Question on changing attitudes to morals and going against literal bible interpretation

Hazelelponi · Mar 8, 2020

Loversofjesus_2018 said:
Is everything your saying clearly outlined in scripture or are you making interpretations on what you think scripture means? Or did you get this information from someone else? I’m reading through and would like to know what’s your words(or someone else’s) vs the truth.

Covenant Curses

The curses would worsen as the people remained impenitent, culminating in the worst covenant curse of all—exile, the banishment from God’s special place of blessing.

Covenant by Michael Horton

While the gracious covenant continues, at Sinai God also makes a covenant with Israel as a nation. Individual Israelites are still justified by grace through faith in the coming Messiah, but the nation’s status in the land is temporal and conditional. At Sinai, God made no promises, but, as the suzerain who had liberated Israel from Egypt, He simply delivered the terms and sanctions: blessing (long life in the land) and curse (being “cut off” from the land, sent off into exile).

Matthew 19:3-12 shows Jesus's position on divorce where He says:

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

As we can see, Moses permitted something that God did not approve of due to the sinful condition of Israel. This means that there are places in levitical law, where you may see some things that aren't necessarily in keeping with what God would specifically desire.

As far as admomitions against Israel not keeping the law according to the Spirit of it? They are throughout scripture. If you read it you can hardly miss them...

The Law of Love by Tom Ascol
Under the New Covenant we are no longer under levitical law - for the record. We are only under two laws, which keeps them all in Spirit. Matthew: 22:37-40

I hope this answers your question.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 8, 2020

civilwarbuff said:
Hmmmm McAfee labels this a 'very risky site' so I will pass.......

Really? Sorry about that.
I can quote some of the passages if you like.

Also, how about this one?

Furman University: Richard Furman's Exposition

InterestedAtheist · Mar 8, 2020

civilwarbuff said:
Hmmmm McAfee labels this a 'very risky site' so I will pass.......

So that we shall not be deprived of the chance to see an explanation of Christianity's approval of slavery, I shall give you some excerpts from Pastor Warren's sermon of 1861:

Slavery Ordained and Perpetuated by God

More than two thousand years before the christian era, slavery was instituted by decree of heaven, and published to the world by Noah, a “preacher of righteousness.” Here is the decree, Genesis 9:25-27, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants, shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” The Jews descended from Shem, the Europeans and Americans from Japheth, the Africans from Ham, the father of Canaan.

To show that the above language was the announcement of heaven’s decree concerning slavery, and that Noah was speaking as he was moved by the Holy Spirit, we have only to refer to its explanation and fulfillment by the descendants of Shem, as recorded in the 25th chapter of Leviticus. God gave to Abraham, a descendant of Shem, and to his seed after him the land of the Canaanites, into the possession of which they came in the days of Joshua. After the children of Israel came into the possession of the land, God gave them the following instruction as to bringing the people into bondage: “Both thy bond men and thy bond maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you (these were the descendants of Canaan, and hence called Canaanites), of them shall ye BUY BOND MEN AND BOND MAIDS. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possessions. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for possession; they shall be your bond men forever.” (verses 44-46)

Here is a decree from the Creator, giving to one man the right of holding another in involuntary servitude. Man holding his fellow man as his property, and enjoined to perpetuate that property by inheritance to his children, forever.

Three points are here gained.

1. The establishment of slavery by divine decree.
2. The right to buy and sell men and women into bondage.
3. The perpetuity of the institution by the same authority.

...

CHRIST RECONCILED AND SANCTIONED SLAVERY

The blessed Saviour descended from a slave-holder, Abraham. This “father of the faithful,” held as many bondmen, “born in his house and bought with his money,” as perhaps any slaveholder in the South. When he was chosen out, as the one “in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed,” not a word of Divine disapprobation, on account of his being a slave-holder was uttered.

His descendants, the Jews, up to the time of their national dispersion, were as emphatically a slave-holding people as we Georgians are.

The only qualification which is due to this remark, is founded on the captivity and wars which robbed them of much of their property. Such was the case when the Saviour came among them.

