Featured Slavery

Yes.

The way slavery was practiced in the Americas is definitely contrary to the teachings of Christ.

In general, slavery (that is, "ownership" of another human being) is wrong. Indentured servitude, which is sometimes called slavery, is not necessarily sinful, but probably not the best thing to do.

 

I don't see a problem in them offering the apology as a lot of Baptists were entrenched in slavery and the anti-Civil rights movement. They aren't necessarily taking responsibility for it I'm sure. Just acknowledging that our predecessors did help to perpetuate this wrong.

The Bible seems to condemn soe forms of slavery while allowing for other forms. But a whole lot of stuff that resulted out of slavery( i.e. the way folks treated and talk to Blacks) was definitely sinful.

 

That is what I think.

 

No.

Why should they?

Is Egypt going to apologize to the Hebrews?

There are those that consider that Christ taught against slavery, but He didn't. Neither did Paul - who told the slave to go back to his master. Whether the master accepted Paul suggestion that he receive the slave as a son, the Scriptures are silent.

The OT Hebrew law condones slavery in certain cases.

Slavery is not a sin. Sin comes from mistreating a slave.

Slaves in America were brought to the west coast of Africa by the Africans who wanted to purge the land of various enemy tribal groups and sold to the slave market.

NOTE: This post is in NO WAY condoning maltreatment of any individual - that is ungodly.

NOTE 2: Abusive forms of slavery is alive and well throughout the world. It has taken another form: drugs, sex, violence, mutilations, ... All engaged when someone desires power over others and will use any means of force to achieve that goal.

 

The SBC and those in the SBC that follow the Dutch Reformed doctrines are well aware of the schism that slavery has caused, not only as a black-eye on America, but on the Dutch Reformed Churches that sponsored Apartheid in Southern Afrika. Also, the fact that 2 famous Reformers were notorious slave supports (Jonathon Edwards and George Whitefield).

The SBC has been split over the issue of Calvinism, and one thing that the SBC would obviously have to face for those churches swinging toward the Calvinist view is how to live in harmony among the black southern population who are aware of the history of exploiting propigated by the Dutch Reformed Church, and the Dutch East and West Indie Companies.

There is a very large black population among Southern Baptists, and no doubt with those in the SBC, who are watching the debates unfold about Calvinism in the SBC are skeptical because the history of slavery associated with Calvinism. The SBC is aware that they have to address this lest they offend the majority of the black community who would be skeptical to accept a change in an SBC church that converts to Calvinism.

There are some black Reformers that admit the history between slavery and Calvinism that seem to be able to look past the issue.

"African American contact with Calvinism came within the context of slavery. Slaves in New England and in New Amsterdam were part of households that for the most part catechized them. Obviously, the Puritans were Calvinists and the Dutch were Reformed."

...And some not so much. "Black SBC Pastor Calls On Church To Repent Of Racism"



SBC VOICES How Much Did SBC'S Racial Past Contribute To America's Moral Collapse

 

It's really funny that those who attack Non Calvinists and the view of the church as separate from Israel always site "there is neither Jew nor Greek" in support of their argument, but when it comes to slavery, leave out the part of that verse that says "Neither BOND or free".

That's why many blacks are still skeptical because some things never change.

 

Wow! It gets really old listening to racists use Philemon all the time to justify slavery in the NT. Paul's "son" was not a SLAVE. If Onesimus was a slave in the OT sense, THEN PAUL WOULD NOT HAVE RETURNED HIM TO HIS MASTER.

"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee."

"He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him." Deut 23:15-16.

The term "slavery" has a MUCH different connotation today then it did in the Bible. "Slavery" was VOLUNTARY and were HIRED servants. Totally different from KIDNAPPED ("menstealers" in the Bible) persons who were BEATEN and FORCED to provide involuntary service to their slave-master.

That is only a major half-truth. The Dutch Reformed Church, England and even some Jewish agents made an enormous profit off of the slave trade and the only Africans that cooperated were WHITE Africans that had establishments centered in the Dutch East and West Indie Companies, among other English and French trade companies. Because of the Apartheid imposed on Afrikan states under the Calvinist Freemason churches of James Anderson, Afrikans were afraid to NOT cooperate for fear that they would have their families separated and shipped off to another province.

 

What does the issue of slavery being a sin have to do with Calvinism or non Calvinism. Not one thing. Not a thing.

