Rem Acu Tetigisti
You, sir, are a loser at life. That’s a fair-minded statement.Mary
Mary, you’re telling me! Fair-minded? Are you kidding me? If you knew just a tiny fraction of what God knows about me . . . man! . . . but on the other hand, I sing hymns that call me worse names than that.
Two Views of Israel
I would like your thoughts on the application of Genesis 12:3 in the current Israel discourse today. Currently, my fellow elder and I are going back-and-forth on its meaning/application, with me taking the view that Paul interprets that passage, in Gal. 3, as being Abram (not Israel) and his Seed (Jesus) . . . therefore, a New Testament application of Genesis 12:3 today would be more like “I will bless those who bless Christians, and curse those who curse Christians.” My fellow elder takes the common Dispensationalist application, that Genesis 12:3 is an imperative for us to bless the Jewish people, including the modern nation-state of Israel. (I have no problem with the former as a general ethic, but believe the latter causes many issues.)
Am I falling prey to any hermeneutic challenges with my view here? I know that “NT priority” hermeneutic can cause issues; my view is usually not that the NT reinterprets the OT, but rather makes application that was new, but equally valid–application that even the OT writers would have agreed with. What are your thoughts, and please direct me if you feel I could be missing something here.Ben
Ben, I believe that the Christian church is the legitimate heir of all the promises to Israel in the Old Testament. So that would be your view. But at the same time, I believe that ethnic Israel today is our apostate older brother, written out of the will. However, there is a New Testament prophecy concerning them in Romans 11, saying that they will in fact repent and turn back to Christ, and that will usher in the golden era of evangelism.
Training Toddlers
What do you recommend for training toddlers to obey commands the first time? My wife and I read Michael Brock’s 8 Errors Parents Make and How to Avoid Them (her family was a mess and mine is not Christian so neither of us have great examples to draw from) who recommended to give them a swat on the rear if they don’t obey the first time. We tried implementing Brock’s strategy and both sets of grandparents accused us of being too harsh. One of our elders recommended against it too. My wife and I are not expecting perfection from our daughter (we expect this will take time) but we need to teach our children to obey us promptly without being sinfully harsh. Thank you.
Sincerely,Brent
Brent, no, that is not too harsh at all. At the same time, I would recommend that unless something is really egregious that you don’t administer swats around your parents. After a few years, they will be saying, “Why you spanking them? They’re the best grandchildren we’ve got!” Ummm . . .
The Cost of Discipleship
I’ve recently had a family member inquire about Christ and is counting the cost of what it means to follow Him. One of their sticking points is a concern that their partner will leave them if they become a Christian. Do you have any advice on how to counsel them through this?
Thanks.Jason
Jason, you should of course be kind, but the issue itself is a non-negotiable The thing that matters is whether Christ rose from the dead, and not whether that reality will be costly for us if we acknowledge it. And Jesus did say that whoever loved his spouse more than Christ could not be His disciple (Luke 14:26).
Carnivorous Christians?
There is a lot of crap on the internet pressuring Christians not to eat meat. I can think of no one better to address this scripturally. Please do a write-up that I can share with these people who are ignoring 1 Timothy 4Stephen
Stephen, thanks. I didn’t know that issue had erupted again. I will file that away.
Pastoral Search
I am beginning to serve on a pastoral search committee. What advice would you give for me? Also do you have any advice for finding out whether a pastor is capable of fending off the wolves?Matthew
Matthew, in addition to all the standard questions you might ask, make a point of inquiring closely into his home life, state of his marriage, and the behavior of his kids. In addition to that, ask to see all his social media accounts, and have someone review them. And then third, ask him who he voted for in the last three elections, and why. The main thing there would not be the candidate, but rather his reasoning.
On Getting Around
I have been familiar with you on YouTube. What a blessing yesterday when pastor mentioned you! I know your views are controversial in our culture today, but they are biblical. And I am thankful that you speak the truth.
We have a school at our church, and the school year begins today. The men, parents, and teachers are reading ‘Why Children Matter.’Roxanne
Roxanne, thanks very much.
