DAVID WALTZ SAID:
Me: First, Tavard’s essay argues (with solid evidence) that the Bull Unam Sanctum, “does not…meet the requirements of Vatican Council I on infallibilty.”
i) Irrelevant. You must apply private judgment to any magisterial statement, whether fallible or infallible. The same hermeneutical considerations apply in each case.
ii) A magisterial teaching doesn’t have to be infallible to be obligatory. Different magisterial teachings involve different degrees of obligatory force.
iii) The classification of magisterial statements as fallible or infallible is, itself, a fallible interpretion. Hence, your reply only pushes the problem back a step. Tavard is not the magisterium. Tavard is having to sift the magisterium.
iv) Tavard minimized Unam sanctum because he was an ecumenist. Unam sanctam is a stumbling block to ecumenism.
However, Unam sanctam isn’t that easily disposed of. To some extent, at least, it was reaffirmed by two ecumenical councils.
v) One strategy is to argue that it was only reaffirmed in part. However, Tavard himself rejects the partitioning of magisterial statements. For him, it’s a take-it-or-leave-it affair. As he rightly points out, it’s arbitrary to say one sentence is infallible, but the next sentence is fallible. The conclusion is infallible, but the supporting argument is fallible.
“Second, for your argument to have solid import, you must demonstrate that official/infallible decrees/dogmas on faith and morals (my list, not yours) are somehow “unclear”.”
i) Produce your infallible list of infallible decrees.
ii) You must demonstrate that magisterial teaching is more perspicuous than Biblical teaching.
iii) Consider disputes over the interpretation of Vatican II.
“You do not make a “dent” by using a Bull that is not part of the corpus that needs to be judged.”
Whether or not Unam sanctam is “part of the corpus that needs to be judged,” is, itself, a value-judgment. You must apply your private judgment to that document to arrive at that classification. So you’re concealing the problem by taking a key assumption for granted, then introducing your objection further downstream.
“And third, as one who embraces “private judgment”, how does your “typical exchange” apply to me?”
You’re prevaricating. You don’t embrace private judgment in the same sense as Protestant theological method.
“Then you embrace a different form of sola scriptura than the confessional Reformers; your form would be more in line with a Socinus, than with a Calvin.”
Then you embrace a different form of Marian virginity than the Bible writers; your form (in partu/post partum) would be more in line with Gnosticism and Docetism (e.g. the Protevangelium of James, the Acts of Peter), than with a Matthew or Luke.
“Me: And they were interpreting the OT in a manner contrary at many points with the hermenutical principle you embrace.”
That’s an assertion, not an argument.
“Me: This raises two questions for me: first, when did the Catholic Church become “a schismatic church”;”
Over time. Cumulative error.
“And second, is there any church and/or individual who does not have some error in their teaching and life?”
Apostles and prophets are infallible in their teaching.
“Me: And the primary hermeneutic of Jesus and the Apostles was?”
G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament.
JAMES SAID:
“And what then if you disagree? Why bother studying Scripture yourself if you're going to accept the creeds or the exegesis of Calvin without reservation? Just listen to them and THEN read the Bible through that lens. It seems silly to pretend you're going to read Scripture AS IF you were going to come up with your own conclusions if you have no attention of accepting those conclusions. It's just a game of "let's see how accurate my initial instincts are".”
That’s an amusing charge considering the fact that Perry Robinson regularly accuses me of being a theological maverick who bucks Reformed tradition.
If you want a specific example, I don’t accept the Westminster Directory of Worship as my rule of worship. Try again.
Hello Steve,
ReplyDeleteGiven the length of your post, and time constraints on my part, I am going to address your comments in stages.
Part 1 -
Gene:>>Me: First, Tavard’s essay argues (with solid evidence) that the Bull Unam Sanctum, “does not…meet the requirements of Vatican Council I on infallibilty.”
i) Irrelevant. You must apply private judgment to any magisterial statement, whether fallible or infallible. The same hermeneutical considerations apply in each case.>>
Me: I don’t understand your reasoning here; I accept the fact that I must apply “private judgment” in determining which magisterial statements are protected by infallibility and which are not. I see no need to defend those which are fallible.
Gene:>>ii) A magisterial teaching doesn’t have to be infallible to be obligatory. Different magisterial teachings involve different degrees of obligatory force.>>
Me: I have tried to limit our discussion to irreformable dogmas, not reformable ones. I believe that I need to defend the clarity of the former, but not the latter.
