Question about johnathon edwards

[cderolic]

cderolic said:

quietstorm said:

I feel you E. Honestly fam this is what it boils down to for many cats. If he wasnt considered to be a "great theologian" then we wouldnt be having this convo.


Romans 1:32
"32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

You are absolutly right QS. Since we know more than just him owning slaves, but also that he was a great theologian, and one that has lead many to Christ, one who was the leader of one of the biggest revivals in America, we can have an objective convo rather than bashing him for something we no very little about.

You see, all we know is that he owned a couple of Black folks. Thats it. We don't know the relationship that they had. Most likely it was a good relationship and most likely he was used by God to speak into their lives and be an example of godliness. Perhaps the arrangment they had was antithetical to the arrangments of others and thus was a testimony of God's goodness. Edwards must of purchased them from another slave owner and thus perhaps the slave went from a bad situation into a good one.

So, yes, if we only knew that he owned slaves perhaps we will be less objective and end up bashing the dude.

Additionally, since we no more about Edwards than simply him being a slave owner, such as him being a great theologian, one who has blessed many, thus preventing us from being subjective, then I wonder how many other slave owners were saved being used by God? You see, we need to be careful about broad brushing white folks in the 1800s less we become the very thing we dispise and that is prejudises and bigotry. That goes to show that the propaganda that appeared in the form of pictures and history text books were very effective in making an emotional appeal to the masses. We have been so colored by it that we are even willing to question the godliness of a slave owner. Perhaps godliness and slave ownership are a contridiction. If so, than we are all ungodly men since I can bring up many things that we do that are contridictions to teh word of God.

[cderolic]

eternal said:

Cruz, reading your response to QS, I wonder what you think of John Wesley, who in my mind was a powerful man of God. He was a staunch abolitionist. Was he fighting against the goodness of God when he was freeing slaves both physicaly and mentaly?

Sure he was! If he was against the mistreating and arbritrary inslavement of people than he was also doing something good.

Its funny that you have mentioned Wesley since he considered Edwards to be a godly man. He held to free grace in which holds that all one has to do is mentally believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and you are saved. He did not hold to sanctification as part of salvation.

[eternal]

cderolic said:

Sure he was! If he was against the mistreating and arbritrary inslavement of people than he was also doing something good.

Its funny that you have mentioned Wesley since he considered Edwards to be a godly man. He held to free grace in which holds that all one has to do is mentally believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and you are saved. He did not hold to sanctification as part of salvation.

I don't doubt Edwards was a man of God. But he was a sinner, and he openly advocated sin, whether he believed it was sin or not. That is a major point I see here in this thread, along with the difficult wrestling we all must do in assessing our own lives and the evil that we partake in actively or implicitly, and how that effects our Christian faithfulness.

On Wesley, he is the father of the holiness movement, so I think you may want to nuance your teaching on his understandings of sanctification some He pushed even further than the reformers in his conviction of Christian perfection. He taught salvation was more than just getting someone to heaven, but it was to fill a person up as to completely redeem them from the fall, and reestablish a person in righteousness...and this being a process. He believed in the ministry of reconciliation, and this is shown in his theology of the human being fully reconciled through the act of Christ (not just in going to heaven terms) as well as reconciliation among men, which motivated his abolitionist stance.

peace.

[eternal]

eternal said:

cderolic said:

Sure he was! If he was against the mistreating and arbritrary inslavement of people than he was also doing something good.

Its funny that you have mentioned Wesley since he considered Edwards to be a godly man. He held to free grace in which holds that all one has to do is mentally believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and you are saved. He did not hold to sanctification as part of salvation.

I don't doubt Edwards was a man of God. But he was a sinner (Not in the overly theological technical sense of Christians not being "sinners" as I have learned there is a need to qualify that word everytime it is used now), and he openly advocated sin, whether he believed it was sin or not. That is a major point I see here in this thread, along with the difficult wrestling we all must do in assessing our own lives and the evil that we partake in actively or implicitly, and how that effects our Christian faithfulness.

