if i may be so kind as to highlight, it doesn’t just mean predestination, the concept is “unconditional” the idea that salvation is not based on human works but rather on God’s part.
Article 9 of the first head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort says
“This election was not founded upon foreseen faith, and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality
or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause or condition on which it depended; but men are chosen to faith and
to the obedience of faith, holiness, etc.; therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which
proceeds faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects,
according to that of the apostle: “He hath chosen us [not because we were but] that we should be holy, and without
blame, before Him in love” (Eph. 1:4)”
I would also point out that the pharisees were prevented from understanding the parables Christ gave
Consider John 12:39-40
John 12:39-40: "Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, that they should not see with their eyes or understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.'”
or John 6:44
“44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
or John 10:26-30
26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
When considering the interplay between predestination and free will, the roles of God’s sovereignty and human agency are pivotal. Passages like John 12:39-40, where the Gospel quotes Isaiah saying that God ‘blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts’ (Isaiah 6:10), and John 6:44, where it says ‘no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them,’ illustrate divine influence. Yet, these passages also invite deeper exploration of how individual disposition interacts with divine action.
From the perspective based on sound logic, such interactions might be understood in light of stories like that of Pharaoh in the Hebrew Bible—where God hardens Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 4:21; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10)—but this is not a random act. It’s a response to Pharaoh’s own stubbornness and pride, as seen when Pharaoh repeatedly hardens his own heart (Exodus 8:15, 32; 9:34), reflecting personal characteristics akin to what modern psychology describes as narcissistic personality traits. Essentially, God uses the existing dispositions of individuals to fulfill His purposes while allowing them to continue in their chosen paths if they persist in resistance.
For the Pharisees, much like Pharaoh, their ‘hardened hearts’ might be seen as God allowing their existing pride and self-righteousness to further solidify as a means to fulfill prophetic plans—demonstrating God’s sovereignty by using their choices to accomplish a greater purpose (Isaiah 29:13-14). This aligns with the concept that God’s hardening is not imposed without regard to personal character, but rather, works through and heightens individuals’ own dispositions.
However, overall Jewish thought—which forms the core of the entire Bible—also emphasizes human responsibility. The story of Israel—and by extension, the whole biblical narrative—repeatedly calls individuals to repentance and decision (Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15), signaling that while God can interact with and influence hearts, He simultaneously extends the offer of redemption and covenant relationship to all. The dynamic interplay of divine invitation and human response is central to understanding how God sovereignly guides history while honoring the genuine decisions of individuals.
Thus, in this view, God’s actions neither override human freedom nor negate individual responsibility. Instead, they underscore a divine orchestration that ultimately respects human choices, using them to fulfill His redemptive plan, leading all, Jew and Gentile, toward the hope found in Messiah Yeshua (Jesus).
The doctrine of unconditional election from the Canons of Dort focuses on the idea that God chooses who will be saved without regard to any action or choice on their part. However, when we dig into scripture, we often see an emphasis on human responsibility and the role of choice in faith.
For instance, in Joshua 24:15, we hear the famous call to ‘choose this day whom you will serve.’ That clearly indicates that people have the capacity to make decisions regarding their faith. Similarly, when Jesus laments over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37, He expresses a desire to gather the people, yet states they were unwilling. This implies that there was human resistance to His will, suggesting our choices matter.
Furthermore, many scriptures highlight that salvation is offered to everyone, not just to a select, predetermined few. John 3:16 is probably the most well-known, proclaiming that ‘whosoever believes’ can have eternal life. This sounds like an open invitation to all, not a select pre-chosen group. Similarly, in 1 Timothy 2:4, it’s clear that God desires all people to be saved, indicating a universal scope of salvation.
It’s also important to remember that, unlike the early ecumenical councils aiming for doctrinal consensus across Christianity, the Canons of Dort were formulated by a specific group during a particular period to address internal Protestant debates. They reflect a particular theological position rather than the original teaching of the early Church.
Thus, there’s a strong biblical basis for arguing that grace and our response to it go hand in hand. This perspective upholds the nature of God as just and loving, offering salvation to all and respecting human freedom to respond.
You’ve brought up a lot of important points, and I want to take the time to go through them carefully. Context is key—not just the immediate context of these passages, but also the broader biblical framework they fit into.
That includes looking at the original languages and how certain ideas have been understood through Hebrew and Greek before reaching us in English.
There’s a lot to explore here, and I want to make sure I give it the attention it deserves. Give me a little time, and I’ll unpack it for you.
You and I have enjoyed a great dialogue on the question of if and how the Torah applies to Christians. I hope that we can have a similar exchange on this subject.
Let’s start with the claim that the slave trade was based on Calvinism and Unconditional Election. The major players in the transatlantic slave trade included European nations like Portugal, Britain, Spain, France, and the Netherlands, as well as African kingdoms and individuals who facilitated the capture and trade of enslaved people. Of these nations, Calvinism was the state religion of the Netherlands for many centuries. The Dutch Reformed Church, which was rooted in Calvinism, was the de facto state religion. It was NOT the dominant religion of any other nation listed.
