 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 4/8/2004 11:57 AM (GMT -6) |   | Tigress,
There are some true defenders out there that state because God "approved" of slavery and polygamy in the Bible that it must be OK to practice it.
Obviously, we know better, but why then did God allow it?
We get a glimpse into God's reasoning when Jesus was asked about divorce. If it was wrong to divorce a woman except for marital unfaithfulness, why did God allow it? Moses allowed them to divorce because their hearts were hard.
God in His attempt to have love be chosen rather than forced, chose not to infringe on the freedom of the Israelites in that period. He knew that if He put a wholesale ban on divorce (and probably slavery) that it would make the quality (and sanctity) of life for the people there pretty miserable given their attitudes. In a sense, the Hebrews were not "mature" enough to handle the kind of love of God that brought through Christ.
I believe each of us (no matter who we are) have a bit of "heresy" in our thinking whether it be influenced by culture or those around us. Where we think one thing is permissible yet another (Christian) thinks it's not (ask the Amish).
So will I say universally that slavery is a "sin"? No, although it may not be ideal behavior. If someone came from a culture where polygamy was acceptable and had 2 wives, and later became a Believer, would we insist he divorce one his wives? I believe that the love would trump law in this case.
"I say we blast the meatbag, Master" -HK-47, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 4/8/2004 12:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laplace
Tigress,
There are some true defenders out there that state because God "approved" of slavery and polygamy in the Bible that it must be OK to practice it.
Obviously, we know better, but why then did God allow it?
We get a glimpse into God's reasoning when Jesus was asked about divorce. If it was wrong to divorce a woman except for marital unfaithfulness, why did God allow it? Moses allowed them to divorce because their hearts were hard.
God in His attempt to have love be chosen rather than forced, chose not to infringe on the freedom of the Israelites in that period. He knew that if He put a wholesale ban on divorce (and probably slavery) that it would make the quality (and sanctity) of life for the people there pretty miserable given their attitudes. In a sense, the Hebrews were not "mature" enough to handle the kind of love of God that brought through Christ.
I believe each of us (no matter who we are) have a bit of "heresy" in our thinking whether it be influenced by culture or those around us. Where we think one thing is permissible yet another (Christian) thinks it's not (ask the Amish).
So will I say universally that slavery is a "sin"? No, although it may not be ideal behavior. If someone came from a culture where polygamy was acceptable and had 2 wives, and later became a Believer, would we insist he divorce one his wives? I believe that the love would trump law in this case.
Well, I definitely believe that after Christ came, it was declared a sin to marry more than one wife at the same time. It's not good for the man, women or children. Talk about disgusting! I'd be sooooooooooo enraged if I had to share my husband with anyone else! And slavery - man I can't see how that's not a sin, either.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/9/2004 3:40 AM (GMT -6) | | The NT doesn't condone slavery, it simply teaches that faith in God through Christ rises above the confines slavery puts one under.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/9/2004 3:47 AM (GMT -6) | | I can't speak for slavery in all parts of the world but if you read on the history of slavery in America, you will find that the white lsave owners who professed Christianity and professed to have a "born again" experience were the WORSE, most CRUEL slave owner. Frederick Douglas, in his biography, stated that while he was a slave, how a visiting evangelist came to town. He, his master, and others came to know Christ. He said that after they got "saved" his white master even sensed a call to the ministry. He thought that this man was going to change. Douglas says that man became worse and even more cruel than before.
Contrasting this with time he spent with white masters who were not Christians, they seemed to show much more leniency and charity to their slaves.
Can a person be a Christian and own slaves? I am not sure how a true Christian in this day and age could do so with a good conscience as is evident from American slavery. Philemon was obviously a Christian while owning slaves, but Paul attempted to rescue one of his slaves from him, reminding him that Philemon owed him his very life for Paul having preached the gospel to him.
As far as polygamy is concerned, the only thing the New Testament says about that is that a man cannot be an elder if he has more than one wife (1 Tim. 3:2). However, since God only created one wife for Adam, the ideal is one wife for one man. Yet, as one poster mentioned earlier, people from other cultures get saved after they have taken more than one wife. I too would never tell them to leave any of their wives, but neither would I make them an elder in any church that I pastor.
Nevertheless, a person who is already a Christian should not attempt to justify marrying more than one person on the basis of polygamy being prevalent in the Old Testament.
Besides, why would anyone want more than one.? I have a wife and two daughters living in my house. Sheesh, that's enough women problems for me (please don't tell my wife I wrote this) 
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 4/9/2004 3:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul said that everything is permissible but not all things are beneficial. Why did he say that? I think it was to get the believers past the mindset that sins are mere actions and that by avoiding actions we attain righteousness.
