Well known Calvinist Puritan, Cotton Mather, certainly thought so for any black slave that desired their (unordained) freedom, saying, “And it is pride that tempts slaves to desire the freedom God did not ordain for them.”
[….]
Moreover should we simply consider it a strange anomaly that Calvinist leaders like Mather, Edwards and Whitefield, who preached God’s determinative decree of all things (which necessarily must include slavery) should then be seen to approve of slavery? Should it really surprise us that Calvinist leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention defended slavery–and did so on Calvinist theological grounds, with telling title defenses like, “Slavery Ordained by God.” Should it surprise us that white, Afrikaner Calvinists long used their Calvinist theology of unconditional election and God’s meticulous, sovereign predestination of all things as an aid in identifying themselves as God’s special elect in order to justify racial discrimination and eventual apartheid in South Africa?
[….]
…Calvinism’s problem is that what God predestines is so closely aligned to what God condones that a Calvinist must step outside his theology to condemn it and redress it.
Historian and author Douglas Harper explains how Calvinist theology dovetailed with condoning slavery:
“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.”
[….]
Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield: Slaveholding and Calvinism
This is a post on slavery and Calvinism. The slave trade was not run wholly by Calvinists, however, many more TULIP type adherents than free-will “Baptist” types. Granted, slavery predated Calvin as well as post dated him. Take note as well this post should be combined with my “The ‘Connective Tissue’ Between Islam and Calvinism“.
What follows the graphic is a conversation I had with GROK on the matter. Enjoy.
I ASK:
Did free will Baptist fight against slavery in the United states?
GROK:
Yes, Free Will Baptists actively fought against slavery in the United States, particularly those in the North (especially New England). They were among the more consistently anti-slavery denominations during the antebellum period.
The Free Will Baptist movement (also called Freewill Baptists), originating in the late 18th century under figures like Benjamin Randall in New Hampshire, emphasized free will theology and often aligned with progressive social causes. Unlike some larger Baptist groups that split over slavery (e.g., Southern Baptists formed partly to defend it), Free Will Baptists in the Northeast took strong abolitionist positions:
- They spoke out early and openly against slavery, with New England Free Will Baptists at the forefront.
- Publications like The Morning Star (a prominent Free Will Baptist newspaper) condemned slavery as an evil.
- In 1835, groups like the Rockingham Quarterly Meeting called for the immediate emancipation of all slaves, citing scripture.
- Free Will Baptists supported and participated in the anti-slavery movement, including connections to the American Anti-Slavery Society (e.g., a representative signed its founding Declaration of Sentiments in 1833).
- They had an organized Free Will Baptist Anti-Slavery Society (with reports and activities documented in the 1850s).
- Prominent figures included African American Free Will Baptist ministers like John W. Lewis, who lectured extensively for abolitionism and the New Hampshire Anti-Slavery Society.
- Post-Civil War, they founded Storer College in 1867 in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia—the first college established specifically for newly emancipated African Americans.
Their opposition was tied to principles of freedom, equality, and scripture, including early resolutions against racial discrimination in ministry ordination (e.g., in 1827).
That said, the denomination had regional variations—Southern Free Will Baptists (from the Palmer lineage) were influenced by the surrounding culture and the Civil War disrupted unity over slavery. The modern National Association of Free Will Baptists (formed in 1935) unites Northern and Southern streams, but the historical anti-slavery activism was strongest in the North.
Overall, yes—many Free Will Baptists did fight against slavery through preaching, resolutions, publications, societies, and support for abolitionist efforts.
I ASK:
Okay, did the particular (more Calvinistic) Baptists argue for slavery?
GROK:
Yes, many of the more Calvinistic (“Particular” or “Regular”) Baptists in the antebellum United States—particularly in the South—did argue in favor of slavery, often defending it vigorously as biblically sanctioned and even divinely ordained.
To clarify the terminology: “Particular Baptists” historically referred to those holding to particular atonement (a core Calvinist doctrine, as opposed to general atonement in Arminian views like those of Free Will Baptists). In the American context, especially the South, the dominant Baptist groups aligned with Calvinistic theology (e.g., via the 1689 London Baptist Confession or similar) were often called Regular Baptists or simply the mainline Baptists that formed the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in 1845.
The SBC itself emerged primarily over the issue of slavery: Southern Baptists split from the national Triennial Convention when Northern Baptists (more anti-slavery) refused to appoint slaveholding missionaries. Southern leaders explicitly formed the new denomination to protect the right to own slaves without denominational interference.
Key points on their arguments and positions:
- Prominent Southern Baptist figures, who were generally Calvinistic in theology, actively defended slavery on biblical grounds. They cited passages like Ephesians 6:5–9 (slaves obey masters), Colossians 3:22, 1 Timothy 6:1–2, and the lack of explicit condemnation in the New Testament. They argued the apostles tolerated/regulated slavery without abolishing it, implying it was not inherently sinful.
- Richard Furman (a leading South Carolina Baptist and Calvinist) wrote a major 1822/1823 exposition defending slavery as scripturally established “by precept and example,” urging the state to suppress anti-slavery views to prevent unrest.
- Founders of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (1859)—James P. Boyce, John A. Broadus, Basil Manly Jr., and William Williams—were all slaveholders who collectively owned over 50 people. They defended slavery as compatible with Christianity, sometimes framing it as providential or beneficial.