Furthermore, the largest purveyor of slaves has been and continues to be Islamic nations. Surely they are not Calvinists. Even the Wikipedia article says,
“The history of slavery in the Muslim world was throughout the history of Islam with slaves serving in various social and economic roles, from powerful emirs to harshly treated manual laborers. Slaves were widely employed in irrigation, mining, and animal husbandry, but most commonly as soldiers, guards, domestic workers,[1] and concubines (sex slaves).[2] The use of slaves for hard physical labor early on in Muslim history led to several destructive slave revolts,[1] the most notable being the Zanj Rebellion of 869–883, and led to the end of the practice.[3] Many rulers also used slaves in the military and administration to such an extent that slaves could seize power, as did the Mamluks.[1]
Most slaves were imported from outside the Muslim world.[4] Slavery in Islamic law does have a religious and not racial foundation in principle, although this was not always the case in practise.[5] The Arab slave trade was most active in West Asia, North Africa (Trans-Saharan slave trade), and Southeast Africa (Red Sea slave trade and Indian Ocean slave trade), and rough estimates place the number of Africans enslaved in the twelve centuries prior to the 20th century at between six million and ten million.[6][7][8][9][10] The Ottoman slave trade came from raids into eastern and central Europe and the Caucasus connected to the Crimean slave trade, while slave traders from the Barbary Coast raided the Mediterranean coasts of Europe and as far afield as the British Isles and Iceland.
Historically, the Muslim Middle East was more or less united for many centuries, and slavery was hence reflected in the institution of slavery in the Rashidun Caliphate (632–661), slavery in the Umayyad Caliphate (661–750), slavery in the Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258), slavery in the Mamluk Sultanate (1258–1517) and slavery in the Ottoman Empire (1517–1922), before slavery was finally abolished in one Muslim country after another during the 20th century.”
In the United States, the Puritans (Calvinists) heavily settled in the northern states and were so anti-slavery that they started a Civil War over the issue. Therefore, I think the basic premise of the article that slavery was based on the doctrine of Unconditional Election is not only completely baseless but it is demonstrably false.
At this point, it’s clear that we’re talking past each other rather than engaging in a productive discussion. I’ve presented historical context and theological analysis, but instead of addressing the nuances, you’ve repeatedly misrepresented my argument and dismissed it as “bias” without directly engaging with the evidence.
If your approach is simply to reject inconvenient facts rather than grapple with them, there’s no point in continuing this debate.
I’m happy to have discussions where ideas are examined critically and fairly, but this isn’t that….
There are many aspects of this historical discussion that deserve deeper exploration, and I acknowledge that this article is not exhaustive. However, I have carefully fact-checked everything I wrote, and there are undeniable connections between Calvinist theology and certain justifications for slavery—otherwise, influential Calvinist leaders like John Piper would not have felt the need to acknowledge and apologize for this history.
While the transatlantic slave trade was primarily driven by economic motives and colonial expansion, theological justifications did play a role in shaping attitudes toward slavery. Some Reformed thinkers and preachers, particularly in the American South, used doctrines like Unconditional Election and Providence to argue that slavery was part of God’s divine order. This is not to say that Calvinism as a whole was the foundation of slavery—far from it—but certain interpretations of Reformed theology were used to support it.
At the same time, it’s important to recognize that many Calvinists were at the forefront of abolitionist movements. In Britain, Calvinist-leaning evangelicals like William Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect played a major role in ending the slave trade. In America, figures influenced by Reformed theology, especially in New England, were among the most vocal opponents of slavery. This shows that Calvinism was not monolithic in its approach to slavery—some used it to defend the institution, while others used it to fight against it.
As for the broader context of slavery, it is absolutely true that the Islamic world also had a long history of slavery, predating and outlasting the transatlantic trade. However, that does not negate the specific theological debates within Christianity regarding slavery’s justification or abolition. Similarly, while the Netherlands was a strongly Calvinist nation involved in the slave trade, other major players—Portugal, Spain, and France—were Catholic, and Britain was Anglican. The role of religion in justifying or opposing slavery was complex and varied across different traditions.
In short, the relationship between Calvinism and slavery is not a simple matter of blame or absolution. There were both complicity and resistance within the tradition. The fact that John Piper—a leading modern Reformed theologian—felt compelled to address this history underscores that there were real theological ties that must be acknowledged.
The point of this article is not a history lesson, it’s about how that logic affects very real social norms.
I was prepared to drop this subject but since you are unwilling to let it go I will try again.
To identify the Church of England as Calvinistic because it shares some beliefs with Calvinism is as nonsensical as calling it Catholic because it shares some beliefs with the Catholic Church.
My claim that you are committing the correlation equals causation fallacy is proven a true criticism by mine having shown that Unconditional Election has a greater correlation to those opposed to slavery.
I didn’t cherry-pick countries. I used a list from a readily available source that shows that of the nations it lists as most involved in slavery a total of 1 was predominantly Calvinist. When a person presents the preponderance of the evidence they are not cherry-picking.
I didn’t dismiss your argument because it was biased. I showed that it was biased with my arguments supported by facts and history. Hopefully you know the difference.
I showed that your argument is factually incorrect by introducing the facts that most countries who promoted and currently promote slavery were not and are not Calvinists nor do they uphold Unconditional Election. Your argument is dependent upon revisionist history and is clearly meant to disparage the doctrine of Unconditional Election by your attempt to connect it to slavery.
