How did this get in the Natural Revelation forum?

__________________
The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
Meg
Blog
Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

1) Natural law is deduced from Natural Revelation
2) Almost all natural law theories, in practice, allowed for slavery
------------------------------------------------
(C) Natural revelation allows for slavery.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

I moved from I think General Discussion because of the opening post.

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: Samuel Miller gives a succinct statement of this principle when he writes that since the Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference.”

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

From Matthew Poole Concerning 1 Timothy 1:10 ( Enslavers--or "Men-stealers ): the word signified such as carry men into captivity, or make slaves of them in the first place; it signifies also any stealing of men. It is probable the first of these is the man -stealing principally intended, being the most common sin by pirates at sea, and soldiers at land; yet not excluding any other stealing of men from their relations, which he instanced in, as one of the highest violations of the 8th commandment.

From J. Budziszewski's What We Can't Not Know:

It is hard enough to face the moral law even with the revelation that divine justice and divine mercy are conjoined. It offends our pride to be forgiven, terrifies it to surrender control. Without the possibility of forgiveness, how could we ever bear to face how wrong we had been about anything, how could we ever bear to change our minds? The history of ethics would be a history of digging in against plain truths. Consider how many centuries it took natural law thinkers, even in the Christian tradition, to work out the implications of the brotherhood of master and slave. At least they did eventually. Outside of the biblical orbit, no one ever did--not spontaneously.

On the subject in Wiki itself: Christianity and Slavery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery
Both the Old and New Testaments recognize and accept the institution of slavery (though this was more akin to bonded labor, without any of the racial and dehumanizing connotations of the slavery practiced in the southern United States and elsewhere).

I must admit, my thoughts were primarily focused on the injustice of "racial slavery," but this thread has served to show that there are many types of slavery. The Bible allows many things without sanctioning them or condoning them.

Interesting also is what Rodney Stark has to say in his book, The Victory of Reason:

While no one would argue that medieval peasants were free in the modern sense, they were not slaves, and that brutal institution had essentially disappeared from Europe by the end of the tenth century. Although most recent historians agree with that conclusion, it remains fashionable to deny that Christianity had anything to do with it. As Robert Fossier put it, "the progressive elimination of slavery was in no way the work of Christian peoples. The Church preached resignation, promised equality in the hereafter...[and] felt no compunction about keeping large herds of animals with human faces." Georges Duby also dismissed any role of the church in ending slavery: "Christianity did not condemn slavery; it dealt it barely a glancing blow." Rather slavery is said to have disappeared because it became unprofitable and outdated mode of production. Robert Lopez accepted this view, claiming that slavery ended only when technological progress such as the water wheel "made slaves useless or unproductive." Hence the claim that the end of slavery was not a moral decision but one of pure self-interest on the part of the elite. That same argument has been made concerning the abolition of slavery in the Western Hemisphere. Both claims are consistent, of course, with Marxist doctrine but are quite inconsistent with economic realities. Even as late as the start of the American Civil War, Southern slavery remained a very profitable "mode of production." The same was true in early medieval Europe. But enough, says Stark, Slavery ended in medieval Europe only because the church extended its sacraments to ALL slaves and then managed to impose a ban on the enslavement of Christians ( and of Jews ). Within the context of medieval Europe, that prohibition was effectively a rule of universal abolition.

In the beginning, the church asserted the legitimacy of slavery but did so with a certain ambiguity. Consider the most-citied New Testament passage on slavery. Writing to the Ephesians ( 6:5,8) Paul admonished: "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, in fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ...knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is slave or free." Those who eagerly quote this passage very seldom go on to quote the next verse: "Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him." That God treats all equally, says Stark, is fundamental to the Christian message: All may be saved. IT was this that encouraged the early church to convert slaves and when possible to purchase their freedom--Pope Callistus ( died 236 ) had himself been a slave.

With these last few sentences, I and many in this forum would take issue with Stark. Does God really treat all equally? I don't find that in Romans 9 that He does. We are told that he makes some vessels for honor others for dishonor.