On Wesley, he is the father of the holiness movement, so I think you may want to nuance your teaching on his understandings of sanctification some He pushed even further than the reformers in his conviction of Christian perfection. He taught salvation was more than just getting someone to heaven, but it was to fill a person up as to completely redeem them from the fall, and reestablish a person in righteousness...and this being a process. He believed in the ministry of reconciliation, and this is shown in his theology of the human being fully reconciled through the act of Christ (not just in going to heaven terms) as well as reconciliation among men, which motivated his abolitionist stance.

peace.

[cderolic]

To get a good grasp of Wesley's view of salvation, check out his free grace sermon, gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-128.stm

Wesley viewed salvation and sanctification as being apart. He veiwed salvation, eternal life, as faith in Christ whichwas the first work of grace. However, sanctification was a second work of grace and that was by way of faith in the Holy Spirit. So, for wesley, you can still go to heaven without sanctification. Oanother word about wesley's view of sanctification and that is that he believed in the state of Christian perfection. In other words, Christians can become sinless but sinlessness in wesley was simply an unwillingness to sin. Once one reaches this, then one experinecs entire sanctification.

My point though was that the intersting thing about mentioning Wesley was that he would view Edwards as a brother in the faith simply because he was a Christian.

[eternal]

I actually own an anthology of his sermons, that one includded. Thanks for the link though, as I would have read it otherwise.

Does a Calvinist disagree that sanctification is a process?

And as I said earlier on JE, I don't dispute his being a believer. I don't think it necessary to make excuses for him though.

[ChristVader]

These are UN-related questions

1. What constitutes slavery?

2. Why did God not condem slavery? He not only did not condem it, He went so far as give guidelines to manage it.

3. Did any of the writters/signers of the Creed's own slaves?

[eternal]

christvader said:

These are UN-related questions

1. What constitutes slavery?

2. Why did God not condem slavery? He not only did not condem it, He went so far as give guidelines to manage it.

3. Did any of the writters/signers of the Creed's own slaves?

1. There are different types, only one is endorsed by God as already outlined in this thread.

2.God's endorsement was a specific type. And when the Israelites strayed from it, they were severely condemned, as I already outlined.

3. I am sure they did, but again I fail to see the relevance.

My own questions...

A. In your opinion was the US' slavery a good thing?

B. As I asked you already without response, what was the point behind your last post?

[ChristVader]

My point is/was, that Biblical Slavery is a "good" thing, as I only let God define things. God NEVER condemned Slavery, He only condemned the abuse of others. Therefore, if we have evidence that Edwards was abusive, per Scripture, then I have to agree that Edwards was a bad man.

[ChristVader]

What is this US Slavery vs. European Slavery thing. I am lost here.

[eternal]

christvader said:

My point is/was, that Biblical Slavery is a "good" thing, as I only let God define things. God NEVER condemned Slavery, He only condemned the abuse of others. Therefore, if we have evidence that Edwards was abusive, per Scripture, then I have to agree that Edwards was a bad man.

I had another question you avoided. Was US slavery a good thing?

And here is another one...

Did Edwards gain his slaves because they sold themselves to him? Did he offer release in the seventh year? If he indeed did, did he furnish them liberaly from the livestock and the winevat?

I doubt the answer is "yes" to any of the above.

And in case you forgot the passage in Jeremiah, God DID CONDEMN the act of slavery outside of the confines He established.

Its' ok to admit that Edwards sinned.

peace.

[ChristVader]

I already answered...Slavery (period) is a good thing. Abuse (period) is a BAD thing. It's like the whole "Hate"crime thing...Crime is crime. (period)!

As to your other "theories" ...let me ask you, did you require the singles in your youth group who had had sex to either get married or for the son to pay the Father whatever price the Father of the girl asked, as per Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy? Just because a Thesis has an Antithesis doesn't all of a sudden give you ground to say, "well JE was an evil sinner". For how many things have you over looked, omitted, in your being a "man of your time"?

I believe Edwards kept Slaves per the Biblical Order as it was understood in his day. Just as you have "kept" your youth group as you understood that they should be kept per the standard of YOUR day.

