Calvinism on the Rise in America?

[ltwin]

I think the Calvinist roots were more New England’s roots. The South was, it seems to me, more Anglican and at that more Catholic (despite not having many Catholics), at least in the earlier days.

George Whitefield was an Anglican and a Calvinist. The two are not mutually exclusive. There have always been Calvinist Anglicans. The Anglicanism of the Southern Colonies would have been of a more Protestant variety than is common today, since we’re talking about pre-Oxford Movement Anglicanism.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

We need to point out though that while all Presbyterian, Reformed and Congregationalist churches started out Calvinist today many are not strongly Calvinistic at all.

This is kind of hair-splitting. “Calvinist” to a Catholic means it comes from the Calvinist tradition. We realize that Protestant churches have gone off in 50 different directions. There are something like 20 branches of the Dutch Reformed church in the Netherlands alone. Also, none of us except for those who either converted from some Calvinist church or studied theology have kept up with all the permutations of Calvinism from John Calvin until now.

What “Calvinist” beliefs mean today for Churches A, B, C, D, E etc. are not something I know about and not really something I care about. If a church started out from the followers of John Calvin, that’s what I mean by “Calvinist”. (As opposed to Wesleyan/ Methodist, from John Wesley, or Lutheran, from Martin Luther, or Anglican, from Henry VIII.) And even knowing that is likely deeper than the average Catholic is going to want to get into knowledge of a Protestant faith.

 

[ltwin]

This is kind of hair-splitting. “Calvinist” to a Catholic means it comes from the Calvinist tradition. We realize that Protestant churches have gone off in 50 different directions. There are something like 20 branches of the Dutch Reformed church in the Netherlands alone. Also, none of us except for those who either converted from some Calvinist church or studied theology have kept up with all the permutations of Calvinism from John Calvin until now.

Not hairsplitting. It’s pointing out for those who care to know why the Presbyterians they know are the furthest things from Calvinists and might even say “I’m not a Calvinist.” If you don’t care, fine. Carry on.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Presbyterians I know would say something totally different. Like I said, I’m aware there are many, many different denominations and that individual churches are influenced to some degree by the persons in charge of a particular church.

It’s a bit disingenous though to deny your heritage when your church was basically founded by followers of Calvin.

 

[ltwin]

It’s a bit disingenous though to deny your heritage when your church was basically founded by followers of Calvin.

I don’t think anyone would deny their heritage, but they may just refuse to be defined by it. Many liberal Presbyterians see the Reformed Confessions as historical documents rather than binding doctrinal confessions.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Agreed. And I think I was wrong on labelling all Baptists Calvinists - especially back then. I think the Puritans and Anglicans were pretty horrible to the ‘Anabaptists.’ However today is a different story I believe. For example if I walked up to Robert Jeffress and said, sorry, I called you a Calvinist the other day on CAF, he would likely respond, ‘oh well, no problem, at least you didn’t say Roman Catholic’. Also I need to mention the Pennsylvania Dutch in the Calvinist bunch, so we should expand that out of New England to the mid Atlantic States. Last point, the Quakers/Anabaptists were real heroes in the Civil War, leading the abolition movement from Boston, New England. The tolerant, peace loving moderate Anglicans/Catholics did not lift a finger against slavery in any great numbers, until the War was underway, if even then.

 

[Limoncello4021]

Total Depravity (the T in TULIP) has always been a hard sell in the United States. Once the Puritans started to imbibe a little bit of self-reliance, hard core Calvinism got watered down enormously. We have a big Presbyterian church near me and you would swear it was just a bit of feel good Christianity “light” mixed with a dose of prosperity Gospel. Sin? What’s that?

 

[GKMotley]

Low Church/reformed, yes. As opposed to the other varieties /flavors of Anglicans.

And the Articles are not necessarily normative for Anglicans, generally, save, in a technical sense, for the clergy of the Church of England, per the 1571 Parliamentary Act of Subscription. (I know you likely know that, but it’s been a long time and a long distance, since I last said it).

 

[FollowChrist34]

Perhaps it is safe to say there are many what we broadly call ‘Evangelicals’ today who are low Church Calvinists. I would venture to say a lot of these folks answer generally to the tenets of Calvinism, not the letter - Tulip, all that. By which I mean the Eucharist is a symbol, Bible is the Word of God, no tradition. Saved by faith. Some form of predestination, God’s elect. Many probably don’t know they are within the Calvinist tradition of Protestantism. They are not purists - in the spirit of it, not the law.

 

[ltwin]

By which I mean the Eucharist is a symbol

Is it correct to say that a tenet of Calvinism is symbolic Eucharist? Perhaps if you are a Reformed Baptist, this would be the case.

