Not All Roads Lead to Rome: The Dangers of Applying Postmodern Pedagogies to Religious Studies

The playwright George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) once remarked, “There is only one religion, though there are hundreds of versions of it.” We, however, live in an age that is far more pluralistic than Shaw’s ever was, a world where relativity reigns supreme. Pluralism, the belief that truth is not singular or unitary (Hinman 382); relativism, the belief that values are relative to a particular culture or group and cannot be judged outside that culture or group (Hinman 35); and subjectivism, an extreme form of relativism which affirms that each individual's beliefs are relative to that individual alone and cannot be judged from the outside by anyone else (Hinman 383), have been around for a long time, and come in assorted flavors such as the polytheisms of Hinduism and ancient Rome, pantheism, the sophists, and the views of Friedrich Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard, to name a few. These views are very popular in American academic institutions, where professors adopt relativistic views in order to teach different cultures and religions.

Unfortunately, when relativistic pedagogies are applied to religious studies, a subject that is clouded by meaningless terms and bipolar assumptions about religion, serious problems ensue. The assumption that all religions are the same or equal because they all supposedly teach similar principles is illogical and dangerous. The differences between “religions” are so many and so crucial that it is impossible to define what “religion” even is. This flawed approach also disregards and distorts history, including the merits and demerits of religions; discourages students from thinking critically about religion; and ignores the fact that all religions operate under different moralities and have certain agendas that they want fulfilled. And the means by which religions fulfill their agendas has serious philosophical, political, social, and economic implications as well. 

Most of my religious studies professors at UTEP asserted that all religions are equal (though they antagonized western religious traditions, Christianity in particular). But this is by no means a local or even a regional issue. In Living Religions, a textbook assigned for my major world religions class, Mary Pat Fisher explains that “some liberal scholars are . . . proposing that there is an underlying experiential unity among religions. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, for instance, concluded that the revelations of all religions have come from the same divine source. Christian theologian John Hick suggests that religions are culturally different responses to one and the same reality. The Muslim scholar Frithjof Schuon feels that there is a common mystical base underlying all religions” (482). Conservative scholars, furthermore, have recognized the relativistic trends in American institutions of higher education. "There are university professors today who are so enamored of academic freedom and so devoted to an endless search for truth," writes Dr. Gordon H. Clark, former Chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Butler University for 28 years, "that they are antagonistic to those who say they have found some. Possessing truth, in their view, is a violation of academic freedom" (99). Dr. Michael P. Lynch, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut, argues:

Under the banner of postmodernism, cynicism about truth and related notions like objectivity and knowledge has become the semiofficial philosophical stance of many academic disciplines. Roughly speaking, the attitude is that objective truth is an illusion and what we call truth is just another name for power. Consequently, if truth is valuable at all, it is valuable--as power is--merely as means. (2004)

Why have academic institutions adapted views that undermine their very purpose? According to columnist and political commentator John Leo, “One factor is that colleges now stress the need for each identity group to express its ‘voice’ or ‘narrative,’ without much scruple about whether the narratives are literally true. (Postmodern theory says there is no such thing as truth anyway.)” (2000). What do we need universities for, then, if knowledge is merely a matter of personal interpretation? And if truth is just another name for power, and the goal of universities is to preserve and promote truth, doesn’t that mean that we should oppose them for being oppressive?

To compound the problem further, it is impossible to adequately define the term religion because “religions” are simply too different. The etymology of religion is itself uncertain, stemming anywhere from "bond between humans and gods," "monastic life," "careful," or "go through again, read again" (“Religion”). Every religious studies textbook I have read acknowledges that religion is practically impossible to define. Dr. Clark argues that “the more definite the definition [of religion] is, the more clearly the writers are not writing on the same subject. . . . If the term God is so broadened as to include the usage of both Spinoza and the animists, the term and the definition of religion in which it is used become meaningless” (110, 119). In a textbook assigned for my philosophy of religion class, Exploring the Philosophy of Religion, David Stewart notes that defining religion “is difficult due to the diversity of meanings [the term] has acquired” and “the wide diversity of religious traditions” (1). Stewart himself offers no definition. "Religion is therefore such a complex and elusive topic," notes Fisher, "that some contemporary scholars of religion are seriously questioning whether 'religion' or 'religions' can be studied at all. They have determined that no matter where they try to grab the thing, other parts will get away" (1). How then can there be "religions," yet no "religion"?

