1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Scriptures The Criterion For Interpreting Christ

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Mark Osgatharp, Aug 13, 2003.

  1. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    We don't know if Paul was "ok" with such practices, now do we?

    Because, and I'm having to repeat myself once again, there is a difference between slavery and servanthood. There is a moral wrong with slavery that does not exist in the type of servanthood which Paul addresses.


    Which is true.

    I never said that Roman servanthood was a moral good, any more than the Roman occupation of Palestine at the time was a moral good. The fact remains that the two practices were quite opposite. The servanthood spoken of in Paul's letters is not the same as the slavery we see in pre-Civil War America. I am not sure how often I have to repeat that.

    I'm not a big fan of such things. I'm really not. Personally, I couldn't do it, and I don't want to hang out with anyone who believes such things are okay. I believe that any system that does not show Christian love to another human being (a neighbor) violates Christ's great commandment. Owning a person against their will - it seems quite clear to me - is, in fact, breaking this clear commandment.

    My question is this: Do the pro-slavery people here believe that last sentence to be true? Is it possible to love your neighbor as Christ commands while still buying him, selling him, or owning him against his will?
     
  2. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    To start with, no one here is "pro-slavery" - at least no one has said they were. What I have said is that in a society where slavery is legally practiced, slaves are to be subject to their masters as the Bible commands.

    As for you question about love:

    ""But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor they son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.

    And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath."

    Here we have the very words of God that it is indeed possible to practice love toward another man while owning him. On top of that we have this commendation of Philemon, who did in fact own at least one slave:

    "I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers, hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints."

    And then we have the commendation of Jesus Christ toward a Roman centurion whose servant was, as the Scripture says, "dear unto him." This was not just a hired hand for the Certurion confessed,

    "For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, God, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it."

    On these words of the Centurion Jesus marvelled and remarked,

    "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel."

    Would to God that the Baptists of this day understood authority as did that Roman Centurion. Then when the Lord said, "Do this" we would just do it - whether it was obey your parents, obey your husband, obey your master, or obey the law.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  3. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark - you missed the whole "against his will" part.
     
  4. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you are suggesting all the Hebrew's slaves were willing participants?

    So you are saying that Onesimus was a willing slave of Philemon? If so, why did he run off to Rome? And if he had the right to run off why did Paul send him back and state that he would not retain Onesimus' services without Philemon's consent?

    So are you saying that the Roman Centurion's servant who was "dear unto him" preferred slavery to freedom? If so, prove it.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  5. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We DO KNOW that he was "ok" enough with it (evidently because God was "ok" enough with it) that he did not advise the Ephesian and Colossian servants to run away from their masters, that he did not command the Ephesian and Colossian masters to release all their servants, and that he did not tell Onesimus to remain a runaway from Philemon.
    No matter how many times you repeat yourself, AND EVEN IF YOU WERE CORRECT, you have admitted that you believe the buying, selling and owning of human beings as practiced in Roman times was a moral wrong. Even if it were a different moral wrong than pre-civil war slavery, you have still stated it is a moral wrong. Why do you keep defending the one and decrying the other?
    Just keep repeating it. Each time you do another reader may realize that you are in some way attempting to justify a practice you believe was a moral evil. Your interpretation/application of the servant/master passages in Ephesians and Colossians seems to require it. This goes back to the origin of the thread, and to a post I made about a page back - this is not a slavery issue; it is an approach to Bible interpretation/application issue.
    There are not any "pro-slavery" people here as far as I can tell. Whether or not I can understand it, it does seem to be possible - see the referenced Scriptures in Mark Osgatharp's last two posts.
     
  6. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just because he tells them not to run away does not stand for implicit approval. Surely you can see that.

    I am correct - there is a difference.

    I never called it a "moral wrong." I just questioned how a person who professes CHrist could ever own another human being. It seems to go against the commands of Christ.


    I suppose that it is, because I understand that Paul was writing to a specific group of believers. We have to understand his words in such a context. To fail to do so is to take Scripture out of context. All of the books in the Bible were written for a specific audience. To be faithful to the purpose of the individual books, we have to understand what was going on historically, culturally, and spiritually in the hearts and lives of the people to which the work was written.

    If a person is to believe that slavery before the Civil War wasn't an abomination, then I consider that person "pro-slavery." I believe that the majority on this board would hold the same view.
     
  7. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will not go so far as to say that the mere fact of owning another man is an abomination, because if it were then the Lord would have commanded all masters to free their slaves. But the Lord gave no such command. Rather, He said,

    "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowning that ye also have a Master in heaven."

    Now if we take the position that owning a man is an abomination within itself is abominable, the only "just and equal" thing the master could have given the slave was freedom.

    Notwithstanding, it is well known that there were abmoninations associated with American as well as Roman slavery. No one here has condoned those abmoninations. We have only said what the word of God says which is that slaves are to be subject to their master,

    "not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward."

