DANIELJ SAID:
“You show me where the N.T. condemns slavery and doesn't explicitly endorse it.”
Several issues here:
i) As I’ve said on more than one occasion, Biblical law is not utopian. Biblical law is adapted to a fallen world. Biblical law is adapted to the socioeconomic structures of the day.
So Biblical law often involves a practical compromise between realism and idealism.
ii) NT writers weren’t revolutionaries or anarchists. They realize that law and order is essential, even though the state may be corrupt in varying degrees.
iii) As one scholar points out, “The ancient Hebrews as a people knew slavery in their Egyptian bondage (Exod 1:10-14; 5:5-14), from which they eventually were led to be free people under Moses (Exod 12:37-42). Because of that experience, Mosaic legislation developed certain rules about the keeping of slaves: ‘Remember that once you were salves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you; that is why I give you this order today’ (Deut 15:15; cf. Lev 25:42-45,55). Even though slavery as a social and economic institution was recognized in ancient Israel, there was a clear attempt to humanize it in a way that set Israel apart from its neighbors. The social and economic structure of ancient Palestine was not, therefore, built on slavery, as it often was in other contemporary cultures and lands,” J. Fitzmyer, The Letter to Philemon, 29.
iv) This stands in contrast to Southern slavery. The agrarian economy of the Old South was labor-intensive. Slaves were an easy source of cheap, mass labor.
As such, Southern slavery is at odds with the aim of OT law, which attempts, as much as possible, to curtail a slave-based economy.
vi) Finally, as Richard Bauckham has documented in “The Economic Critique of Rome in Revelation 18” (The Climax of Prophecy, chap. 10), the NT does attack an economic system which is dependent on forced labor.
By analogy, that would also apply to Southern slavery.
And how about 1 Corinthians 7:21?
ReplyDelete"Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so."
I never said there wasn't rules, I just said that the Bible does not condemn slavery.
ReplyDeleteTell me where God says I can't have a slave.
Show me in the Scripture.
Are you really stupid, or is it the white inbreeding that has slowed you down? Maybe it's the Jewish authorship of the book that has you befuddled. Maybe it's because you're reading it as woodenly as Tim LaHaye.
ReplyDeleteThe obvious answer would be "No, you can't, not anymore." Why?
1. As Steve has pointed out, the OT Law is adapted to ANE structure in the fallen world - a world without the New Covenant as well. The reason slavery was not removed from society is to do to that situation.
2. Ditto to that in the NT as well, under the New Covenant.
3. (By the way, OT slavery differentiated between POW's and indentured servants. Planning to go to war anytime soon? Planning to send your personal debtors to debtors' prison, Daniel?)
4. However, as the New Covenant progresses one of the byproducts is the civilizing of the world, so, by Revelation, you have a critique of civilizations built on slave labor.
5. And as Paul points out, as the N. Cov. progresses walls are torn down - walls between the genders and races. Oh, and for the record, the Bible differentiates between Jews and Gentiles. That puts you on equal footing with Gentiles, so if you want to invoke race here, you're equal to a Jew, not his better, you're equal to a black or Asian, not his racial superior.
6. You don't live in the First Century, neither do you live in the ANE. Rather, you, David, live at a time in history where slavery has been abolished - oh, and that's part of our civil law, which Paul says we are duty bound to obey where it does not cause us to fall into sin (and the Bible never says not owning slaves is sinful). Ergo, no, Daniel, you cannot own slaves today, because all the items to which the Bible's view of slavery was adapted have long since passed us by.
Are you really stupid, or is it the white inbreeding that has slowed you down? Maybe it's the Jewish authorship of the book that has you befuddled. Maybe it's because you're reading it as woodenly as Tim LaHaye.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't take much to push you out of bounds does it?
Why so rude? Why so spiteful?
Woodenly? I never thought I would get hassled for trying to adhere to the doctrine of sola scriptura at a reformed website.
I'm willing to grant some latitude on the issue but your attitude doesn't exactly make me receptive.