There was an active thread a month ago on sin and the word was flying around so much in the complicity threads that it really needed to be defined. Sin is not merely an action, not under the new covenant. It is what is in your heart. We know this because someone can be a really well-behaved, law abiding person and still have sin.
I don't think that the slavery of the intertestamental period was the same as colonial and imperielist slavery. Slave owners had a symbient(?) relationship with the slave. There was the year of jubilee. Slaves devoted themselves to their masters by peircing their ear to their master's doorpost.
I know that alot of the meaning of the Word is lost in relativism. But there are so many things that are relative. To answer these questions you have to consider Paul's intended meaning. Paul wasn't writing doctrine, he was applying it to specific situations that needed TLC.
Wahoo | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/9/2004 4:00 AM (GMT -6) | |
For a more complete view on this from a different perspective I suggest the following link.
http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/cfw00002.htm
This article was written in Missouri during the time of the civil war. The issue was extremely important and men in the churches were dying over it. I thought that it might be worth wading through the entire article if you wish for a unique Scriptural perspective. It is excellent food for thought.
quote:
The question about slavery has been foremost in the hearts and minds of many. In following issues, we intend to deal with this question. Of course, not as it relates to political issues, for we have nothing to do with that, but as it relates to Christian-religious morals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before we discuss the agitating question of slavery, we wish to reiterate that we are not concerned with emancipation, which for political reasons is being considered by government, for this is not a theological issue. For us Christians here too the word of God applies: "Be subject to those who are in authority over you." What we are dealing with here is the question whether slavery itself, that is, the relationship between slave and master, is a sin; or does sin adhere to this relationship merely in concreto, as all relationships between sinful men, for instance between poor and rich, seller and buyer. Is therefore slavery a sin which must be unconditionally opposed, or should Christians concentrate on doing away with the connected sinfulness, so that the relationship between slave and master is according to God’s will and order, according to the laws of justice, fairness, and love.5 We therefore hold that abolitionism, which deems slavery a sin and therefore considers every slave holder a criminal and strives for its eradication, is the result of unbelief in its development of nationalism, deistic philanthropy, pantheism, materialism, and atheism. It is a brother of modern socialism, Jacobinism and communism. Together with the emancipation of women it is the rehabilitation of the flesh. As proof of this blood-relationship it suffices to point not only to its history, but also to the close union between abolition-minded representatives of Christianity and the abolitionist tendencies of anti-Christians and radical revolutionaries in church, state, and home. The more their non-religiosity increases and reaches the pinnacles of theoretical atheism and indifferentism, the more fanatically they fight for the principle of slave emancipation. Often they have no economic interests and even oppose those who do. Therefore, a Christian abolitionist, who finds himself in the company of such as these, should become aware of the wrong path he has chosen. How could it be possible that these enemies of Christianity and religion per se, all those who are intent on doing away with the existing religious, political, and economical order of things to realize their humanistic utopia, that especially they would be so enthusiastic for something good and holy, for "the final reason of Christianity" and so greatly exert themselves? Can a Christian accept that now, in the 19th century, Christ’s word has come to naught through progress, enlightenment, and civilization? "Can grapes be harvested from thorns, or figs from the thistle tree? A rotten tree does not bear fruit." We can only pity those Christians who have forgotten all this and with best intentions, in the desire to work for a Christian-humane purpose, have allied themselves with the enemies of Christendom, and have come under the banner of anti-Christian humanism and philanthropy, thus having lent themselves as mediums of the spirit of the times.
However, we do not demand that these our erring fellow-Christians be satisfied with these á priori reasons. Regarding questions of morals or religion, Christians do not acquiesce until they have the answer to the question: "What is written?" They are ever mindful of the words of the prophet: "Yes, according to the law and witness. If they do not say this, they will not see the sun rise" (Is. 8:20). The Christian’s thoughts are as Solomon’s: "A man may think that he is always right, but the Lord fixes a standard for the heart" (Prov. 21:2). Therefore, he "gladly compels every human thought to surrender in obedience to Christ. . ." (2.Cor. 10:6). When man has found the clear witness of Scripture, even though it may go totally against the grain of his own intellect, heart, and his entire view of the world, he will say together with Christ: ". . . Scripture cannot be set aside" (John 10:36). For such Christians then, who are Christians according to John 14:23, 8:31,32, 47, we will consult Scripture which alone is "a true fount for Israel," which alone is the true guide upon which all doctrine and teachers are to be fixed and judged.6
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/9/2004 9:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Wahoo says: I know that alot of the meaning of the Word is lost in relativism. But there are so many things that are relative. To answer these questions you have to consider Paul's intended meaning. Paul wasn't writing doctrine, he was applying it to specific situations that needed TLC.
