July 2009 Marks The 500th Anniversary of the Birth of
John Calvin
- “Calvin was virtually the founder of America.”
- ~ German historian Leopold von Ranke
- “He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty.”
- ~ Harvard historian George Bancroft
- “Let not Geneva be forgotten or despised. Religious liberty owes it much respect.”
- ~ John Adams, America’s second President
|
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, first edited by Philip Schaff (1819-1893), says "Calvinism"
Sometimes ... designates, more broadly still, the entire body of conceptions, theological, ethical, philosophical, social, political, which, under the influence of the master mind of John Calvin, raised itself to dominance in the Protestant lands of the post-Reformation age, and has left a permanent mark not only upon the thought of mankind, but upon the life-history of men, the social order of civilized peoples, and even the political organization of States.
Most Americans could not even begin to explain how Calvin affected "the political organization of States" or "the social order of civilized peoples." Abraham Kuyper, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, delivering the Stone Lectures at Princeton University in 1898, said
And as a political name, Calvinism indicates that political movement which has guaranteed the liberty of nations in constitutional statesmanship; first in Holland, then in England, and since the close of the last century in the United States. In this scientific sense, the name of Calvinism is especially current among German scholars. And the fact that this not only is the opinion of those who are themselves of Calvinistic sympathies, but that also scholars who have abandoned every confessional standard of Christianity, nevertheless assign this profound significance to Calvinism. This appears from the testimony borne by three of our best men of science, the first of whom, Dr. Robert Fruin, declares that: “Calvinism came into the Netherlands consisting of a logical system of divinity, of a democratic Church-order of its own, impelled by a severely moral sense, and as enthusiastic for the moral as for the religious reformation of mankind.” Another historian, who was even more outspoken in his rationalistic sympathies, writes: “Calvinism is the highest form of development reached by the religious and political principle in the 16th century.” And a third authority acknowledges that Calvinism has liberated Switzerland, the Netherlands, and England, and in the Pilgrim Fathers has provided the impulse to the prosperity of the United States. Similarly Bancroft, among you, acknowledged that Calvinism “has a theory of ontology, of ethics, of social happiness, and of human liberty, all derived from God.”
MY THIRD LECTURE leaves the sanctuary of religion and enters upon the domain of the State–the first transition from the sacred circle to the secular field of human life. Only now therefore we proceed, summarily and in principle, to combat the unhistorical suggestion that Calvinism represents an exclusively ecclesiastical and dogmatic movement.
The religious momentum of Calvinism has placed also beneath political Society a fundamental conception, all its own, just because it not merely pruned the branches and cleaned the stem, but reached down to the very root of our human life.
That this had to be so becomes evident at once to everyone who is able to appreciate the fact that no political scheme has ever become dominant which was not founded in a specific religious or anti-religious conception. And that this has been the fact, as regards Calvinism, may appear from the political changes which it has effected in those three historic lands of political freedom, the Netherlands, England and America.
Every competent historian will without exception confirm the words of Bancroft: “The fanatic for Calvinism was a fanatic for liberty, for in the moral warfare for freedom, his creed was a part of his army, and his most faithful ally in the battle.”1 And Groen van Prinsterer has thus expressed it: “In Calvinism lies the origin and guarantee of our constitutional liberties.” That Calvinism has led public law into new paths, first in Western Europe, then in two Continents, and today more and more among all civilized nations, is admitted by all scientific students, if not yet fully by public opinion.1. BANCROFT, History of the United States of America. Fifteenth Edition; Boston 1853: I. 464; Ed. New York, 1891, I, 319
Here is an exchange from a Discussion Board on America On Line (link works only for AOL subscribers).
Subject: Calvin's America
Date: 4/28/2001 10:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <20010429015507.26539.00001469@ng-bk1.aol.com>
I wrote:
See John Eidsmoe's biographical essay on Adams in Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 257-96.
In message-id: <20010429004401.13099.00000940@ng-ci1.aol.com> dated: 4/28/2001 9:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, RJohnson64 writes:
Is this the same John Eidsmoe who, in one of his words, affirmatively quoted Ranke's statement that "John Calvin is the virtual founder of America"?
I don't recall Eidsmoe quoting Ranke, I think he was quoting John Adams.