The obvious answer would be "No, you can't, not anymore." Why?
It isn't obvious despite your protest.
1. As Steve has pointed out, the OT Law is adapted to ANE structure in the fallen world - a world without the New Covenant as well. The reason slavery was not removed from society is to do to that situation.
I do not know what ANE is.
OT Law is adapted? What about all that "not one yot or tittle" stuff?
3. (By the way, OT slavery differentiated between POW's and indentured servants. Planning to go to war anytime soon? Planning to send your personal debtors to debtors' prison, Daniel?)
Uh-huh. So what? There is chattel slavery, wage slavery, debt slavery, et cetera. You are proving my point.
I don't wanna go to war and I'd be the one in debtors' prison.
4. However, as the New Covenant progresses one of the byproducts is the civilizing of the world, so, by Revelation, you have a critique of civilizations built on slave labor.
Huh? Are you guys postmil or something?
5. And as Paul points out, as the N. Cov. progresses walls are torn down - walls between the genders and races.
Spiritual walls are certainly torn down and God certainly has children all over the globe.
But Christ talks about lots of strife in the end in Matt 24.
Oh, and for the record, the Bible differentiates between Jews and Gentiles. That puts you on equal footing with Gentiles, so if you want to invoke race here, you're equal to a Jew, not his better, you're equal to a black or Asian, not his racial superior.
I don't think we have spiritual or judicial inequality.
Stop with that "superiority" canard. We are just different. Some races better at some things than others. I just gotta trust my lyin' eyes on this one.
6. You don't live in the First Century, neither do you live in the ANE. Rather, you, David, live at a time in history where slavery has been abolished - oh, and that's part of our civil law, which Paul says we are duty bound to obey where it does not cause us to fall into sin (and the Bible never says not owning slaves is sinful).
Slavery has most certainly not been abolished, but I catch your drift and I agree.
I just said God doesn't care if you own a slave, unless of course you live under a tyrannical government intent on making you all slaves yet denies that very right to it's slaves.
Ergo, no, Daniel, you cannot own slaves today, because all the items to which the Bible's view of slavery was adapted have long since passed us by.
Agreed.
Doesn't take much to push you out of bounds does it?
ReplyDeleteWhy so rude? Why so spiteful?
Woodenly? I never thought I would get hassled for trying to adhere to the doctrine of sola scriptura at a reformed website.
I'm willing to grant some latitude on the issue but your attitude doesn't exactly make me receptive.
1. Unless your name appears in the list of contributors here, you don't make the rules. That means you don't get to play demagogue and act as if you're the one who gets to grant a person "latitude" or tell him that he is "out of bounds."
2. Apropos 1, the fact that a person might profess to be a Christian doesn't serve as a shield from harsh language. The Bible uses harsh language for false teachers like yourself.
3. I don't write for you to make you feel "receptive." I could care less if you feel wuved.
4. You're a racist. I don't tolerate racists well. Worse, you're one of those kinists, so you wrap yourself in the appearance of the red of Christ, yet you're really trying to hide your white sheet and pointed hat.
5. Sola Scriptura is inapplicable to the way you read the Bible itself.
It isn't obvious despite your protest.It isn't obvious despite your protest.
You've done nothing to demonstrate it's not obvious. And notice I actually gave reasons why it's obvious. Unlike you, I haven't merely asserted my merry way through this discussion.
I do not know what ANE is.
OT Law is adapted? What about all that "not one yot or tittle" stuff?
Earlier you said you believed you had the equivalent of a Master's in history...yet you don't know what ANE means?
Yes, the Law is adapted to the cultural situation in which it was given.
Slavery is part of the civil code, not the moral code.
You should know the way the Reformed view the uses of the Law and what parts apply today and why.
FYI, Fitzmeyer, above isn't Reformed.
Uh-huh. So what? There is chattel slavery, wage slavery, debt slavery, et cetera. You are proving my point.