Gene:>>iii) The classification of magisterial statements as fallible or infallible is, itself, a fallible interpretion. Hence, your reply only pushes the problem back a step. Tavard is not the magisterium. Tavard is having to sift the magisterium.>>
Me: Not anymore than the issue of the Biblical canon within the Protestant paradigm; R.C. Sproul said: “we have a fallible canon of infallible documents”. You defend only what is in your fallible canon; I will defend only those magisterial statements that are in my fallible collection.
Gene:>>iv) Tavard minimized Unam sanctum because he was an ecumenist. Unam sanctam is a stumbling block to ecumenism.
However, Unam sanctam isn’t that easily disposed of. To some extent, at least, it was reaffirmed by two ecumenical councils.
v) One strategy is to argue that it was only reaffirmed in part. However, Tavard himself rejects the partitioning of magisterial statements. For him, it’s a take-it-or-leave-it affair. As he rightly points out, it’s arbitrary to say one sentence is infallible, but the next sentence is fallible. The conclusion is infallible, but the supporting argument is fallible.>>
Me: You are not dealing with Tavard, you are dealing with me…Unam sanctam is not in my list, as such, I see NO need to defend it’s contents.
More later, the Lord willing.
Grace and peace,
David
"Perry Robinson regularly accuses me of being a theological maverick who bucks Reformed tradition."
ReplyDeleteAre saying you're smarter than John Calvin or just closer to God than he was and privy to some secret knowledge that he was not?
Can't win, can you? ;-)
My point is that I never believed there was much room for theological arrogance (or atheistic arrogance, for that matter). The best you can hope for is a reasonable idea of what is true. Any assertion is that you can have certitude about a theological matter (any theological matter) is pure hubris.
James said:
ReplyDelete---
My point is that I never believed there was much room for theological arrogance (or atheistic arrogance, for that matter). The best you can hope for is a reasonable idea of what is true. Any assertion is that you can have certitude about a theological matter (any theological matter) is pure hubris.
---
You do realize that this is a statement about a theological matter, don't you? You are stating that the nature of theology is such that it is impossible to be certain about anything regarding theology, yet you have to be pretty darn certain about theology to know that that's the nature of theology.
You skeptical arrogance is sickening. You think you know better than everyone else! Well, who are you that we should believe your claims here?
Hello again Steve,
ReplyDeleteHave a little time between chores; you posted:
Steve:>> “And third, as one who embraces “private judgment”, how does your “typical exchange” apply to me?”
You’re prevaricating. You don’t embrace private judgment in the same sense as Protestant theological method.>>
Me: I do not think I am equivocting here at all for I have acknowledged that there are different forms of “private judgment”. Clearly your form differs from mine; and your form differs from Calvin’s (and confessional Protestant churches). Your initial argument did not define your form of “private judgment” and implied that Catholics reject ALL private judgment; later, you distanced yourself from the Reformers (specifically Calvin) view of “private judgment”, with this, the ‘playing field’ shifted—in essence, you do not embrace sola scriptura, but rather nuda scriptura. Note the following:
>>Unlike modern Evangelicalism, the classical Protestant Reformers held to a high view of the Church. When the Reformers confessed extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which means “there is no salvation outside the Church,” they were not referring to the invisible Church of all the elect. Such a statement would be tantamount to saying that outside of salvation there is no salvation. It would be a truism. The Reformers were referring to the visible Church…The Church is the pillar and ground, the interpreter, teacher, and proclaimer of God’s Word…The Church has authority because Christ gave the Church authority. The Christian who rejects the authority of the Church rejects the authority of the One who sent her (Luke 10:16). (Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, pp. 268, 269.)>>
Back to work (hoping for rain! [grin])…more later, the Lord willing.
Grace and peace,
David
James: "Any assertion is that you can have certitude about a theological matter (any theological matter) is pure hubris."
ReplyDeleteWhy?
BTW, what's your definition of "certitude"?
Did I make a theological statement? I must have missed it!
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me there are only a few ways of verifying the certainty of a theological assertion.
a) Having personally known the authors of the canon so that the validity of an interpretation can be determined
b) Having some personal and direct contact with the Divine in such a manner that any possible chance of self-deception or errancy in regards to an interpretation is rendered impossible.
Have I missed anything? Yes, you can use only the opinions of early Reformed believers, but then you run into the same problem as Rome - punting to some other infallible source to come up with your doctrines.