Pierre Bonnassie has expressed the matter as well as anyone: "A slave...was baptised [and] had a soul. He was, then unambiguously a man." With slaves fully recognized as human and Christian, priests began to urge owners to free their slaves as an "infinitely commendable act" that helped ensure their own salvation, says Stark. Many manumissions were recorded in surviving wills. The doctrine that slaves were humans and not cattle had another important consequence: inter-marriage. Despite their being against the law in most of Europe, there is considerable evidence of mixed unions by the seventh century, usually involving free men and female slaves. The most celebrated of these unions took place in 649, when Clovis II, king of the Franks, married his British slave Bathilda. When Clovis died in 657, Bathilda ruled as regent until there eldest son came of age. Bathilda used her position to mount a campaign to halt the slave trade and to redeem those in slavery. Upon her death, the church acknowledged Bathilda as a saint.

It would seem that the theological conclusion that is discovered and rediscovered over and over again through out time is that slavery is sinful and that this concept is unique to Christianity ( although several early Jewish sects also rejected slavery.)

Stark goes on to say that of the major world faiths, only Christianity has devoted serious and sustained attention to human rights, as opposed to human duties. Put another way, the other great faiths minimize individualism and stress collective obligations. They are, as Ruth Benedict so aptly put it, cultures of shame, rather that cultures of guilt. Keep in mind that there is not even a word for freedom in the language in which their scriptures are written--including Hebrew.

__________________
~ Steven Bradford ~
Member Covenant Presbyterian, Chattanooga, TN

..and I thank you for that Chris. That is obvioiusly where it belongs.

__________________
~ Steven Bradford ~
Member Covenant Presbyterian, Chattanooga, TN

Jacob, but does Natual Law & Natural Revelation make distinctions concerning racial slavery verses other types of indentured slavery that we see in Scripture?

__________________
~ Steven Bradford ~
Member Covenant Presbyterian, Chattanooga, TN

One of the problems here is our language. We seem to have one word 'slavery' which is being tossed around with a lot of meanings and emotive feelings behind it. We also have indentured servitude which if we can find a common definition most people seem to support it. It just seems when sitting back from it all a lot of people are saying similar things using different words. It is a bit like the debates these days on tv where every form of punishment and discipline gets rolled into 'child abuse'. Here we have indentured servitude and a dozen other theories and examples all rolled into the emotionally charged 'slavery'.

__________________
Fraser,
Trinity Reformed Baptist Church
Hamilton, New Zealand.

slavery qua racial slavery? No, I don't think it makes those distinctions.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

These suceeding posts all sort of fit into my list of typical responses.

Yes, the north was evil too, yes blacks ensalved blacks. SO? Is slavery still sinful or not?
This is precisely why I posted this "Typical Response List" because instead of just saying, "Yes, it was wrong.." the responses were.." well....they were wrong too...."

You are arguing around the point. There are other sins and other sinners, but Southern slavery was sinful. Period. The Bible did not sanction it and it does not sanction ANY slavery. Indentured servanthood is not slavery (where man is bought and sold as property by another).

Daniel Ritchie: Yes, the Colonists would have been hanged by Britian had their revolt failed. The North was VERY VERY slow in moving to invade the North. THey wee looking for excuses NOT to invade, but the Southerners began ceasing Federal arsenals.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Oh wow, the post changed.....


Ok, back to natural revelation (mods, should I delete my last post so that this gets back on the topic?)..


It appears that Creation always has a pecking order and a food chain. Monkeys, dogs and all pack animals establish an order. THerefore, looking at the natural world would only lead us to beleive that slavery was natural and endorsed by reason. Scripture differs, but nature is very Darwinian looking, and slavery fits into this nicely. It seems that natural law would permit slavery.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Nobody is arguing that Southern Slavery is biblical. Everyone agrees it's sinful. We are just not making the logical leap from Southern Slavery is sinful to ALL slavery is sinful. You can't jump from I propositions to A propositions.

And no offense, you did kind of derail the thread by bringing up these slavers on PB with your reference to Dabney.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Pergamum, you made some claims that show example of how the North was "kind". Unfortunately you listed only a couple of positive "publicised" examples while leaving out the majority of what was done.

The North "ended" slavery. Where? Oh, everywhere IN THE SOUTH EXCEPT Yankee held New Orleans! So it was a military tactic...just like publically "promoting" abolition was merely to obtain pacifist money (of which they had and still have plenty of). The idea also was not to "end slavery"; it was to ship all black peoples (even those that had been born and raised here...even those since colonial times and were freemen) to Africa. This was not an ending of slavery...it was racism as large as enslaving only black people.

The North let Lee and others teach in Universities. But they loaded up trains of southern women and children and separated them into forced labour in the North. Someone paid the price. Lee was a public figure. They attacked those that wouldn't be noticed.