I have said it before, and am trying very hard to be VERY NICE now in my diologue, but, alot of your theories appear to me to be based on, or out of, a Paradigm of Modern American Moral Relativism. Maybe you could do a better job of explaining how you arrive at your conclusions.

In Christ and hopefully in Love,

Kent

[eternal]

christvader said:

I already answered...Slavery (period) is a good thing. Abuse (period) is a BAD thing. It's like the whole "Hate"crime thing...Crime is crime. (period)!

As to your other "theories" ...let me ask you, did you require the singles in your youth group who had had sex to either get married or for the son to pay the Father whatever price the Father of the girl asked, as per Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy? Just because a Thesis has an Antithesis doesn't all of a sudden give you ground to say, "well JE was an evil sinner". For how many things have you over looked, omitted, in your being a "man of your time"?

I believe Edwards kept Slaves per the Biblical Order as it was understood in his day. Just as you have "kept" your youth group as you understood that they should be kept per the standard of YOUR day.

I have said it before, and am trying very hard to be VERY NICE now in my diologue, but, alot of your theories appear to me to be based on, or out of, a Paradigm of Modern American Moral Relativism. Maybe you could do a better job of explaining how you arrive at your conclusions.

In Christ and hopefully in Love,

Kent

I agree with your first statement. God outlined the form of slavery that was good. Abuse and neglect of that system is sin before God. And the Jeremiah passage you keep skipping over makes this abundantly clear. That is not moral relativism. That is the bible. God had a system, and condemned His people (even to death!) when they took part in slavery outside of it.

Now, explain to me how the american slavery system lived up to the criteria of Dt. 15.

[cderolic]

Eternal, do you even believe that Dt. 15 applies today?

[ChristVader]

What I am saying is it foolish to take it as a WHOLE. It should be handeled on a "case by case" senario. Thomas Jefferson = Bad Representation of Gods System. Johnathan Edwards = ?

Bring me evidence and I will take him to task just as I would expect myself to be taken to task for an oversight of God's Word.

I think this was the Norths mistake in the whole thing. They did a "Broad Brush" take and then persued. All the while THEY had to disobey the Constitution themselves to even form a standing Army. Hense we get a first look at Marxism in American ideology as "the end justifying the means" really showed it's nasty head for the first time on a Grand scale. Lincolon, who most would call a Godly Man, had to go outside of Scriptures Mandate, to SUBMIT to the Government placed over you.

[ChristVader]

In other words the Abolitionist was out of bounds in his actions as he was going after a "symptom" and not the cause.

Take Alchhol for example. It is never called "sin" or "evil" in Scripture. What IS called sin is the Abuse of it. Such as "public drunkeness". That is a sin. But, the "do good" Prohibitionist found it easier to become like the Pharasees of old, and condemn the "thing" rather than the person. It is Humanity and its Depravity that are the issue. Removing the thing doesn't answer Gods Command. Only OBEYING God's specific command satisfies the problem.

Now back to the Abolitionist. Had they been filing the Gallows with those who were Slave Abusers God's Logic would have been honored. However, as always goes with the Arminian Camp, Legalism goes after the Thing and not the Individual. And when it does it is always an Emotional Appeal. The Value of the Movement is ALWAYS measured by the Yard Stick of Emotional Shock Value. There isn't a dimes worth of difference between Charles Finneys "25 Nessesary Emotionals" to get a man "saved", and the Abolutionist "billion stories told to Yankees about slave abuse" to get an Army together. Neither are based on the Absolutes of God's Word. They are based on Mans Wisdom. Mans Wisdom that has been messing up since day one in Eden.

God says love thy neighbor as thyself. period. anything less, or more, is to me Abuse. It is why I hate the Welfare System today. It has abused MILLIONS more Slaves than all the "men of their day" ever did since the founding of this or any other country.

