proudpapa
Jul 8, 2012
Why Did Early American Christians (Calvinist Puritans) belive that Racist Slavery was acceptable??
Why Did Early American Christians (Calvinist Puritans) belive that Racist Slavery was acceptable??
Here is some thoughts??
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
Ironically, America now has a black president.
Even if the colonist were wrong, it's just too late.
Why Did Early American Christians (Calvinist Puritans) belive that Racist Slavery was acceptable??
They were the elect, and the black Africans were not (so they supposed, and wrongly I might add). But who's one to argue with the infallibility of the TULIP?
They also had this idea further championed by guys like George Whitfield, who twisted Scripture out of context to fit his desires, and campaigned for its legislation.
Never mind what the apostle Paul said on the subject in 1 Cor 7:21-24;
"Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called."
Where Paul distinctly says if you are ABLE to become free do so. Yet the "elect" would deny them the very thing Paul said they should do.
Remember, the Hebrew concept of "slavery" (which was more of an indentured servant position that they were required to be freed from every seven year period unless they wished to remain with their masters) and the Greek concept of it were radically different from each other, and even then quite different than what America had in the South.
Hyper Calvinism is just a treasure trove of "justice" throughout history.
First time for everything.
Brother Enid, I've never disagreed with you but this time I must. He's President in name only and time will tell who's running the show from behind the curtain, as it's said.
The blacks in the South became better Christians than their 'masters'. Doctrinally as well.
The blacks in the South became better Christians than their 'masters'. Doctrinally as well.
For sure, despite the fact that their "owners" tried to use the very book that always spoke of black Africans in a positive light to hold them down and repress them.
Good Day, Brother EverestoSama! :)
eta - Amen!
Good Day, Brother EverestoSama! :)
Same to you. I hope you're doing well. I tried to call a few days ago, but it was probably too early in the morning. I'll try at a better time in the future.
:)
Night owl, I am. It's after 3 here and well, here I be orbiting cyberspace.
I love watching the sun rise. lol.
Timely thread. The powers that be are truly trying to pit ethnos against ethnos over here. Actually world wide.
Best time is after 11 EST.
Bless you much!
By the way, its Sister Enid, not brother.
Thanks.
Well, it's a pleasure to know you, Sister. Made me smile because I've always enjoyed your contributions.
Many Blessings to you!
Proudpapa, I've been reading through the website that you've posted and fighting tears the whole way through - going State to State. I don't have words for what was done - though I am quite aware of how the slaves got here and how they were used and abused - even our American Indians.
There just aren't words, Brother.
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
Is this still a prevailing belief amongst certain "Protestant" denominations? What theology influences the KKK and other White Supremacist groups?
By the way, thanks for the website, Slavery in the North. Very good resource.
Pilgrim
Pilgrim wrote /Is this still a prevailing belief amongst certain "Protestant" denominations? /
Yes. or atleast certain protestants,
Pilgrim wrote /What theology influences the KKK and other White Supremacist groups?/
Makes for an Interesting study
Is this still a prevailing belief amongst certain "Protestant" denominations? What theology influences the KKK and other White Supremacist groups?
I know a pastor who was saved out of one of the cults involved in the KKK. He told me a greater majority of the KKK members as a whole subscribe to two theological leanings. One is something related to old Norse beliefs (probably Asatru), and the other was some sort of radical white-replacementist "christian" sect, to which he formerly belonged to.
This was over 10 years ago or so (I was probably only around 14 or 15 at the time) so I can't remember the name of the group specifically.
Before I truly gave my life to Christ I was heavily involved in extreme occult music circles, and one of the things that was prevalent in the black metal (name of a genre of heavy metal having nothing to do with skin color) scene particularly was an overt racism, related to heathenism and paganism. Even though I wasn't racist myself, the ones who I knew that were, held to a form of Asatru and Odenism. I would take a shot in the dark that many KKK adherents might belong to the same line of thinking, rather than hyper Calvinism. Though I could see it being either or.
I wondered, Everesto, if these were affiliated at all with the 'christian Identity' group? I know they're anti-Jew.
