According to contemporary conservative White Evangelical standards and definitions, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and a majority of the Protestant Reformation would be deemed "Marxist" and "Socialist" for their views on money, welfare, and the role of the state and taxation.

"bUt i Am ReFoRmEd AnD tAxAtIoN iS tHeFT" is both historically ignorant and thoroughly ironic.

But, that's how many White Evangelicals have been taught about Reformation theology - as if it's some sort of abstract, intellectual, and hermetically sealed philosophical inquiry.

But, when you read Calvin, Luther, et al, you realize that their theological conclusions both framed and were framed by their ethical convictions. Luther's fight against indulgences and papal abuses was entirely centered on injustices against the poor and the common people.

Calvin and Luther both worked to de-spiritualize poverty and heighten the role of the diaconate so that A) the poor wouldn't be ignored because it was more spiritual for them to be in poverty and B) so that the church & and the state would care for the poor in their communities.

In fact, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone was often used as a response to injustices made against the poor and the vulnerable and to dignify those who had no voice in society. Sovereignty/predestination always went hand in hand with the doctrine of

concursus, which claimed that God's agency and humanity's agency/responsibility were parallel to one another, such that it could be said that God gives people their daily bread through the hands of human beings. The whole Protestant notion of vocation is founded on this.

I think that those who claim to be heirs of the Reformation who hold views that would make Calvin, Luther, and the magisterial reformers "Marxists" and "Socialists" should be very honest about the fact that they are an aberration from the tradition and not a continuation of it.