He reproved them for their sins. Calling them the works of the flesh and of the devil. He denounced idolatry, covetousness, adultery, fornification, hypocrisy, and many other sins of less moral turpitude, but never once reproved them for holding slaves; though He alluded to it frequently, yet never with an expression of the slightest disapprobation.

Many gospel truths He illustrates most happily by an allusion to the institution, and by implication, endorses and commends it. The following is a case in point:

“Which of you having a servant plowing or feeding the cattle, will say unto him by and by when he is come from the field, go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me till I have eaten and drunken; and afterwards thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.” – Luke 17:7-9

How true to Southern life, in this picture, drawn by the Divine pencil. Here is a servant laboring in the field, he is called home to prepare food for the meal, commanded to stand around the table and serve, and when he is done, no thanks are expressed to him, because he has only done his duty.

The following language is said by Paul, to be the teachings of our Saviour … Let those whose are under the yoke, as bondmen, esteem their masters worthy of all honor, lest reproach be brought upon the name of God and his doctrine – and let those whose masters are believers, not despise them because they are brethren, but serve them with the more subjection, because they who claim the benefit (of their labor) are believing and beloved. THUS TEACH AND EXHORT.” – 1 Tim. 6:1-3

Here we are taught:

1. That the disciples of Christ held slaves.
2. That this slavery was in accordance with the doctrine or teachings of God.
3. That a failure on the part of they servants to esteem their masters worthy of honor, or obedience, was considered by Christ, a reproach to the name and doctrine of God. Because He had commanded it, and whosoever disobeyed reproached his Maker.
4. That christianity did not oblige the master to liberate his slave, but upon the contrary bound the slave to serve his master with the “more subjection.” …

Hazelelponi · Mar 8, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
So that we shall not be deprived of the chance to see an explanation of Christianity's approval of slavery, I shall give you some excerpts from Pastor Warren's sermon of 1861:

Slavery Ordained and Perpetuated by God

More than two thousand years before the christian era, slavery was instituted by decree of heaven, and published to the world by Noah, a “preacher of righteousness.” Here is the decree, Genesis 9:25-27, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants, shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” The Jews descended from Shem, the Europeans and Americans from Japheth, the Africans from Ham, the father of Canaan.

To show that the above language was the announcement of heaven’s decree concerning slavery, and that Noah was speaking as he was moved by the Holy Spirit, we have only to refer to its explanation and fulfillment by the descendants of Shem, as recorded in the 25th chapter of Leviticus. God gave to Abraham, a descendant of Shem, and to his seed after him the land of the Canaanites, into the possession of which they came in the days of Joshua. After the children of Israel came into the possession of the land, God gave them the following instruction as to bringing the people into bondage: “Both thy bond men and thy bond maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you (these were the descendants of Canaan, and hence called Canaanites), of them shall ye BUY BOND MEN AND BOND MAIDS. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possessions. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for possession; they shall be your bond men forever.” (verses 44-46)

Here is a decree from the Creator, giving to one man the right of holding another in involuntary servitude. Man holding his fellow man as his property, and enjoined to perpetuate that property by inheritance to his children, forever.

Three points are here gained.

1. The establishment of slavery by divine decree.
2. The right to buy and sell men and women into bondage.
3. The perpetuity of the institution by the same authority.

...

CHRIST RECONCILED AND SANCTIONED SLAVERY

The blessed Saviour descended from a slave-holder, Abraham. This “father of the faithful,” held as many bondmen, “born in his house and bought with his money,” as perhaps any slaveholder in the South. When he was chosen out, as the one “in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed,” not a word of Divine disapprobation, on account of his being a slave-holder was uttered.

His descendants, the Jews, up to the time of their national dispersion, were as emphatically a slave-holding people as we Georgians are.

The only qualification which is due to this remark, is founded on the captivity and wars which robbed them of much of their property. Such was the case when the Saviour came among them.

He reproved them for their sins. Calling them the works of the flesh and of the devil. He denounced idolatry, covetousness, adultery, fornification, hypocrisy, and many other sins of less moral turpitude, but never once reproved them for holding slaves; though He alluded to it frequently, yet never with an expression of the slightest disapprobation.

