souls that he believed Christ died for and also loved. I do not see any distinguishing hallmarks of Calvinistic theology that inspired him–such as double predestination, etc.

    • Prometheus says:

      Thank you!
      Sorry about Wilberforce. I should have done some checking . . . since I was going off of John Piper’s comments that he had Calvinistic theology. So, I concede. As for your comments on justifying slavery, I also agree. LOGICALLY speaking this is true. And I have not found Arminians justifying slavery on the basis of Arminian theology. I have not read Carey extensively, so I trust your analysis of him. I should take a look, since I’d like him to be on “our side.” Nonetheless, I struggle with how he seems to have neglected his family. Perhaps this is just my bias, though.

      • StriderMTB says:

        No worries. You are not the only one who has been perplexed by John Piper’s insinuation/contention that Wilberforce was a Calvinist. Piper has long been on a crusade to make Calvinism seem as delightful and glorious as possible by concealing its dark elements and trying to throw a Calvinist lasso around everyone he deems worthy of admiration.

        In his short 76 page biography on Wilberforce Piper states the ONLY reason Wilberforce distanced himself from the Calvinist label was that “Calvinists had a reputation of being joyless” (p. 61-62). Piper then offers this statement in a footnote: “As I completed his book, A Practical View of Christianity, I could not recall a single sentence that a Calvinist like John Newton or George Whitefield or Charles Spurgeon could not agree with” (p. 62). Well if you read Wilberforce’s writings you will discover that every theological viewpoint he articulates squares 100% with Arminian theology. The problem is Piper wants to dupe everyone into thinking if a Christian preaches that men are depraved and require the work of the Holy Spirit to bring conviction of sin, then that MUST mean they are a Calvinist. Piper either never read Arminius or Wesley, or he has… and is pursuing some sort of historical revisionism to tip the balance in his favor. I suspect the latter since he often cloaks the sinister aspects of Calvinism, such as God’s unilateral and unconditional decree of all sin and evil, by repackaging it in Arminian language like “God permits sin and evil.”

        A Calvinist reviewer of the short biography thought Piper’s need to even bring up the issue of Calvinism in the biography was an unfortunate distraction. He had this to say of Piper’s over-reach: “As I said, I am in complete agreement with these doctrines myself; however, I do not see how this is important to the context of the life of William Wilberforce given that this is only a 76 page introductory biography. It gives an appearance that John Piper wants Wilberforce to be a Calvinist even though he never came out and said as such. See

        It is all very telling bias. I think it is unfathomable for Piper to imagine a man who could be so God-centered to live and do all for God’s glory– and yet not be a Calvinist. I think both sides in the debate have their own bias. I know I do. But if we are going to write historical biographies of people we need to try our best to unpack them and set them aside BEFORE we start writing.

        Lastly I agree with you about how Carey’s neglect of his family is disconcerting. I had to do a paper on him once and I was aghast at how bad it was. However to be fair Wesley wasn’t the most constant and emotionally supportive husband either. His many travels seemed to have brought about a context of neglecting his own wife…but many think she was mentally ill too.

        P.S. One thing that surprised me in some of my reading was that John Newton was greatly influenced to see slavery as a moral crime that must be countered by all Christians after reading Wesley’s anti-slavery publication “Thoughts on Slavery” (1774). This is interesting because Wesley’s theological anchor points for why Christians should oppose slavery were thoroughly Arminian. For example God loves all, God purchased all slaves by his blood, God seeks to extend mercy to all, God is the Savior of all and God wants freedom for all. I am not at all suggesting Newton was not a Calvinist. I believe he was Calvinist up to his eyeballs… but it is interesting that Wesley’s treatise exerted great influence over his abolitionist views.

  10. johnshelley says:…. your blog post on the subject was required reading in one of my classes. I wrote a reflective paper on the subject, which can be found on the link above. Should you be interested.

    • Eddie Kotynski says:


      It is good to see your response. I believe that many are going to disagree on what Calvinism is, but it does seem fair to let Calvinists define themselves. In my view, though, it makes little sense when Calvinists reject teachings that are explicit in Calvin. Like Calvin (but argued more thoroughly), Edwards’ Calvinism (in my reading of both Calvin and Edwards) is quite deterministic. God created the reprobate for the sake of having a reprobate and everything that we do, whether good or bad, is predetermined (see especially Edwards’ view of the person following his/her greatest inclination – an inclination which ultimately comes from God; he has a quite mechanistic view of the moral universe).

      I do agree that Matt represents what he sees as the theology of Calvin and Edwards as the theology of all Calvinists. This is obviously not the case. But, to be fair, I think that (at least through the comments section) Matt does make it clear that while the logical implications of Calvinism and Edwardsian determinism seem to justify (and were explicitly used by some Calvinist theologians to justify) slavery and other institutional evils, Calvin, Edwards, and other Calvinists of the deterministic bent were inconsistent in supporting the status quo (or should I say they were downright revolutionary!). It appears that what seems a logical conclusion to one group seems like a non sequitur to another. That is one reason why I can get along with nice Calvinists like you. 🙂 Your commitment to obeying God’s call in our lives seems to supersede your commitment to following the logical implications of Calvin and Edwards. Fortunately in most areas it seems that Edwards also was aware of the need to obey God. He was not a sit-on-your-butt type of guy. 🙂 He even believed in evangelism (gasp!), something that Calvinists have pursued quite well over the years.