Even if one believes that the Spirit speaks to the hearts of believers, it's apparent that He's either whispering different things to everyone or His listeners are hearing something incorrectly, since not all agree.
So, Peter, tell me: what is the METHOD you use in determining the certitude of a theological fact? Yes, you read Scripture, you read its history, you study the languages, but that just begs the question: how do you know that your formulation of their meaning is accurate?
What PROCESS do you use in coming up with the undeniable, uncontestable truths of theological matters?
Now, if you wish to say that "certainty" means something different when talking about theological matters, well, that's a whole other kettle of fish. If by "certain" you mean "I can state x or y is true regarding theology with the same level of certainty I can say that Mr. X is guilty or not guilty of murder", then that's a bit different (although I'd call that cheating).
Truth Unites asks: "what's your definition of "certitude"
ReplyDeleteIt was probably in my comment to Peter, but I would define certainty as knowing and verified from a source that something is correct. The only way one can make a certain claim about God is to hear it from Himself, not someone who listened to Him, not someone who insists they speak for Him, not someone who heard about Him from someone who heard about Him from someone who read about Him.
That being said, I will acknowledge that there are precious few things we can state with certainty about anything in this life, whether about ourselves or others or any aspect of reality.
James,
ReplyDeleteFirst, you did make a theological claim. In fact, you continue to do so, as you are making claims as to what constitutes theology in the first place. This requires you to know certain things about theology, doesn't it? In other words, if you're differentiating between how I know that I am sitting in front of a computer and how I know that God created the universe, then you have created a theological filter to determine this; and as such, you have to justify your postion.
In any case, I don't buy your false dichotomy between theological knowledge and ordinary knowledge. How we know theological knowledge is by the same methods by which we know anything else.
For example, you say: "Yes, you read Scripture, you read its history, you study the languages, but that just begs the question: how do you know that your formulation of their meaning is accurate?" and I respond: the same way that I am able to read and understand your very question.
Language is conventional, this is true; however, all language is based on objective reality. And reality is real for everyone. Even if you make a mistake (say, you hallucinate something), you still live in the real world. Human experiences are generally very similar.
Of course I have a feeling you've got a very myopic view of how language works. Suppose that I wish to tell you: "I have a red ball." You can understand this statement, even though you've never seen my particular red ball. You are able to form generalizations because you've seen a ball before, and you know what the color red is, etc. Now I don't have to transmit all the data to you in order for you to grasp this. You don't have to have access to my objective red ball in order to grasp what I say about my red ball; my descriptions, which echo other things that you've experienced, are sufficient.
So if you ask me, how do I know that I've read the Bible correctly, I respond that I know it the same way that I know I've read your questions correctly. Language is meant to transmit meaning; if it doesn't succeed at this, it's just noise and scribbles.
If I interpret the Bible in a consistent manner, then it is not sufficient for you to claim that I MAY have misunderstood it. You have to demonstrate that I have done so. You have to demonstrate what the passage really does mean, and you have to justify your claims. Now I have to justify my claims on the passage too; which is why I use the GH method. Everyone does this naturally; it is the default position. There's no need to reject it, because to do so is to render all language ultimately unintelligeble. Which defeats the point of language.
By the way, you said:
---
Even if one believes that the Spirit speaks to the hearts of believers, it's apparent that He's either whispering different things to everyone or His listeners are hearing something incorrectly, since not all agree.
---
Of course your logic leaves much to be desired. You've ignored two other possiblities:
1) Not all who claim to be hearing the Spirit actually are.
2) The Spirit may only be telling people a portion and not everything.
I believe both of these occur frequently, by the way. There are many who will say, "Lord, Lord!" whom Christ will say: "Depart from me, I never knew you." Likewise, the Spirit is concerned with the heart of the Gospel; why should we expect direct revelation from Him for everything? (Besides which, that would sort of refute the purpose of the Bible.)
Finally, it's not like it's the Holy Spirit's fault if you ignore what He says or do not follow it after He's said it. If I give you a dictionary and you still can't spell, is that the fault of the dictionary? And if I give you a dictionary, imagine how insulting it would be for you to continually ask me: "How do you spell 'regale'?"! I've given you what you need already.
DAVID WALTZ SAID:
ReplyDelete“Me: I don’t understand your reasoning here; I accept the fact that I must apply “private judgment” in determining which magisterial statements are protected by infallibility and which are not. I see no need to defend those which are fallible.”