Many gospel truths He illustrates most happily by an allusion to the institution, and by implication, endorses and commends it. The following is a case in point:

“Which of you having a servant plowing or feeding the cattle, will say unto him by and by when he is come from the field, go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me till I have eaten and drunken; and afterwards thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.” – Luke 17:7-9

How true to Southern life, in this picture, drawn by the Divine pencil. Here is a servant laboring in the field, he is called home to prepare food for the meal, commanded to stand around the table and serve, and when he is done, no thanks are expressed to him, because he has only done his duty.

The following language is said by Paul, to be the teachings of our Saviour … Let those whose are under the yoke, as bondmen, esteem their masters worthy of all honor, lest reproach be brought upon the name of God and his doctrine – and let those whose masters are believers, not despise them because they are brethren, but serve them with the more subjection, because they who claim the benefit (of their labor) are believing and beloved. THUS TEACH AND EXHORT.” – 1 Tim. 6:1-3

Here we are taught:

1. That the disciples of Christ held slaves.
2. That this slavery was in accordance with the doctrine or teachings of God.
3. That a failure on the part of they servants to esteem their masters worthy of honor, or obedience, was considered by Christ, a reproach to the name and doctrine of God. Because He had commanded it, and whosoever disobeyed reproached his Maker.
4. That christianity did not oblige the master to liberate his slave, but upon the contrary bound the slave to serve his master with the “more subjection.” …

Certainly it was because of the Bible why some felt slavery was okay.

However, the reason why people today look at slavery, also looking to scripture, is because we see scripture in a different light.

First, coming out of the reformation people were reading the Bible for themselves for the first time. Please note the person who wrote the song amazing grace was a slave trader before he was saved. He stopped the practice the day he was saved, and was against slaving from that day forward.

The Bible was written in a day when many were first coming to Christ. In Roman times the slave trade and an economic reliance on slavery was prolific. And these are the people Paul and others were speaking to, those who became saved after having been involved in these things.

Some like the writer of amazing grace would stop these activities back then, others likely didn't even know how. There was no command to set all your slaves free because you've found Christ, although it is against the commandment of loving your neighbor as yourself.

Over time I'm sure it was God's intent that this practice stopped, based on our commandment of love. I personally wouldn't want someone stealing me from my land and selling me.... so it's not something I'd ever do or encourage anyone else to do.

But reading the Scriptures for yourself for the first time, you may not recognize these truths. So we disagree with our forebears on this point..

In the end, we aren't a people without sin, and as we grow and mature in our faith, our positions on the finer points of scripture changes, and we see things in a different light.

The church as a whole is a body that is growing into an ever greater relationship with God, and as such will self correct from time to time on certain errors. I believe slavery was one of those things.

hedrick · Mar 8, 2020

Jesus didn't come to bring us a new moral code, but to bring a new way of life. When he was asked how to live (Mark 10:19) he cited the 10 commandments. Mat 5 is a commentary on them, which emphasizes intent over law, but it's still based on the commandments. Paul's sin lists are very similar to lists from Jewish and the better pagan sources.

Surely the basic moral principals are the same. But there are areas where experience and different cultural situations cause us to change judgements. Slavery is an example. One that was contentious centuries ago was taking interest on loans. Sexual ethics is a current one. Today's principle of informed consent is present only in rudimentary form in Scripture.

Occams Barber · Mar 8, 2020

civilwarbuff said:
Hmmmm McAfee labels this a 'very risky site' so I will pass.......

Strange - my McAfee doesn't have a problem with the site.

OB

InterestedAtheist · Mar 8, 2020

Hazelelponi said:
Certainly it was because of the Bible why some felt slavery was okay.

More than okay - divinely ordained and approved of by God Himself, both in His heavenly form and when He descended as Jesus.

Hazelelponi said:
However, the reason why people today look at slavery, also looking to scripture, is because we see scripture in a different light.