Unconditional Election may or may not be true but your argument that slavery was connected to this doctrine is abuses the facts, history and logic.
I will use an extreme example because you are not getting the point. If I said Nazi ideology was influential in people brushing their teeth and gave evidence that numerous Nazi leaders brushed their teeth would that make my point? If you showed that far more people brush their teeth from non-German cultures wouldn’t that show that my premise was claiming causation based solely on selective correlation? Of course it would. I have just shown that far more people involved in slavery were of religious perspectives other than Calvinism that there were Calvinist slavery proponents. Just as with my example of tooth brushing, that evidence shows that you are improperly trying to connect correlation to causation with slavery. The basic premise of the article is a logical fallacy.
I hate Hitler and Nazi analogies. I would have been flunked by my college philosophy professor for going there. But I took it to that extreme because you didn’t seem to acknowledge rational arguments, facts and history. But on this issue I think we both have said our piece. I look forward to your next article. Hopefully I can find more agreement than I did with this article.
You claim I argued that the Church of England was Calvinist solely because it affirms Unconditional Election. That’s a misrepresentation. The Church of England, particularly in its early doctrinal formulation, was influenced by Reformed theology, including Calvinist elements. The 39 Articles (specifically Article 17) affirm predestination in a way that aligns with Calvinist thought, even if the Church itself later incorporated broader theological influences. Acknowledging this influence isn’t the same as saying the entire institution was “Calvinist” in a strict sense.
2. The Connection Between Theology and Slavery (Causal vs. Correlative Fallacy)
You object to linking Unconditional Election to the justification of slavery, but theological beliefs often influence social and moral attitudes. Certain Calvinist groups used doctrines like predestination to justify slavery, arguing that God had ordained a hierarchical society. This isn’t an invention—it’s a historical reality that theologians and ministers used religious justification for the slave trade. That doesn’t mean Unconditional Election inevitably leads to slavery advocacy, but to claim there’s no connection is historically inaccurate.
3. Cherry-Picking Countries to Dismiss the Connection
Yes, Catholic and non-Calvinist nations were heavily involved in the slave trade. That doesn’t negate the fact that Calvinist-influenced groups (such as the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa and Puritans in the Americas) played significant roles in its justification. The broader point isn’t that only Calvinists were responsible but that Calvinist theology, like many religious traditions, was used both to justify and oppose slavery.
4. Dismissing the Argument as ‘Biased’ Instead of Engaging with It (Ad Hominem)
Instead of demonstrating where the argument is factually incorrect, you label it “biased” and imply I’m twisting history. Bias exists in all historical analysis—the key question is whether the evidence supports the argument. If you believe my conclusions are flawed, engage with the sources and historical context rather than dismissing the argument as mere theological propaganda.
I would be careful becoming a pot that calls out a kettle that understands logic.
This last response is an example of the problem that I have with you premise. You take isolated incidents like Jonathan Edwards owning, marrying and having children with at least one slave and then connect those actions not only to his Calvinism but also the specific doctrine of Unconditional Election, without a shred of evidence.
You then fabric out of whole cloth the claim that the Church of England was Calvinist because it affirms Unconditional Election.
You then attribute the slave trade to that doctrine when the vast majority of countries involved in the slave trade were neither Calvinist nor did they affirm Unconstitutional Election.
While we disagree on numerous points, you have demonstrated that you can reason better than this post would imply. This article is so openly biased, twisting history to make a theological point that I’m surprised you are trying to defend it.
You’re misrepresenting my argument. I didn’t claim the Church of England was strictly Calvinist but acknowledged its theological influence.
The connection between Calvinist theology and slavery isn’t ‘fabricated’—historical records show that some Calvinists used predestination and hierarchy to justify it. That doesn’t mean all Calvinists supported slavery, just as not all Catholics or Anglicans did.
The fact that other nations participated in slavery doesn’t disprove that some Calvinist-influenced groups justified it on theological grounds. If you disagree, provide counter-evidence instead of dismissing the argument as ‘bias
Bald claims don’t replace facts. The facts are that slavery was NEVER a major influence in the heavily Puritan US States. They were so anti-slavery that the Calvinists Parsons fanned the flames of both the American Revolution and the American Civil War. Those are historical facts that don’t fit into your theory.
Portugal and Spain were heavily Catholics. To suggest that the Catholic Church is Calvinist is laughable.
Islam was and continues to be the leading religion promoting slavery. To claim Islam is Calvinist is beyond ridiculous.
What it appears you did was start with an anti-Calvinist agenda and then selectively presented the data to support that preconceived bias. You have no answer for the facts listed above because they belie the falsehood of your premise.
Revisionist history isn’t history. It is propaganda.
One more thing, You’er misrepresenting my argument. I never claimed Catholicism or Islam were Calvinist.
You’re cherry-picking examples while ignoring others that contradict your point. Yes, some Puritans opposed slavery, but others participated in it or benefited from the trade. Slavery was justified by religious leaders across different traditions, including Calvinists, Catholics, and Muslims. Dismissing historical revision as ‘propaganda’ ignores how historical analysis works.
If you believe my argument is flawed, provide counter-evidence instead of attacking my intent.
