Anti-Calvinism in History Class

Status
Not open for further replies.
puriteen18

puriteen18

Puritan Board Freshman
I haven't been able to do any posting in a while on the PB because alot of time has been spent refuting lies against the faith on another board (And being a student there is [i:656a03108e]a little[/i:656a03108e] time spent on work) , but I felt that I had to ask what I should do with this.

Here's the thing: I am taking World Civ for my history credit. Last semster we went up to 1500. This sememster we started with 1500, and you know what that means: the Reformamtion.

Up untill today we have studied the problems in the Roman Church, the idea of the 'Common Devotion', and the last week and a half have all been about Luther (which according to my teacher, was a fat, drunken, cursing German peasant.)

Today we started in on what I have been dreading: Calvin.

I had read the chapter on the Calvinist Reformation and had pointed out all the errors. I had my little (and unfortunately abridged) paperback of the Institutes. Pages were marked, sentences were underlined. I was ready for any lie that the professor might pull out.

However, to my surprize he didn't teach anything out of the history book. He explained the Reformed view of original sin, depravity, election. predestination, good works, sabbath, private and public worship, and he actually got them all correct.

I felt relieved, but then it came. He said that while Calvin himself was reasonable, in that he taught there was no way to know if someone was saved, his followers desired to find out who was the elect.

He listed some qualifications that he said they came up with. Here are the ones that bothered me:

Had to be white. (and he joked, "just like Jesus" )

Material Prosperity.


While, I could have defended almost anything of error he might have said about Calvin's teaching I could not refute what he said of the followers.

I had no historical evidence to disprove his claims.

The Reformed faith was credited with racism, the American obsesion with wealth, and in the end was likened unto Islamic terrorism.

I know that surly these are not the truth, maybe magnified singular incidents, but this is not the faith of the Hugenots, Puritans, and the Dutch Calvinists.

Could any of you history buffs out there help me here? Please.

Should I speak out at all (it is an open dissusion class) or should I just let him say what he will?

Help.
 
Puriteen, I'm no "history buff" as you put it, and thus couldn't point you to specific historical documents and papers to disprove your professor's claims. However, one essay I've read that is absolutely outstanding on Calvinism's place in history, from the Reformation all the way up through the early colonies, is the last chapter in Loraine Boettner's [i:3dfd792516]The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination[/i:3dfd792516], entitled "Calvinism In History." It is a magnificent historical treatment of the faith, actions and results of the early followers of Calvin and the other Reformers, and those that followed in the subsequent generations. If you can't find it on the internet anywhere, I would urge you to get the book, copy that chapter and have your professor read it. I highly doubt he'd be able to discount its information.

God bless,

Chris
 
I do have a copy, but I lent it to a hyper-Calvinist friend.

I read (skimmed over) it a few years back and recall that chapter.

I will try to borrow it back for a while, if I can get in touch with my friend.

I was also searching through the Body of Divinity and found some good proof that Puritans believed that God would call from all 'nations, tongues, and knidred' , which would refute the racism claim.

[Edited on 2-4-2004 by puriteen18]
 
It's possible that he's been influenced by Alister McGrath's [i:5e27fa9f1e]Life of Calvin[/i:5e27fa9f1e] which is actually a good book but covers not only Calvin's thought (as McGrath perceives it), but the shift from Calvin's more inductive view of Scripture to Theodore Beza's more deductive view (a McGrathism) and Calvinism's embrace of scholastic logic. Then he goes on to discuss Calvinism's influence on American history, and by now you should realize that with 5 historians you get at least 6 opinions!:):):):)

So you not only have the book the professor read, and I'm guessing here, then you have what he thought the author wrote.

My teacher in our seminar on the Reformation [b:5e27fa9f1e]did not[/b:5e27fa9f1e] like Calvin! Yours sounds like he tried to be fair.
 
If you're interested, I worked on a biographical paper on Calvin, but I found William J. Bouwsma's book, "John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait" to be fairly easy to read and it also dealt with refuting some of the ideas you mentioned your teacher hitting on.

In short, my research found that everybody and his brother wants to either make Calvin a saint or a demon. Also, Calvin's thought is much more complex than we like to give him credit for.

His life's work was in three forms - Institutes, Commentaries, and Sermons. Each has a different purpose and function. To really get a grasp of what Calvin thought about an issue, it is not enough simply to consult either the Institutes or his commentaries, but you must also read the relevant sermons.

The Institutes is NOT a systematic theology - it is a collection of important and necessary theological ideas presented through the form of the Apostle's Creed. Unlike a systematic theology that tries to cover every aspect of theology in a step by step logical fashion, the Institues are much more similar to theological writings of the Middle Ages.

His commentaries are dealing with the text itself and tend not to focus on direct application (while there is some bleed over) unlike the sermons which are explication of the text but focus on application in the life of the believer.

Hope this somewhat random rant helps.
-----------
Jeffrey Brannen
 
[quote:c7e796863a]He listed some qualifications that he said they came up with. Here are the ones that bothered me:

Had to be white. (and he joked, "just like Jesus" )

Material Prosperity.


While, I could have defended almost anything of error he might have said about Calvin's teaching I could not refute what he said of the followers.

I had no historical evidence to disprove his claims.

The Reformed faith was credited with racism, the American obsesion with wealth, and in the end was likened unto Islamic terrorism.
[/quote:c7e796863a]
This is probably too late for your class, but simply tell your teacher to make his sources known. This isn't the first time I've heard of this happening. Most likely he just got it from some lame unverified history book or doctoral thesis. Put the burden of proof back on him and inform him that his information about the later followers is simply incorrect. If the Calvinists were guilty of anything remotely like his acusations it was no more than anyone else in that day. You wanna talk greed, oppression, and moral decay point the finger back to Rome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top