To respond to this, and similar comments you made:

Hazelelponi said:
But reading the Scriptures for yourself for the first time, you may not recognize these truths. So we disagree with our forebears on this point..

and

Hazelelponi said:
In the end, we aren't a people without sin, and as we grow and mature in our faith, our positions on the finer points of scripture changes, and we see things in a different light.

and

Hazelelponi said:
The church as a whole is a body that is growing into an ever greater relationship with God, and as such will self correct from time to time on certain errors. I believe slavery was one of those things.

I'm afraid all of this is nothing but circular logic. You've made other arguments below, and I shall address them, but all of the above just means, essentially, "Anti-slavery Christians are right, and therefore pro-slavery Christians must be wrong because they disagree with the the anti-slavery Christians, who (as we saw above) are right."

Hazelelponi said:
First, coming out of the reformation people were reading the Bible for themselves for the first time.

The pro-slavery side included Christians who were extremely familiar with the Scriptures and argued from them. If you're going to disagree, you'll have to show how they interpreted the Bible wrongly.

Hazelelponi said:
Please note the person who wrote the song amazing grace was a slave trader before he was saved. He stopped the practice the day he was saved, and was against slaving from that day forward.

That could just mean that he misunderstood the arguments for slavery from the Bible.

Hazelelponi said:
The Bible was written in a day when many were first coming to Christ. In Roman times the slave trade and an economic reliance on slavery was prolific. And these are the people Paul and others were speaking to, those who became saved after having been involved in these things.

and

Hazelelponi said:
Some like the writer of amazing grace would stop these activities back then, others likely didn't even know how. There was no command to set all your slaves free because you've found Christ, although it is against the commandment of loving your neighbor as yourself.

To quote Pastor Warren, of 1861:
"I desire to meet one plausible, but specious objection to slavery, urged by the abolitionists...
It is said that one single passage in the gospel imperatively requires every master at once to emancipate his slaves. It is recorded in Mat. 7:12. “Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.”
it is thought, that if the master would desire liberty, were he a slave, he is bound by this rule, to liberate his slave. But his argument is specious, and this construction, if applied to the various relations of life will subvert all the laws and regulations of society and governments.
A criminal is arraigned, tried and found guilty of a violation of the law – but the judge would not desire to be punished were he in the criminal’s place – is he bound therefore to release him? ….
A desire entertained by a servant to be set at liberty, is an unlawful desire, because its accomplishment, would violate the “law” which enjoins perpetual servitude …."

Hazelelponi said:
Over time I'm sure it was God's intent that this practice stopped, based on our commandment of love. I personally wouldn't want someone stealing me from my land and selling me.... so it's not something I'd ever do or encourage anyone else to do.

This has already been answered above, and I shall now quote in support from the Reverend Dr. Furman, 1838.
Furman University: Richard Furman's Exposition
"Some difficulties arise with respect to bringing a man, or class of men, into a state of bondage. For crime, it is generally agreed, a man may be deprived of his liberty. But, may he not be divested of it by his own consent, directly, or indirectly given: And, especially, when this assent, though indirect, is connected with an attempt to take away the liberty, if not the lives of others? The Jewish law favours the former idea: And if the inquiry on the latter be taken in the affirmative, which appears to be reasonable, it will establish a principle, by which it will appear, that the Africans brought to America were, slaves, by their own consent, before they came from their own country, or fell into the hands of white men. Their law of nations, or general usage, having, by common consent the force of law, justified them, while carrying on their petty wars, in killing their prisoners or reducing them to slavery; consequently, in selling them, and these ends they appear to have proposed to themselves; the nation, therefore, or individual, which was overcome, reduced to slavery, and sold would have done the same by the enemy, had victory declared on their, or his side. Consequently, the man made slave in this manner, might be said to be made so by his own consent, and by the indulgence of barbarous principles."

InterestedAtheist · Mar 8, 2020

hedrick said:
Jesus didn't come to bring us a new moral code, but to bring a new way of life.