No, I'm not. You're not differentiating between slaves qua slaves and different sorts of slaves. If you're going to invoke the Bible, you need to actually discuss the Bible's view of slavery as it is presented. You've made no such attempt. We've had to do that work for you.
Huh? Are you guys postmil or something?
Huh? Are you guys postmil or something?
What I wrote applies to ANY view of the millennium.
Spiritual walls are certainly torn down and God certainly has children all over the globe.
I don't destroy the unity of the New Covenant by drawing arbitrary distinctions between the effects of the NC. Rather, the spiritual effects pour over into the other realms.
Take the food laws. These weren't merely "spiritual" barriers between Jew and Gentile. They were also ethnic barriers - torn down. We're all one big happy family now in the Church. There's no room for antiSemitism, to take just one example.
Stop with that "superiority" canard. We are just different. Some races better at some things than others. I just gotta trust my lyin' eyes on this one.
Yes, I agree, you are trusting your lying eyes. That's what false teachers do.
And it's no canard. That's precisely where kinism leads, despite the veneer of religiousity. Truly you are religulous.
1. Unless your name appears in the list of contributors here, you don't make the rules. That means you don't get to play demagogue and act as if you're the one who gets to grant a person "latitude" or tell him that he is "out of bounds."
ReplyDeleteOne needs "demos" to engage in demagoguery. I'm interested in ya'll, not the peanut gallery.
2. Apropos 1, the fact that a person might profess to be a Christian doesn't serve as a shield from harsh language. The Bible uses harsh language for false teachers like yourself.
I didn't profess to be a Christian, Kinist or a teacher so your point is moot.
I adhere to all the tenets of the Reformation and most(ly) to the Three Forms of Unity so I fail to see how I'm out of bounds at all.
3. I don't write for you to make you feel "receptive." I could care less if you feel wuved.
Why are you writing to me then?
4. You're a racist. I don't tolerate racists well. Worse, you're one of those kinists, so you wrap yourself in the appearance of the red of Christ, yet you're really trying to hide your white sheet and pointed hat.
You make up slurs and don't define them. What exactly is a racist? You can always ban me if you feel your tolerance has been stretched too thin. It is sad to see someone so ruled by their belly.
Ugh. Your rhetoric is what is truly reprehensible. I am not a Kinist although I'm certainly interested in them. I'm not in the "Klan" and I do not run around in white sheets. I just don't happen to think Christ minds if we have love for our respective races/ethnies or our engagement in identity politics.
5. Sola Scriptura is inapplicable to the way you read the Bible itself.
I read it the same way you do mostly.
If you're going to invoke the Bible, you need to actually discuss the Bible's view of slavery as it is presented. You've made no such attempt. We've had to do that work for you.
Slaves, obey your masters, is all I see. Part of the moral law. Slaves of man being some sort of "type" or picture of being a slave unto Christ.
I don't really have the entire issue thought out and I thought that much was apparent, but instead you insist I'm disgusting and deserving of hostility. I was only interested in your views and hence I expected you to do the "work."
What I wrote applies to ANY view of the millennium.
Not this:
However, as the New Covenant progresses one of the byproducts is the civilizing of the world, so, by Revelation, you have a critique of civilizations built on slave labor.
That is distinctively post-mil.
They were also ethnic barriers - torn down. We're all one big happy family now in the Church. There's no room for antiSemitism, to take just one example.
Uh-huh. In the church. Who has rebuilt the wall of division? I'm not an anti-Semite. I'm anti-Judaism if you must insist on labeling me. I've got no problem with messianic Jews. But, if a bunch of Jews tried to invade my church preaching heresy, I'd be pretty pissed off. I'm equally pissed off about their horrifically deleterious effect in the civil realm.
I've lost the broad scope of the discussion and fear it is now turning into a ridiculous attempt for people to score points. Therefore, I quit. You win. Racism and anti-Semitism, nebulous concepts which I don't understand, are sin and I'm guilty.
You think I walk into the local Presby and look with disdain and contempt upon all the off-color brethren? I simply fail to see what is so offensive about believing that God ordained a tribal order and why the Kinists cause such a stir.