You may be thinking of Lorraine Boettner:
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue06/calvin.htm
http://www.ccel.org/b/boettner/predest/28.htm
See also Steve Wilkins:
http://www.gbt.org/wilkins/causes_of_the_war_of_independenc4.htm
Also:
http://www.avision1.com/biblical_worldview/BWV_00/BWV06-2.html
http://incolor.inebraska.com/stuart/ajc.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a397351b419af.htm
http://www.biblehistory.com/Presbyterian.html
http://www.berea-baptist.org/historical.htm
http://www.bighole.com/church/christianpatriots.htm
http://nt.watauga.k12.nc.us/whs/id/chpt3.htm
http://www.nacnet.org/baptist/arnjuly7.htm
Also:
http://www.flash.net/~jaybanks/books/reformed/history.htm
Subject: Re: Calvin's America
Date: 4/29/2001 3:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <20010429185643.08372.00000094@ng-fa1.aol.com>
In message-id:
<20010429091358.13344.00001413@ng-ci1.aol.com> dated: 4/29/2001 6:13 AM
Pacific Daylight Time, RJohnson64 writes:
> Kevin posts: The fanatic for Calvinism was a fanatic for liberty;
> and, in the moral warfare for freedom, his creed was his most
> faithful counsellor and his never-failing support.
>
> RJohnson: Interesting. Of the list I posted regarding the religious affiliations
> of the founders, how many of them would you classify as Calvinist?
>
> Kevin: Politically, virtually all of them were Calvinists.
>
> Calvinism is a political philosophy??? Color me confused, but
> I was under the impression that Calvinism was a theological
> philosophy that transcended politics. I'm curious what criteria
> you use to classify Calvinism as a political philosophy.
The judgments of Calvinists, as well as non-Calvinist historians.
>
> If it is the predestination aspect, I might remind you that a good
> number of the founders wrote avidly against predestination,
> Jefferson being perhaps the most vocal of these.
>
> However, I am interested in your support for this, so I will hold
> until you provide more information.
I hardly know where to begin. It's like meeting a primitive native of a lost continent who, having heard bits and pieces of info about a land far away, has the idea that being an "American" means playing a game called "baseball." Where do you begin telling this man that the differences between his culture and "America" are far greater than an occasional game of baseball?
A person who only believes in predestination is a very truncated Calvinist. In fact, a person whose views on predestination do not shape his politics doesn't believe in predestination at all.
"Predestination" is just the tip of the iceberg of a view of life which begins with the absolute sovereignty of God. It affirms the Creator-creature distinction as basic to metaphysics and ethics, and "the Crown-rights of Christ the King" in every area of life.
I guess I would direct you first to the lectures delivered by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands at Princeton University in 1898. These lectures are still in print, so far as I know.
http://www.kuyper.org/stone/preface.html
That site says:
Dr. Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) was a Dutch Calvinist theologian, philosopher and politician. As leader of the Anti-Revolutionary Party in the Netherlands he served as Prime Minister of his country from 1901 to 1905. A man of immense talents and indefatigable energy, he occupied himself with the task of reconstructing the social structures of his native land on the basis of its Calvinistic heritage in almost every area of life. He was editor of two Christian newspapers for over forty-five years, served his country as a member of parliament for over thirty years; in 1880 he founded the Free University of Amsterdam in which he occupied himself as teacher and administrator, and still found time to publish over 200 volumes of intellectually challenging material including Encyclopaedia of Sacred Theology, The Work of the Holy Spirit, and the classic devotional text To Be Near Unto God. At his seventieth birthday celebrations in 1907 it was said of him that “The history of the Netherlands in Church, in State, in Society, in Press, in School, and in the Sciences of the last forty years, cannot be written without the mention of his name on almost every page.”
His Lectures on Calvinism uncover the riches of Calvinism as not just a set of theological dogmas but more importantly as the foundation of a whole view of life.
Another Dutch Calvinist on the Sovereignty of God and its relation to all of human culture:
Max Weber and R.H. Tawney have explored the Calvinist roots of American capitalism. Ernst Troeltsch can also be consulted here. See the Journal published 50 years ago, Progressive Calvinism:
"Federalism," "representative government," "social contract" -- these are ideas which are nothing else than political presbyterianism. The British called the American Revolution "The Presbyterian Revolt."
On politics:
Dutch Calvinism, of course, has its roots in the Reformation, and the Calvin-Knox side more than the Lutheran. Secularists would like us to believe that American political ideas sprang full-grown out of the head of Jefferson. This is either ignorance or secularist deception.
http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm10_fed.html
http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/romans13rev.htm
http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm10_samson.html
Here is an analysis of the impact of Dutch Calvinism in America:
http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/1998_Mar/bolt.html
http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm10_jones.html
The Calvinist who believes in a Sovereign God will not allow any king or prince to claim a similar sovereignty.