Paul claims that his writings are the Lord's commandment, which would qualify as doctrine. To disobey them would be to sin and separate yourself from God. quote:
1 Co 14:37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
Peter declares that Paul's writings are Scripture. quote:
2 Peter 3:15 just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
If you can relativize Paul's commands then you can relativize the rest of Scriptures and experience "freestyle Christianity." There is a book that embraces relativism of what is central called "Seeing is Believing" in which we find that ultimately it is our imaginations that lead us to reality. On page 15 it states, "Unlike most people throughout history, including people in biblical times and culture, we tend to view the imagination not as a vehicle to access reality but as a way to flee from reality. Tragically, we view imagination primarily as a way to flee from reality." It appears that Wahoo imagines that Paul teaches no doctrine and this means it is real to him. I believe that there is an external reality that defines truth and that reality is neither relative nor separate from truth.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 4/10/2004 2:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
quote:
2 Peter 2:15 just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
Are we reading the same bible?
My 2 Peter 2:15 says:
"15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. "
"Life is a gift from God, but the years have weight in them."
Terry Scott Taylor | | Back to Top | | |
|
msekee
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 4/10/2004 1:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | If we take everything Paul taught as doctrine not as relative to the culture to which he was speaking - does that mean women should not braid their hair or wear jewelry or expensive clothing? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/11/2004 7:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Spenlake,
You hit the nail on the head. Since Paul's epistles are scripture( and Paul is THE apostle to the Gentiles), we should approach his writings as though they were perspicuous. I.e., we should take them at face value until we have GOOD grounds for doing otherwise.
Colossians 4:1 says "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye aslo have a Master in heaven." This verse implies that there is a JUST way to treat a slave. It also proves that if being a slave is intrinsically evil, then WE couldn't have Christ as our MASTER.
This agrees with 1 Corinthians 7:21-23
"Art thou called being a servant? let it not be a care to thee: but if thou mayest be made free, use it more. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men."
These verses lead me to believe that slavery is not INTRINSICALLY evil, and that it is we who have been relativized by our radically egalitarian culture.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/11/2004 3:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Victoryword,
Victory says: "The Bible does NOT justify "Christian men" going into another country and making those they think are "inferior" their slaves. Many of these people went to Africa with a BIble in one hand and a shotgun in the other. Many of these so called "Christian men" sexually abused the women."
The Bible doesn't justify men abusing other men, men raping women, cruelty to another human being. It is not a "Christian" act to viciously abuse another human being and the BIble doesn't justify it. We are told to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. I would have opposed salvery on the grounds that you describe, that it was an institution that encouraged sinful acts, but not that that institution itself was a sin. This goes too far. I don't think that this can be proven from Scripture. Greed is a sin (of the same kind as idolatry). Rape is a sin. Cruel abuse for sadistic pleasure is a sin. There are many actions done under slavery that you can describe, and that should be called "sins" and held up before God.
While you may "feel" that slavery itself is a "sin," and you are welcome to feel this, you have not proved that the Bible declares it to be a sin. I agree that slavery, and any kind of uncontrolled authority of one man over another, is conducive to all kinds of sin, but I don't see slavery itself as a sin in the Bible. It is like the old addage, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I am sorry if I offended you, I wasn't meaning to be callous or blind to the suffering that occured under slavery, just accurate.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/12/2004 2:45 AM (GMT -6) | | I think we should note a few pertinent observations about the subject of slavery:
1. Biblical and historical scholars I have studied indicate that slavery as it existed in the Roman Empire was very different from slavery as it existed in later European and American history. Slavery in the time of Paul was more similar to what was later referred to as indentured servanthood. One thing is quite clear from Scripture, both Old and New Testaments: God did not ever condone abuse of slaves, such as existed especially in early U.S. history.
2. What do we think Paul should have done, called for a slave uprising? Based on Paul's reasoning in Philemon, it would seem that his approach to this question was not violent revolt but loving persuasion of slave owners to freely grant liberty to their slaves. A general revolt of Christian slaves would have surely led to the deaths of many, if not most of them, and would have no doubt brought disrepute upon the nascent Christian movement, thus hindering the general expansion of the church in that society.
3. Paul's recognition of the existence of slavery and his admonitions to slaves and masters does not mean he endorsed everything within that system of socioeconomic practice, any more than his recognition of and advocation of submission to secular government in Romans 13 means that he endorsed everything the Roman Empire did (or that any other secular gov't has ever done).