In Anatomy of the Sacred: An Introduction to Religion, which was assigned for my introduction to religious studies course, James Livingston remarks that, even though religion is a universal human phenomenon, “Why, after all, should we think that the many religions of the world have some ‘essence’ in common? There are legions of particular religions, but perhaps no such thing as ‘religion’” (7). He proposes to define religion as “that system of activities and beliefs directed toward that which is perceived to be of sacred value and transforming power” (10). While this is a noble attempt, there are many problems with this definition, for the term sacred is left intentionally vague in order to include almost any inspiring belief or practice. The term transforming power is also vague, for if I believe that watching television is a “sacred” rite that makes me a better person, I have established my own religion. Many more irreligious practices and beliefs can be applied to this definition—the very thing Livingston was trying to avoid—but religious traditions that either believe everything is sacred or don’t care to make a distinction between the sacred and the profane, such as pantheism, Buddhism, and Confucianism, don’t fit the definition very well either. Livingston, moreover, ironically argues in direct contrast to the professor who assigned his textbook:

To be self-conscious and reflective about our beliefs does not mean, of course, that we become so open that our minds begin to resemble the proverbial sieve that cannot retain anything and through which all beliefs pass as though equally true and valuable. That is spiritual promiscuity. Our temptation today appears to be to fall into either an uncritical and slothful relativism or an uncritical and slothful dogmatism. (15)

The problem is twofold. One one hand, there are those who think that all religions are essentially the same; on the other there are those who dogmatically claim that their religion is the only true one—though they might not know what their own religion teaches—while all others are arbitrarily declared false. Both views, as Livingston comments, are uncritical and lazy.

Attempting to classify religions logically "fails because the divergences have occurred through no logical principles" (Clark 123). Some argue that the differences between religions are not substantial. But overlooking religious differences has dangerous consequences. “The failure of the U.S. government to grasp fully the religious dimensions of the conflicts in Southeast Asia and Iran explains, in part, our serious miscalculations and errors of judgment in those regions in recent history” (Livingston 13). The Bible, for example, teaches that Jesus Christ alone is God and the only way to eternal salvation (Jn. 14.6), thus regarding all other beliefs that are contrary to what He teaches as false (cf. Lk. 11.23, Jn. 8.24, Acts 4.12); that men should lead but are equal to women (1 Cor. 11, Gal. 3.28); that believers are to love their neighbors as well as their enemies (Lev. 19.18; Matt. 5, 19.19; Rom. 13); and that the Kingdom of God “is not of this world. If My [Christ’s] kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm" (Jn. 18.36). The Koran, on the other hand, deliberately rejects Christianity and teaches that it is blasphemy to worship Jesus as God (Surah 5:16-17), codifies rape and spousal abuse (Surah 2:223, 4:34), and orders Muslims to distrust and kill unbelievers, including Christians (Surah 5:50, 9:5), and to conquer the whole world under Islam (Surah 61:9, 48:28, 9:33), all of which directly contradict the teachings of the Bible. After looking at only two religions, it is evident that they are fundamentally different; they are, in fact, diametrically opposed, even though they both come from Judaism! The only way to argue that all religions are the same is to ignore what they actually teach.

Others argue that it is better to assume all religions are equal in academic settings in order to analyze them "impartially" and avoid offending people. So, rather than letting the students develop their critical thinking skills and evaluate each religion for themselves, the judgment is already made for them. They are discouraged from asking questions like, In what sense are all religions equal? In a moral sense? How is this possible, when every religion has its own moral code that contradicts another’s? Satanism, for example, teaches that pride, selfishness, and indulging in sexual immorality are all good things, while Christianity teaches the opposite. Professors should not have to lie about what religions teach for the sake of not offending students. Being honest about history can help us avoid repeating the mistakes of history.  