On the contrary. Jesus had some very strong views on what constituted right and wrong behaviour, and did not hold back in condemning evil actions, no matter how his views might be received:
Pastor Warren, 1861: http://civilwarbaptists.com/thisdayinhistory/1861-january-27/
"He reproved them for their sins. Calling them the works of the flesh and of the devil. He denounced idolatry, covetousness, adultery, fornification, hypocrisy, and many other sins of less moral turpitude, but never once reproved them for holding slaves; though He alluded to it frequently, yet never with an expression of the slightest disapprobation."

hedrick · Mar 8, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
On the contrary. Jesus had some very strong views on what constituted right and wrong behaviour, and did not hold back in condemning evil actions, no matter how his views might be received:

Of course. However he didn't bring a new moral code. He accepted the 10 commandments. His mission wasn't giving new morals, but changing people's hearts. He also tended to replace specific commands with an emphasis on intent, and with principles such as forgiveness and love for enemies that are hard to express as rules.

He certainly taught that we would be held accountable for our actions. That wasn't the point being discussed. My point was that there is no Jesus-specific moral code, though there are plenty of Jesus-specific ways to act.

Those principles have implications which Christians have developed over time. Perhaps he should have given us more specific rules, which would have included a prohibition of slavery. But he chose to leave it up to Christians to make changes in specific rules based on experience and seeing how people were affected. That's what the power of the keys is. It was a rabbinical concept of the authority to make interpretations of Torah. I believe Christians have the right to make changes in morals, based on experience and changes in culture.

Southern Christians were right that the NT documents accept the existence of slavery, and that the OT mandated it in some situations. There was plenty of bad exegesis, some of it quoted above, but you certainly can't claim that the Bible somehow invisibly prohibits slavery. But by the mid 19th Cent most of the Church had judged, correctly, that slavery was not something Christians could continue to do. Not based on any specific command, but on the broader principles Jesus taught about how people should treat each other. There was good reason for that judgement.

hedrick · Mar 8, 2020

Incidentally, it's worth looking at Jesus' various examples of judgement. People he shows as being accountable are for lack of fruit, mistreating others, and rejecting the Gospel.

There are two interesting omissions: (1) he never talks about people being condemned for sin. He refers to forgiveness of sin, but doesn't accuse specific people of sinning (2) he never sets up either purity or holiness as ideals. These were core concepts for the Pharisees. I believe these omissions are because he wanted people to focus on intent and how actions impacted others.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Mar 8, 2020

New Testament morals in divine revelation is problematic if ‘the highest good’ is not determined. Old testament obedience to law was not an ethical system. The light of revelation shows a deterioration of the disposition of the person because of sin toward God. Freely responding in a consciences capacity habitually reflects the conformity to the new covenant rather than the old. IOW Logical reasoning rather than blind obedience.

OTOH ’Hedonism’ is derived from ‘pleasure’ in the Greek form and has a set of ethics to match that would have been the counterpart of Jewish law in the days preceding Christ. That would include the seeking of fame and reputation to place ‘highest good’ in those things rather than the person of God, gained in an intimate ‘reasoning together’ to learn the ethics of the law, rather than the rule of law.

Christ re-presents the entrance to the kingdom by means of a softness preserved from parent to child as the means to joy and peace. From there He could reach others in the Name of the Father.

The law is the letter, the flesh. The morals are for the soul and spirituality is the “highest good'

InterestedAtheist · Mar 8, 2020

hedrick said:
Of course. However he didn't bring a new moral code. He accepted the 10 commandments. His mission wasn't giving new morals, but changing people's hearts. He also tended to replace specific commands with an emphasis on intent, and with principles such as forgiveness and love for enemies that are hard to express as rules.

He certainly taught that we would be held accountable for our actions. That wasn't the point being discussed. My point was that there is no Jesus-specific moral code, though there are plenty of Jesus-specific ways to act.

Those principles have implications which Christians have developed over time. Perhaps he should have given us more specific rules, which would have included a prohibition of slavery. But he chose to leave it up to Christians to make changes in specific rules based on experience and seeing how people were affected. That's what the power of the keys is. It was a rabbinical concept of the authority to make interpretations of Torah. I believe Christians have the right to make changes in morals, based on experience and changes in culture.