Dealing With a Sloppy Child
Need some input on child discipline. Our middle daughter has always done very well academically (at a CCS). She is almost always kind, and thoughtful to others, and has a servant heart. As a 13-year-old she has mild challenges with attitude, but for the most part she has maintained a good attitude. All of this being said our major challenge is she’s is very forgetful, messy, and slow with things. As I said, somehow she has managed to maintain almost straight A’s since 3rd grade, and yet her desk is always a total mess. She will almost always leave coats, or other important things at school, and leaves a trail wherever she goes. I don’t want to break her spirit because it does seem somewhat unintentional and possibly a personality thing , but I wonder if you had any insight on how to approach discipline towards this.Simmer
Simmer, it sounds very much like a personality thing, but it still needs to be addressed as best you can. I would begin by assigning her one task, a relatively simple one. Take the desk in her bedroom, for example, and every day before breakfast, the top of it has to be cleared off and cleaned. You inspect it every morning. Do that until it is not a big deal anymore. This will encourage both you and her. Then add something else, equally trivial. In the meantime, keep going back to school to get her coat.
Delaying Infant Baptism
Is there sin in temporarily delaying infant baptism?
I’m in a situation where I am attending a faithful Baptist church plant in my area, we have deep relationships with all there and with the pastor most of all. I decided, despite this, that I, my wife, and baby boy will move this spring to an area with an ACCS school for my boy’s education. We’re also planing on attending a CREC church there. In the process of this year, God has convinced me of the biblical validity of infant baptism. I don’t quite know what advice I’d get from my pastor, but I don’t personally know any paedobaptists so I have to ask; Is there sin in me waiting for my boy’s baptism until we move? Is it best to move membership to a PCA church for four months, then move? I want to do the will of God, but am lacking discernment and counsel.
Thank you for reading and may God bless,J
J, no, there is no sin in waiting for this reason. You are keeping your baptismal vow by maintaining peace and good order in the body. Move, and then baptize.
That Open Letter to Trump
Regarding your open letter to Trump, I reckon with his attention span he would have fallen asleep after the second paragraph . . . far too verbose, what does the wise man say about a word fitly spoken.Ian
Ian, I have no doubt that the president has heard simpler statements of the gospel, many times. The problem with them is that they can easily be fitted into his preexisting assumptions. My thinking was that there needed to be some kind of change-up pitch.
I just listened to your Open Letter to President Trump About Heaven. Hopefully, not only will the President see/hear it but also all the knuckleheads out there like Russell Moore and all the anti-FVers, etc. that have over the years accused you of promoting something other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ with your views. Carry on.Ken
Ken, thanks. Okay, carrying on.
An Antebellum Sin
I’m writing as part of an ongoing research project examining antebellum Christian moral reasoning regarding slavery, with particular attention to the theological treatment—or neglect—of sexual exploitation within the slave system, commonly referred to in period sources as the “fancy trade.”
My investigation so far suggests that while numerous nineteenth-century Southern theologians defended slavery as biblically sanctioned, none appear to have addressed the sale or sexual use of enslaved women as a distinct moral question. Their silence poses an important problem for understanding how theological frameworks of hierarchy, providence, and “domestic order” interacted with sexual ethics.
For example, in A Brief Examination of Scripture Testimony on the Institution of Slavery (1841), Thornton Stringfellow argued that
“The relation of master and slave is authorized by the Word of God . . . It is founded in the law of nature, and sanctioned by patriarchal usage, by the precepts of the Mosaic economy, and by the conduct of the apostles,” concluding that when practiced “upon the principles of humanity and justice which the Scriptures inculcate, [slavery] is not only lawful but benevolent” (p. 19) [1]
Likewise, James Henley Thornwell, in his 1850 sermon “The Rights and Duties of Masters,” insisted that
“The relation of master and slave stands on the same footing with those of husband and wife, parent and child . . . The Scriptures recognize it as an ordinance of God,” and maintained that “It is no evil in itself. The abuse of the relation is indeed a grievous sin; but the relation itself is lawful and right” (Collected Writings, IV: 384-386.) [2]
By contrast, the abolitionist Theodore Dwight Weld assembled contemporary newspaper evidence showing how such theological frameworks indirectly legitimized sexual commerce. In American Slavery As It Is (1839), Weld recorded:
“Advertisements may be found in the New Orleans and Natchez papers, offering for sale ‘fancy girls’—a well-understood term, signifying young and handsome mulatto females, for purposes of prostitution” (p. 22) [3]
He concluded, “Let it be remembered that these atrocities exist under the sanction of law, and in a land calling itself Christian” (p. 25.)
