In the NT, Slavery is broadly condemned.

[zippy2006]

The exact Biblical word for the "slave trade" in the Greek is ἀνδραποδιστής in I Tim. 1:10. This literally means man-stealing or men-stealing. Scripture has a much wider definition than you will allow for.

That is not a definition of theft, it is a Greek word for kidnapping. If you want to argue that the seventh commandment is not about theft, but is instead about a broad sort of false appropriation, be my guest. If the commandment is about a broad sort of false appropriation then it could include kidnapping, but I highly doubt that it is. The point here is that kidnapping (an adult) is not theft, not that kidnapping is permissible.

The broader point is that not all slavery results from kidnapping.

 

[Clare73]

Please address this:

"Could" and "did" are two different things.

The only way we know "did" is if it is Biblically written, as in the case of divorce.

With no statement to such effect, we have no Biblical warrant for thinking so regarding slavery.

It is all a notion of man.

"Do not go beyond what is written." (1 Co 4:6)

 

[All Becomes New]

It is all a notion of man.

No, it is an inference to the best explanation. The reason for slavery was that people were in a hard situation so a rich man could help them out. It was not a good in itself which is in the context of the laws for slavery. Again, slavery is a means to provide a way for a person to better their circumstances. Since this is no longer needed, it shows that slavery is not a good in itself but a means to provide for a person. It is not ideal and as such it is not a good in itself.

 

[Clare73]

No, it is an inference to the best explanation.

The best explanation is the one actually stated in the word of God, which that is not.

Please address post #42.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

it is a Greek word for kidnapping

No, kidnapping is taking a person from point a to point b by force. The Bible text is clear. ἀνδραποδιστής means man-stealing.

 

[All Becomes New]

The best explanation is the one actually stated in the word of God, which that is not.

Please address post #22.

You are missing the point. I'm going to ask you something straight up and I expect a straight up answer. Is slavery a good in itself?

 

[Clare73]

No, kidnapping is taking a person from point a to point b by force. The Bible text is clear. ἀνδραποδιστής means man-stealing.

You are missing the point. I'm going to ask you something straight up and I expect a straight up answer. Is slavery a good in itself?

Please address post #42.

Good, in general, is that which is in agreement with God.

Slavery is ordained by God.

Keeping in mind that all mankind is already in slavery.

 

[All Becomes New]

Apart from the revelation of God, "good" is a subjective notion, determined by the eye of the beholder.

God is good. That's not subjective. Answer my question rather than justifying slavery, please. Also, if you could have slaves, would you want to have slaves?

 

[Clare73]

Answer my question rather than justifying slavery, please. Also, if you could have slaves, would you want to have slaves?

About as much as I would want poverty, sickness or disability, which God likewise ordained (see post #12).

 

[All Becomes New]

About as much as I would want poverty, sickness or disability, which God likewise ordained (see post #12).

Alright, so you are willing to admit that slavery is not a good in itself then? So then do you still think slavery is good in some sense? If so how?

And I have a very different idea about God than you do it seems. I do not believe God causes sin. It seems you do. That's a problem. It's part of the reason I left Calvinist is because I do not believe God wills sin to happen. It's a horrible way to view God that the church has historically not been on board with.

So you talk about my traditions of man, but you go by your own traditions of man by saying God ordains evil.

 

[Clare73]

Alright, so you are willing to admit that slavery is not a good in itself then?

I have no idea what you mean by a "good in itself."

Is bloody crucifixion on Calvaly a "good in itself"?

So then do you still think slavery is good in some sense? If so how?

Yes, I think slavery to righteousness is good in every sense (Ro 6:15-16).

 

[All Becomes New]

I have no idea what you mean by a "good in itself."

Is bloody crucifixion on Calvaly a "good in itself"?

No, you clearly do have some idea of what I mean. You equate an evil (the death of Christ) as a good so as to try and show that slavery is also a good (after you had already said you wished there was no slavery).

 

[All Becomes New]

"Good" is abstract. I have no idea what you mean by a "good in itself."

"Good" is not abstract. Do you think morality is also abstract? Because the two overlap.

 

[Clare73]

No, you clearly do have some idea of what I mean. You equate an evil (the death of Christ) as a good so as to try and show that slavery is also a good (after you had already said you wished there was no slavery).

Where did I say that?

I said that slavery to righteousness is good in every sense.

 

[Clare73]

"Good" is not abstract. Do you think morality is also abstract? Because the two overlap.

Like "good," apart from concrete specifics, "morality" is abstract.

