On slavery: natural law versus sola scriptura

[Ani_Ibi]

From Let My People Go: The Catholic Church and Slavery in This Rock:

The Catholic appreciation of natural law–as opposed to the Protestant principle of *sola scriptura *(when Scripture tells slaves to obey their masters) – has always made slavery less reconcilable with Catholicism than Protestantism.

What do you think? True or false? Reasons? Thank you.

(Would Sola Scripturists please provide a definitions for Sola Scriptura? Thank you.)

 

[cpayne]

Hmm. Interesting question; I’ve got mixed thoughts about it. On the one hand, natural law thinking, or at least “natural-function” thinking, has also been used to protect slavery as an institution (in Aristotle’s writings, for example). On the other hand, natural law has also helped bring about the idea of natural moral equality, equality as persons, and so on.

Regarding the Bible: Slavery as an institution appears to be accepted in the Bible. On the other hand (this is now three hands, I know), the abolitionists, who were predominantly Christian, derived their ideas from biblical principles. I don’t know how much of what they thought regarding these biblical principles came out of the natural-law tradition, and how much came straight out of their biblical reading.

So I guess my response may be summarized as:

 

[SyCarl]

I would disgree with the statement. The Bible recognizes that slavery existed. It doesn’t say that slavery must or should exist. Sola Scrriptura does not say the Bible contains everything. It says only the Bible contains everything that it is necessary to be believed and is the final and sole infallible authority. A position can be held by one who believes in Sola Scriptura as long as it does not explicitly or implicitly contradict the requirements of the Bible.

 

[cpayne]

Well, yeah, I agree. The Bible certainly doesn’t condone slavery. However, given the number of times it comes up, even in the New Testament, the Bible certainly doesn’t take an explicit stand against it, either. The biblical principles contrary to slavery are just that: principles, and not direct commands.

 

[Madaglan]

The proposed difficulty arises when one points to passages in the Old and New Testaments which speak of a legitimate servitude, of slaves being obedient to their masters, etc. Neither the OT nor the NT says “slavery is wrong,” but Christians are under grace, not under the Law. While especially the OT may make involuntary servitude appear legitimate, the spirit of the law, which Christ demonstrates, reveals that it is not right for the Christian to demean others as one’s inferiors. In Christianity, the image of Christ is seen in the human slave, and no human person is greater than Christ, the master.

 

[cpayne]

The proposed difficulty arises when one points to passages in the Old and New Testaments which speak of a legitimate servitude, of slaves being obedient to their masters, etc. Neither the OT nor the NT says “slavery is wrong,” but Christians are under grace, not under the Law. While especially the OT may make involuntary servitude appear legitimate, the spirit of the law, which Christ demonstrates, reveals that it is not right for the Christian to demean others as one’s inferiors. In Christianity, the image of Christ is seen in the human slave, and no human person is greater than Christ, the master.

Regarding the OP: Would you say that the position as stated by you, with which I agree, owes more to the Bible’s teachings or to the natural-law ethical tradition? In other words, is this explicitly a Christian position or a position that theoretically should be seen and accepted by all?

 

[SyCarl]

Well, yeah, I agree. The Bible certainly doesn’t condone slavery. However, given the number of times it comes up, even in the New Testament, the Bible certainly doesn’t take an explicit stand against it, either. The biblical principles contrary to slavery are just that: principles, and not direct commands.

And we can have such principles as long as they are not contrary to Scripture.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by cpayne:
Regarding the OP: Would you say that the position as stated by you, with which I agree, owes more to the Bible’s teachings or to the natural-law ethical tradition? In other words, is this explicitly a Christian position or a position that theoretically should be seen and accepted by all?

The pagan Romans had a natural-law ethical tradition before the advent of Christianity, but they did not come out against slavery the same way as we do today.

I believe it is a Christian teaching, although not one explicitly found in the Bible. If it were, pro-slavery Christians may not have been able to get around it for so long and as easily as they did. It is a teaching that naturally proceeds from the teachings of love and fraternal equality in the gospels.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Paul said “Slaves be obedient to your masters.”

The Sola Scripturaist if he really is a Sola Scripturaist is Bound to defend Paul’s command.

Since Catholics don’t believe that scripture is the sole infallible arbiter of faith they aren’t bound to defend Paul’s command.

Sola Scripturaism leads to such absurdities.

Such absurdities Beg for a larger mind!

 

[cpayne]

The pagan Romans had a natural-law ethical tradition before the advent of Christianity, but they did not come out against slavery the same way as we do today.