      I also really like your take on pornography. I agree. I wish more people would talk about such things, and I think the kinds of things we see in movies are similar. People forget that it is not just about what happens to us viewers and is also about what happens to those on the other side. Even though the people in Hollywood movies act more voluntarily, we are supporting them engaging in a sinful way of life (i.e. encouraging a different type of bondage). I think these issues can be subsumed under the command: “love your neighbor as yourself”.

      Thanks again for your response, even if I struggle to agree with you as to what a Calvinist is or ought to be. 🙂

    • StriderMTB says:

      Thanks John Shelley for the link to your response paper. There is much that I could say, but I will reserve my comments to just a few:

      1) You strangely don’t want to even deal with Calvin’s MANY clear statements that affirm determinism

      2) You are “infatuated” with Wayne Grudem and it is no wonder you are confused about what Calvinism actually entails logically and historically because Grudem is one of the most obscuring theologians out there. He is pretty bad… awful in fact… when it comes to straightforward speech about the logical implications of Calvinist theology when applied consistently. He is understood by others to be a “gateway” Calvinist theologian who feels the need to shield seminary students 101 from apprehending the logical particulars of Calvinism. He does this masterfully with obscuring language that is general rather than specific. For example he writes (as you quote) that Calvinism is not a belief that God divinely determined all things, rather it is a belief that “God is sovereign over all things.”

      Hmmm… well what does he mean by “sovereign over all things”???? He doesn’t say does he, John? Truth be told he knows that historical Calvinism holds that divine sovereignty is the belief that “God ordains whatsoever comes to pass” and that all God’s decrees are unconditional. In other words God did not condition any of his universal decrees on any foreseen condition he saw in the future. In that sense it is inescapable to deny that God’s mind is the logical origin of conception for all things that take place (i.e. all things which he has unconditionally ordained).

      3) You can continue to call yourself a Calvinist if you want, but to outright dismiss, reject… or simply ignore Calvin’s many recorded statements on God’s unconditional decrees that render all things sovereignly determined by divine fiat is… well it’s just odd. But a steady diet of Grudem is a possible explanation. To balance out your reading you should check out a scholarly alternative, such as the highly recommended book: “Faith, Grace and Free-Will” by Robert Picirilli

      Stay well!

  11. Pingback: Jonathan Edwards e George Whitefield: Escravocrata e Calvinismo – Paleo-Ortodoxo

  12. William Prater says:

    A gross mischaraturisation of Calvinism

    • StriderMTB says:

      Feel free to expound William. It seems every time someone points out the theological or moral deficiencies of Calvinism’s commitment to exhaustive determinism, there is always a Calvinist on hand to lazily deflect it all away as mischaracterization.

  13. Pingback: Society of Evangelical Arminians | Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield: Slaveholding and Calvinism

  14. Steve Witzki says:

    This article is simply outstanding. Thanks so much.

  15. StriderMTB says:

    Thanks Steve. Reflecting on what I have written a few years back, I would only add that I don’t want people to judge Edwards too harshly in light of his slaveholding. My ultimate aim is to demonstrate that moral and social change in a God-ward direction tends to grow out of a theology that DOESN’T believe that the very evils that need to be changed were determined by God. We all have our faults. I certainly do. But since I also believe my faults and sins and shortcomings were not divinely determined, I have a greater sense of urgency to let God deal with them.

  16. Ann Broughton says:

    Hello StriderMTB:
    I came across your site when searching the question “Did Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield know of John Calvin’s unrepented (multiple) murders?” Oh, I know, followers of Calvin who consider themselves God’s elect have many excuses for Calvin’s crimes. I have even read that “he (Calvin) lived in less tolerant times.” Also, that even though Calvin had “flaws,” his theology is the gospel! I read (and study) the Bible and nowhere can I find justification for any of Calvin’s precepts. Aside from indoctrination by fallible men, I don’t believe anyone who reads the Bible and is honestly seeking to know the character of God would ever come to the conclusion that He is as Calvinists portray HIm.
    And why, does the Bible state such an obvious fact: “1 John 3:15: Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”

    • StriderMTB says:

      Thanks for reading the post! I agree with your sentiments. The Bible does warn that no matter what our perceived accomplishments and sacrifices for the gospel, if we have not love, we are an empty, clanging symbol of mere noise. Let it never be said of us. For me, Calvin serves as a warning against intellectualism masquerading as theology. Moreover, participating in the killing of one’s theological enemies in the name of Christ is just as heretical as the heresy held by ones enemies. Calvin was in that sense a transgressor and heretic against many of Christ’s clear commands. When people say he was a product of his time, that holds little sway when the words of Christ were readily available in his day. We won’t be judged by the theological treatises we can write, but by our obedience to Christ when it most matters.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s