Southern Christians were right that the NT documents accept the existence of slavery, and that the OT mandated it in some situations. There was plenty of bad exegesis, some of it quoted above, but you certainly can't claim that the Bible somehow invisibly prohibits slavery. But by the mid 19th Cent most of the Church had judged, correctly, that slavery was not something Christians could continue to do. Not based on any specific command, but on the broader principles Jesus taught about how people should treat each other. There was good reason for that judgement.

To say that Jesus didn't bring a new moral code is misleading. He did teach people what was right and wrong, and in many cases what he taught them disagreed with what they thought at the time. You say that Christians can divine that slavery is bad from the principles of Christianity. But this is false. First, following your arguments, the Old and New Testaments both not only approved of slavery, but commanded it. Therefore, we can infer (and it's hardly even an inference, since God makes His feelings on the matter so clear) that Christians should believe that slavery is a good thing. The argument that Christians should be against slavery because of the Golden Rule has already been dealt with; the pro-slavery Christians read it, understood it, and pointed out the flaws in it (see my post above).

You also said that, by the nineteenth century, most Christians had understood that slavery is wrong. First, this is untrue. In the United States, at least, Christians were very much divided. Second, it is irrelevant. What Christians believe about Christianity only matters insofar as they can back up their arguments; and the pro-slavery Christians - as is demonstrated in the excerpts and links I've posted - make a much better case for their beliefs than the anti-slavery Christians did or do.

The main argument is clear: in no case did Jesus show any disapproval of slavery. Indeed, he and his followers often went out of their way to praise it. If slavery were wrong, then not only would Jesus have said so, but he would have avoided expressing approval of it.

Simply put: the anti-slavery Christians have right on their side. And the pro-slavery Christians have the Bible on their side.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Mar 8, 2020

Being a servant to mankind doesn’t involve monetary gain. :sigh:

InterestedAtheist · Mar 8, 2020

~Cassia~ said:
Being a servant to mankind doesn’t involve monetary gain.

Hello Cassia,
I'm afraid I'm not sure who you're talking to.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Mar 8, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
Hello Cassia,
I'm afraid I'm not sure who you're talking to.

[QUOTE="InterestedAtheist, post: 74781993, member: 158168”]T You say that Christians can divine that slavery is bad from the principles of Christianity. .... the Old and New Testaments both not only approved of slavery, but commanded it. [/quote]

Not sure where you think the NT commanded slavery?

Therefore, we can infer .......that Christians should believe that slavery is a good thing.

Not at all clear.
<snip>

it is irrelevant.

agree

The main argument is clear: in no case did Jesus show any disapproval of slavery. Indeed, he and his followers often went out of their way to praise it. If slavery were wrong, then not only would Jesus have said so, but he would have avoided expressing approval of it.

Jesus placed Himself in the position of a slave and a slave has a master. His was reserved not for any earthly owner.

Simply put: the anti-slavery Christians have right on their side. And the pro-slavery Christians have the Bible on their side.

Christians have the right to be committed to serving God only.[/quote]

InterestedAtheist · Mar 9, 2020

Clearly you're not very familiar with your Bible.

~Cassia~ said:
Not sure where you think the NT commanded slavery?

“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.”
Timothy 6:1-2

The New Testament may not have had God - or Jesus - actually telling people to go out and acquire slaves as much, but this makes sense. Slavery was by then a well-established part of the culture. And Jesus and his disciples very clearly showed that they approved of it, that Christians should keep slaves, and that the role of slaves was not to win their freedom, but to be good slaves.

~Cassia~ said:
Not at all clear.

Then I suggest you read up on the Biblical justification for slavery.
You could try this little sermon, from Pastor Wilson of 1861.
Joseph Ruggles Wilson, 1835-1903. Mutual R elation of Masters and Slaves as Taught in the Bible: a Discourse Preached in the First Presbyterian Church ...

~Cassia~ said:
Jesus placed Himself in the position of a slave and a slave has a master. His was reserved not for any earthly owner.

He also joined with the Old Testament in supporting the institution of slavery, and was followed by his disciples in endorsing it.

~Cassia~ said:
Christians have the right to be committed to serving God only.