I believe it is a Christian teaching, although not one explicitly found in the Bible. If it were, pro-slavery Christians may not have been able to get around it for so long and as easily as they did. It is a teaching that naturally proceeds from the teachings of love and fraternal equality in the gospels.

I think I agree, but this is what bothers me about natural law. It seems such matters should be rationally available to all—in fact, I believe they are—but so often they have to be supernaturally “spelled out” in the revealed Scriptures before we “see” them clearly. Why is that?

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Jerry-Jet:

Paul said “Slaves be obedient to your masters.”

The Sola Scripturaist if he really is a Sola Scripturaist is Bound to defend Paul’s command.

Since Catholics don’t believe that scripture is the sole infallible arbiter of faith they aren’t bound to defend Paul’s command.

Sola Scripturaism leads to such absurdities.

Such absurdities Beg for a larger mind!

I definitely think that some of the more “literalist” sects of Protestantism definitely would have problems with this. But a lot of Protestants would understand this order in light of the historical-cultural situation of the time, and would point to other passages, such as in Philemon, which points to a higher ideal that is most fully realizable were slavery prohibitted.

Don’t forget: a good number of the early antagonists of slavery in America were Protestant Christians.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by cpayne:

I think I agree, but this is what bothers me about natural law. It seems such matters should be rationally available to all—in fact, I believe they are—but so often they have to be supernaturally “spelled out” in the revealed Scriptures before we “see” them clearly. Why is that?

Because natural law really tells us nothing about who God is. Ok, people here can argue with me on this; but I seriously don’t believe that a person, with his own reason, and without any knowledge of the Judeo-Christian tradition, can discern the Triune God in creation. Maybe a person can discern the economic activity of God in forming and maintaining the world, but one does not perceive the immament reality of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We only know this through Revelation. When we come to know the relationship in the Trinity, we also come to realize man in relationship to the Trinity, and especially the redeemed Christian man.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Thank you for your responses so far, folks. I haven’t read them yet, but will. Here is some peripheral information on a similar topic:

Romanus Pontifex

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I think I agree, but this is what bothers me about natural law. It seems such matters should be rationally available to all—in fact, I believe they are—but so often they have to be supernaturally “spelled out” in the revealed Scriptures before we “see” them clearly. Why is that?

I am not sure I am following you as to such matters… being supernaturally spelled out in the revealed Scriptures. Could you set out your instinct on this more systematically? And give examples of problematic areas of Scripture in this regard?

Are you saying that you are seeing a contrast (between natural law and Scripture) on the question of slavery?

I am having trouble understanding some posts generally because of the lack of references so far. Wondering, if people are going to be talking about Scripture, then can they please cite passages and quote the relevant excerpts?

Also I am wondering if folks have considered the reality of different kinds of slavery? The link I gave in my previous post defines these differences.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Madaglan:

I definitely think that some of the more “literalist” sects of Protestantism definitely would have problems with this. But a lot of Protestants would understand this order in light of the historical-cultural situation of the time, and would point to other passages, such as in Philemon, which points to a higher ideal that is most fully realizable were slavery prohibitted.

Could you specify the cites and quote the relevant excerpts from Scripture please?

Since we are discussing, in part, Sola Scriptura, I was wondering if the historical-cultural hermeneutic is found in the Bible?

Madaglan:

Don’t forget: a good number of the early antagonists of slavery in America were Protestant Christians.

Chattel slavery? Or prisoners of war? Could you expand on this ‘antogonists of slavery’ aspect please? Thank you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Madaglan:

Because natural law really tells us nothing about who God is. Ok, people here can argue with me on this; but I seriously don’t believe that a person, with his own reason, and without any knowledge of the Judeo-Christian tradition, can discern the Triune God in creation.

Can we examine this please? Many non-Judeo-Christian cultures have creation theology, do they not? What does the Christian Triune God do, first of all? Then let’s look at what happens in the creation theology of other cultures. Where I am going with this, fyi, is finding a place for Invincible Ignorance – that is finding what form seeking the 99th sheep takes.

Madaglan:

Maybe a person can discern the economic activity of God in forming and maintaining the world, but one does not perceive the immament reality of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We only know this through Revelation.

Clarification: are you saying that Sola Scripture is the only means to Revelation?

I think some Sola Scripturists (Dan Wallace) would define Sola Scriptura differently from that. Some say that there are many forms of authoritative teaching (obviously authoritative teaching would include revelation) but that the Scripture is the final authority.

(First of all the notion of final authority doesn’t make sense. But that is the topic of a later discussion.)

Is it true that there are extra-Scriptural sources of Revelation? What does Scripture itself have to say about this? For example, did Moses go up on the mountain and read the Ten Commandments from Scripture?

