All right. I lost track of where we got in the "Real Issue" thread, so here's a new thread addressing one basic question I had.
I hope I have not turned the argument into a strawman. Either way, it goes like this.
When Paul tells slaves, masters, husbands, and wives to do things in a certain way, he is working within a given culture. In Paul's case with the Ephesians and Colossians, the culture contained slavery and patriarchy. Scripture never tells us that we should be slaves or patriarchalists. Indeed, Scriptural principles tell us that we should not be either of those. Master/slave and husband/wife authority structures have no basis in Christian teaching. Paul intended Christian societies to outgrow these things. Therefore [etc. etc.] we should be egalitarians and not complementarians, just as we should not be pro-slavery activists.
Did I get this right? If so, then I have some questions (which may later turn into opinions).
1. Why should we assume that slavery is wrong or undesirable? (I am being serious. I find nothing wrong with slavery as it is described in Scripture.)
2. Why would Paul support a "free" society (i.e. one with no slaves)? On what grounds can we infer this from his letters (or the NT in general)?
Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic
Moderator:Metacrock
- KR Wordgazer
- Posts:1410
- Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Re: Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic
Paul's letters say everyone in Christ has "adoption as sons" of God. In the original language that means someone adopted to full status as a freeborn male Roman citizen. We ALL have the same status. We are all "brothers and sisters" in Christ, with God as our Father and Christ as the Firstborn. Therefore it makes no sense in Christ for us to own one another. In fact, it makes no sense philosophically, if all humans are created by God, all descended from Adam and Eve, to think we have a right to own one another like property. Each person's conscience needs to be free to serve God. That's why Paul told slaves that if they could obtain their freedom, they should.
Question: when you say "as described in Scripture," are you referring to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the kind of slavery they practiced with their fellow Israelites? Or are you talking about Roman slaves in the New Testament? I certainly hope you see something wrong with the latter!
Question: when you say "as described in Scripture," are you referring to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the kind of slavery they practiced with their fellow Israelites? Or are you talking about Roman slaves in the New Testament? I certainly hope you see something wrong with the latter!
Wag more.
Bark less.
Bark less.
Re: Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic
Makes sense.KR Wordgazer wrote:Paul's letters say everyone in Christ has "adoption as sons" of God. In the original language that means someone adopted to full status as a freeborn male Roman citizen. We ALL have the same status. We are all "brothers and sisters" in Christ, with God as our Father and Christ as the Firstborn. Therefore it makes no sense in Christ for us to own one another. In fact, it makes no sense philosophically, if all humans are created by God, all descended from Adam and Eve, to think we have a right to own one another like property. Each person's conscience needs to be free to serve God. That's why Paul told slaves that if they could obtain their freedom, they should.
Oh, whoops! The first kind.Question: when you say "as described in Scripture," are you referring to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the kind of slavery they practiced with their fellow Israelites? Or are you talking about Roman slaves in the New Testament? I certainly hope you see something wrong with the latter!
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
Re: Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic
eee gad.Gwarlroge wrote:All right. I lost track of where we got in the "Real Issue" thread, so here's a new thread addressing one basic question I had.
I hope I have not turned the argument into a strawman. Either way, it goes like this.
When Paul tells slaves, masters, husbands, and wives to do things in a certain way, he is working within a given culture. In Paul's case with the Ephesians and Colossians, the culture contained slavery and patriarchy. Scripture never tells us that we should be slaves or patriarchalists. Indeed, Scriptural principles tell us that we should not be either of those. Master/slave and husband/wife authority structures have no basis in Christian teaching. Paul intended Christian societies to outgrow these things. Therefore [etc. etc.] we should be egalitarians and not complementarians, just as we should not be pro-slavery activists.
Did I get this right? If so, then I have some questions (which may later turn into opinions).
1. Why should we assume that slavery is wrong or undesirable? (I am being serious. I find nothing wrong with slavery as it is described in Scripture.)
2. Why would Paul support a "free" society (i.e. one with no slaves)? On what grounds can we infer this from his letters (or the NT in general)?
slavery is abusive and exploitative. IT's the rich and powerful exploiting the poor. Apologists create the nonesne that it was a sweet sentimental way of life where precious family retainers were valued and so forth, that's all garbage.
They discovered where the slaves at Pompey got to, they hid in caves and died. They have examined their remains they say they were worn out. the worked so super hard they were wrong out. that's the only thing that's going to come of controlling people' lives.
It is wrong to control people's lives, other then for the civil good.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic
Would you like to see American troops shipping, maybe, Third World and Middle Eastern women and children back to your country in chains to do all the menial work for Americans and have their offspring in that same situation in perpetuity?
. . . and there's nothing wrong with that?
. . . and there's nothing wrong with that?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton
Dr Ward Blanton
Re: Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic
:/Metacrock wrote:Some of it was, though, wasn't it? Yet probably most of it wasn't. :/Gwarlroge wrote:slavery is abusive and exploitative. IT's the rich and powerful exploiting the poor. Apologists create the nonesne that it was a sweet sentimental way of life where precious family retainers were valued and so forth, that's all garbage.
They discovered where the slaves at Pompey got to, they hid in caves and died. They have examined their remains they say they were worn out. the worked so super hard they were wrong out. that's the only thing that's going to come of controlling people' lives.
It is wrong to control people's lives, other then for the civil good.
Re: Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic
No, I wouldn't like to see that.met wrote:Would you like to see American troops shipping, maybe, Third World and Middle Eastern women and children back to your country in chains to do all the menial work for Americans and have their offspring in that same situation in perpetuity?
. . . and there's nothing wrong with that?