It is important to recognize that religions are vastly different from each other—irreconcilably different—and their teachings often contradict one another. A subject as serious as religion cannot simply be blanketed with false or inadequate assumptions that obscure the differences between them. I urge professors to evaluate their assumptions about religion and to consider an honest, straightforward, and perhaps more philosophical approach to teaching religious studies. They may not agree with any of the religions they discuss, but that doesn't mean they should change or disregard what the religions themselves teach and have taught historically in order to make them all equal and only superficially different. Professors should ensure that their own assumptions about religion do not distort the religions they teach; instead, they should explain the assumptions that each religion holds to, for every religion has its own ideology. A philosophical approach to studying religion would be far more fruitful, for philosophy, as William James characterizes it, is "the unusually stubborn attempt to think clearly." Thinking clearly about religion is very important in our interconnected world. To study religion philosophically, Stewart explains, “is to analyze critically the fundamental issues raised by religion and to subject these issues to rigorous scrutiny" (2). Using a philosophical approach, teachers can start by identifying a religion’s assumptions and then explain how that religion implicitly or explicitly derives its beliefs and practices from those assumptions in order to create an ideology or worldview, because every religion, regardless of whether it emphasizes doctrine, emotions, or mystical encounters, offers a way of viewing and experiencing the present world and possibly the world to come. In any case, I also urge students to question the assertions that professors make regarding matters of religion and to investigate religions for themselves, especially by seeking out primary sources. These issues are far too important to overlook.

_________________________________________

Works Cited

• Clark, Gordon H. Three Types of Religious Philosophy. Rpt. in Christian Philosophy: The Works of Gordon Haddon Clark. Ed. John W. Robbins. Vol. 4. Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 2004. 15-103. Print.
• ----. Religion, Reason, and Revelation. Rpt. in Christian Philosophy: The Works of Gordon Haddon Clark. Ed. John W. Robbins. Vol. 4. Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 2004. 107-270. Print. 
• Fisher, Mary Pat. Living Religions. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2005. Print.
• Hinman, Lawrence M. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2003. Print.

• Leo, John. "Race and gender games on campus." The Washington Times 1 June 2000, final ed. (Commentary): A14. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 4 Apr. 2012.

• Livingston, James C. Anatomy of the Sacred: An Introduction to Religion. 5^th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2005. Print.

• Lynch, Michael P. "Who Cares About The Truth?" Chronicle Of Higher Education 51.3 (2004): B6-B8. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Apr. 2012.

• “Religion.” Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, 2012. Web. 4 Apr. 2012.

• Stewart, David. Exploring the Philosophy of Religion. 7^th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2010. Print.

What's It Take to Be a Good Writer?

Sweat. And blood. And tears. And a cramped hand. If you want readers to enjoy your work, you must suffer. The term "writer" is misleading, however. Rewriter is more adequate, for good writing requires rewriting. Great writers are not born great; they are forged by study and practice. Consider the words of ancient Greek rhetorician Isocrates: 

In the art of rhetoric, credit is won not by gifts of fortune, but by efforts of study. For those who have been gifted with eloquence by nature and by fortune, are governed in what they say by chance, and not by any standard of what is best, whereas those who have gained this power by study and by the exercise of language never speak without weighting their words, and so are less often in error as to a course of action. (Antidosis, 15.292. See Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students)

So weigh every word, every sentence, every paragraph. Eradicate awkwardness, ambiguity, and bad grammar--unless it's warranted--at all costs. The more rhetorically effective and clearer you are, the more readers will enjoy the fruit of your writing. Heed therefore to Protestant reformer Martin Luther, who penned 60,000 pages, "enough to fill 102 huge volumes of the famous Weimar edition, making him the most prolific religious figure in history, as well as the most written about since Christ" (Merle Severy, "The World of Luther," National Geographic 164.4, Oct. 1983, pp. 429, 445):

So great a rhetorician and theologian ought not only to know, but to act according to, that which Fabius says, "An ambiguous word should be avoided as a rock." Where it happens now and then inadvertently, it may be pardoned: but where it is sought for designedly and purposely, it deserves no pardon whatever, but justly merits the abhorrence of every one. For to what does this hateful double-tongued way of speaking tend? . . . Let him rather be reduced to order . . . by abstaining from that profane and double-tongued vertibility of speech and vain-talking, and by avoiding, as Paul [the apostle] saith, "profane and vain babblings."

For this it was, that even the public laws of the Roman empire condemned this manner of speaking, and punished it thus.—They commanded, "that the words of him who should speak obscurely, when he could speak more plainly, should be interpreted against himself." And Christ also, condemned that wicked servant who excused himself by an evasion; and interpreting his own words against himself, said, "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant." For if in religion, in laws, and in all weighty matters, we should be allowed to express ourselves ambiguously and insidiously, what could follow but that utter confusion of Babel, where no one could understand another! This would be, to learn the language of eloquence, and in so doing, to lose the language of nature!