So you feel no need to defend Humanae Vitae since that was a fallible expression of the ordinary magisterium? Is that it?
You think it’s okay for you or your wife or your fellow Catholics to use artificial contraception since no pope (whether Paul VI or his successors) has condemned artificial contraception in the form of an ex cathedra pronouncement. Is that your position?
You’re only obligated by infallible dogma? No magisterial teaching which falls short of infallible dogma is obligatory?
That is not traditional Catholic theology. There are degrees of obligation commensurate with the degree to which the Magisterium has engaged its authority. Fallible magisterial teaching can still be authoritative.
“Me: I have tried to limit our discussion to irreformable dogmas, not reformable ones.”
You’re repeating yourself using different synonyms. Keep in mind that my post was never about Unam sanctam per se. As I said at the outset, I was merely using Unam sanctam as a test case to illustrate a general problem which Catholics find themselves in when they attack the Protestant right of private judgment.
“I believe that I need to defend the clarity of the former, but not the latter.”
Even if we accept your arbitrary restriction, how do you classify Vatican II? That’s an expression of the extraordinary magisterium, right? An ecumenical council, right?
Is VC2 clear or unclear? If it’s clear, then why has the Vatican felt the need to issue a steady stream of clarifications? For documentation, cf. A. Dulles, Magisterium, chap. 7.
Or does VC2 fall short of your threshold as well?
“Me: Not anymore than the issue of the Biblical canon within the Protestant paradigm; R.C. Sproul said: “we have a fallible canon of infallible documents”. You defend only what is in your fallible canon; I will defend only those magisterial statements that are in my fallible collection.”
i) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I agree with Sproul (actually, this statement goes back to Gerstner, his mentor), does this mean you think that Catholics and Protestants are in the same boat? Epistemic parity?
ii) As a matter of fact, I don’t agree with Sproul. While what he says is true with reference to external attestation for the canon, he overlooks internal attestation (e.g. intertextuality).
“Me: You are not dealing with Tavard, you are dealing with me”
i) And you’re not dealing with Socinus or Alan Gomes, you’re dealing with me.
ii) But why in the world should I prefer you to Tavard? Who are you in the Catholic pecking order? John XXIII appointed Tavard to be a peritus at VC2. Who appointed you to anything?
What should I treat you as a more authentic representative of Catholic theology than he was?
iii) Moreover, you do need to deal with Tavard’s arguments. When he presents an argument for why it’s arbitrary to partition a magisterial statement into fallible and infallible sentences, you need to address his argument.
For example, do you think Boniface VIII’s statement about “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” is reformable or irreformable? Wasn’t that reaffirmed by two ecumenical councils?
The only way you could treat his Bull as fallible or reformable is if you can abstract an infallible kernel from the fallible chaff. What principled method do you offer for sifting magisterial statements?
“Unam sanctam is not in my list, as such, I see NO need to defend it’s contents.”
You need to defend your list. Show me your infallible list of infallible magisterial teachings.
“Your initial argument did not define your form of “private judgment” and implied that Catholics reject ALL private judgment.”
I did nothing of the kind. My statement was explicitly contextualized in terms of Catholics who attack the Protestant right of private judgment.
“You distanced yourself from the Reformers (specifically Calvin) view of “private judgment”, with this, the ‘playing field’ shifted—in essence, you do not embrace sola scriptura, but rather nuda scriptura.”
As I’ve said before, if that’s how you want to frame the debate, pick a fight with someone like Scott Clark. You were commenting on *my* post.
james said...
ReplyDelete“Are saying you're smarter than John Calvin.”
Are you smarter than John Calvin?
Were the Berean Jews smarter than St. Paul? Cf. Acts 17:11.
“Or just closer to God than he was and privy to some secret knowledge that he was not?”
Knowledge is cumulative, viz. biblical archeology.
“My point is that I never believed there was much room for theological arrogance (or atheistic arrogance, for that matter).”
What about the theological arrogance of Catholic laymen who presume to take it upon themselves to be spokesmen for Catholic theology? Shouldn’t they let their bishops do the talking?
“Any assertion is that you can have certitude about a theological matter (any theological matter) is pure hubris.”
And do you think hubris is right or wrong? If it’s wrong, does that mean you believe in moral absolutes. But wouldn’t that implicate you in moral certitude?