Now back to the op, slavery might not be a sin in the full sense of the word as recorded in Scripture, but it has no place in today's culture or the United States. If one wants to live in a culture that still condones it, there are planes leaving for those nations everyday.

After seeing the culture in the South in the 50s and 60s, I have no tolerance for such treatment of human beings. We are all created by God, and but for His grace, you could have been the slave, and might have given those who feel different than me a different perspective.

 

The first one in America to own a "true slave" (John Casour) was himself a black man. His name was Anthony Johnson. Johnson was an indentured servant, but later freed. He then went on to own a tobacco plantation and ran it by acquiring slaves. He was the first one to use slaves in America. It says nothing about him being a Calvinist. In fact he probably wasn't a Christian at all. Do you attach the majority of slave-holders and all the attendant abuses to Biblical Christianity (Calvinistic or otherwise)?

Slavery began with indentured servants. It grew from there.
The case you make against Calvinism is bogus.
If you were to argue in the Other Christian denominations forum, the Catholics would blame the Baptists (all of them), and say it was their fault, and the Catholics had no part of it.

Please discuss the issue of slavery, its causes, etc. as it relates to the OP, and not Calvinism. I know this is an important subject to you, but it doesn't need to be brought into every thread.

 

Slavery may have began in AMERICA when the Virginia Company brought indentured servants (hardly the same) to establish colonies, but that is not the point. They continued to bring over more slaves than just indentured servants from England. They didn't raise Afrikans like corn in a field, they went to Afrika to get them. It lasted for 200 years and other companies began getting involved like both Dutch East and West Indie companies. The Apartheid in Afrika can not be denied, and the Calvinist connection to it can not be denied either. I didn't say that they were the ONLY ones solely responsible for slavery, but it is important in understanding why it bothers the blacks over the issues in the SBC. The arguments pertained to the FORCED slavery not the indentured servants.

The blacks were well aware that there were more than just Calvinists involved, but the Calvinist pushers of slavery were the only ones that told them they were destined and determined as part of God's plan to make them slaves. Other religions groups that had been involved have since admitted it was human error and cruelty (and even some Calvinists opposed it). It's much easier for the blacks to be comfortable with someone that admitted it was THEIR fault, as opposed to those who said GOD ordained it.
I think you may be surprised at just how many blacks agree with this (after all, black publications on this matter is where much of this source material is from).

The slaves that came from Afrika were well aware of the Calvinist churches and their often stated beliefs that the Africans were determined to this type of life. That is why it is an issue TO THEM. I was not making an argument against Calvinism with this issue for purposes of this thread, but to explain why blacks had a reluctance to accept Calvinism in the SBC churches as a whole because the calls to apologize from the black communities are coming on the heels of the SBC's debates over Calvinism (if you hadn't noticed). Therefore the issue IS relevant.

_______________

And just so you don't think this stuff is made off the top of my head.

Apartheid Calvin's Legacy?

Masonic Powers Scorched South Afrika

Paradigm Shift Towards Communist Destruction

 

I believe you are being dishonest in maligning all Calvinists with slavery. That is not true. If you want to be honest about the situation then come out and say that the problem was inherent with the Dutch Reformed Church in Africa, and not the "Calvinists" in America. The Dutch Reformed Church of Africa was the predominant church as those are the people that settled the area.
To use a sweeping generalization and say that it was the Calvinists in America is wrong. Baptists played their part, but as you know, Baptist come in many different stripes. The Dutch Reformed don't. Either way, this thread is not about Calvinism and you are hijacking it once again, instead of posting to the OP.

 

One must remember that with the "Dr." everything "bad" comes from Calvinist roots and everything good comes from whatever it is that he believes or practices.

 

This is a mischaracterization, not of their teaching, but of the biblical use of the Greek doulos as well as the Hebrew `ebed, both of which often get translated "slave" but which mean something more akin to "indentured servant." Those called "slaves" in both the Old and the New Testaments were contracted to their so-called masters, and at least as long as Israel actually practiced the Jubilee every seven years -- in which slaves were set free and mortgaged lands were returned to their owners without penalty -- no one was obligated to remain as so-called "slave.

Philemon, to whom you refer, was under spiritual obligation to Paul. It is highly unlikely he would ignore the advice of the man who led him to Christ.