Against that background, I would value your perspective on the following questions:
Are you aware of any theological treatises, sermons, or confessional statements—particularly within Reformed or Presbyterian traditions—that explicitly justified, condoned, or conversely condemned masters’ participation in the “fancy trade” or in the sexual commerce of enslaved persons?
Have any modern scholars or denominational bodies produced analyses or statements addressing this specific dimension of slavery and theology?
My aim is historical-theological clarification rather than polemic: understanding whether and how moral reasoning failed when confronted with the sexual economy of slavery may illuminate broader patterns of doctrinal silence in Christian ethics.
If you know of primary sources, secondary analyses, or current research addressing this topic, I would be most grateful for your recommendations.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
With sincere regards,
References
[1] Thornton Stringfellow, A Brief Examination of Scripture Testimony on the Institution of Slavery (Richmond: J. W. Randolph, 1841), 19.
[2] James Henley Thornwell, The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, Vol. 4 (Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1873 [orig. 1850]), 384-386.
[3] Theodore Dwight Weld, American Slavery As It Is: Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses (New York: American Anti-Slavery Society, 1839), 22-25.John
John, I am afraid I won’t be a ton of help. I do know that Dabney condemned the sexual use of slaves, but I don’t remember where I read it. Perhaps some of our readers could help. He said that a slave woman should be the absolute mistress of her own body, or something like that. The rest of them would have condemned it as a species of fornication, because the slaves being used that way did not have any legal status (like that of a concubine). The best place to look, I believe would be in the works of Eugene Genovese, and his wife Elizabeth Fox-Genovese.
Anybody else unable to see all but Doug’s first response?
Was it on purpose that you agreed with the first commenter about being a loser at life and then posted all the letters without your responses to any of them? If so, bravo. However, when you get a chance there are some letters I would like to read your responses.
No, just an accident. Everything’s there now.
Hello Brent, I agree with your understanding of Genesis 12:3, but I think it could be expanded a bit more to keep a clear continuation between us and Israel. Here’s my understanding of Genesis 12:3: In Genesis, God creates mankind (communally) to be his children/son. To be created in God’s image and likeness, implies having a father/son relationship with him (see Genesis 5:1-3). But after the fall into sin, God will put division between his people (the offspring of the Woman) and Satan’s people/offspring. A major theme of Genesis is, “who is the offspring of the Woman?” After mankind as… Read more »
Brent, don’t do it. That all infractions, from toddler-dom onwards, should be met with the same response, a swat on the rear, every time, is a doctrine of men, not of God’s word. I once read a helpful definition of what a Pharisee is: someone who doesn’t make allowances for context: someone who applies their wooden little rules no matter what. And why? Because they’re afraid that if they don’t precisely follow their little rules, then disaster will follow. If we’re not tough on sin (which we’ll arbitrarily take to mean “spank every time”), then it’ll all go terribly wrong!… Read more »
Well said
” .. and his [God’s] goal is to train us to love righteousness, not to breed resentment.”
Although this subject has been somewhat done to death here recently, I think your sentence here describes where we should be going on this one.
I see the same contributors pushing back against the Bible’s “wooden little rules “ each time the subject of child training comes up, arguing for their own opinions each time, and patting each other on the back. To this I say again, each Christian parent can choose whether to place his faith in these kinds of human opinions and circumlocutions—or in God’s word, and will certainly have to live with the results of that choice. Time and eternity will illustrate where wisdom lies.
Exactly…and science is showing the spanking is not the answer. It’s your opinion to spank…it’s ours not to.
No worries. You rely on “science.” I get that. Others rely on God’s word.
All the best to you and thanks for the conversation.
I am sceptical of academic scientific studies on this subject because such studies can be produced to back up the existing views and worldview of those producing them.
Agreed, studies are often contradictory and bias confirming.
What God’s word says is the point at issue. We all know the ‘rod’ verses, but how literally do take the word rod to be?
There may be cases where limited physical punishment is appropriate, but it is not the only form discipline can take.
By the time we got to our third I’m not sure whether he ever got smacked, mostly because it had proved singularly ineffective with the first two.
Ken, I agree with G-thoughts on spanking, but, speaking frankly, his argument is too brazenly dishonest to be taken seriously. He is not going to take the exegetical issues into account in his responses. He is simply going to double, triple, and quadruple down on condescension. Its not really worth arguing.
