Slavery, Submission, and God's Sovreignty

I'm sure Hitler, Pol Pot, and Hussein, among others, would agree with you wholeheartedly!

Also, it's requested that you reference each of the quotes that you use. Thank you.

 

>>>>>>>For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.<<<<<<

Mark, it seems to me that you badly misunderstand the verses that you quote. From the text above, the idea is that government generally has a good influence and not an evil influence. If that is the case, then I also approve of the advice to follow the instructions and laws of the government. But the text also makes clear that the advice is based on the assumption that rulers will govern wisely. We know that this is not always the case, and the text offers no advice on how to handle a situation where the ruler has the attributes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc. For those cases, I think common sense must come to the fore, and each situation should be evaluated on its merits. Your suggestions are absurd for those cases.

By the way, if you will tell us, please comment on where you were educated. I would like to know what college or university is turning out people with such unusual ideas.

 

Or a Ceaser or Nebuchadnezzar.

Whose "common sense" are we going to follow in the matter? Some think "common sense" would dictate slaves to rebel against their lawful masters - but we know the Scriptures explicitly teach otherwise. The only cases where the Scriptures authorize us to rebel against legal authority is when we are commanded to do something immoral or to refrain from doing our Christian duty. In those cases, and those only,

"we ought to obey God rather than man."

I graduated from the Missionary Baptist Seminary in Little Rock, Arkansas. Outside of perhaps a casual mention that the Scriptures never condemn slavery per se, I don't recall these matters being discussed. The only thing that makes these ideas "unusual" is the fact that our generation has set the Scriptures at nought.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Certainly slavery was a modern issue then. It was something they had to deal with. I don't see that kind of an issue as much diferent today than buying gas at the pump that comes from the Middle East where it is predominately contolled by Muslims. The real issue is not about slavery and other social ills. It is about Christ and the furtherance of the gospel. Just as when we go to work and do what our employer asks. It may not always be the way we like it but because we are servants we do as we are told unless it violates the scriptures. Gos is the one I serve. I am not here to worship man but God. If God is the one I serve sometimes that may mean not doing evil or things that someone wishes me to do. Several years ago I was asked to be present at a business meeting at a gentlmen's club. I told them, "No." I would not submit to that kind of request I don't care who it is. That violates my God and the God who is.

 

Some of you think that slavery was fine, or that it was not important. I wish that those of you think that could be transported back to the days of slavery and spend a few months as a slave. I have an idea that when you came back to this modern time, you would sing a different tune.

 

"Swing low, sweet..."

 

AMEN!

 

1) Slavery is not fine.

2) Slavery is not unimportant.

3) Slavery was only one of the issues, and certainly not the most important issue, as to why the Yankees invaded the CSA.

4) The Yankees were just as racist in their attitudes as the Southerners.

5) If the CSA had stopped the practice of slavery on the very day the CSA was formed, the Yankees would have still invaded the South.

God save the South!

 

HenH,

You just had to get a plug in there for the CSA, didn't you? lol!

 

HenH? Cluck, cluck, cluck.

 

Oops! Sorry about that KenH! This is the only Christian forum that I'm on that has a time limit on editing a post.

 

Dr. Bob,

I graduated from the University of Arkansas. Perhaps you have not noticed the material I posted that calls into question your claim that many thousands of black soldiers fought for the south. So if that is the case, I will give the link to that article here. I posted it in full in another thread. Here is the link:

http://members.aol.com/neoconfeds/trclark.htm

The article linked to above shows fairly conclusively that your claim is not correct and is based on what is essentially a racist claim that has arisen in recent years. This claim cannot be supported by any historical information.

As for Mark's quotation of scripture, some of it was clearly intended to encourage obediance to the powers that be on the assumption that the existing powers are reasonably ethical and moral. But that does not deal with the question of whether or not to obey such people as Hitler or Sadaam Hussein. I would use my own judgment in such cases, on the grounds that the biblical authors may not have forseen such a case. God gave us reason to use, and I think does not require us to regurgitate canned responses from the bible on every issue.

I must say that I have been shocked by what seems to be support for racist attitudes on your part, such as your use of the term "Black Republican" and also various derogatory terms for the national government during the Civil War. It is even more surprising in view of the fact that you are a native of a northern state. I don't think it is to your credit to use such terms as "scum" to describe the national government at that time. Certainly they were at least as moral as the slave owners of that time, and in my judgment, much more so.

 

Mark, I must admit I had to turn to the dictionary to look up the definition of "froward". The word seems to be archaic and means, as I suppose you know, someone who is not reasonable. I wonder if this is meant to suggest that slaves should be obedient to all masters, no matter how cruel. Certainly the word does not seem to be that all inclusive, as the word "froward" itself does not imply extreme cruelty, but merely someone who is not reasonable. But whether that admonition is extremely broad or not, I would have to say that slaves faced with an extremely cruel master are perhaps a better judge of the morality of the situation than the author of the biblical injunction. So I would not raise the biblical text to the level of supreme authority in all situations. I suspect you will not accept that view, but then I cannot accept yours that submission to cruel masters is in all cases mandated by the bible.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tanker said:
So I would not raise the biblical text to the level of supreme authority in all situations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you basically believe that God couldn't possibly know what to do in all situations since he is author of scripture.

And you believe that God is not the supreme authority in all situations?

And that God was wrong about his view on slavery?

So you're really not a Baptist either then?