Moreover, we are all subject to our Christian brothers and sisters, who are to keep us in check. Morally speaking, this means that if I'm out of line, the Christian body can call me to get back into line. The authority basis for calling me back into line comes from God, His word, and the Holy Spirit. To often, people will claim to have a subjective interpretation of scritpure and will reject anyone else's take on it that is contrary to theirs. They will automatically call dessenting views "false teaching." Indeed, they will say, "Jesus or the Holy Spirit or God communicated this to me, and I'm not going to listen to some human." However, this is not according to the normative structure of the Bible. Any teaching is subject to the rational scrutiny of the larger Christian body. Saying that the Bible teaches that slavery is not okay is subject to rational scrutiny. Saying that the Bible is not a guide to contemporary morality is subject to rational scrutiny. This means that the community of faith has power in saying which teachings are acceptable and which ones are not. And it's the practice of our community that teachings not coming from defensible interpretations of scripture are not okay. This means that if it can be shown that a teaching does not come from a rational response to scripture, it is rejected and treated as a false teaching (as it pertains to Christian doctrine). This isn't me, Bobby Johnson, setting up norms; this is me describing norms that are in place.
With respect to slavery, here is my position: 1. Slavery, per se, is morally permissible. That is, God does not condemn the practice of slavery, so long as slaves are treated in a certain, benevolent, manner. 2. The abolition of slavery is morally permissible. That is, God does not condemn the abolition of slavery. 3. So, even though slavery is morally permissible, it doesn't follow that we have an obligation to own slaves or promote the institution of slavery. 4. However, being careful here, it doesn't follow that slavery is wrong or morally impermissible. 5. Thus, it is okay (maybe even preferable) that the institution of slavery is not practiced in our society; but our society disagrees with God in holding that the institution itself -- even if slavery is practiced benevolently -- is wrong. I hold that 1-5 are true and reasonable, and are consistent with scripture. Of course, I welcome anyone to correct me. On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Robert Johnson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I meant to say "acting wrongly" where my last post reads "actly > wrongly." > > Bob > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Robert Johnson < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> This argument doesn't hold water when examined so >>> don't even jump on me Bobby! >> >> >> First of all, Rob, I think you're actly wrongly. You're not offending me, >> you're offending reason -- and you're not giving truth its due respect. >> Your posts seem to advocate subjective antirationalism, which I think is the >> cancer of fundamentalism. God willing, this mindset will be uprooted from >> you and others in the conservative Christian community. I, for one, will >> spend my life attacking antirationalism in the Christian community. It is >> my calling and is a function of my vocation. >> >> Jesus and Paul especially valued the truth and rational argumentation. >> Paul reasoned in the synagogues with people who were quite good at debate, >> and he argued with philosophers (Acts 17). Why would Paul enter into >> rational discussion about the scriptures and philosophy? For example, >> >> >>> Following his usual custom, Paul joined them, and for three sabbaths he >>> *entered into discussions with them from the scriptures*, *expounding*and >>> *demonstrating* that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead, >>> and that "This is the Messiah, Jesus, whom I proclaim to you." >> >> >> >>> While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he grew exasperated at the >>> sight of the city full of idols. So *he debated in the synagogue with >>> the Jews and with the worshipers, and daily in the public square with >>> whoever happened to be there*. Even some of the Epicurean and Stoic >>> philosophers engaged him in discussion. Some asked, "What is this scavenger >>> trying to say?" Others said, "He sounds like a promoter of foreign deities," >>> because he was preaching about 'Jesus' and 'Resurrection.' >> >> >> Also, it turns out, Jesus was a logician: >> http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=39. Jesus clearly >> engaged in rational argumentation. Thus, he valued reason. I am making >> this case about Jesus and Paul's use of reason and argument to make a major >> point. Rob, regardless of what you think about me, you ought to follow >> Jesus and Paul by using reason correctly and obeying the laws of rational >> argumentation. To command me not to take your argument out from its roots >> is one thing, but to spit in the face of reason is another. >> >> As Christians, we are to value truth. And if we value truth, we value >> rational inspection. Why? Because passing rational inspection means that >> we are in the best position to get to the truth. By contrast, not passing >> rational inspection means that we are not in the best position to get to the >> truth. In honor of the truth, we should not offer our opinion on an issue >> if we don't think we are in the best position to get the truth. >> >> However, Rob, you feel okay claiming that God is against slavery. >> However, you have absolutely no evidence from scripture that God is against >> slavery -- only abuses of slavery. But you seem committed to that slavery >> is wrong, and instead of correcting your position to that slavery, *per >> se*, is morally fine, you insist on "adding it to your list of things >> you're going to ask Jesus" and continue thinking that slavery is wrong. >> This stance on any issue where there is decisive evidence for one position, >> I think, is not okay. And to try to silence those who may try to engage you >> about the rationality of your position is against the Christian spirit (see >> quotes above and the Willard article on Jesus the Logician) and against the >> spirit of this board. >> >> Consider this passage from Acts 26: >> >> >>> At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. "You are out of your >>> mind, Paul!" he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane." "I am >>> not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true >>> and reasonable. >> >> Why didn't Paul say that Jesus told him such things in private? Why did >> he reply by saying, "What I am saying is true and reasonable?" >> >> >> >> Bobby >> >> > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crosspointe Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/crosspointe-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