4. Finally, just because Paul mentions it and speaks to those under the yoke of slavery to live in such a way as to bring honor to their true Master, Jesus Christ, does not mean that he would not have been for the (peaceful) abolition of slavery as an institution, especially that barbaric type of slavery that eventually came to be the norm in the U.S. It seems to me from the basic gist of Paul's letter to Philemon that Paul advocated persuasion over coercion.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/12/2004 2:57 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
I appreciate your comments but it still means that "slavery" as such, a man owning another man, was not a sin in itself. Greed is a sin, immorality is a sin, sorcery is a sin, lying is a sin, murdering is a sin. Those that practive these sins are thrown into the lake of fire in Revelations 21:8. Neither slaves nor slave owners are mentioned.
We do know, however, that we are all slaves to a master in any case, regardless of whether we acknowledge it or not. We are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. We either serve the ruler of this world or the the king sitting at the right hand of the Father. Freedom is really only to be a slave of the true King and to be free to follow His will. We are not our own because we have been bought with a price by our current owner from our former one. In this sense, by mascarading as the "great abolitionist" and promising us freedom, Satan attempts to disuade us from leaving his abusive slavery and the eternal death that it will bring. God is the ultimate "slave owner" and all Christians are His slaves. God grant me the grace to act like one.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/12/2004 3:45 AM (GMT -6) | | John Earp
Excellent post, especially in showing the diferences between slavery in Biblical times and the slavery that was done in the most recent past in America and Europe.
Spen
You say that the Bible does not portray slavery as intrinsically evil. However, as has been pointed out by several posters on this thread, some things were TOLERATED but not necessarily approved by God.
Polygamy was tolerated by God. As a matter of fact, there is not one New Testament prohibition against polygamy. The only thing in the NT that even alludes to this is that a man who is married to more than one wife is not to be an elder. Do you think that this justifies groups like the Mormons, those who still engage in such practices? You think that it is okay for someone who claims to be a "born again" Christian to go forward and marry a few women simply because there is no New Testament prohibition against such?
While speaking on the issue of why God tolerated divorce in the Old Testament, I think Jesus laid out one of the best principles for looking at any issue that appears to be a "gray" area as far as Scripture is concerned:
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Matt. 19:8)
I think we should always go back to the BEGINNING to see God's orginal design and plan. Was it God's original intentional that Adam have more than one wife? If so, why didn't God make him a couple of wives?
HOw about slavery? Was it God's original intention that man make slaves of one another? As far as my understanding of Scripture it was God's orginal intention that MAN have dominion over the EARTH and the FISH, and the ANIMALS, and over EVERY CREEPING THING (Gen. 1:26-27). I read no where in God's orginal plan that man was to have dominion over ONE ANOTHER!
As has been well pointed out by others, slavery was something that was TOLERATED and never CONDONED. Christians who claim to have a relationship with Jesus should not have ever practiced the abomination of enslaving men because of the color of their skin, along with the other cruel acts they committed. The abolitionists were right. That document is WRONG and Biblically unjustified.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/12/2004 3:54 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
You say:
4. Finally, just because Paul mentions it and speaks to those under the yoke of slavery to live in such a way as to bring honor to their true Master, Jesus Christ, does not mean that he would not have been for the (peaceful) abolition of slavery as an institution, especially that barbaric type of slavery that eventually came to be the norm in the U.S. It seems to me from the basic gist of Paul's letter to Philemon that Paul advocated persuasion over coercion.
That is a true statement from a purely logical point of view. But it doesn't change the fact that slavery is not intrinsically unjust. The verse I quoted from Colossians demonstrates that slaves can be treated justly. So we shouldn't question the sincerity of Southern slave-owners profession of faith or their integrity. Jeff Davis' slaves loved him from all I've read, as did the slaves of many other benevolent Southern slave owners.
But SpenLake addresses the heart of the issue. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul says if a slave is able to become free, he is to use it (his newly found freedom) even MORE. I.e., where much is given, much is required. We should have our hearts set on giving our bodies as living sacrifices to our Lord in whatever our situation. We should not use our freedom as an excuse to be free FROM devotion to and service to God. When we think like that, we will not, as Paul advises, allow our condition as a slave to be a care/concern to us. God's grace is sufficient and his providence will assure we can bear fruit for him in any circumstance.
But what I see is people resisting slavery from a purely selfish reason. They don't want to BE a slave. Of course, none of us wants to be a slave. But I don't always like being under the authority of my goverment or boss. Nor did I always enjoy being under the authority of my mother when I was a minor. But, according to the scriptures, authorities are to be submitted to until such such submission causes us to be disobedient to God. And Christians are told to use authority justly and benevolently (as OUR MASTER IN HEAVEN)- and that applies to slave masters as well as governments, etc.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| 62 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:18 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|