Thanks for this comment. I don’t altogether disagree with G’s thoughts either, there can be time for smacking. If my boy had ever tried to push one of his sisters down the stairs, for example, he would almost certainly have received a smack for it. What I disagree with is the wooden (sorry!) insistence that ‘rod’ is always literal, and that other forms of discipline are not in order. I think it covers both. I also think it is wrong in the case of very young children which I believe reflects the Hebrew word for child in the verses concerned.… Read more »
“each Christian parent can choose whether to place his faith in these kinds of human opinions and circumlocutions—or in God’s word, and will certainly have to live with the results of that choice. Time and eternity will illustrate where wisdom lies.” Please grow some honesty and integrity. The issue at hand is what God’s word, in fact, says. You do not get to use the basis of the disagreement as a preconception of your argument, that is the definition of begging the question. We could just as easily condescendingly tell you that you must conform or face God’s eternal wrath,… Read more »
Oh, I apologize if you took my comments to imply that I was threatening God’s eternal wrath. I thought we were discussing Biblical wisdom about child training. No such threats intended—I meant to suggest that what is at stake is more in the arena of sowing and reaping, fruit bearing, life wisdom, obedience, etc.—not eternal punishment. And as to questions of interpreting what God’s word says, I admit I may just be too simple minded for this erudite conversation; perhaps the Bible’s counsel that “he who spares the rod hates his child, and he who loves him disciplines him early”… Read more »
Justin, sometimes you’re on the right path. Sometimes you make a lot of sense. This ain’t one of those times. You said, “We could just as easily condescendingly tell you that you must conform or face God’s eternal wrath…” Whoa, buddy. Nowhere did Grandfatherly thoughts say anything remotely like this. He said, “…each Christian parent can choose…and will certainly have to live with the results of that choice. Time and eternity will illustrate where wisdom lies.” In other words: Choices have consequences. Sometimes those consequences take time. And what we now think is wise may not turn out to be… Read more »
J, you ask a question about specifics related to infant baptism. How are you going to work out whether Douglas Wilson’s answer is what God says, or mere human opinion?
Baptism is one of those things where Scripture refers to those who can eat meat and those who cant or those who hold to his position or that each answering to our own Master. I am an ardent credobaptist, but I know that Doug isn’t in sin by his answer.
To be sure, we shall each answer. I wasn’t proposing raising an Inquisition to punish those in error. I’m a baptist. :-) I was asking it out of genuine interest, though. If J asks Douglas Wilson and gets an answer, and then asks some other paedobaptist minister and gets another answer, how will he work out which one of them agrees with God? Ask a third minister to break the tie? Warfield famously said: “God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere… Read more »
The eighth day stipulation has ceremonial and typological significance that does not apply to baptism. The typical element of the sign is fulfilled in Christ, the antitype, who was raised on the eighth day, while the other use of the ordinance continues (as a seal of righteousness by faith, including for those who receive the seal before they believe—Romans 4:12). As for disagreements between proponents of a certain view or practice: it’s a fallacy to say their disagreement establishes the opposite position. Is atheism true because theists disagree among themselves? It may give emotional satisfaction to see paedobaptists differ in… Read more »
The New Testament, though, states that the seal of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit, e.g. 2 Corinthians 1.22. It *never* says that baptism is a seal of the covenant. Given that we are taught that circumcision was a seal of the promises to Abraham, and that the New Covenant seal is the Holy Spirit, it’s hard to see that continuity and discontinuity have been correctly handled here. Note that I would never claim that any disagreement on details indicates falsity in the central claim itself; that would indeed be a fallacy. The observation in the case of paedobaptism… Read more »
No New Testament outward seal and no Old Testament inward seal? NEW TESTAMENT OUTWARD SEAL Baptism (in accord with the 1689 Baptist Confession), is a sign of salvation, including forgiveness, engrafting into Christ, and commitment to live in newness of life. Abraham’s covenant sign of salvation was also a seal—and not just of “promises,” (as precious as those are), but of actual, present in his own life, righteousness by faith (Romans 4). What Scripture indicates that under the New Testament the outward sign of salvation is to believers no longer also an outward seal? OLD TESTAMENT INWARD SEAL The 1689… Read more »
Under “NEW TESTAMENT OUTWARD SEAL”, you don’t produce any evidence that baptism is anywhere considered by any NT author as a seal. Substituting Abraham’s circumcision (not even the circumcision of any of Abraham’s descendants), and then implying that unless your doctrine is directly denied then perhaps we can infer that it is one they held, begs the question as to whether the NT authors were working with the same framework as you, which is of course the very thing Reformed Baptists controvert, the very thing being debated here.