Moreover, if this license should prevail . . . what would become of logic, the instructor of teaching rightly? What would become of rhetoric, the faculty of persuading? Nothing would be taught, nothing would be learned, no persuasion could be carried home, no consolation would be given, no fear would be wrought: because, nothing would be spoken or heard that was certain. ("Letter to Nicolas Armsdoff Concerning Erasmus of Rotterdam")

Strive for clarity. Good writers are concise writers. The Elizabethan era of wordy rhetorical embellishments is long gone; practice the Paramedic Method instead. Don't refer to yourself in the third person, as the present writer is currently doing to prove his point, as if separating oneself from oneself with the third person actually made one more objective. Nonsense! It's not a sin to be personal with yourself or your audience. And let's be done with pretentious academic doublespeak, which mainly serves to bolster scholars' egos because no one else understands them, often not even they do. At the very least define the Latinate jargon and avoid it if possible.

Keep in mind that writers are accountable for what they write. They have a moral responsibility to be clear, understandable, unambiguous, honest. Especially leaders and teachers. But don't take my word for it; take it from one of the best teachers of all time, the apostle Paul:

If I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. (1 Corinthians 14:6-11)

This obviously includes citing sources properly. "Give credit where credit is due" (Romans 13:7). Christian apologist James White often says that you disrespect not only the authors but your audience as well when you misrepresent sources or don't cite them at all. The straw man and abusive ad hominem fallacies are, after all, still fallacies.

Good writers are careful, voracious readers too. In other words, read! Especially works by good authors. Close reading helps you become a stylish, idiomatic writer. Examine the author's style and learn from it. Scrutinize your own writing by looking at your work through the eyes of your readers. And read books about writing, such as Strunk and White's Elements of Style, Brians' Common Errors in English, and Trimble's Writing with Style.

And don't forget to write! Every day! Even if it's a paragraph. Even if it's a sentence. It will pay off. "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little" (Isaiah 28:10).

May the pen be with you.

Will the Real John Calvin Please Stand Up?

Swiss reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) remains a polarizing figure to this day. Philosopher-historian Will Durant (1885–1981) wrote, “We shall always find it hard to love the man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the history of nonsense" (qtd. in “Age of Flame”). A writer from Time magazine believes that “the faith of ascetic, heretic-burning John Calvin was stern, hard and alien to a boisterous young country in a nature-taming age” (“Calvinist Comeback?”). Others appraise Calvin and his influence positively. “I have been a witness of him for sixteen years," said Calvin's successor, reformer Theodore Beza (1519–1605), "and I think that I am fully entitled to say that in this man there was exhibited to all an example of the life and death of the Christian, such as it will not be easy to depreciate, and it will be difficult to imitate” (qtd. in Bennett). Dr. Robert Godfrey, former President and Professor of Church History at Westminster Seminary California, argues that “Calvin was one of the most important people in the history of western civilization” (“Calvin: Why He Still Matters”).

         

Unfortunately, the prevailing view of Calvin is that he was a “heretic-burning” tyrant who believed in a cold and cruel God. American pastor and theologian R.C. Sproul sums up the matter: "Of all the famous theologians of church history, the titans of knowledge upon whose shoulders we stand, none has been more maligned or vilified than John Calvin" (The Agony of Deceit). This is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what Calvin was really like, of the times he lived in, and of his teachings. But an historical examination of his life and beliefs reveals that, rather than a tyrannical, “Protestant Pope” that hunted down heretics, Calvin was a man who cared deeply for the people of Geneva and showed mercy even to those who opposed him; and, instead of believing in a cruel, despotic God, Calvin worshiped a just and holy God who is also a loving, accommodating parent figure.

Scholars have recently been giving attention to a set of registers, which were previously neglected due to their bad handwriting, of the decisions of Geneva’s Consistory. The records reveal that Calvin was a responsible pastor attentive to the needs of his congregation. Former Professor Emeritus and Reformation historian Robert Kingdon explains that “our knowledge of the operations of the Consistory has been distorted considerably by the concentration of past historians on a few spectacular cases of people who protested vehemently and were punished severely. They give the impression that the Consistory was a kind of inquisitorial court. But protests were in fact the exception” (23). Many however are usually only aware of the exceptional cases, in particular the burning of the heretic Michael Servetus, and probably obtain this information from biased and inaccurate sources that depict Calvin in the worst possible light.

