On slavery: natural law versus sola scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ani_Ibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ani_Ibi said:
So one would expect no experiences of virgin birth or a triune God in non-Judeo-Christian cultures. Is that fair to investigate next?

…
Click to expand...
Well, there are some ideas of a triune God; the Trimurti in Hinduism, for example, and in the Cherokee’s religion. But these would have to be accepted based on the authority of their religion, wouldn’t they? I mean, there seems no way (to me) to reach the idea of the Trinity based on purely rational grounds (with no previous indication of the nature of God).
 
Ani_Ibi said:
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
Click to expand...
This is true; maybe I’m giving the early Christians too much credit here. Or perhaps, as you suggest, Paul’s admonition to “remain in the state wherein you were called” is purely prudential.

Now that I’m thinking about it (thanks a lot, Ani!), it seems that as long as masters treated their slaves fairly, some things in Roman society would have been a lot worse than slavery. Maybe Paul was just tackling issues as he was able to, prudentially speaking?
 
40.png
cpayne:
Well, there are some ideas of a triune God; the Trimurti in Hinduism, for example, and in the Cherokee’s religion. But these would have to be accepted based on the authority of their religion, wouldn’t they?
Click to expand...
Yes, good point. But does authoritative teaching necessarily negate natural law? Obviously not if Catholicism is any indication.

How do you account for the following?

Faith can never contradict reason
…There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition… Truth cannot contradict truth…
Click to expand...
40.png
cpayne:
I mean, there seems no way (to me) to reach the idea of the Trinity based on purely rational grounds (with no previous indication of the nature of God).
Click to expand...
Chicken and egg?
 
cpayne said:
This is true; maybe I’m giving the early Christians too much credit here. Or perhaps, as you suggest, Paul’s admonition to “remain in the state wherein you were called” is purely prudential.

Now that I’m thinking about it (thanks a lot, Ani!), it seems that as long as masters treated their slaves fairly, some things in Roman society would have been a lot worse than slavery. Maybe Paul was just tackling issues as he was able to, prudentially speaking?
Click to expand...
  1. Paul was a teacher. So are you. Where do you start your students out? With post-grad Moral Theology? Or Pop-Theology: Current Issue 101?
But truthfully, what you bring up is very useful to us: the whole notion of incrementalism. Now with the infallible teaching on abortion, we have seen incrementalism work in the US. You are on the very brink of seeing Roe overturned or at least rendered legally useless.

In many respects the same incrementalism has happened with slavery. And some aspects of slavery are prudential not infallible.

Now the Church has always said that chattel slavery is wrong. However, where did other forms of slavery fall in the balance of things? How was the principle of double effect applied? Did one harm not have to be balanced against another harm?

The fact of the matter was that Church folks have been very busy ‘ransoming’ slaves from the early days on. Some risked and even lost their lives doing so.
 
40.png
cpayne:
…Faith does not contradict reason, but, as Aquinas says, “goes beyond it.” (His famous quote, “Grace perfects nature, but does not destroy it.”)

So natural law says, “There is one God Who is all-powerful, the Creator, etc.”

Faith says, “Yes, and this one God is a Trinity.”

Natural law says, “Oh, okay—that last part I couldn’t have figured out on my own.”
Click to expand...
Hebrews 11:1. As you know I quote this every time we have a discussion on faith and science. There are two poles to science: observation and theory. Hebrews speaks to both. Natural law is about observation, do you agree? Faith is about the theoretical – or more specifically it is about doing the math, doing the logic, speculating on what cannot yet be observed. (1 Cor 13)

So faith opens the window to greater observation. Observation opens the window to greater faith. Chicken and egg.
40.png
cpayne:
So authoritative teaching is certainly not supposed to negate natural law, but to supplement and advance it. My problem in this thread is that it seems to me that the proposition “Slavery is wrong” seems like it should have been easy enough to figure out by natural reason alone, without the “supplementing” of faith.
Click to expand...
Perhaps what differentiates the Church from other realms of investigation is the existence of throngs of martyrs who not only held themselves to a higher standard but – in great multitudes – sacrificed their lives to that standard.

I am curious: what drove the Civil War in the US? Natural law or faith?
40.png
cpayne:
On the other hand, looking at some of the other examples you give: It certainly seems that slavery is “naturally” preferable to starving to death, for instance. So maybe it’s not as “cut and dried” as I’m thinking.
Click to expand...
Have you read some of the references I gave on that Romanus Pontifex thread yet? When you do, the distinctions between different kinds of slavery will be much clearer.
 