You know what? Christian Identity just might have been the name of the group that the pastor told me about. It rang a bell as soon as I read it.
How anti-Jew is this group? The group I was told about was strongly and overtly anti-Jew from what I remember.
Christian Identity is in fact that "religion" of organizations like the KKK and other neo-nazi groups. Your pastor was correct also about the blending of the "norse" influences as well. That is exactly the "religion" that Hitler and the nazis of old held to. Groups like the KKK have taken that and tried to "Christianize" it.
Sorry to disappoint everyone, but the attempt to blame Calvinism for racist groups like the KKK and the neo-nazi's has no basis in reality. Christian Identity is not Calvinist and really has nothing to do with Calvinism. It has everything to do with Replacement Theology.
John Newton, the writer of the song Amazing Grace was a Calvinist and when God saved him he abandoned the slave trade to follow hard after God. He also was a close friend of William Wilberforce, another Calvinist, who fought hard to rid the UK of the slave trade.
To be sure there were preachers in the 1600's and 1700's who could have done more to preach against slavery, but be sure of one thing: many did! The blame can not soley be laid at the feet of Calvinists for throughout the South Methodism had taken hold in the form of tent meetings and revivals. Methodism certainly is not Calvinism, in fact it was at that time the opposite.
The Methodist Church at the time of the mid-1800's was split down the middle over the question of slavery. Obviously there were Northern Methodists and Southern Methodists, and the Southern Methodists supported slavery for the most part.
Not all Southern Methodist supported slavery, obviously. But the majority did.
There is plenty of blame to go around concerning Christians who supported slavery, not just Calvinists, but Armenians like the Methodists too. Also the Catholic Church as well.
I'm not supporting Calvinism by writing this. I'm simply saying that the bias against Calvinism is coming through on this topic. To lay the blame of slavery in America at the feet of Calvinism shows a lack of knowledge concerning basic American and Church history. We can twist history just as badly as we can twist the Bible when we let our agenda and hatred of certain things blind us.
As to those in the past who championed slavery (George Whitfield) we must realize that we in the 21st century have the benefit of hindsight and retrospect. It does not mean those men were correct, but at the same time we would be utterly arrogant to pretend to sit in judgement of them having not lived in that time or that society. It's easy 300 years later to look at Whitfield's push to legalize slavery in Georgia and call him a wretch for doing so. Were you alive then I think you would have a different thought process about it. Mind you, not what we believe would be a correct thought process, but a different one.
Those who criticize Whitfield's favor of slavery never ever mention his writings where he rejoiced at the salvation of slaves, and referred to them as a "brother in Christ", and that he also pushed for the evangelizing of slaves, as well as teaching them to read and write.
God is all powerful, and He even used an institution such as slavery to bring souls into the Kingdom of God. He did not approve of slavery anymore than He approved of Joseph's brothers selling him into slaver. But what the devil meant for evil, God meant it for good.
The problem here is that people in this dicussion, and others I have observed, give half of the truth and leave out the parts that do not suit their point. If Christians are to be known for their honesty then speak the entire truth. Yes, Whitfield and others were wrong about enslaving other human beings. They lived and breathed in the level of truth and revelation they had at that time. No, they were not desperately wicked for doing so. Whitfield cared about the condition of the soul of his slaves, and rejoiced when one became a "brother in Christ", as he referred to them.
Everresttosama: wrote:
"They also had this idea further championed by guys like George Whitfield, who twisted Scripture out of context to fit his desires, and campaigned for its legislation.
"
I cannot understand what you mean. The name george Whitefield is a very familiar name as a revivalist or something like that . Are you saying he supported slavery with all its injustice which even led to murder ? or are you talking about something else?
I cannot understand what you mean. The name george Whitefield is a very familiar name as a revivalist or something like that . Are you saying he supported slavery with all its injustice which even led to murder ? or are you talking about something else?
No, you got it right. THAT George Whitfield was the one campaigning for the legislation of it. He spoke against certain injustices regarding slavery, but that didn't stop him from buying, owning, and passing on slaves like property.
This discussion is locked.