Sixteenth century communities emphasized the role of public shaming and forgiving in order to maintain social discipline. Thus, a remonstrance often concluded a hearing in Geneva, which was like an act of public forgiving that “signaled the formal integration of the accused back into the Christian community” (Kingdon 27). Calvin’s commentary on Galatians 6:1 reveals the approach he used for correcting believers:

We are here taught to correct the faults of brethren in a mild manner, and to consider no rebukes as partaking a religious and Christian character which do not breathe the spirit of meekness. To gain this object, [Paul] explains the design of pious reproofs, which is, to restore him who is fallen, to place him in his former condition. That design will never be accomplished by violence, or by a disposition to accuse, or by fierceness of manner or language; and consequently, we must display a gentle and meek spirit, if we intend to heal our brother.

It's hard to reconcile the man like this with the harsh, unloving Calvin that misleading sources portray. In his commentary on Philemon, Calvin writes:

By his example he [Paul] shows that pastors should endeavor to draw disciples gently rather than to drag them by force; . . . this has far greater power to obtain his wish than if he issued a command. . . . Hence pastors are reminded that the hearts of their people must be soothed with all possible gentleness, wherever this method is likely to be more advantageous, but yet so as to know that they who are treated so gently have nothing less exacted from them than what they ought to do. (On Philemon 1:8-14; see Robbins 26)

Additionally, according to the Consistory records, Calvin often administered the scoldings of accused individuals. The cases that the registers describe are primarily charges of sexual irregularity or of disrespect for authority, but the accused would often accept the scolding and be dismissed in peace; they would rarely need to return and incur harsher punishments (Kingdon 26). Calvin was a respected member of the community and masterful handler of Scripture who, rather than flaunt his authority, attempted to “display a gentle and meek spirit,” for he was committed to promoting order, peace, unity and the Reformation in Geneva. In certain cases, he was also asked to superintend the ceremonies of reconciliation that followed a remonstrance. The Consistory tried to reconcile people, especially before communion services, which were held four times a year in Geneva. Calvin’s writings and the registers of Geneva’s Consistory show that he was indeed a dedicated pastor who cared for the community and sought to reconcile and restore people back into good relationships.

Another popular misconception of Calvin is that he worshiped a God who was an arbitrary, ruthless tyrant. There is no shortage of derogatory opinions on this matter. In a letter to John Adams, Founding Father Thomas Jefferson expresses anything but approval of Calvin’s God: “I can never join Calvin in addressing his God. . . . His religion was daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false God, he did. The being described in his five points, is . . . a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.” Jefferson complained that the God of Calvin and of the Reformed denominations, Presbyterians in particular, is a ruthless despot who arbitrarily condemns whoever he wants. However, the five points that Jefferson uses to misrepresent Calvin’s God, or TULIP, were formulated in 1619 by the Synod of Dort to counter the “Five articles of Remonstrance”—fifty-five years after Calvin’s death.

"Since this synod," Sproul explains, "it has become increasingly popular to view Reformed theology exclusively in light of these five points. Although these five points may be central to Reformed theology, they by no means exhaust this system of doctrine. There is much more to Reformed theology than the five points" (What is Reformed Theology?, 29-30). Calvinism emphasizes God and His sovereignty rather than these five derivative points. Citing Krauth, an influential Lutheran theologian, philosopher Gordon Clark explains that "it was Arminius, not some Calvinist, who selected the TULIP as the essence of Calvinism" because "Arminius was largely influenced by Lutheranism," and "Lutheran theology is more anthropocentric than theocentric" ("The Sovereignty of God"). The doctrines of TULIP— 

• Total Depravity: as a consequence of the Fall, men are wicked, rebellious sinners by nature, wholly affected by sin, and thus neither can nor desire to please God;  
• Unconditional Election: God has chosen whom he will save (the elect) based on his mercy alone, not on anything the elect have done or will do;  
• Limited Atonement: Christ vicariously and propitiously sacrificed himself on behalf of the elect only; 
• Irresistible Grace: God’s internal call of grace is wrought by his Spirit, which draws, convicts, and enables sinners to repent and believe the Gospel; and  
• Perseverance of the Saints: the elect cannot lose their salvation or be eternally condemned because they are sealed and preserved by God's Spirit unto eternal life (see Amazing Grace: The History & Theology of Calvinism)