I’m not misrepresenting anything. I gave you a link to the countries most involved in slavery. Only one of those countries was Calvinist. Since your premise is that the doctrine of Unconditional Election supports slavery the fact that countries predominantly with beliefs that are not compatible with Calvinism or Unconditional Election were the biggest slave traders is directly on point to show that your premise is demonstrably false.
Your response assumes a simplistic narrative that doesn’t align with the complexity of history. Let’s break it down:
1. Slavery in Puritan States – While New England was less reliant on slavery than the South, it was still deeply entangled in the transatlantic slave trade. Cities like Boston and Newport were major hubs for financing, shipbuilding, and trade in enslaved people. The notion that Puritan states were universally abolitionist from the start is historically inaccurate. Even prominent Calvinists, like Jonathan Edwards, owned enslaved people.
2. Calvinism and Revolution/Civil War – Yes, many Calvinist ministers played roles in both conflicts, but that doesn’t erase the presence of pro-slavery Calvinists, particularly in the South. The Presbyterian Church split over slavery, with Southern Calvinists defending it on theological grounds. So, Calvinism was not monolithic on this issue.
3. Catholicism and Calvinism – No one is claiming that Portugal and Spain were Calvinist. The point is that Calvinist nations like the Netherlands and England were also deeply involved in the slave trade. In fact, Dutch Reformed Calvinists played a significant role in the expansion of slavery in South Africa and the Atlantic world.
4. Islam and Slavery – While Islamic societies historically engaged in slavery, that has no bearing on the question of Calvinist involvement. The argument isn’t that only Calvinists supported slavery but that Calvinism, like many other religious traditions, had proponents on both sides of the issue.
5. Accusations of Bias – Dismissing counterpoints as “revisionist history” without engaging with primary sources or scholarship is not a substantive rebuttal. History is complex, and selective reading of it to fit a particular ideological stance is not a winning argument
Sometime it has to be said many different ways for people to get the point.
1. Calvinist Influence Was Significant – While it’s true that not all major slave-trading nations were Calvinist, Calvinism still played a notable role in some of them. The Dutch, the Puritans in England and America, and the Scots were all involved in slavery. The fact that Calvinist nations weren’t the largest slave traders doesn’t erase their participation.
2. The Church of England Had Calvinist Roots – The Church of England, particularly in its early stages, was heavily influenced by Calvinist theology. Many of its leading figures in the 16th and 17th centuries were Reformed in doctrine, and Puritans (who were staunch Calvinists) emerged as a movement within it. So, while the Church of England wasn’t fully Calvinist, it had strong Reformed elements, especially among those who helped shape English colonial policy.
3. Calvinism and Justifications for Slavery – The issue isn’t whether Calvinist nations were the largest slave traders, but whether Calvinist theology played a role in justifying slavery where it was present. Some Reformed theologians used doctrines like unconditional election and divine sovereignty to rationalize social hierarchies, including slavery. Even among non-Calvinist nations, Reformed theology influenced individual thinkers and leaders who participated in the trade.
4. Catholics and Muslims Were Also Involved—That’s Not the Argument – No one is arguing that only Calvinist nations participated in slavery. The point is that Calvinist nations weren’t exempt from it, and in some cases, their theology was used to justify it. The Dutch, the Puritans, and the Scots are clear examples of this.
So, dismissing Calvinism’s role in slavery just because other theological traditions were more dominant in the trade doesn’t hold up.
The question isn’t about which theology was most involved but whether Calvinism played a part—and history shows that it did.
If you could just show me that more than 1 of the nations listed as being a major player in the slave trade was even Calvinist and I would say that you have a point. But you can’t because history doesn’t support your premise.
Your argument seems to imply that Calvinism wasn’t a significant influence on nations involved in the transatlantic slave trade. However, that claim doesn’t hold up under historical scrutiny.
The Dutch, for example, were a major force in the slave trade, and the Dutch Reformed Church was heavily influenced by Calvinist doctrine. The same can be said for the English Puritans, who played a role in shaping policies in colonial America, where slavery became institutionalized. Even some Scottish Presbyterians—another Calvinist tradition—were involved in the trade.
That said, the broader issue isn’t just about how many slave-trading nations were Calvinist. The deeper question is whether Calvinist theology, particularly the doctrine of unconditional election, had any bearing on the justifications for slavery.
The Puritans were Calvinists and had slaves. In colonial America, Puritans, particularly in New England, participated in slavery, both by owning enslaved people and engaging in the trade. While they initially enslaved Indigenous people, they later became involved in the broader transatlantic slave system, importing African slaves
While Calvinism itself does not endorse slavery today, its belief in divine sovereignty and predestination was sometimes used to rationalize social hierarchies, including slavery. Some Reformed theologians even argued that the enslavement of certain groups was part of God’s providential order.
Of the numerous countries involved only one was dominantly Calvinists. Correlation doesn't equal causation but even if you want to argue it does, the numbers don’t support your premise. Unless you can show me that Islam is Calvinistic, you lose all the biggest slave trading countries. Unless you can show me that Catholicism is Calvinistic you lose the next largest. Unless you can show that the Church of England is Calvinistic you are quickly running out of countries.
if i may be so kind as to highlight, it doesn’t just mean predestination, the concept is “unconditional” the idea that salvation is not based on human works but rather on God’s part.