If you're going to argue, argue from the Bible.

Hazelelponi · Mar 9, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
The pro-slavery side included Christians who were extremely familiar with the Scriptures and argued from them. If you're going to disagree, you'll have to show how they interpreted the Bible wrongly.

There's a lot of people who are "extremely familiar with scriptures" and many of them don't know God at all...

Therefore I'd argue that being familiar with scriptures is a lesser qualification, and knowing God a higher one where rightly dividing the Word of Truth is concerned.

It was to religious leaders Jesus was speaking when He said: "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." Not those who didn't know what the Scriptures said..

InterestedAtheist said:
To quote Pastor Warren, of 1861:
"I desire to meet one plausible, but specious objection to slavery, urged by the abolitionists...
It is said that one single passage in the gospel imperatively requires every master at once to emancipate his slaves. It is recorded in Mat. 7:12. “Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.”
it is thought, that if the master would desire liberty, were he a slave, he is bound by this rule, to liberate his slave. But his argument is specious, and this construction, if applied to the various relations of life will subvert all the laws and regulations of society and governments.
A criminal is arraigned, tried and found guilty of a violation of the law – but the judge would not desire to be punished were he in the criminal’s place – is he bound therefore to release him? ….
A desire entertained by a servant to be set at liberty, is an unlawful desire, because its accomplishment, would violate the “law” which enjoins perpetual servitude …."

Here I would say this pastor is making a false comparison.

To compare the desire of the slave to be free, with the desire of a criminal to not be punished for his crime is a false equivalence because the law is to punish the evil doer:

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." 1 Peter 2:13-14

So to say the criminal is the same as the slave who has never done anything evil is to ignore what laws are for in the first place.

Certainly there are times when we are going to do or say things people may not desire, but as Christians it should never be things that we would not desire for ourselves - meaning, if we committed a crime we should desire to submit ourselves to the authorities to whatever punishment was just for what we did wrong.

.............

In the end, everything the Christian does is about showing Christ to the world in everything we do.

If we find ourselves in jail we should be model prisoners. If we find ourselves a slave we should be model slaves. If we find ourselves persecuted for the sake of the Gospel we should have much joy in it.

Because in the end, that's what we are here to do.. to show Christ who is exemplar in His love, His patience, His forgiveness, His love of God, to others.

If your a slave owner who has come to Christ, and you aren't showing that beautiful example of God's love to all those around you, then we must question whether or not you know God at all.

It's not to us to judge others, God forbid, but there are arguments against slavery, from scriptures.. because it's all about how we show Christ to the world, in the end. We are the light of Christ set on a hill.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 9, 2020

Hazelelponi said:
There's a lot of people who are "extremely familiar with scriptures" and many of them don't know God at all...

Therefore I'd argue that being familiar with scriptures is a lesser qualification, and knowing God a higher one where rightly dividing the Word of Truth is concerned.

It was to religious leaders Jesus was speaking when He said: "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." Not those who didn't know what the Scriptures said..

Here I would say this pastor is making a false comparison.

To compare the desire of the slave to be free, with the desire of a criminal to not be punished for his crime is a false equivalence because the law is to punish the evil doer:

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." 1 Peter 2:13-14

So to say the criminal is the same as the slave who has never done anything evil is to ignore what laws are for in the first place.

Certainly there are times when we are going to do or say things people may not desire, but as Christians it should never be things that we would not desire for ourselves - meaning, if we committed a crime we should desire to submit ourselves to the authorities to whatever punishment was just for what we did wrong.

.............

In the end, everything the Christian does is about showing Christ to the world in everything we do.

If we find ourselves in jail we should be model prisoners. If we find ourselves a slave we should be model slaves. If we find ourselves persecuted for the sake of the Gospel we should have much joy in it.

Because in the end, that's what we are here to do.. to show Christ who is exemplar in His love, His patience, His forgiveness, His love of God, to others.

If your a slave owner who has come to Christ, and you aren't showing that beautiful example of God's love to all those around you, then we must question whether or not you know God at all.