—are a man-centered oversimplification of what Calvin believed and taught. Calvin was a thorough systematic theologian who did not narrowly emphasize the TULIP doctrines over others. Unlike Luther, whose core convictions were justification by faith alone—“the article by which the church stands or falls”—and the bondage of the human will—"the essential issue . . . the hinge on which all turns . . . the vital spot" (319)—scholars don't agree on the central doctrines that Calvin stressed apart from the doctrine of justification, "the principal ground on which religion must be supported" (Institutes 3.11.1). Some claim he had about 20 core doctrines. But since people are usually only familiar with the five points, it's easy to see why there are so many disparaging caricatures of Calvin’s God. Calvin’s comments on Isaiah 49:15, however, paint a very different picture of the God he believed in:

By an appropriate comparison, [God] shews how strong is his anxiety about his people, comparing himself to a mother, whose love toward her offspring is so strong and ardent, as to leave far behind it a father’s love. Thus he did not satisfy himself with proposing the example of a father, (which on other occasions he very frequently employs,) but in order to express his very strong affection, he chose to liken himself to a mother, and calls them not merely “children,” but the fruit of the womb, towards which there is usually a warmer affection.

David Wright, former Professor Emeritus of Patristic and Reformation Christianity at New College, notes that, despite Calvin’s extensive use of "divine accommodation"—the belief that God lovingly and intimately accommodates His children in various ways—throughout all of his writings, it was not until the 1950s that scholars gave more attention to this teaching (6). Neglecting this important part of Calvin’s theology likely contributed to the idea that Calvin's God has little regard for people.

Much more could be said about the way some have rewritten history in order to make Calvin a heartless man who believed in a heartless God. Calvin gave his life to serve the people of Geneva, wholeheartedly committed himself to the Scriptures, and contributed tremendously to the Reformation, a movement that broke the shackles of the Roman Catholic church's tyranny and promoted the priesthood of all believers; for he believed in a God who, in addition to being an impartial, holy Judge, is a loving Father who cares about people, especially his elect, adopted sons and daughters. Once people recognize the real John Calvin, the world can appreciate the incredible impact left by one of the most significant contributors to western culture and to pure religion.

Revised June 2013

 ___________________________________________

Works Cited

• "Age of Flame." Time 70.14 (1957): 106. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 March 2012.

• Bennett, Michael. “Some Quotes About John Calvin.” Sovereign Grace Preterism. NING, 2009. Web. 6 March 2012.

• Calvin, John. On Galatians 6:1-5. Commentary on Galatians and Ephesians. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2012. Web. 6 March 2012.

• ----. On Isaiah 49:1-26. Commentary on Isaiah. Vol. 4. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2012. Web. 6 March 2012.  
• ----. On Philemon 1:8-14. Commentary on Timothy, Titus, Philemon. Biblos.com, 2011. Web. 27 December 2012.

• "Calvinist Comeback?" Time 49.8 (1947): 80. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 March 2012.

• Clark, Gordon H. "The Sovereignty of God." The Trinity Foundation. Trinity Review, Nov./Dec. 1982. Web. 19 January 2013.

• Godfrey, Robert W. “Calvin: Why He Still Matters.” Westminster Seminary California. Westminster Seminary California, 2009. Web. 5 March 2012.

• Jefferson, Thomas. “Letter CLXX.—To John Adams, April 11, 1823.” Memoir, Correspondence, And Miscellanies, From The Papers Of Thomas Jefferson. Ed. T.J. Randolph. Project Gutenberg, 2012. Web. 6 March 2012.

• Kingdon, Robert. “A New View of Calvin in the Light of the Registers of the Geneva Consistory.” Eds. W.H. Neuser and B.G. Armstrong. Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies: Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex 36 (1997): 21-33. Print.

• Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Trans. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Revell, 1957. Print.

• Robbins, John W. Slavery and Christianity: Paul's Letter to Philemon. Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 2007. Print.
• Sproul, R.C. What is Reformed Theology? Understanding the Basics. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997. Print. 

• Wright, David F. “Calvin’s Accommodating God.” Eds. W.H. Neuser and B.G. Armstrong. Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies: Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex 36 (1997): 3-19. Print.