If, on the other hand, you remain uncertain, then what’s so bad about hubris?
BTW, is pure hubris better or worse than impure hubris?
“Yes, you can use only the opinions of early Reformed believers, but then you run into the same problem as Rome - punting to some other infallible source to come up with your doctrines.”
You’re pretty opinionated yourself for someone who’s so disapproving of hubristic opinions. When are you going to take your own advice?
BTW, notice that James is reversing himself. His original objection was that my exegesis is a “game” since my exegesis is oriented to yield a foregone conclusion (i.e. Reformed tradition).
When, however, I gave him a counterexample, he ditched his original objection and replaced it with a new objection that contradicts his original objection. His new objection is that I’m not marching in lockstep with Reformed tradition.
So which is it? Am I too dependent on Reformed tradition? Or am I too independent of Reformed tradition? If one is s a fault, the other is a virtue. Which is which? Since your objections cancel each other out, there’s nothing I need to respond to.
"BTW, is pure hubris better or worse than impure hubris?"
ReplyDeleteYou do make me chuckle, I must confess.
Let me rephrase my point as a question, then:
What method do you use to reach certainty about a given passage? How are you getting there? Further, are you just reasonably certain or absolutely certain, as in defend-to-the-death certain?
I think it's fair to say, "Look, this is what I see this passage to mean, given my own capabilities and knowledge. Someone might reasonably reach another conclusion given their own intelligence and research." I can live with that approach, which is why I generally don't bother most decent Christians. Personally, I accept as certain very few things or ideas (even my own), even if that makes for a scary world. Maybe the universe IS run by Calvin's dark God. Who knows.
Perhaps I've misunderstood, but I don't think Catholics or anyone else here thinks that way. It seems that what one believes is FACT merely by virtue of the fact that they believe that and everyone else can literally go to Hell. This troubles their minds not at all.
I just don't understand what the process is whereby one can sit and say, "Yes. There is NO question in my mind that St. Paul's insistence that slaves obey their masters or the numerous passages on the regulations of buying and selling humans does (or does not) imply that modern Christians can go to Zimbabwe and pick themselves up some cheap domestic help."
Honestly, if the Bible is true, one could come down on other side of that debate. Personally, I wouldn't take a person from their home just so they can do my landscaping and bring me a martini after work, but that's just me, and what do I know?
That's wonderful, James! You don't have to take a moral stand on any issue. The entire Bible becomes optional because "what do I know?" is your methodology.
ReplyDeleteYou've got Jello with no substance. You can't even determine whether slavery is a good thing or not because you don't know how to refute someone who would abuse Scripture.
Those of us who hold the GH are readily able to combat the misuse of Paul as promoting Christian ownership of slaves. What do you have? "Lesse, what infallible council mentioned this? I know it has to be somewhere...."
This is evidence for why your idea of interpretation (any interpretation may be right and there's just no way for us to know!) is so completely bogus.
Peter, it's nice that you'd reject an interpretation of Scripture that seems to endorse slavery. As I said, I find the practice to be repugnant.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I disagree with such an interpretation as an "abuse" of Scripture. Take a look at Thornton Stringfellow's analysis:
http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/string/string.html
He knows more about Scripture than I do, so I'd have a hard time arguing against such a fellow. In fact, I doubt I could come up with a single passage that condemns the practice.
This is exactly why I've had to consider whether I believe the Bible is true and if it IS, whether I'd choose to accept it.
I don't know that I'd rely for biblical exegesis upon a white southerner who wrote his "treatise" in 1856. I about fell out of my chair laughing when I saw your source.
ReplyDeleteJAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete“What method do you use to reach certainty about a given passage?”
A valid hermeneutical method is not contingent on reaching certainty about a given passage.
“How are you getting there?”
Grammatico-historical exegesis.
“Further, are you just reasonably certain or absolutely certain, as in defend-to-the-death certain?”
Certainty is not contingent on certainty about every verse of Scripture. Due to the redundancy of biblical teaching, it’s possible to misinterpret some verses and still be correct in y0ur systematic theology.
“I think it's fair to say, ‘Look, this is what I see this passage to mean, given my own capabilities and knowledge. Someone might reasonably reach another conclusion given their own intelligence and research,"
You’re confusing two different issues. Given my aptitude and opportunities, I may be justified in what I believe—if I’m working to the best of my ability.