Article 9 of the first head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort says
“This election was not founded upon foreseen faith, and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality
or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause or condition on which it depended; but men are chosen to faith and
to the obedience of faith, holiness, etc.; therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which
proceeds faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects,
according to that of the apostle: “He hath chosen us [not because we were but] that we should be holy, and without
blame, before Him in love” (Eph. 1:4)”
I would also point out that the pharisees were prevented from understanding the parables Christ gave
Consider John 12:39-40
John 12:39-40: "Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, that they should not see with their eyes or understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.'”
or John 6:44
“44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
or John 10:26-30
26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
Your second point:
When considering the interplay between predestination and free will, the roles of God’s sovereignty and human agency are pivotal. Passages like John 12:39-40, where the Gospel quotes Isaiah saying that God ‘blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts’ (Isaiah 6:10), and John 6:44, where it says ‘no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them,’ illustrate divine influence. Yet, these passages also invite deeper exploration of how individual disposition interacts with divine action.
From the perspective based on sound logic, such interactions might be understood in light of stories like that of Pharaoh in the Hebrew Bible—where God hardens Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 4:21; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10)—but this is not a random act. It’s a response to Pharaoh’s own stubbornness and pride, as seen when Pharaoh repeatedly hardens his own heart (Exodus 8:15, 32; 9:34), reflecting personal characteristics akin to what modern psychology describes as narcissistic personality traits. Essentially, God uses the existing dispositions of individuals to fulfill His purposes while allowing them to continue in their chosen paths if they persist in resistance.
For the Pharisees, much like Pharaoh, their ‘hardened hearts’ might be seen as God allowing their existing pride and self-righteousness to further solidify as a means to fulfill prophetic plans—demonstrating God’s sovereignty by using their choices to accomplish a greater purpose (Isaiah 29:13-14). This aligns with the concept that God’s hardening is not imposed without regard to personal character, but rather, works through and heightens individuals’ own dispositions.
However, overall Jewish thought—which forms the core of the entire Bible—also emphasizes human responsibility. The story of Israel—and by extension, the whole biblical narrative—repeatedly calls individuals to repentance and decision (Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15), signaling that while God can interact with and influence hearts, He simultaneously extends the offer of redemption and covenant relationship to all. The dynamic interplay of divine invitation and human response is central to understanding how God sovereignly guides history while honoring the genuine decisions of individuals.
Thus, in this view, God’s actions neither override human freedom nor negate individual responsibility. Instead, they underscore a divine orchestration that ultimately respects human choices, using them to fulfill His redemptive plan, leading all, Jew and Gentile, toward the hope found in Messiah Yeshua (Jesus).
Your first Point:
The doctrine of unconditional election from the Canons of Dort focuses on the idea that God chooses who will be saved without regard to any action or choice on their part. However, when we dig into scripture, we often see an emphasis on human responsibility and the role of choice in faith.
For instance, in Joshua 24:15, we hear the famous call to ‘choose this day whom you will serve.’ That clearly indicates that people have the capacity to make decisions regarding their faith. Similarly, when Jesus laments over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37, He expresses a desire to gather the people, yet states they were unwilling. This implies that there was human resistance to His will, suggesting our choices matter.
Furthermore, many scriptures highlight that salvation is offered to everyone, not just to a select, predetermined few. John 3:16 is probably the most well-known, proclaiming that ‘whosoever believes’ can have eternal life. This sounds like an open invitation to all, not a select pre-chosen group. Similarly, in 1 Timothy 2:4, it’s clear that God desires all people to be saved, indicating a universal scope of salvation.
It’s also important to remember that, unlike the early ecumenical councils aiming for doctrinal consensus across Christianity, the Canons of Dort were formulated by a specific group during a particular period to address internal Protestant debates. They reflect a particular theological position rather than the original teaching of the early Church.
Thus, there’s a strong biblical basis for arguing that grace and our response to it go hand in hand. This perspective upholds the nature of God as just and loving, offering salvation to all and respecting human freedom to respond.
You’ve brought up a lot of important points, and I want to take the time to go through them carefully. Context is key—not just the immediate context of these passages, but also the broader biblical framework they fit into.
That includes looking at the original languages and how certain ideas have been understood through Hebrew and Greek before reaching us in English.
There’s a lot to explore here, and I want to make sure I give it the attention it deserves. Give me a little time, and I’ll unpack it for you.
yessir!
Sergio,
You and I have enjoyed a great dialogue on the question of if and how the Torah applies to Christians. I hope that we can have a similar exchange on this subject.
Let’s start with the claim that the slave trade was based on Calvinism and Unconditional Election. The major players in the transatlantic slave trade included European nations like Portugal, Britain, Spain, France, and the Netherlands, as well as African kingdoms and individuals who facilitated the capture and trade of enslaved people. Of these nations, Calvinism was the state religion of the Netherlands for many centuries. The Dutch Reformed Church, which was rooted in Calvinism, was the de facto state religion. It was NOT the dominant religion of any other nation listed.