Thanks for the discussion.
Best,
D
DANIELJ SAID:
ReplyDelete"You make up slurs and don't define them. What exactly is a racist? Ugh. Your rhetoric is what is truly reprehensible. I am not a Kinist although I'm certainly interested in them. I'm not in the 'Klan' and I do not run around in white sheets."
When you refer to blacks as "feral negroes," and get your info. from David Duke, that's a start:
http://tomorrowinvinland.blogspot.com/2008/07/heartbreaking.html
When you refer to blacks as "feral negroes," and get your info. from David Duke, that's a start:
ReplyDeleteI didn't refer to them that way in that post.
It was all Dr. Duke's words passed along.
But you yourself (actually it might have been one of the other bloggers) said that the Gospel has a "civilizing" effect upon the nations. Since I assume we agree that the hip-hop culture has "dechristianized" a population that was once at least nominally Christian, isn't feral an appropriate term since they are retrogressing?
I'm sorry if I'm having trouble with the argument. The internet has severely damaged my ability to think extended linear thoughts. I'm working on it.
Best,
D
I didn't profess to be a Christian, Kinist or a teacher so your point is moot.
ReplyDeleteThis is a boldfaced lie. When you try to spread false doctrine, you qualify as a false teacher.
When you advertise your Reformed credentials, as you did here, you profess to be a Christian.
Oh, and FYI, I don't subscribe to the 3 Forms or the WCF. I'm Baptist. I guess that puts on opposite sides since my ancestors allowed blacks to worship with them while your white Presby ancestors handed out communion tokens and barred them from white services...
When you advertise that kinism is one of your interests and you profess their teachings and advocated them on your blog, as well as you do in this thread, you're identifying yourself as one of them.
Try again.
Why are you writing to me then?
Because you deserve a harsh rebuke. I could care less if you are receptive to it or not.
You make up slurs and don't define them.
Actually I perused your black little blog.
What exactly is a racist?
Try taking a long look in the mirror.
You can always ban me if you feel your tolerance has been stretched too thin. It is sad to see someone so ruled by their belly.
Notice that rather than answer, you dissemble.
Yes, I agree, you are sad and ruled by your belly.
I'm not an anti-Semite.
No, you just oppose anti anti-Semites on your blog.
I am not a Kinist although I'm certainly interested in them.
No, you just reproduce kinist rhetoric on your blog.
No, you just defend their views on this blog.
No, you just refer to Obama on your blog as "House Nigga."
No, you just love to be white advocate.
See a pattern? You're no more a kinist than Touchstone was an atheist before joining Debunking Christianity. You're following a similar road.
Slaves, obey your masters, is all I see. Part of the moral law. Slaves of man being some sort of "type" or picture of being a slave unto Christ.
Let the record show that you quote Scripture but you do not and have not attempted to exegete it.
That is distinctively post-mil.
No, it's not. What I wrote could easily be agreed to by an amillenialist or a premillenialist. It would only be distinctively post-milleniarian if I added, something like "in order to bring about the Eschaton" or something similar.
Apparently, your understanding of the millenial views is on the same level as your understanding of the term "ANE."
All I've stated is that where the Gospel spreads and takes hold, as it pervades the land, the land is civilized, and that's part of the Covenant of Grace itself, not just the New Covenant. How could anybody read the Bible and profess Reformed credentials and not see that?
I've lost the broad scope of the discussion and fear it is now turning into a ridiculous attempt for people to score points.
Yes, you have lost the broad scope of this discussion. Must be the blinding white sheet covering your eyes. And, yes, you do need to repent. Perhaps when you're burning crosses you'll think on that.
I simply fail to see what is so offensive about believing that God ordained a tribal order and why the Kinists cause such a stir.
You've done nothing to demonstrate God has ordained such an order.
You've done nothing but identify as a kinist...you're just one more of them that has come this way since one of them first engaged us. See a pattern here?