It's not to us to judge others, God forbid, but there are arguments against slavery, from scriptures.. because it's all about how we show Christ to the world, in the end. We are the light of Christ set on a hill.

Well, you're just making my points for me.
There were plenty of pro-slavery Christians who were extremely familiar with the Scriptures and the power of God.

You say "To compare the desire of the slave to be free, with the desire of a criminal to not be punished for his crime is a false equivalence because the law is to punish the evil doer" but you're just reinforcing the pro-slavery argument. The law, as set out in the Bible, is that certain persons are slaves, and therefore they should follow the law.

And yes: you say that if you find yourself a slave, you should be a good slave and not rebel. That is indeed what the Bible teaches. And that was the pro-slaver's point.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Mar 9, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
Clearly you're not very familiar with your Bible.
“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.”
Timothy 6:1-2

You are clearly not familiar with the character of God. His aim is to protect not to harm, and He isn’t a respecter of any man because He knows their thoughts and His ways are much higher.

The New Testament may not have had God - or Jesus - actually telling people to go out and acquire slaves as much, but this makes sense. Slavery was by then a well-established part of the culture. And Jesus and his disciples very clearly showed that they approved of it, that Christians should keep slaves, and that the role of slaves was not to win their freedom, but to be good slaves.

It may have been an established culture but the NT take on that culture is overturned by Christian standards “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” until the yoke of Rome closed in again, that is still being fought to regain.

Then I suggest you read up on the Biblical justification for slavery.
You could try this little sermon, from Pastor Wilson of 1861.
Joseph Ruggles Wilson, 1835-1903. Mutual R elation of Masters and Slaves as Taught in the Bible: a Discourse Preached in the First Presbyterian Church ...

Like you said, every christian has their take on which side of slavery they stand. The thread should have been a poll to find out the opinion of the laity. Oddly that’s also the definition of Laodocia. Laity rule instead of God.

He also joined with the Old Testament in supporting the institution of slavery, and was followed by his disciples in endorsing it.

If you're going to argue, argue from the Bible.

Arguing from the bible can take many forms. Arguing Christianity is clear on it’s stand toward freedom because it was Jesus’ mission statement to set the captives free.

What I see from you is a Budist brahma untouchable theory that endorses the right to inflict on others what their karma deserves.

Hazelelponi · Mar 9, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
Well, you're just making my points for me.
There were plenty of pro-slavery Christians who were extremely familiar with the Scriptures and the power of God.

You say "To compare the desire of the slave to be free, with the desire of a criminal to not be punished for his crime is a false equivalence because the law is to punish the evil doer" but you're just reinforcing the pro-slavery argument. The law, as set out in the Bible, is that certain persons are slaves, and therefore they should follow the law.

And yes: you say that if you find yourself a slave, you should be a good slave and not rebel. That is indeed what the Bible teaches. And that was the pro-slaver's point.

Just because the Bible says we should be the light of Christ regardless of whatever condition we find ourselves in, doesn't make the argument in favor of slavery in light of brotherly love and the necessity to show Christ through our own actions (a command for every Christian not just those we desire to control).

If you don't understand this, I would argue you don't know God at all, which is true in your case, an atheist reading words. And if it's true for you (that you don't know God while at the same time trying to interpret the meaning of Scripture), what on earth makes you think those who, interpreting the Bible in like manner to an atheist yet made a claim on Christianity, knew God anymore than you do?

I would like to add something here. I do believe that there may well have been saved Christians who were saved after they owned slaves, and were in the middle of societies that engaged in the slave trade.

In some situations I can easily see someone being unsure of how to best proceed after salvation has come to them if they believed or knew that the slaves they freed might well be captured again by others and sold back into slavery, with the next owner being potentially abusive...

That may have led some to feel unsure of what to do, so I can't condemn someone who chose to keep but then treat very well their slaves. However I do think those who were staunch advocates of keeping a given society embroiled in slavery were in the wrong..

Question on changing attitudes to morals and going against literal bible interpretation

:sighing:

Veteran

Veteran

:sighing:

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Veteran

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

:sighing:

Veteran

Well-Known Member

:sighing:

Similar threads