I cannot possibly know more than what the scriptures reveal, and this is a vague subject. I only was seeking pastoral counsel from a paedobaptist minister whom I trust. He’s accountable to his public ministry before God, and I for my son. No conflict.
> “He said that a slave woman should be the absolute mistress of her own body, or something like that.”
Which is to say, she shouldn’t be enslaved. Amen, amen and amen.
I’m wondering what Pastor Wilson thinks slavery is, other than someone else claiming to be the master of your body?
And again, well said. Slavery was wrong…there should be no justification or room for approval…what would Jesus do? Free the slaves…and call it what it was, abhorrent.
Except, he doesn’t call it abhorrent.
Exodus 21:16 – “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.” That’s a clear enough revelation of God’s mind. The argument that some are making today, that the Bible recognises things that went under the label of “slavery” and therefore, trading human beings as part of the trans-atlantic slave trade was permissible, is absurd: an obvious word fallacy. An Israelite paying off a debt through giving up to six years, and being kidnapped, taken across the ocean, purchased and put into indefinite forced labour for no… Read more »
We will note that the south was not the states that did the slave trading, they were against the trade for precisely that reason. The north were the states sending out the slave traders. Also note the confederate constitution explicitly forbade the slave trade for that reason.
Also the analogous situation would be Roman slavery
Every legal system in the world recognises that by knowingly and intentionally receiving stolen “goods” (how much more, divine image bearers), you are fully complicit in the act of theft itself.
Otherwise, we’d have the absurd situation that if you pay someone else to do the stealing on your behalf, then you can profit from the crime and outsource the guilt. As I say, that would be completely absurd.
And yet the people were otherwise going to be taken to Jamaica, or Cuba, or most likely Brazil (Brazil was where the majority of the slave traffic went). And the south justified their purchase because otherwise they would have gone to worse places. Many of them actually wrote about the difficult choice.
Exodus 21:16 is a revelation of God’s mind about kidnapping and selling into slavery, certainly. However the claim was that what Jesus would do is free the slaves and call it abhorrent, and the historical fact is that He did not do that. That does not make the transatlantic slave trade (are we only talking about that?) okay, but it should once again remind some folks that sometimes you need to make your Biblical case apart from what Jesus personally said.
By arguing that the Old Testament reveals that God sees man-stealing as a crime so abhorrent that it’s worthy of death, but that in your view the Son of God has a different and contradictory opinion, you attempt to salvage your position on slavery at the cost of going Marcionite. We could hardly ask for a better demonstration that you’re arguing in a very bad cause.
What is my position on slavery? In my view what is the Son’s opinion? For what cause am I arguing?
Recommend you re-read my comment, your own comment to which I was responding, and the comment to which that comment was responding.
What would he call it?
I don’t have an adjectival description or noun statement but I have this:
“Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.”
Colossians 3:22 ESV
Those are bond servants, not the same as chattel slavery…slavery should be condemned, especially chattel slavery, and you seem to embrace it.
Actually it referred to a Roman slave. (See the entirety of philemon) I think that getting rid of slavery was good and biblical, but I also think that the civil war broke the United States, killed hundreds of thousands, cost the government billions, laid the foundation for abortion, and initially didn’t even have anything to do with slavery. I also believe that slavery is not a very big evil. If it was Paul would have condemned it and the system of Rome Was worse than that of the south
Bond servant refers to a Roman slave, that is true, let’s not kid ourselves. The inconvenient to modern sensibilities truth is that scripture does not condemn slavery in the no uncertain terms we prefer. Whether Roman slavery was worse or better than slavery in the American south is debatable. The question any Christian should ask is “Which one would you want to have done unto you?”, and that’s the one you can call okay. The American civil war had very much to do with slavery from the beginning. It was the divisive hotly debated national issue in the run-up to… Read more »
It was a hotly argued issue however if that was why they seceded they were all idiots as there was currently an amendment up for state ratification that would have permanently instituted slavery (the Corwin amendment) it was ratified by enough northern states that the south could have made it law. less than half the secession declarations mention slavery and those that do mention it in a list of grievances. Lincoln in his inaugural address says he is in favor of slavery being a permanent part of the U.S. multiple states in the north still held slaves, and the emancipation… Read more »
I never said they were not all idiots. We’re not talking about what was important to Lincoln, we’re talking about what was important to southern secessionists.