Originally Posted by Ani Ibi:

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?
Click to expand...
Philemon 1:15-16, in particular.

The Bible does not explicitly provide an historical-cultural hermeneutic. Question is: does the (Christian) Bible provide any wholesome hermeneutic?
 
Originally Posted by Ani Ibi:

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.
Click to expand...
That’s why I mention “economic,” dealing with the work of God in creation. I’m not arguing against that. St. Thomas Aquinas argued that one could prove the existence of God from a variety of rational arguments apart from the knowledge of Revelation. We cannot, however, know anything about the immanent realm of God apart from Revelation. Other cultures may have creation accounts in which they recognize a First God or Creator God, but they do not know this Creator God to be Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
 
Originally Posted by Ani Ibi:

Clarification: are you saying that Sola Scripture is the only means to Revelation?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
(First of all the notion of final authority doesn’t make sense. But that is the topic of a later discussion.)
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
Revelation is firstly an *act, *the eternal Word becoming Incarnate. Christ himself, in his person, is a Revelation of God to mankind. So no, Scripture is not the only Revelation. God is the source of all Revelation.
 
Originally Posted by Ani Ibi:

Do folks have to read Scripture or hear Scripture to know this?
Click to expand...
By whichever means the Word of God is communicated to their hearts.
 
40.png
Madaglan:
Philemon 1:15-16, in particular.
Click to expand...
To what does this cite refer? Where were you going with this? Can you clarify please?
40.png
Madaglan:
The Bible does not explicitly provide an historical-cultural hermeneutic. Question is: does the (Christian) Bible provide any wholesome hermeneutic?
Click to expand...
What’s your thinking on this?

What about other folks? Do you believe that the Bible provides any wholesome hermeneutic?
 
Originally Posted by cpayne:

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?
Click to expand...
I think it is important to distinguish that, while the Greco-Romans had a form of natural law teaching, it took on different forms at different times. One could understand natural law in terms of the order or organization of the cosmos, or one could see it more in terms of what man morally ought to do. The natural law in the latter case is not necessarily what actually happens (as the natural laws of science) but what man ought to be doing, even if he doesn’t do it.

Perhaps the natural law told people that slavery was wrong. Whatever the case, Christian Revelation shows us that we are all made in the image of God, and indeed we, those who are Christians, are members the Body of Christ. Even the lowliest of us, and especially the lowest of us, is in the image of Christ, who is God. So, for Christians to enslave other human beings implies the notion that one is greater than the other, that the one has a real superiority and mastery over the other. This flies in the face of an Incarnate God who set the model of humility for us.
 
Originally Posted by Ani Ibi:
To what does this cite refer? Where were you going with this? Can you clarify please?
Click to expand...
This cite refers to a passage in the Christian Bible. It refers to The Book of Philemon, Chapter 1, Verses 15-16. If you open up a Chrstian Bible, you will notice a Table of Books/Contents page within the first several pages of the book. Look for the book labeled “Philemon.” It probably will be located under the subtitle “The New Testament” (It’s not an “Old Testament” book). Besides the word “Philemon” in the Table of Contents page, you will find a number, possibly in bold font. This is a page number. Flip through pages of the Bible a page at a time, keeping an eye on the edges of each page. Once you find the same number on the page, look for the word “Philemon.” It should be larger in size than the other words surrounding it. Several numbers wil appear within and near the written text. Look for a larger “1” (it should be at the beginning of the column of writing. Then, pass down line by line of writing until you come to the number “15.” Start reading here. You will come across a “16.” Read what follows until you come to a “17.”
 
Originally Posted by Ani Ibi:

What’s your thinking on this?
Click to expand...
Let me answer your question with a question 🙂 :

How do you interpret John 14:26: “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
 
40.png
Madaglan:
Let me answer your question with a question 🙂 :
Click to expand...
I started the thread. So I don’t always feel the need to dive into the conversation. Some times I try to goad … er … inspire others to contribute.

😉
40.png
Madaglan:
How do you interpret John 14:26: “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
Click to expand...
I would read it. Then read the whole chapter, reading along with my study notes and, if there were any big questions, then I would go to the Catechism and my usual research tools.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top