Madaglan:

When we come to know the relationship in the Trinity, we also come to realize man in relationship to the Trinity, and especially the redeemed Christian man.

Do folks have to read Scripture or hear Scripture to know this?

 

[cpayne]

I am not sure I am following you as to such matters… being supernaturally spelled out in the revealed Scriptures. Could you set out your instinct on this more systematically? And give examples of problematic areas of Scripture in this regard?

Are you saying that you are seeing a contrast (between natural law and Scripture) on the question of slavery?

I am having trouble understanding some posts generally because of the lack of references so far. Wondering, if people are going to be talking about Scripture, then can they please cite passages and quote the relevant excerpts?

Also I am wondering if folks have considered the reality of different kinds of slavery? The link I gave in my previous post defines these differences.

Hi, Ani. Okay, consider this a response as well to Madaglan, from the earlier post: I agree that natural reason cannot lead us to the idea of the Trinity. That does have to be supernaturally revealed and accepted on authority (accepting the traditional Christian interpretation of the Scriptures, for example, such as 1 John 5:something). Another example would be the Virgin Birth—definitely not a part of natural reason. However, I can accept that idea (that the Trinity is part of the specific revelation given in the New Testament to Christians) and still wonder about slavery. As Magdalan pointed out, the Greeks and Romans DID have a form of natural law teaching, a sort of “general revelation” available to all through the light of natural reason. So why didn’t they in general recognize slavery as wrong, as the early Christians did? (Paul certainly encouraged Philemon to release Onesimus, in Philemon:something. ) It seems to me that natural reason would be enough to condemn slavery, but maybe I’m looking back at it through 2000 years of Christianity?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

cpayne:

Hi, Ani. Okay, consider this a response as well to Madaglan, from the earlier post: I agree that natural reason cannot lead us to the idea of the Trinity. That does have to be supernaturally revealed and accepted on authority (accepting the traditional Christian interpretation of the Scriptures, for example, such as 1 John 5:something). Another example would be the Virgin Birth—definitely not a part of natural reason.

So one would expect no experiences of virgin birth or a triune God in non-Judeo-Christian cultures. Is that fair to investigate next?

cpayne:

However, I can accept that idea (that the Trinity is part of the specific revelation given in the New Testament to Christians) and still wonder about slavery. As Magdalan pointed out, the Greeks and Romans DID have a form of natural law teaching, a sort of “general revelation” available to all through the light of natural reason.

Yep, they sure did have a very advanced form of natural law teaching. Did the Greeks not have a notion of the Unknown God which in fact prepared them for the coming of the Gospels? And gosh, there would have been all of Aristotle – at least!

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

cpayne:

So why didn’t they in general recognize slavery as wrong, as the early Christians did? (Paul certainly encouraged Philemon to release Onesimus, in Philemon:something. ) It seems to me that natural reason would be enough to condemn slavery, but maybe I’m looking back at it through 2000 years of Christianity?

Thanks for this. What is the difference, for example, between indentured servitude and slavery? As for the 21st C filter: was it not true that many slaves taken in ancient history were taken actually as prisoners of war?

Now we intern prisoners of war in prison camps and we have the Geneva Convention and the Law of Land Warfare and such. What did they have back then? I don’t think they had prison camps.

Some of the worst off, were made into gladiators. Some of the more fortunate were trained as physicians and kept in households. St Luke, for example, was at one time in his life a slave. He was trained as a physician.

So on what reasonable/moral bases do you think these selections were made?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

As for your question “why didn’t they in general recognize slavery as wrong, as the early Christians did?”: I dunno if the early Christians thought all forms of slavery were wrong. And therefore I don’t know if the early Christians were all that different from the more moderate Roman citizenry.

1. There is the question of slaves taken as prisoners of war. This is prudential teaching. As for its morality, much depended on the justness of the war as well as the application of the principle of double effect. In other words, the morality of keeping a prisoner of war depended on circumstances and – of course – the treatment of the slave/prisoner.
2. I also believe that it was common for the middle class to sort of ‘rent themselves out’ as slaves during hard times. The alternative would have been to starve and to see his family starve. Again: principle of double effect. Sheesh, this was common even in my grandmother’s time. Do you not remember the book The French Lieutenant’s Woman?
3. There is also the question of rendering unto Caesar: that is, that the Early Church thought it was destructive to the social order to insist on all of the prudential teachings – as opposed to infallible teachings. So Paul advised that masters exercise Christian charity toward slaves and that slaves respect their masters!

Thoughts anyone?

end of post