But subjective warrant doesn’t mean that one interpretation enjoys the same objective warrant as another. F. F. Bruce will get it right more often than a backwoods preacher.
“Personally, I accept as certain very few things or ideas (even my own), even if that makes for a scary world.”
Do you apply that disclaimer to slavery?
“Perhaps I've misunderstood, but I don't think Catholics or anyone else here thinks that way.”
Catholicism is predicated on the indefectibility of the church, which is, in turn, predicated the ability of the Magisterium to teach infallibly when necessary. So Catholicism is concerned with institutional certainty.
Calvinism is also concerned with certainty, although the locus of certainty is different.
“It seems that what one believes is FACT merely by virtue of the fact that they believe that and everyone else can literally go to Hell.”
That overlooks the evidentiary support for what one believes. Some people can back up what they believe with suitable evidence.
“This troubles their minds not at all.”
It can trouble me that some people are going to hell. But I’m not responsible for their fate. So I don’t fret over things beyond my control.
“I just don't understand what the process is whereby one can sit and say, ‘Yes. There is NO question in my mind that St. Paul's insistence that slaves obey their masters or the numerous passages on the regulations of buying and selling humans does (or does not) imply that modern Christians can go to Zimbabwe and pick themselves up some cheap domestic help’."
i) You’ve grossly oversimplified the Biblical position on “slavery.”
ii) Since, by your own admission, you “accept as certain very few things or ideas (even you own),” why does that implication bother you?
iii) Why do you assume the implication couldn’t work in reverse: Zimbabweans can go to Iceland and pick up some cheap domestic help?
The ethnocentric way in which y0u cast your hypothetical is implicitly racist.
“Honestly, if the Bible is true, one could come down on other side of that debate.”
That’s an assertion, not an argument.
“Personally, I wouldn't take a person from their home just so they can do my landscaping and bring me a martini after work, but that's just me, and what do I know?”
And why wouldn’t you do that? Where’s your moral compass?
“Peter, it's nice that you'd reject an interpretation of Scripture that seems to endorse slavery. As I said, I find the practice to be repugnant.”
What’s the source of your moral certitude? I thought you were certain about very little?
Or do you find the practice to be repugnant in the same sense that you might find exotic cuisine repugnant?
“He knows more about Scripture than I do, so I'd have a hard time arguing against such a fellow. In fact, I doubt I could come up with a single passage that condemns the practice. __This is exactly why I've had to consider whether I believe the Bible is true and if it IS, whether I'd choose to accept it.”
But your own position is just as prejudicial as his. You cast your hypothetical in terms of whites enslaving blacks.
What about the hypothetical case of blacks enslaving whites? Or do you think blacks are so inferior to whites that blacks lack the wherewithal to return the favor?
I find your subconscious white supremacism repugnant. You need a strong dose of biblical ethics to cure your subliminal bigotry.
James said:
ReplyDelete---
Peter, it's nice that you'd reject an interpretation of Scripture that seems to endorse slavery. As I said, I find the practice to be repugnant.
---
But upon what basis do you make this decision? What reason do you have to say that slavery is "repugnant"? Just your personal opinion? Well what good is that?
You said:
---
However, I disagree with such an interpretation as an "abuse" of Scripture.
---
Yet you also say:
---
He knows more about Scripture than I do, so I'd have a hard time arguing against such a fellow.
---
If this is the case, then by what basis can you claim his position is or is not an abuse of Scripture? You're arguing from a position of intentional ignorance. You have no reason, no rationality to say anything on the issue. It is impossible for you to determine whether something is an abuse of Scripture or not. And because you cannot determine this, you are irrational to disagree with my claim that promoting slavery is an abuse of Scripture. At most, all you can say is: "I don't know if it is or isn't." You cannot say, "I disagree with your assessment."
You said:
---
In fact, I doubt I could come up with a single passage that condemns the practice.
---
And that's because your willful blindness prevents you from seeing the obvious. A very good illustration of this comes from Jesus' teaching on divorce. He stated that God allowed divorce due to the hardness of men's hearts--and therefore there were commands that dealt with a lawful divorce. BUT DIVORCE WAS NOT THE MORAL POSITION THAT GOD'S HOLINESS REQUIRES! It was a concession that God made to man due to man's sinfulness, but from the Creation husband and wife were intended to be unbroken.