- Some associations (e.g., Bethel Baptist Association in Alabama, reflecting Calvinistic theology) described the master-slave relationship as a product of God’s providence.
- In the broader antebellum South, pro-slavery arguments from Calvinist-leaning clergy emphasized divine sovereignty: if God ordains all things (a Calvinist hallmark), then slavery’s existence must align with His will, not human abolitionist efforts.
This wasn’t universal—some Baptists (North and South) opposed slavery early on, and views evolved—but the dominant, vocal, institutionally powerful wing in the South, which was more consistently Calvinistic, shifted toward strong pro-slavery advocacy by the 1830s–1860s. They portrayed abolitionism as unbiblical, socially disruptive, and contrary to “sound doctrine.”
In contrast, Free Will Baptists (more Arminian/free-will oriented) were among the stronger anti-slavery voices, especially in New England, as we discussed earlier.
The modern SBC has repudiated this history (e.g., 1995 resolution lamenting its founding “in defense of slavery” and later racism), but the antebellum record shows clear, theologically framed arguments for slavery from many Calvinistic Southern Baptists.
And this is really the nail in the coffin, I will highlight the two articles I think are must reads:
With the clear demarcation between those who believe in free will and those that are more deterministic, what information gleaned from these few posts would add to the above premise we are discussing?
- Theology and the Slave Trade
- Was Jonathan Edwards a Racist?
- Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield: Slaveholding and Calvinism
Sorry Grok, adding one more… I apologize to make you rewrite the below. Here it is:
GROK:
These sources strengthen and nuance the premise that free-will/Arminian theology tended to foster stronger, earlier opposition to slavery, while deterministic/Calvinistic theology often aligned with acceptance or defense of it—though with important exceptions, complexities, and later shifts.
Key Additions from the Sources
- Direct Theological Contrast (Especially the Evangelical Arminians post) This article explicitly frames the issue in terms of the free will vs. determinism divide. It argues:
- Calvinists (emphasizing God’s sovereignty and predestination) were more prone to view the existing world order—including slavery—as something God ordained for His glory. This could reduce urgency for abolition, as fighting the status quo might seem like resisting divine decree.
- Arminians (emphasizing God’s love for all, universal atonement, and human value) were more likely to see slavery as incompatible with God’s mercy on every person and the call to freedom in Christ. John Wesley’s writings are cited as a prime example, using Arminian concepts (“Savior of all,” mercy over all) to condemn slavery passionately.
This maps closely onto our discussion: Free Will Baptists (Arminian) vs. many Particular/Regular/Southern Baptists (Calvinistic).
- Jonathan Edwards as a Prominent Case Study Edwards (a towering 18th-century Calvinist theologian) owned slaves, did not free them in his will, and defended the institution of domestic slavery (while opposing the transatlantic slave trade). He argued it was not inherently sinful for a “neighbor” to work without wages.
- Critics in the sources (e.g., the “A Theology in Tension” post) link this directly to his theological determinism: If God meticulously ordains all things, slavery’s existence implies divine permission or purpose, making moral outrage against it harder to sustain logically. Edwards reportedly deleted “slaves” from a sermon on liberty, seeing the full Jubilee (freedom) as not yet arrived.
- Thabiti Anyabwile’s paper (a Calvinist himself) acknowledges Edwards’ blind spots and aristocratic/hierarchical context but defends core aspects of his theology while lamenting his ethics on slavery. It notes Edwards treated Africans as spiritual equals in some ways (e.g., admitting them to communion) but still upheld the system.
Edwards exemplifies how high Calvinism did not inevitably produce pro-slavery views but often coexisted with them in practice among elites.
- Broader Patterns and Exceptions
- George Whitefield (another major Calvinist revivalist) also supported slavery (e.g., lobbying for it in Georgia).
- Exceptions noted: Calvinist John Newton became a strong abolitionist; Edwards’ own son (Jonathan Edwards Jr.) opposed slavery; later “New Divinity” Edwardseans advanced anti-slavery ethics using aspects of his theology (e.g., disinterested benevolence and sanctification).
- The Arminian side had trailblazers like Wesley, Asbury, Wilberforce, and Finney who used free-will/universal love emphases explicitly against slavery.
- Nuances That Prevent Oversimplification
- Cultural/historical context mattered hugely: Slavery was widely accepted in Edwards’ era; full abolitionism emerged later. Many on both sides failed morally.
- Theology influenced but did not rigidly determine outcomes—social location, economics, and timing played roles. Some Calvinists later led in abolition.
- The sources highlight that Arminian theology provided stronger motivational resources for viewing every individual as inherently valuable and worthy of freedom.
How This Enhances the Original Premise
It adds concrete historical-theological examples from the 18th century (pre-dating the Baptist splits) showing the pattern held among major figures: Deterministic sovereignty emphases correlated with greater tolerance for the status quo of slavery, while free-will/universal-love emphases correlated with earlier prophetic critique. This aligns with Free Will Baptists’ stronger abolitionism vs. many Southern Calvinistic Baptists’ defenses.
However, it also adds caution: The link is correlational and probabilistic, not absolute. Individual Calvinists could (and did) oppose slavery, often by prioritizing other aspects of their theology or cultural shifts. Edwards’ story shows even “great” theologians had profound blind spots.
Overall, these posts reinforce the theological-demarcation idea you mentioned while enriching it with primary figures and arguments.