Predestination was not so much the basis for Calvinist politics; God's Law served that function. But predestination animated Calvin's followers and gave them the drive to overthrow tyrants (cf. Heb. 11).
http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/Kirk-Calvinism.htm
Bancroft, the Unitarian, does not really understand Calvinism as a political philosophy, part of a unified weltänschauüng. But as a historian he was able to see the political effects of Calvinism, and able (unlike modern historians) to report it.
The separation of churches and state (a completely different doctrine than the modern myth of "separation of church and state) is a Calvinist doctrine.
See also:
J. T. McNeil, The History and Character of Calvinism.
http://www.reformed.org/ethics/Jordan_judicial_laws_Moses.html
"Presbyterianism in America," by Singer
http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/story.htm
The American Dream, Puritan Version.
"Horace Mann, the End of Free-Market Education, and the Rise of Government Schools" notes that Mann was in rebellion against his Calvinist upbringing:
http://www.mackinac.org/print.asp?ID=3256#_edn2
From Reformation to Revolution: 1500-1650
http://capo.org/premise/96/mar/p960304.html
Much more could be given.
Calvinism has had more impact politically than theologically (when "theologically" is defined merely in terms of "predestination" and who goes where when they die.)
Kevin C.
http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/index.htm
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
Subject: Re: Calvin's America
Date: 4/29/2001 8:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <20010429230058.24934.00001035@ng-fj1.aol.com>
I wrote:
A person who only believes in predestination is a very truncated Calvinist. In fact, a person whose views on predestination do not shape his politics doesn't believe in predestination at all.
In message-id: <20010429211950.26794.00000138@ng-fw1.aol.com> dated: 4/29/2001 6:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, RJohnson64 writes:
But of course, a person who denies the doctrine of predestination is hardly considered a Calvinist, whatever else that person may believe. Would you agree with that?
No, at least politically speaking, which is what this Message Board is all about. A person can be an atheist and have political views which are staunchly Calvinist, especially if he was raised a staunch Calvinist and moved toward deism only in theological terms.
Recognition of the abiding power of sin is a cardinal tenet in conservatism. Quintin Hogg, in his vigorous little book The Case for Conservatism, re-emphasizes the necessity for this conviction. For conservative thinkers believe that man is corrupt, that his appetites need restraint, and that the forces of custom, authority, law, and government, as well as moral discipline, are required to keep sin in check. One may trace this conviction back through Adams [p.244] to the Calvinists and Augustine, or through Burke to Hooker and the Schoolmen and presently, in turn, to St. Augustine—and, perhaps (as Henry Adams does) beyond Augustine to Marcus Aurelius and his Stoic preceptors, as well as to St. Paul and the Hebrews.
Kevin C.
http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/index.htm
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
> Calvinism moulded Calhoun's character, yet he "squinted towards
> Unitarianism"??? You do understand, don't you, that Calvin
> oversaw the death of a Unitarian, one Michael Servetus, who was
> burned at the stake for denying the Trinity and teaching Unitarianism?
You do understand, don't you, that "Calvinism" is a political philosophy as well as a view about theology and predestination? A person can reject predestination and still hold a Calvinist political philosophy.
> How then, can Kirk seriously make the claim that Calvinism shaped
> the character of a person who leaned towards Unitarianism?
Because Calhoun was still a political Calvinist.
I don't think you're aware of how political Calvinism was back in the days of our Founding Fathers. Get a taste here.
"Calvinism" cannot be limited to pure theology
> How can someone who embraces, or even tends toward,
> Unitarianism hold to the doctrine of Calvinism which requires
> acceptance of the Triune nature of God?
You speak of "the" doctrine of Calvinism. That's a mistake.
Calhoun rejected one doctrine of Calvinism but held to many others.
He held to a doctrine of Calvinism which holds that men are sinful and that a government of checks and balances is required. This distinguishes him from the French Revolutionaries of his day.
"Calvinism" does not consist in just one doctrine. There are many doctrines in "Calvinism." There are many theological doctrines, and many political doctrines. Did you look at any of the links I posted? Just because a person rejects one aspect of Calvinist theology does not mean he has also rejected the totality of Calvinist political theory.
> Perhaps the characteristics you are pointing to in our founders are
> better labeled something other than Calvinist, for as far as I can see
> at this time, by labelling them Calvinist you open your argument to
> confusion.
Not among the well-informed. Russell Kirk is very well informed.
> However, I digress...you have made your argument, it must stand or
> fall on its own merits.
> Are you familar with Robert Nordlander? He writes an interesting
> series of articles which address the idea of Calvinism influencing
> our founders. Here is the link, for your convenience.
>
> A Critical Response to Bernard Katz On Our Founding Fathers
>
> The words of Madison and Jefferson with reference to the nature of
> and benefit of religion in the United States are well worth the read.