Now because your view of Scripture is so poor, you'd almost have to side with the Jews against Jesus: "But Jesus, there's no law in Moses that says we shouldn't divorce! And in fact, there are laws governing the status of divorcees! Surely you're mistaken to think that divorce is really a bad thing." I, on the other hand, could point to the same passages that Jesus Himself pointed to (note that, by the way: He pointed to the Creation account, not to His own authority although His own authority would have been sufficient, because the Scriptures the Jews already had was likewise authoritative). Now we know for a fact in this instance that my view of Scripture, which would show that the original intent of marriage was to represent an eternal covenant, is in fact the same view that Jesus held. Therefore, the knee jerk "Paul gives commands about how to treat slaves" is not equivalent to an endorsement of slavery.
Indeed, when you pile on the historical definition of what a slave was during Roman times (often, what we would currently call an indentured servant; although there were also other types of slaves, such as captives of war) and you'll see that the slavery Paul wrote about isn't even historically identical to the slavery of the South, which is what Americans most often think all slavery must be! This is once again a myopic view of history on your part (in addition to your poor reading comprehension when it comes to Scripture).
Pile on the fact that Scripture tells us how to treat brothers in Christ, enemies of the faith, rules and authorities, etc.; continue to pile on the fact that Paul himself also said that there is neither Greek nor Jews, slave nor free, male or female in Christ; etc. The cumulative case against slavery is astounding.
That God allowed it for a time due to the hardness of man's heart does not mean we, as Christians, should permit the practice when we have the ability to restrain it. While it is merciful of God to not punish all sins, that doesn't mean we ought to sin as much as possible. In fact, Paul argues against that position in Romans 6.
Now if you actually bothered to study Scripture, these examples would come to you quickly. You'd see that you don't need a specific verse condemning slavery any more than you need a specific verse condemning embrionic stem cell research or abortion in general.
Grifman writes: "I don't know that I'd rely for biblical exegesis upon a white southerner who wrote his "treatise" in 1856. I about fell out of my chair laughing when I saw your source."
ReplyDeleteWhat's so funny about it? The fact that he's white or the fact that he's a southerner? Al Mohler (president of the SBC) is also a white southerner. So what?
Is is the fact that he wrote it in 1856? Again, so what? The first edition of Calvin's the Institutes of the Christian Religion was published in 1536, long before Stringfellow was even born.
Try again.
Al Mohler is SBC President? Somebody tell Johnny Hunt.
ReplyDeletePresident of the Theological Seminary .... I stand corrected. You got me so excited I got all confused.
ReplyDeleteI note that James hasn't touched my rebuttal nor has he offered a rational for why he opposes slavery.
ReplyDeleteYou know, the little things that, if he could do it, would mean he has a case.
Peter Pike writes:
ReplyDelete"The slavery Paul wrote about isn't even historically identical to the slavery of the South".
First, let's define slavery, shall we? Slavery: "The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household". What does this mean, though? Can we agree that slavery entails at the minimum, the fact that the person was purchased as a commodity (often against their will) and that personal freedom is greatly curtailed? Physical abuse may or may not enter into the picture, and I don't think that's the defining element.
So let's go to the Old Testament. You have commandments about menstruation, about the types of foods one can eat and about blending fabrics. There are prohibitions against using the wrong incense. The penalty for one poor bloke for gathering firewood on the Sabbath was death. Talk about legalism!
Yet amidst all these prohibitions involving just about every trivial human activity under the sun, am I to imagine that the Lord somehow forgot about slavery? "Thou shalt not buy and sell humans"? Is that in there?
What DOES the Old Testament say about slavery?
Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."
I don't see how slavery is somehow to be considered a moral evil in Scripture because a couple passages suggest we should "love our enemies" (if you ignore the passages where God commanded His people to slay utterly even the infant sucklings and cows of His enemies).
That rings a lot to me like those people who say "Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality, so it must be okay." It's cherry picking Scripture to come up with a world view that has little or nothing to do with the reality of Scripture.
That being said, if there is a God, I would hope He'd oppose slavery. It seems an unjust thing to do: I know I'd be miserable if I were purchased by someone for their own pleasure, beat at their whim and forbidden from owning my own property. Since I have EMPATHY, I would refrain from causing this sort of pain to others.
Why is this so hard to understand? Do I NEED a direct prohibition from a Supreme Being? Perhaps if I had no conscience I might, but your God of the Bible doesn't seem to condemn it but instead has, on numerous occasions, given it His blessing.