 

[All Becomes New]

Calvinists seem to be quite rigid when it suits them but when the rubber hits the road, they are willing to call a lot of things subjective.

 

[Clare73]

Calvinists seem to be quite rigid when it suits them but when the rubber hits the road, they are willing to call a lot of things subjective.

Non-responsive to slavery to righteousness is good in every sense

 

[boughtwithaprice]

You are missing the point. I'm going to ask you something straight up and I expect a straight up answer. Is slavery a good in itself?

With all this talk of slavery, does anyone know what a free man actually is?

My definition is one who provides for himself and is dependent on no other for his existence. He could be a land owner or nomad. He lives off the land and has the skills necessary for survival in harsh conditions.

Most of us are not free men and are not capable of living as free men. We live in a society not alone. In this society we are all dependent on each other for our life. Don’t like it? GO and live free, dig your pit, chop your wood, build your house. Most of us cannot do that and we would die of exposure in a short amount of time.

For this reason we are slaves to each other. We have to earn a living by trading our labor. Freedom is an illusion, when you have to work for a living.

Some of us have great skill and can produce goods which allow others to live off of our labor. Those that can’t work for us.

This talk of freedom and anti-slavery sounds more like children living under their parents while saying they can do what they want because they are eighteen now. The wise father tells that son to leave the home and not return until he can obey house rules. Who makes house rules? In my house it is the golden rule. He who makes the gold makes the rules. Don’t like it? You are free to go, but you are not free to take my gold with you.

I think slavery is a good in itself. I am not capable of living on my own, so I agree to work for someone else, and they provide me what I cannot provide myself.

There is a legitimate master/slave relationship. Since I am dependent on my employer’s wage, I do things that I do not wish to do, in order to please my employer. This is an example of voluntary slavery and is a good in itself. I live much better and can help others way more than if I tried to live as a free man on my own

There are abuses of slavery as have been mentioned, like kidnapping, forced labor, sex trafficking and other evils, but this does not make all slavery evil. There is good in allowing another to own part of my time, so that I can obtain what I cannot obtain for myself

 

[The Liturgist]

This is how you define the word. The question comes is how does Scripture define the word. Does Scripture only define theft as it pertains to property?

The exact Biblical word for the "slave trade" in the Greek is ἀνδραποδιστής in I Tim. 1:10. This literally means man-stealing or men-stealing. Scripture has a much wider definition than you will allow for.

Meaning in Scripture is derived from how a word is used in its context. Yes, man stealing according to the NT is theft. Deal with it.

Have you checked the Septuagint to see if it uses the same word? My guess is it does, as there is a high correlation between it and the Greek New Testament. I would look it up personally except I am feeling poorly and I can’t recall where I put mine, but if you find an interlinear it should be easy enough to verify.

 

[The Liturgist]

With all this talk of slavery, does anyone know what a free man actually is?

My definition is one who provides for himself and is dependent on no other for his existence. He could be a land owner or nomad. He lives off the land and has the skills necessary for survival in harsh conditions.

Most of us are not free men and are not capable of living as free men. We live in a society not alone. In this society we are all dependent on each other for our life. Don’t like it? GO and live free, dig your pit, chop your wood, build your house. Most of us cannot do that and we would die of exposure in a short amount of time.

For this reason we are slaves to each other. We have to earn a living by trading our labor. Freedom is an illusion, when you have to work for a living.

Some of us have great skill and can produce goods which allow others to live off of our labor. Those that can’t work for us.

This talk of freedom and anti-slavery sounds more like children living under their parents while saying they can do what they want because they are eighteen now. The wise father tells that son to leave the home and not return until he can obey house rules. Who makes house rules? In my house it is the golden rule. He who makes the gold makes the rules. Don’t like it? You are free to go, but you are not free to take my gold with you.

I think slavery is a good in itself. I am not capable of living on my own, so I agree to work for someone else, and they provide me what I cannot provide myself.

There is a legitimate master/slave relationship. Since I am dependent on my employer’s wage, I do things that I do not wish to do, in order to please my employer. This is an example of voluntary slavery and is a good in itself. I live much better and can help others way more than if I tried to live as a free man on my own

There are abuses of slavery as have been mentioned, like kidnapping, forced labor, sex trafficking and other evils, but this does not make all slavery evil. There is good in allowing another to own part of my time, so that I can obtain what I cannot obtain for myself

Forgive me, but there is in economics and general usage a clear distinction between voluntary employment and slavery. If you were actually a slave, you would be your employer’s property, and he could use you non-productively for his own entertainment, and fear of the lash or execution rather than the reward of money would be your incentive to work.