We were talking about what caused the civil war. This was as much Lincoln as anyone else.
So you think they left the union over slavery when they had the power to make slavery a permanent part of the union?
What caused the civil war was states attempting to unilaterally secede from the union and being willing to shoot over it.
Yes. Among other things, I take them at their word.
It was about states rights. A states rights to keep slavery legal.
And tariffs, internal improvements, federal overreach.
Exercising their rights, and getting the union trying to keep collecting taxes. (I can play the unstated bias game too).
while providing no quotes or sources.
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in every respect, not only when they are watching – like those who are strictly people-pleasers – but with a sincere heart, fearing the Lord.”
Colossians 3:22 NET
“I also believe that slavery is not a very big evil.”
Scribbler 10:30 PST
Well, there you have it. You’re cherry-picking and taking things out of context. What about rich people getting into heaven and what Jesus said about that? What about Jesus’ actions, showing us how to live? If your jesus supports racism, I want nothing to do with him.
Actually, the racism is a very big evil, but that was just as present in the north where blacks couldn’t enter the state.
I never said it wasn’t. It was abhorrent irrelevant of location…
So you’re argument falls apart because the racism you admit was not the problem the north had with it.
If you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind. Other civilised nations had long abolished slavery; America arrogantly refused to do so. The consequences of such defiant rebellion cannot be eternally postponed, because God is the living God. One way or the other, huge national sins that don’t have a corresponding repentance, after many many years of God’s patience, was a situation going to have terrible and tragic results.
Oh, really. Long abolished? Arrogantly refused to do so?
Britain: 1833
France: 1848
Cuba: 1886
Brazil: 1888
Well one would assume, the one to be the owner of the product of your labor.
Ken, when you read the presentation of the gospel to Trump, you failed to discern the unorthodox elements. Note that nowhere is it mentioned that Christ voluntarily came, out of love for his people. The description is entirely in line with Douglas Wilson’s eternal subordinationism: it is presented only in terms of an action of the Father. Christ’s atoning death is something that the Father did to the Son. Christ was obliged to endure what the Father willed for him, rather than presenting a free offering. Read it again. A book like https://www.amazon.com/Son-Who-Learned-Obedience-Theological/dp/1532641702 can help you understand the theological importance… Read more »
Did you forget your own advice to Brent advising him to not be a blockhead? Have you forgotten Jesus asking that the cup of our sins be taken away? Instead, Jesus was obedient to the will of the Father. Voluntary or involuntary? or both?
Don’t be so uptight with your wooden responses.
It was still willful on Jesus’ part…He could have not gone through with it, which I think is the point David was making. He chose to sacrifice Himself for ALL people…
Willfully obedient.
(p.s. can God and the son disagree if they are both perfect and all-knowing?)
Was he unwillfully obedient, then? God/Jesus could have chosen to do things differently…what do you think, can they disagree?
Jesus has two wills, a human will and a divine will. As a man, Jesus had to learn obedience (Heb.2) and to say “not my will, but your will be done” (Luke 22:42), even as he was without sin.
Dave has not registered and/or not understood the starting point of my comment, which is concerning the unorthodox doctrine of eternal submission, not the submission of the incarnate Son of God during his ministry. The best way I currently know of to get into these things and to read a carefully reasoned explanation of why it matters is the Butner book recommended above, which isn’t too long.
Would you articulate the doctrine and give your specific issue with it?
You have any reason to think pastor Wilson would deny the Son came voluntarily? And would you agree with him and I John 4:14 that the Father sent the Son? Both can be said, but saying one does not deny the other. (Read Robert Rayburn, The Truth in Both Extremes?)