__________________
JC
URCNA
PA, but homesick for SC

"Who says you can't go back, been all around the world and as a matter of fact. There's only one place left I want to go, who says you can't go home" Bon Jovi

Was this not an act of self-defence against a foreign power that had military bases in their territory? Even if the South was wrong to do this, the response of the North was not warranted.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Obviously it does, but my original post was to try to get at the very heart of the matter. We have this sinful institution and others that God has allowed because we are a fallen/sinful people. This is not the way things *** should be ***. It may be the the way it is but it is not "natural" or ideal. My point is that it is just another result of the fall. Agree or disagree?

__________________
~ Steven Bradford ~
Member Covenant Presbyterian, Chattanooga, TN

Actually, the North was LOOKING for a REASON to make it look like the South "started it". I believe the attempt to seize an arsenal was done by an independent group...

__________________
JC
URCNA
PA, but homesick for SC

"Who says you can't go back, been all around the world and as a matter of fact. There's only one place left I want to go, who says you can't go home" Bon Jovi

A quick post from my friend concerning the "morality of slavery" as well as the notion that it was once "moral" for young girls to be wed at 13 but no longer:

Caddy, in earlier posts I said that morality changes with the society (putting aside what the Bible says). I said that some things used to be considered immoral by mainstream thinking and now they aren't, and vice versa. You said that's not true, and you offered the example of murder.

So in order to prove that morality DOES change, I had to come up with one example of something that used to be moral and is not immoral, or vice-versa. And I think I did, with more than one example.

So do you agree that human moral values are not static, that they DO in fact change?

__________________
~ Steven Bradford ~
Member Covenant Presbyterian, Chattanooga, TN

Ok, I have a new line of thinking since this conversation seems to be going in loops. Forget forced slavery. I want to focus on indentured servitude for a second. Is regulation of debt a part of Natural Law? Should anyone be in debt, or is being in debt wrong? If no one should be in debt, but people in life find themselves in debt, then debt is an allowance that is regulated in the law because of sin. The original creation had no sin. Therefore no type of slavery is a part of Natural Law, but was an allowance due to sin. Which would seem to be an answer for this thread's title question.

__________________
C. Gorsuch
Glencullen Baptist
Portland, Oregon

Without something as a foundation to what morality is and is not...then he is correct in that "morality" is subjective...to societies, to individuals. As a Christian, however, morality is based upon certain foundational truths and laws given by God within Scripture, thus making morality objective, rather than subjective to our whims and desires.

__________________
JC
URCNA
PA, but homesick for SC

"Who says you can't go back, been all around the world and as a matter of fact. There's only one place left I want to go, who says you can't go home" Bon Jovi

This is hitting closer to home. Thanks K.

This was my reply to him with a little help from Calvin:

Man's morality is always changing. That doesn't imply that God's ideal for us changes. God's law NEVER changes. It was perfection in the O.T and we understood that from the 600+ laws God required of the Jews and the Bloody sacrifical system. If a king issued an edict forbidding murder, adultery and theft, the punishment would not fall on a man who longed to commit the crime, but had not done so. A human lawgiver is concerned with outward behavior, so his commands are defied only in actions. But God, who sees everything, and who looks for purity of heart rather than outward show, includes anger, hatred, lust and covetousness and many other things when he forbids murder, adultery and theft. Being a spiritual lawgiver, he speaks to the soul as much as the body. The murder which the soul commits is anger and hatred; the theft is envy and greed; the adultery is lust. Question to you. Have you committed these? This is the point of God's law. It hasn't changed and never will. It is much more keenly concerned with your heart than you can imagine. Certainly man's idea of what is right and wrong apart from God is ALWAYS changing. I don't deny that. I would be suprised if it were static for ANY length of time. You may say that human laws are concerned with intentions and wishes, not chance happenings. I agree, but these have to manifest themselves externally. Such laws take into account the intention with which the act was done, but do not scrutinise the secret thoughts. Knowing yourself well, would you say you have ever been angered enough to wish someone dead? I have. What does that make you? In God's eyes it makes you a murderer. The act itself is NOT required. God requires perfection of heart, mind and deed--absolute perfection. Most men, when they are concerned to hide their flouting of the Law, merely bring their bodily action into line. Meanwhile their hearts are completely cut off from obedience.