Furthermore, the largest purveyor of slaves has been and continues to be Islamic nations. Surely they are not Calvinists. Even the Wikipedia article says,
“The history of slavery in the Muslim world was throughout the history of Islam with slaves serving in various social and economic roles, from powerful emirs to harshly treated manual laborers. Slaves were widely employed in irrigation, mining, and animal husbandry, but most commonly as soldiers, guards, domestic workers,[1] and concubines (sex slaves).[2] The use of slaves for hard physical labor early on in Muslim history led to several destructive slave revolts,[1] the most notable being the Zanj Rebellion of 869–883, and led to the end of the practice.[3] Many rulers also used slaves in the military and administration to such an extent that slaves could seize power, as did the Mamluks.[1]
Most slaves were imported from outside the Muslim world.[4] Slavery in Islamic law does have a religious and not racial foundation in principle, although this was not always the case in practise.[5] The Arab slave trade was most active in West Asia, North Africa (Trans-Saharan slave trade), and Southeast Africa (Red Sea slave trade and Indian Ocean slave trade), and rough estimates place the number of Africans enslaved in the twelve centuries prior to the 20th century at between six million and ten million.[6][7][8][9][10] The Ottoman slave trade came from raids into eastern and central Europe and the Caucasus connected to the Crimean slave trade, while slave traders from the Barbary Coast raided the Mediterranean coasts of Europe and as far afield as the British Isles and Iceland.
Historically, the Muslim Middle East was more or less united for many centuries, and slavery was hence reflected in the institution of slavery in the Rashidun Caliphate (632–661), slavery in the Umayyad Caliphate (661–750), slavery in the Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258), slavery in the Mamluk Sultanate (1258–1517) and slavery in the Ottoman Empire (1517–1922), before slavery was finally abolished in one Muslim country after another during the 20th century.”
In the United States, the Puritans (Calvinists) heavily settled in the northern states and were so anti-slavery that they started a Civil War over the issue. Therefore, I think the basic premise of the article that slavery was based on the doctrine of Unconditional Election is not only completely baseless but it is demonstrably false.
At this point, it’s clear that we’re talking past each other rather than engaging in a productive discussion. I’ve presented historical context and theological analysis, but instead of addressing the nuances, you’ve repeatedly misrepresented my argument and dismissed it as “bias” without directly engaging with the evidence.
If your approach is simply to reject inconvenient facts rather than grapple with them, there’s no point in continuing this debate.
I’m happy to have discussions where ideas are examined critically and fairly, but this isn’t that….
Until next time.
Yeah, not really I think I proved my point.
There are many aspects of this historical discussion that deserve deeper exploration, and I acknowledge that this article is not exhaustive. However, I have carefully fact-checked everything I wrote, and there are undeniable connections between Calvinist theology and certain justifications for slavery—otherwise, influential Calvinist leaders like John Piper would not have felt the need to acknowledge and apologize for this history.
While the transatlantic slave trade was primarily driven by economic motives and colonial expansion, theological justifications did play a role in shaping attitudes toward slavery. Some Reformed thinkers and preachers, particularly in the American South, used doctrines like Unconditional Election and Providence to argue that slavery was part of God’s divine order. This is not to say that Calvinism as a whole was the foundation of slavery—far from it—but certain interpretations of Reformed theology were used to support it.
At the same time, it’s important to recognize that many Calvinists were at the forefront of abolitionist movements. In Britain, Calvinist-leaning evangelicals like William Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect played a major role in ending the slave trade. In America, figures influenced by Reformed theology, especially in New England, were among the most vocal opponents of slavery. This shows that Calvinism was not monolithic in its approach to slavery—some used it to defend the institution, while others used it to fight against it.
As for the broader context of slavery, it is absolutely true that the Islamic world also had a long history of slavery, predating and outlasting the transatlantic trade. However, that does not negate the specific theological debates within Christianity regarding slavery’s justification or abolition. Similarly, while the Netherlands was a strongly Calvinist nation involved in the slave trade, other major players—Portugal, Spain, and France—were Catholic, and Britain was Anglican. The role of religion in justifying or opposing slavery was complex and varied across different traditions.
In short, the relationship between Calvinism and slavery is not a simple matter of blame or absolution. There were both complicity and resistance within the tradition. The fact that John Piper—a leading modern Reformed theologian—felt compelled to address this history underscores that there were real theological ties that must be acknowledged.
The point of this article is not a history lesson, it’s about how that logic affects very real social norms.
I was prepared to drop this subject but since you are unwilling to let it go I will try again.
To identify the Church of England as Calvinistic because it shares some beliefs with Calvinism is as nonsensical as calling it Catholic because it shares some beliefs with the Catholic Church.
My claim that you are committing the correlation equals causation fallacy is proven a true criticism by mine having shown that Unconditional Election has a greater correlation to those opposed to slavery.
I didn’t cherry-pick countries. I used a list from a readily available source that shows that of the nations it lists as most involved in slavery a total of 1 was predominantly Calvinist. When a person presents the preponderance of the evidence they are not cherry-picking.
I didn’t dismiss your argument because it was biased. I showed that it was biased with my arguments supported by facts and history. Hopefully you know the difference.
I showed that your argument is factually incorrect by introducing the facts that most countries who promoted and currently promote slavery were not and are not Calvinists nor do they uphold Unconditional Election. Your argument is dependent upon revisionist history and is clearly meant to disparage the doctrine of Unconditional Election by your attempt to connect it to slavery.
Unconditional Election may or may not be true but your argument that slavery was connected to this doctrine is abuses the facts, history and logic.
