Featured Southern Baptists and Slavery

I don't see the problem. Owning slaves is MOST ASSUREDLY not incompatible with biblical Christianity.

This feigned outrage against slavery so popular today seems aimed at self-exaltation. It screams "look how noble I am in my vehement stand for this righteous cause!!" The outrage certainly doesn't find footing in the Bible.

Could slavery have been done better in the 1800's? Sure.

Did owning slaves mean you were not a fine Christian? Absolutely not!

Should the triennial convention have refused to sanction a home missionary JUST because he owned slaves. A thousand times no.

 

You started a thread about knowing history or keeping quiet ... not your words as your words were insulting.

With your reply to this thread you have shown a great ignorance of slavery in Biblical times versus slavery in the last few centuries. Thus, you fail in your history.

There are many links where you can be educated on the differences between slavery in Biblical times an in the past few centuries. Just a few:

http://www.preachingtoday.com/illustrations/2010/april/7041910.html

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Torah/Deuteronomy/Biblical_Slavery.shtml

http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=oZbCPrE7GnE=&tabid=232&mid=762

 

OPPS! Never mind. <----read poorly.

 

Listen, folks, I do not object to the subject being discussed, studied, or written about. But it should be done on a historically accurate basis. Alvin has made the claim that the SBC was the ONLY denomination founded on the defense of slavery. Clearly that is not factual, as I have shown. Thus, the premise is false. How can the book therefore be credible if the premise is false? It cannot. When confronted with that evidence of a false premise, Alvin refuses to accept that. I'd like to know why and what is then his purpose.

Alvin went to a SBC seminary and says he is Southern Baptist. So, why the slander of the SBC?

Having said that, I hope Alvin is not banned. Everyone should be able to have their say on a debate forum.

 

Reminds me of "pass the bill to know what's in it".

Rev. Alvin L Carpenter
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Carpenter_Alvin_979643402.aspx

Referenced: http://www.space.com/17659-interstellar-travel-religion-conflict.html

Matthew 28: KJB

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

Matthew 7: KJB

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?​

 

Thomas, I am sure there was great tensions within various Christian denominations over slavery. I am not sure there was another denomination founded because of the slavery issue. I am not sure there was not another denomination founded. I am sure that slavery was the primary reason the SBC was founded in 1845. My question is:

Can you supply me with a link showing that a denomination, other than the SBC, was founded over the slavery issue.

 

Please pardon a layman's confusion......

SBC is a denomination?

 

If we accept the dictionary definition, then yes it is.

What I want is a link telling all of us whether the SBC was the only denomination founded primarily because of the slavery issue.

 

But of course it is:

http://www.sbc.net/aboutus

 

Alvin----Brother, you are whippin' a dead horse!!!:saint::saint:

 

post of the thread award winner!

 

All you have to do is a little reading. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, would fit the category.

 

Thanks. I did some reading and found the following:

I found that Episcopalians in the South formed their own Protestant Episcopal Church. However, in the North the separation was never officially recognized and by May 16, 1866, the southern dioceses had rejoined the national church.

Interesting, I must say.

blackbird, Mexdeaf ... history is always interesting, even if it is about topics we are not comfortable reading about.

 

Yes, I said in post #16 that "The Episcopalians divided also, but there was no formal break, and after the war they were soon reunited."

The Methodist Church is a different story, however. The Methodists in the South formed the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, over the slavery issue, and it remained a denomination distinct and separate from the northern Methodists for almost a century.

 

One wonders why Alvin remains Southern Baptist since he has a problem with its past and also its present. He doesn't like the position on homosexuality, for instance.

I disagree with the denomination's stance on women pastors, and I have a few more doctrinal disagreements. And yet this is one of the few major denominations that has stood and continues to stand for traditional Christian morality. It is strongly pro-life, as am I. I applaud it for its stances on morals and the family.

 

Presbyterian Church in America

Southern Presbyterian stalwart R. L. Dabney writing in 1867:

 

History- no problem- I love history. What I disagree with is the trying to lay the sins of the fathers upon the third and fourth generation. That's foolishness.

 

Unless they hold the same views or views that are very similar. Anyway, what does scripture say about to the 3rd and 4th generation.

History can be very uncomfortable to read, enlightening but uncomfortable.

Of course not all of us can be like Winston Churchill who said, “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” :laugh:

 

And this would appear to be as far as the conversation needs to go. It was dealt with when they moved on from their stance.