Gutenberg has a couple of books entitled History of the Negro Race in America. It was written in 1890 and follows the legal history of slavery in each of the original 13 colonies. At least part of the books do. It would be a good resource.
on the slavery and prostitution issue, most of those engaged in defending slavery did so while either refusing to address in depth and just lumping it in slavery or condemning things like that. (The ministers condemning and a very few die hard sinners refusing to address in depth). I don’t have any specific to the topic resources, but for a lot of general writings you can use a website that was linked a couple letter-posts ago. A lot of the issue has to do with anyone who tried to reform slave laws being branded as an abolitionist. Prior to roughly… Read more »
There is no connection at all between what the right is doing now and slavery then…all meaningless justifications created to allow for horrendous actions and abuse. If you can’t call it what it was, abhorrent, then your worldview is non-Jesus centered…
It was an analogy, and I would ask you whether abortion or slavery is worse?
So it’s the lefts issue yet again. Shocker. The Civil War was also a slave revolt, should they have just rolled over and waited for this “good work” to be done before taking action? By who? People like Lee who was a “good master” that still whipped men and women he claimed to have owned?
Actually he didn’t whip them, Jefferson didn’t sleep with his slave, the civil war was not a slave revolt in any way whatsoever, Lincoln tried to make slavery a permanent part of the constitution, and I was making an analogy.
My brother, you deny Sally Hemings and the DNA evidence that they had children? Very interesting.
Some historians believe the DNA testing is inconclusive and, at best, proves only that any of Thomas Jefferson’s male relatives could have fathered a child with Sally Hemings. Since only living persons were tested, the Jefferson XY chromosome could have entered the lineage from several of Thomas Jefferson’s contemporary male relatives. For example, Thomas Jefferson’s younger brother, Randolph, can be considered a possible candidate for being Sally Heming’s youngest son Eston’s father. According to historian Eyler Robert Coates, records show that Randolph Jefferson was invited to Monticello in August 1807, about nine months before Eston was born in May 1808.… Read more »
Get real. She was his slave dude, and the family talked about how Thomas was the father. This is a settled matter from the perspective of most historians. People who want to deify the founding fathers do not want to confront reality.
Actually the only one who was supposed to have been fathered by him was conclusively proven by DNA not to have been, and the one who could have been fathered by any of them was done so while Jefferson wasn’t home because he was at the White House. Also other quotations have been wildly misrepresented and cut.
And on three more notes, we only have evidence for the first child on hearsay testimony (nothing for Eston), the story started with Hemings first child being considered his son in a federalist smear campaign (couldn’t have been him by DNA), and we have testimony that female slaves were never allowed into Jefferson’s room while he was there (from his daughter).
I give you the latest from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. I don’t know where you get your information but seems highly unlikely and a weak attempt to whitewash a man who had children with his slave.
https://www.monticello.org/slavery/jefferson-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-a-brief-account/monticello-affirms-thomas-jefferson-fathered-children-with-sally-hemings/
Chris, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation is one helpful source. But another helpful source is the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society. Here are a few links to check out:
https://www.tjheritage.org/hemings
https://www.tjheritage.org/dna-hemings
https://www.tjheritage.org/framing-a-legend-review
In addition, here’s another helpful source on this issue:
https://www.historyonthenet.com/sally-hemings-and-thomas-jefferson
Lastly, in my previous comment, I mentioned historian Eyler Robert Coates. Here’s the Amazon link to his book: “The Jefferson-Hemings Myth: An American Travesty”
https://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Hemings-Myth-American-Travesty/dp/0934211663/ref=asc_df_0934211663?tag=bingshoppinga-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=80127101108781&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=102202&hvtargid=pla-4583726572791196&psc=1&msclkid=447ccb3863b6167dc09ba23b8a05b3fa
So the entire purpose of this society was to counter the proof that Jefferson nailed his slave? And they accuse others of historical rivisionism? What a joke 🤣 Again, these are David Irving types, not to be taken seriously.
Chris, I have no dog in this hunt. Thomas Jefferson may indeed have fathered one (or more) of Sally Hemings’ children. But it’s also possible that other Jefferson male relatives may have fathered one (or more) of her children, such as Randolph Jefferson. My guess is this mystery will never be solved, at least not to everyone’s satisfaction. This is because only living persons were tested. Nonetheless, the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society offers a lot of good information and evidence. Moreover, there are many historians who disagree with the position taken by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. Therefore, it’s not as simple… Read more »
I have no dog in this fight but the only source I cite is one where they explicitly lay out their political agenda on their website trying to whitewash a slave owner who raped his slave because sex cannot be consensual under slavery and died a broke boy. You’re a funny one.