Proverbs 26:4
I will use an extreme example because you are not getting the point. If I said Nazi ideology was influential in people brushing their teeth and gave evidence that numerous Nazi leaders brushed their teeth would that make my point? If you showed that far more people brush their teeth from non-German cultures wouldn’t that show that my premise was claiming causation based solely on selective correlation? Of course it would. I have just shown that far more people involved in slavery were of religious perspectives other than Calvinism that there were Calvinist slavery proponents. Just as with my example of tooth brushing, that evidence shows that you are improperly trying to connect correlation to causation with slavery. The basic premise of the article is a logical fallacy.
You want to go there?
I hate Hitler and Nazi analogies. I would have been flunked by my college philosophy professor for going there. But I took it to that extreme because you didn’t seem to acknowledge rational arguments, facts and history. But on this issue I think we both have said our piece. I look forward to your next article. Hopefully I can find more agreement than I did with this article.
1. Misrepresenting My Argument (Strawman)
You claim I argued that the Church of England was Calvinist solely because it affirms Unconditional Election. That’s a misrepresentation. The Church of England, particularly in its early doctrinal formulation, was influenced by Reformed theology, including Calvinist elements. The 39 Articles (specifically Article 17) affirm predestination in a way that aligns with Calvinist thought, even if the Church itself later incorporated broader theological influences. Acknowledging this influence isn’t the same as saying the entire institution was “Calvinist” in a strict sense.
2. The Connection Between Theology and Slavery (Causal vs. Correlative Fallacy)
You object to linking Unconditional Election to the justification of slavery, but theological beliefs often influence social and moral attitudes. Certain Calvinist groups used doctrines like predestination to justify slavery, arguing that God had ordained a hierarchical society. This isn’t an invention—it’s a historical reality that theologians and ministers used religious justification for the slave trade. That doesn’t mean Unconditional Election inevitably leads to slavery advocacy, but to claim there’s no connection is historically inaccurate.
3. Cherry-Picking Countries to Dismiss the Connection
Yes, Catholic and non-Calvinist nations were heavily involved in the slave trade. That doesn’t negate the fact that Calvinist-influenced groups (such as the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa and Puritans in the Americas) played significant roles in its justification. The broader point isn’t that only Calvinists were responsible but that Calvinist theology, like many religious traditions, was used both to justify and oppose slavery.
4. Dismissing the Argument as ‘Biased’ Instead of Engaging with It (Ad Hominem)
Instead of demonstrating where the argument is factually incorrect, you label it “biased” and imply I’m twisting history. Bias exists in all historical analysis—the key question is whether the evidence supports the argument. If you believe my conclusions are flawed, engage with the sources and historical context rather than dismissing the argument as mere theological propaganda.
I would be careful becoming a pot that calls out a kettle that understands logic.
This last response is an example of the problem that I have with you premise. You take isolated incidents like Jonathan Edwards owning, marrying and having children with at least one slave and then connect those actions not only to his Calvinism but also the specific doctrine of Unconditional Election, without a shred of evidence.
You then fabric out of whole cloth the claim that the Church of England was Calvinist because it affirms Unconditional Election.
You then attribute the slave trade to that doctrine when the vast majority of countries involved in the slave trade were neither Calvinist nor did they affirm Unconstitutional Election.
While we disagree on numerous points, you have demonstrated that you can reason better than this post would imply. This article is so openly biased, twisting history to make a theological point that I’m surprised you are trying to defend it.
You’re misrepresenting my argument. I didn’t claim the Church of England was strictly Calvinist but acknowledged its theological influence.
The connection between Calvinist theology and slavery isn’t ‘fabricated’—historical records show that some Calvinists used predestination and hierarchy to justify it. That doesn’t mean all Calvinists supported slavery, just as not all Catholics or Anglicans did.
The fact that other nations participated in slavery doesn’t disprove that some Calvinist-influenced groups justified it on theological grounds. If you disagree, provide counter-evidence instead of dismissing the argument as ‘bias
Bald claims don’t replace facts. The facts are that slavery was NEVER a major influence in the heavily Puritan US States. They were so anti-slavery that the Calvinists Parsons fanned the flames of both the American Revolution and the American Civil War. Those are historical facts that don’t fit into your theory.
Portugal and Spain were heavily Catholics. To suggest that the Catholic Church is Calvinist is laughable.
Islam was and continues to be the leading religion promoting slavery. To claim Islam is Calvinist is beyond ridiculous.
What it appears you did was start with an anti-Calvinist agenda and then selectively presented the data to support that preconceived bias. You have no answer for the facts listed above because they belie the falsehood of your premise.
Revisionist history isn’t history. It is propaganda.
One more thing, You’er misrepresenting my argument. I never claimed Catholicism or Islam were Calvinist.
You’re cherry-picking examples while ignoring others that contradict your point. Yes, some Puritans opposed slavery, but others participated in it or benefited from the trade. Slavery was justified by religious leaders across different traditions, including Calvinists, Catholics, and Muslims. Dismissing historical revision as ‘propaganda’ ignores how historical analysis works.
If you believe my argument is flawed, provide counter-evidence instead of attacking my intent.