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  8. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, Mark, at what point do you decide the legitimate authorities are legitimate? Say you visit a mideastern country and someone kidnaps you and sells you as a slave to someone who delights in hating Americans. An opportunity arises for you to escape. Do you take it or not, bearing in mind the scriptural injunction to serve your master faithfully? Remember that under the laws of that country, you are the slave owner's property.

    Consider also Corrie Tenboomb's (sp?) experience as slave labor for the Nazis. She was assigned to help build radios for fighter planes and would deliberately make them with weak solder connections so they would fail the pilot in use. Was she violating scripture, not serving her master well?
     
  9. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    That could very well be what Paul was intimating. He suggests the same thing to Philemon concerning Onesimus.
     
  10. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    ".....If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  11. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're right. I guess I should withdraw from this argument.
     
  12. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    IF we believe both that Paul had apostolic authority and that he was writing under inspiration, it is certainly hard to believe that he would not have told the Christian masters to abandon a practice that went against the command of Christ. Surely you can see that.
    The point is that even if I admit you are correct about there being differences between Roman slavery and pre-civil war slavery, you still have the problem in that you have said that owning another human being is wrong. Your position is not consistent with itself. The wrong existed in both time periods whether or not "there is a difference."
    When I asked, "Do you consider the buying, selling, and owning of humans as practiced by the Romans to be morally neutral" you responded, "Personally, I think that such things are wrong." Now how am I to understand this if not that you say it is a moral wrong. When asked if it was neutral, you said it was wrong. :confused:
    We all understand that Paul was writing to a specific group of believers; we understand there is a context. The difference is in whether to accept as the context what the inspired author discussed in the letters, or to accept as the context what we may think it may have been based on applying some fuzzy standard with possibly unreliable data we have acquired through researching some uninspired authors commenting on some uninspired documents.
    Why will you not also say that if a person is to believe that the concept of slavery in any time wasn't an abomination, then you consider that person "pro-slavery"?
     
  13. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul also doesn't speak of pornography. Yet, we understand that to be wrong. Silence doesn't prove or disprove a point.

    It is a personal wrong. It is wrong for me. Of course, smoking cigarettes is wrong for me - this doesn't make it a sin, just what my convictions about smoking and slavery are.

    I think that's where good hermeneutics comes in. We have to do our best to understand the culture of the time. The standard is much less fuzzy and the data is much more reliable than you believe them to be.

    Because slavery that was found in the Civil War was much, much worse than that found in Rome. I would say the same about some of the slave conditions that have been found in Africa in the last 200 or so years.
     
  14. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    But Paul was not silent on the subject of masters and slaves, as he addressed it on several occasions.
    Thanks for that explanation. So I'm correct in understanding that it would be wrong for you to own a slave, but it could be alright for someone else to own a slave?
    There are many of what appear to be reliable historical documents, but (1) most often the bible student does not have access to the original document(s); (2) the bible student must rely on opinion and commentary about those documents; and (3) regardless of how "reliable" the documents and the opinions may be, they are not inspired by God. Also, if you actually raise this standard - "we have to understand what was going on historically, culturally, and spiritually in the hearts and lives of the people to which the work was written" - then we have raised the standard of understanding the Bible to nearly impossible for even those who are studying "cultures", much less those who have no access to such data. IMO, it's very hard to understand a culture with experiencing it. Also, will we be satisfied to just understand general Roman culture in the general time frame in which Paul was writing to the Ephesians, or must we understand the particular culture in the city of Ephesus in A.D. 61? And maybe it wasn't really A.D. 61 - perhaps it was A. D. 70 or 75. Or perhaps it wasn't even written to Ephesus (as Codices Sinaiticus & Vaticanus). And when we have done our best to understand every culture written to in every time period written about in the Bible, and still don't understand it, is the Bible a closed book? I feel this approach is a little far afield from the idea that the inspired scriptures are competent to bring the child of God to full spiritual maturity (cf. II Tim 3:16,17).
    Actually, if you will be constistent in your statements, it is not the pre-civil war slavery that was wrong, but some of the conditions that occurred in connection with it.
     
  15. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally, when I read these instructions from Paul relating to slavery, I view them as being contingent on the social setting of Paul's time when it was utterly unthinkable to eliminate the institution of slavery. Once the Christian ideals of equality before God of all people had permeated sufficiently, it became possible for men to realize slavery was wrong and to be eliminated. This moral truth is now acknowledged world wide.
     
  16. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Scott, in reviewing what you have written, I must say that I would find it humourous were it not such a serious subject. You argued with Mark Osgatharp for about five pages concerning slavery, and in the end you actually agree with him that the concept of slavery is morally neutral.

    Perhaps now we can bring the discussion back to the main topic.
     
Loading...