I truly have no dog in this fight, and I already acknowledged (twice) that Thomas Jefferson may indeed have been the father. But there are other historians, even beyond that website, who disagree with the conclusions of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. My point wasn’t to convince you, since I haven’t even reached my own conclusion on this matter. I was just offering other sources and authors (with contrary views) who’ve also studied this issue. I argued in good faith without an agenda. Unfortunately, you have only contributed simplistic arguments based on emotion and insult. You are not persuasive at all.… Read more »
See The Jefferson Lies by David Barton the renowned historian.
and also note none of their evidence is conclusive and most of it is contradictory if you look at the sources. All the important arguments easily apply to Randolph.
David Barton is as renowned as David Irving. Wrong, proud, and distorts facts to fit their political world view. This contrarian shtick is getting boring.
Is he a big poopy head too?
If you have a basis to say he’s wrong, explain how he’s wrong. Its just a genetic fallacy to say he’s wrong because he’s the one making the argument.
Debate pervert alert. Am I not following your rules and putting your panties in a twist?
Thank you
I don’t want to get involved in this, but wanted to express empathy for making a series of relevant technical points, which get subsequently ignored.
The fact you were making an analogy will be totally ignored. Best o luck.
Thank you
In addition if it was a slave revolt that still would have been wrong, if murdering an abortionist is wrong (and it is) then murdering a slave owner is worse.
However, even the pre civil war events that get called slave revolts didn’t work. See John Brown trying to start a revolt and getting himself captured by militia because it turns out that they didn’t actually want to revolt and unite behind a mass murderer who rebuked his son for not dying quietly like a man.
Blah blah blah…keep blaming others. Either way, your analogy doesn’t hold up. Where in the Bible does it explicitly condemn or forbid abortion?
Thou shalt not murder
Also, John leaping in his mothers womb and You knit me in my mothers womb.
Thou shalt not lie
Thou shalt not steal
I can do it, too:)
A woman’s life was always priority over a fetus in Jewish customs/laws. Look it up…fetus does not equal baby – Moses.
Actually, Jewish custom was probably the thing Jesus hated the most in all his speeches. Any scenario where a woman will die from carrying the baby directly she can have a C-section and indirectly she can put it up for adoption. Book chapter verse please, cuz you only quoted one about lying not the one that was relevant.
Where does it talk about c-sections in the Bible? Book chapter verse, please, because I’m pretty sure they didn’t have access to getting c-sections 2000 years ago much less 100 years ago. I’d argue Jesus was against the religious Jewish laws, not necessarily the customs…white-washed tombs and all, ya know. Where do all of these babies go that get put up for adoption? Why is our foster system overloaded with babies/kids? Aren’t the good Christians everywhere supposed to take care of these orphans? I certainly don’t see that happening on a scale that would see ALL orphans taken care of.… Read more »
C section short for caesarean section as in Caesar. Also please act like you read my comment at least.
They didn’t want a revolt? Interesting. And the death of slave owners is not required for emancipation. Unless the slave owner is willing to kills and starts a war over their right to own people.
They didn’t start a war over it though, so…
also irrelevant to my comment.
I like the self-reply!
The Confederacy clearly started a war over it.
This is fruitless, I presented my arguments, you just keep repeating yourselves
You are stubborn and don’t think slavery is evil. This is indeed fruitless.
If he doesn’t think slavery is evil, it should be especially easy to embarass and defeat him. That you can’t is telling.
I have, you just are probably butt hurt that your boy Jefferson is a total degenerate and can’t deal or a defender of slavery yourself, which seems to be a normal thing in the Doug Wilson circles. Let the record show I was the first to establish facts and have them disregarded, so I think that makes be the winner. Feels good to go undefeated on this blog yet again.
What facts?
Re Saturday’s sermon notes, Paul going up to Jerusalem while prophets warned him it’d be dangerous–wht should he have done? Well, he’d had the elders of Ephesus meet him at Miletus, and he’d told the Galatians old Jerusalem below was in slavery and the Jerusalem above is our mother. So maybe he could’ve called elders and brethren from Jerusalem to meet him and receive the gift from the Greeks at Caesarea down on the coast, thus coming up to Jerusalem (the church) while avoiding the dangerous city. (Someone write a “What if?” on the assumption he did this??) Re cessationism,… Read more »
I think that if we were to do that it would have to be confirmed prophecy. (Also one cult did do that, it was called the Book of Mormon)
The definition of “lest” is “so that it does not.”