I’m not misrepresenting anything. I gave you a link to the countries most involved in slavery. Only one of those countries was Calvinist. Since your premise is that the doctrine of Unconditional Election supports slavery the fact that countries predominantly with beliefs that are not compatible with Calvinism or Unconditional Election were the biggest slave traders is directly on point to show that your premise is demonstrably false.
Your response assumes a simplistic narrative that doesn’t align with the complexity of history. Let’s break it down:
1. Slavery in Puritan States – While New England was less reliant on slavery than the South, it was still deeply entangled in the transatlantic slave trade. Cities like Boston and Newport were major hubs for financing, shipbuilding, and trade in enslaved people. The notion that Puritan states were universally abolitionist from the start is historically inaccurate. Even prominent Calvinists, like Jonathan Edwards, owned enslaved people.
2. Calvinism and Revolution/Civil War – Yes, many Calvinist ministers played roles in both conflicts, but that doesn’t erase the presence of pro-slavery Calvinists, particularly in the South. The Presbyterian Church split over slavery, with Southern Calvinists defending it on theological grounds. So, Calvinism was not monolithic on this issue.
3. Catholicism and Calvinism – No one is claiming that Portugal and Spain were Calvinist. The point is that Calvinist nations like the Netherlands and England were also deeply involved in the slave trade. In fact, Dutch Reformed Calvinists played a significant role in the expansion of slavery in South Africa and the Atlantic world.
4. Islam and Slavery – While Islamic societies historically engaged in slavery, that has no bearing on the question of Calvinist involvement. The argument isn’t that only Calvinists supported slavery but that Calvinism, like many other religious traditions, had proponents on both sides of the issue.
5. Accusations of Bias – Dismissing counterpoints as “revisionist history” without engaging with primary sources or scholarship is not a substantive rebuttal. History is complex, and selective reading of it to fit a particular ideological stance is not a winning argument
Sorry but I’m not repeating myself again…
As long as we ignore things like facts and history you can consider the point made.
Sometime it has to be said many different ways for people to get the point.
1. Calvinist Influence Was Significant – While it’s true that not all major slave-trading nations were Calvinist, Calvinism still played a notable role in some of them. The Dutch, the Puritans in England and America, and the Scots were all involved in slavery. The fact that Calvinist nations weren’t the largest slave traders doesn’t erase their participation.
2. The Church of England Had Calvinist Roots – The Church of England, particularly in its early stages, was heavily influenced by Calvinist theology. Many of its leading figures in the 16th and 17th centuries were Reformed in doctrine, and Puritans (who were staunch Calvinists) emerged as a movement within it. So, while the Church of England wasn’t fully Calvinist, it had strong Reformed elements, especially among those who helped shape English colonial policy.
3. Calvinism and Justifications for Slavery – The issue isn’t whether Calvinist nations were the largest slave traders, but whether Calvinist theology played a role in justifying slavery where it was present. Some Reformed theologians used doctrines like unconditional election and divine sovereignty to rationalize social hierarchies, including slavery. Even among non-Calvinist nations, Reformed theology influenced individual thinkers and leaders who participated in the trade.
4. Catholics and Muslims Were Also Involved—That’s Not the Argument – No one is arguing that only Calvinist nations participated in slavery. The point is that Calvinist nations weren’t exempt from it, and in some cases, their theology was used to justify it. The Dutch, the Puritans, and the Scots are clear examples of this.
So, dismissing Calvinism’s role in slavery just because other theological traditions were more dominant in the trade doesn’t hold up.
The question isn’t about which theology was most involved but whether Calvinism played a part—and history shows that it did.
Birkenstocks slapped together- dust shaken off.
If you could just show me that more than 1 of the nations listed as being a major player in the slave trade was even Calvinist and I would say that you have a point. But you can’t because history doesn’t support your premise.
Your argument seems to imply that Calvinism wasn’t a significant influence on nations involved in the transatlantic slave trade. However, that claim doesn’t hold up under historical scrutiny.
The Dutch, for example, were a major force in the slave trade, and the Dutch Reformed Church was heavily influenced by Calvinist doctrine. The same can be said for the English Puritans, who played a role in shaping policies in colonial America, where slavery became institutionalized. Even some Scottish Presbyterians—another Calvinist tradition—were involved in the trade.
That said, the broader issue isn’t just about how many slave-trading nations were Calvinist. The deeper question is whether Calvinist theology, particularly the doctrine of unconditional election, had any bearing on the justifications for slavery.
The Puritans were Calvinists and had slaves. In colonial America, Puritans, particularly in New England, participated in slavery, both by owning enslaved people and engaging in the trade. While they initially enslaved Indigenous people, they later became involved in the broader transatlantic slave system, importing African slaves
While Calvinism itself does not endorse slavery today, its belief in divine sovereignty and predestination was sometimes used to rationalize social hierarchies, including slavery. Some Reformed theologians even argued that the enslavement of certain groups was part of God’s providential order.
Of the numerous countries involved only one was dominantly Calvinists. Correlation doesn't equal causation but even if you want to argue it does, the numbers don’t support your premise. Unless you can show me that Islam is Calvinistic, you lose all the biggest slave trading countries. Unless you can show me that Catholicism is Calvinistic you lose the next largest. Unless you can show that the Church of England is Calvinistic you are quickly running out of countries.