The Presbyterian and Continental Reformed churches have always believed that sacraments are “signs and seals” (in the words of the Westminster Confession). Those who worthily receive communion, according to Reformed doctrine, “do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death.”

I do agree with you that many evangelicals may be Calvinist without realizing it, just as many are Arminian without realizing (or without wanting to admit that their Arminian). The affect of this aggressive new Calvinism that’s emerged within the past few decades is that often times Arminians are accused of being essentially guilty of Pelagianism. Now, you have churches that have always been Arminian saying absurd things like “We’re neither Calvinist nor Arminian but we find some agreement with both sides.”

 

[FollowChrist34]

Right. Thanks. A sign, not a symbol. That is what I meant. And I confess to not knowing a whit about Arminianism - had to Google the term just to write this post. I have always been very open about the fact that, in terms of Protestantism, I studied Luther - but stopped there. I also see I am a little shaky on the whole Anglican/Puritan/Baptist question, who is what. As soon as a Church tells me they don’t believe in the Real Presence, I am out of there. I stay ‘high Church.’ I doubt I will be researching Arminianism further. I guess I am just about as ignorant of Evangelical Calvinist roots as those folks are of the RCC. Though I fear that many of them are probably as in the dark about Calvinism/Arminianism as I am…at least I have a good excuse.

 

[ltwin]

I also see I am a little shaky on the whole Anglican/Puritan/Baptist question, who is what.

An Anglican is a member of the Church of England or a branch of that church, such as the Episcopal Church in the US or the Anglican Church of Canada. Since it was a national church meant to encompass the vast majority of people, the Church of England has for most of its history adopted a big tent philosophy–with high church/low church and Calvinist/Arminian factions.

Arminians are Protestants who believe in free will and conditional predestination, which often makes Calvinists accuse us of being semi-Pelagians, humanistic, or more Catholic than Protestant. Evangelical Anglicans can be either Calvinist or Arminian and many denominations that split from Anglicanism (Methodism, Pentecostalism) are Arminian.

Puritanism was a 16th and 17th century Calvinist movement within the Church of England that wanted to purify the English Church of all remaining Catholic practices (liturgy, episcopacy, etc.). During the English Civil War, Puritans ascended to power and attempted to transform the Church of England into a presbyterian (rather than an episcopal) church–basically along the lines of the presbyterian Church of Scotland. The English Puritans wrote the Westminster Confession–which was adopted by the Church of Scotland while being rejected by the English Church once the monarchy was restored. In England, Puritans were eventually forced out of the national church and became Congregationalists (named after their preferred church polity) and Presbyterians.

In America, Puritans came to New England and founded Massachusetts and neighboring colonies on their religious principles. They evolved into the Congregational churches (many now members of the United Church of Christ).

Baptists originated in England as Separatists–people who wanted to separate from (rather than purify) the Church of England. Unlike Puritans (who still practiced infant baptism), baptists adopted adult baptism. Like Puritans, however, Baptists favored congregational church government.

 

[Bon_Croix]

I’m reading you all and thinking to myself that you are wrong. America (all continents of it) are based on or rooted in Catholicism. The United States is not America.

 

[ltwin]

I’m reading you all and thinking to myself that you are wrong. America (all continents of it) are based on or rooted in Catholicism. The United States is not America.

“America” could mean North America, South America, the Americas or the United States of America based on context. The OP clearly established the meaning of “America”:

Evangelical Protestantism is now the largest Christian branch in the US.

You are wrong. In this context, “America” means the US.

 

[Bon_Croix]

No, America is America and that is rooted in history and not by colloquialism.

 

[ltwin]

No, America is America and that is rooted in history and not by colloquialism.

Which America are we talking about? We’re talking about the United States of America. If you’re talking about a different America, start your own thread.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Proper use of language is important in getting a point across.

Have you heard of King’s English?

 

[ltwin]

Proper use of language is important in getting a point across.

Have you heard of King’s English?

As is understanding context. Your point is absurd since this thread is about the US, and no one can make an argument that the US was founded on Catholicism especially since for most of America’s early history Catholicism was an unpopular minority religion.

I understand you want to make a point about how the US should not monopolize “America.” OK. Your point is made.

 

[GKMotley]

Good history. Save that Anglicans are not necessarily members of the CoE, or branches of that Church. Indeed, the Anglican Communion is not composed of branches of the CoE, but of auto-cephalous, independent descendants of the CoE, in the case of those Churches you listed.

Anglicans in the Anglican Continuum, or the Anglican Church of North America, and few other odds and ends, are neither Members of the CoE, branches of the same, or members of the Anglican Communion, in communion with Canterbury, but independent jurisdictions.

Anglicans are motley, in many dimensions.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Like Evangelicals. A “Motley Crew”.