I've seen much better articles. The facts are thin and the logic is fallacious through and through. Just because someone rejects predestination does not mean they believe in a purely atheistic government. Adams violated the ACLU myth of "separation" at every turn. This article contains some very bad reasoning.
In fact, I'd be embarrassed to rely on this article if I were a separationist. I've never seen an article that more clearly commits this basic fallacy, and it makes obvious the point that anti-Calvinists and Unitarians can be -- and were -- very conservative and can use the government to endorse and promote their brand of theism.
I've written
A Critical Response to "A Critical Response to Bernard Katz On Our Founding Fathers"
I invite your comments.
Kevin C.
http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/index.htm
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
Subject: Re: Calvin's America
Date: 4/30/2001 1:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <20010430161607.19060.00000735@ng-ma1.aol.com>
Calvin was a product of his times and believed many things which everyone in that day believed, but which are rejected today. America rejects many of those abuses because we were influenced by the genius of Calvin, who made it plain that governments were obligated to be Christian. Many things governments did in his day were not Christian. Calvin changed the world for the better, politically speaking, as most of the Founding Fathers would agree. I can't think of a single Unitarian 200 years ago who would not acknowledge a debt of freedom to Calvin.
I wrote:
I would undoubtedly have been executed for my anarchistic views in any city in Europe in 1540. But secular governments are far more lethal than Christian governments. Its no contest. You can complain all you want about a nutcase like Servetus, but in a now-secular America 4,000 mothers kill their own babies every day, and atheistic civil governments have killed an average of 5,000 more innnocent people PER DAY every day in the 20th century.
http://vftonline.org/XianAnarch/pacifism/rummel.htm
The author of the page you have excerpted (whoever he or she is -- is this another triumph of Heather Anne Buettner?) is clearly hostile to Christianity, but is spiritually blind to the genocide of the messianic state.
Overall, Calvin's ideas brought the flowering of western civilization and less-tyrannical republican governments. Anti-Calvinist governments are best seen in Communist China and the gulags of the "former" soviet union.
I'll take Calvin in a heartbeat.
In message -id: <20010430093736.24903.00002964@ng-mq1.aol.com> dated: 4/30/2001 6:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, RJohnson64 writes:
Thank you for this clear explanation of how you would implement your version of anarchy on the rest of society. I appreciate the discussion we have had, and leave you to promulgate your theories and reconstruct your vision of history. When you come into power and begin the purges, let me know...I'd rather die on the stake than live in a society that conforms to your vision of Christianity.
Are you saying you're quitting the discussion??
What a disappointing, irrational, emotional response that would be.
My vision of Christianity is a decentralized, non-violent society described by the Old Testament prophet Micah as a world in which men do not train for war and everyone owns their own "Vine & Fig Tree." You would rather live in a society in which people are executed on the stake?? Why??? What kind of mindless reactionary nonsense is this?
Kevin C.
http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/index.htm
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
In the sixteenth century the intimate association of Church and state was assumed to be natural and desirable by all but a small minority. The distinction was really not that of Church and state as we understand these today, but between the ecclesiastical and the secular government of the same community. The word "theocracy" is often applied to the Geneva of Calvin's time, but the word is now ambiguous to most minds. Many confuse "theocracy," the rule of God, with "hierocracy," the rule of the clergy. With reference to Geneva, James Mackinnon, indeed, suggests the word "clerocracy." "Bibliocracy" and "christocracy" have been proposed by other writers. Certainly the system was a theocracy in the sense that it assumed responsibility to God on the part of secular and ecclesiastical authority alike, and proposed as its end the effectual operation of the will of God in the life of the people. In principle, at least, it was not hierocratic. Calvin wished the magistrates, as agents of God, to have their own due sphere of action. but so intense was his consciousness of vocation, and so far did his mental energy outstrip that of his political associates, that he ultimately gained ascendancy to the point of mastery.
To say that he ruled as a dictator is, in our generation, to raise to the imagination a figure in the similitude of Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin, living as chief actor in a drama of lawless power. with secret police, armed guards, vainglorious titles and insignia, massed demonstrations, and vociferous public acclaim. Calvin used lawful means, went unarmed and unguarded, lived modestly and without display, sought advice from many, claimed no authority save as a commissioned minister of the Word, assumed no title of distinction or political office. It was not until Christmas Day, 1559, after he had been instrumental in the admission of hundreds of refugees to citizenship, that he himself, on invitation of the magistrates, became a citizen. He had avoided seeking this privilege lest a charge of political ambition be raised to add to his difficulties.
John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism, Oxford Univ. Press, 1954, pp. 183ff.