To me the Church is still in violation of Gods standards on this issue. It is not taking care of its own community on a physical needs basis. It is even going beyond that now; it is moving out of the Inner Cities where a Sovereign God placed them 50, even 100, Years ago(if not more). Ironic to that some have even gotten it right on the "Physical Need's" side of things and yet, at the same time, turned around and rationalized beyond that, that "well God didn't call all Churches to do ALL of the work(feed the poor, be a father to the fatherless, make disciples). Therefore, we dont have to worry about our Doctrine or say Dicsipleship, other Churches can do that. We are just going to fill "one" nich; the nich of say, service. Say a Soup Kitchen". Let someone else do the other brainy work."

I won't even bring up Inter Racial marriage and dating. I hinted at it in my little "slave" analogy, when I said I let one marry and become 100% vested in my Family.

[ChristVader]

As to Jer passage. I aint skippin it Bro! I agree with it whole heartedly! Ex, Levit, Deut, told them that God was going to get hacked off over it, Jer is just telling them that sure enough! that they had ticked God off! They had violated Gods Covenant. You got no argument from me on it. It was just another of their sins that brought on the 70AD destruction.

I didn't mean to avoid it. I just didn't see need of messing with it. Sorry.

[ChristVader]

Here is a good question for us.

Was Thomas Jeffersons sin that of having Children with his Slaves?

Or, was it the act of NOT bringing them INTO his house as an EQUAL with his Wife and Children?

For the sake of discussion here, lets treat the issue of Polygamy as a Non Issue. We all agree Polygamy is wrong. Lets isolate on issue here though.

[eternal]

cderolic said:

Eternal, do you even believe that Dt. 15 applies today?

No, I believe it was the timeless Word of God contextualized in that culture.

Christ is the full manifestation of the Word and timeless revelation of that word.

My point in bringing it up is that people are claiming that there is a biblical affirmation of slavery, and using that to deffend Edwards and now I guess america in general in having slaves.

What the problem is though, and this is to Ken't posts now, is that the "slavery" of the bible was contractual and more in likes of a "butler," as someone mentioned above. American slavery was of a completely different variety, and was exclussively racial as we never saw any white slaves in that institution. We use the same word, but they were completely different institutions. So any attempt to use the bible to deffend the actions of our predecessors is misplaced.

I also wonder why the norths war against the south was illegal, and a proclamation of "ends justify the means" yet the Iraq war was righteous, etc? I thought violence was always the best way to settle disputes and always works and reigns supreme? Now the North should not of acted the way they did?

[king neb]

Well, I usually don’t chip in this late in the game, but I feel like the original question/concern is getting away. The original concern was pretty straight forward:

“I'm not sure if Edwards spoke on the issue or apologized for being apart of the system of slavery but could somebody who might know more about him explain why he is considered "a great man of God".

“My problem is why Edwards took part in the system of slavery and even supported it”

1. I would say that Edwards was clearly in sin on this issue. Scripture clearly forbids kidnapping and enforced slavery. Edwards himself condemned the slave trade. He was clearly hypocritical on this issue and I do not believe it is right for anyone to try to defend what he did. Nor is it right to include American slavery into some generic slavery category and condone it all. American slavery was sinful from day one, regardless of what ‘benefits’ may or may not have come from it - none of that deals with the question. Edwards wasn’t much different from the founding fathers. Many of the fathers verbally opposed the ‘unBiblical’ slavery practices of their day but eventually compromised for political reasons, etc.

I think the ‘principles’ were set in place and eventually prevailed, but these men were clearly in the wrong.

2. With that said, as I type this, my own ‘inconsistencies’ come to mind and I am made aware of my own sin. And I hope to be as critical of my own life as I am with others. I believe this is true of all of us here and I don’t think Edwards’ practice here should have us shunning Edwards. We need to build off Edwards. Build off Luther. Build off Wesley. Etc, etc. Edwards has some of the most glorious writings you’ll ever find. They are family. And I believe they were great men of God. Ultimately, they were IN Christ, and for that they should be honored among us. Call sin for what it is, yes. But to doubt ‘greatness’ based on some sinful tendencies...we would all be on the list. I personally believe God sovereignly arranges things that way to keep our 'heroes' in proper perspective.

Christ is our Greatness and I believe Edwards shared in that and at the same time was in sin for participating in the slave trade. Thank God for grace! Something i know Edwards believed and trusted in.