No, it condones indentured servitude, and expected Israel to continue to recognize the Jubliee years designed to return everything to the way it was at the beginning of the seven-year period.

Wrong. God does not condone the buying selling, bartering or other abuse of a fellow human being that in any way treats that person as chattel.

Regardless of how they got placed in the hands of slavetraders, the sin laid in the wrongful ownership of a human life.

Yet it fails to acknowledge that ownership is a sin, because the poster apparently doesn't understand the nature of the aforementioned Hebrew and Greek words.

[/quopte]Good of you to acknowledge this, as it is absolutely true. However, you should take another look at the biblical application of what we have unfortunately translated as "slave", "slaves", and "slavery."

 

No. It was done for political expediency and to make a show of piety. No Christian owes any apology to the world. Against thee (the Father) and thee only have I sinned.

What, the pagans and heathen are guiltless? Gimme a break.

 

I can't believe that you are so willing to assign all evil to "Calvinist" thinking and ignore the spiel that the SBC history teaches.

The Baptists of the South split from Baptists of the north primarily over the issue of slavery and states rights. Theological viewpoint had little impression on folks who felt the individual state rights were being violated by northern aggression.

The split had NOTHING to do with who believed Calvinism or not.


You assign condemnation that just Calvinist thinking supported slavery, but it isn't true. For instance:

William Wilberforce, was reading the book The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul by Philip Doddridge (a non-conformist calvinist who also greatly influenced Issac Watts) when he was converted. Wilberforce (a Calvinistic thinker) was undoubtedly the main mover of having slavery done away with throughout England and the English Empire. Wilberforce often sought guidance from John Newton (a Calvinist).

It isn't Calvinism versus non-Calvinisim when considering who supported slavery and states' rights.

For you to even attempt to make such and argument shows only the typical myopicism of your excessive bias. You will use just any excuse to malign and demean events and people with which you don't agree.

 

I could start a thread on why parakeets are not red, and it would be because of Calvinism.

 

Certainly the line of blame for all evil comes from:

Masons,
Dutch,
English,
French,
Jews,
And these were all schooled and supported by Calvinistic thinking propagated by the Roman Catholics and Augustine.


Of course the Africans who fight among each other and hardly even tolerate folks from different tribes in their churches to this day, had very little to do with the slave trade except what the White Africans forced upon them.

And YOU claim that I am making some racist remarks?

Really???

 

You didn't show any evidence that Christ and Paul taught against slavery.

Rather, YOU admitted that slavery was actually acceptable (even if limited to seven years) and proper.

Thank you for validating what I posted.

Just because Philemon was possibly lead by Paul to the Lord, did not place Philemon under any "spiritual obligation." It is pure speculation on your part that he would "highly unlikely" ignore Paul.

It takes actually LESS speculation that the cultural and reputation pressures would certainly have obliged Philemon to keep the slave a slave (if no more than to pay off the debt accrued).

Perhaps you are attempting to equate the station of the believer's relationship to God as applicable to the believer's relationship as a servant/slave to their owner.

The two are not interchangeable.

But never-the-less the Scripture DOES support slavery (unless you don't consider servants and slaves as synonymous in the Scriptures) - and I again thank you for showing the support (though you didn't desire it to be). Exodus 21:1-4,7; Deuteronomy 15:12-18

Wrong.

Again, I point to specific Scriptures that deal with the buying, selling and treatment. God did not condone MISTREATMENT - but that applies to all humankind.
See: Exodus 21:20-21; Exodus 21:26-27, Leviticus 25:44-46; Leviticus 25:48-53; Deuteronomy 20:14; Deuteronomy 21:10-14;

The New Testament does not revise the OT at any point in this matter.

Wrong - God judges the mistreatment, not the slavery. See above Scriptures.

How wrong you are. But, then a modernist view would be more in line with what is supported in your posts.

There is NO Scripture that supports a person not owning another person.

That the time is limited or reparations for mistreatment is given in no way obligates one to even suppose the Scriptures do not condone human trading and ownership.

In a couple passages (see Dueteronomy 20 and 21) female captives were taken as war booty, and that certainly was ordered by God.

Nope, don't need to do any re-looking. That is your obligation, because you failed to prove your post - and I have shown by Scriptures that what I posted is accurate to Scripture guidelines and principles.