Seal you prove the point of my question so well. Why is Edwards not held to the same scrutiny that other ministers in modern day times held to.
Your issue seems to be an issue with Edwards doctrine. If that is the case I have something for you.....
Here is a quote from mouth of JE himself -
Quote:
“Where the foundation is weak,” says the common law, “the structure falls.” “What is invalid from the beginning, cannot be made valid by length of time.” (Noyes’ Maxims.) “He that stealeth a man and selleth him,” says Moses, “or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.” “The law was made for men-stealers,” says Paul. “Stealers of men,” said the Presbyterian General Assembly of 1794, “are those who bring off slaves or freemen, and keep, sell, or buy them.” “Those are man-stealers,” says Grotius, “who abduct, keep, sell, or buy slaves or freemen.” “To hold a man in a state of slavery,” said Dr. Jonathan Edwards, “is to be, every day, guilty of robbing him of his liberty, or of man-stealing.” “Men-buyers,” said John Wesley, “are exactly on a level with men-stealers.”
http://www.dinsdoc.com/goodell-1-1-23.htm
Edwards own words convict himself. Here is the scripture that he agrees with -
Quote:
Exodus 21:16 "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.
Here is exerpt from an essay on Samuel Hopkins one of JE students. Check out the mindset of the time and the reason why slaves were owned and if some doctrine was off here.....
Quote:
Slaves had existed in the American colonies since the early 17th century. By the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, one out of five people were of African descent and were held as slaves in the thirteen colonies. In the Colonial period of America, opinions on slavery were divided. Some believed slavery was a "necessary evil" which meant although one disagreed with the practice, there was really nothing anyone could do about it because ultimately it would upset the social order in America. At this time, some believed the social order was founded upon the freedom of some men to hold the labor of other men. Those who believed this way and owned slaves were mainly the aristocratic class.
The majority did not argue on behalf of slavery merely because they thought the Africans were less human, arguing from the curse of Ham in Genesis (although there were a few that argued this way). But the majority of the aristocrats who owned slaves at this time argued that slavery was a divine institution --an ontological institution which God had positively sanctioned in the Bible.[B] The aristocratic class both Christian and non-Christian, argued that slaves had been held in bondage since Biblical times and that the Bible implicitly and explicitly sanctioned the practice of slave holding. They argued that they did not own the slaves as beings in God's image, but that they owned the slave's labor. This was in important distinction for those of the upper class of this period.
Unfortunately, some scholars have argued against slavery from the abuse of the institution until more recently. What is most interesting of a culture and a republic supposedly founded on Christian principles is how the majority of the slaveholders argued for the Biblical support of slavery in contrast to a man like Samuel Hopkins who used the same Bible to argue its abolition. This is more than a mere matter of interpretation because the majority of both the abolitionists and the slaveholders, used the Bible to support their position. The theological and philosophical presuppositions of the individuals were driving their interpretations of the Bible and while the slaveholders maintained that the Bible implicitly and explicitly sanctioned the practice, the abolitionists including Samuel Hopkins, appealed to what they called the "spirit of the gospel." The main arguments of the Christian and non-Christian slave holders who used the Bible to support the practice and trade were the following: (1) Africans could be enslaved, because they were under Noah's curse upon his son Ham; (2) God's people Israel had held slaves; (3) Christ did not prohibit slavery; (4) Slavery was merely the lowest grade in a divinely approved social order; and (5) Enslavement of Africans actually improved the lives of the slaves, particularly in giving them access to the gospel. In contrast to the slaveholder's eloquent exegesis, were those such as Hopkins who said that while the texts themselves might not positively condemn the practice, the very spirit of the gospel message was antithetical to the practice.
http://www.aplacefortruth.org/hopkins.htm
I will give JE props for preaching the gospel to his slaves, but peep what he thought of Africans and Indians before salvation and what their reward would be in heaven.
Quote:
The "liberty" he assumed for blacks was not a social and political liberty on a par with whites, but a solely spiritual one. Even ontologically, Edwards harbored a typically paternalistic outlook that saw black and Indian adults, before conversion, as little more than children in the extent of their innate capacities. To be sure, both blacks and whites were equally in need of the means of grace and of salvation, but that was as far as equality went. Edwards and his fellow colonists lived in a hierarchical world, including racially, and that hierarchy was to be strictly observed; even in heaven, as Edwards conceived it, there would be "degrees of glory."53
http://www.historycooperative.org/jo...4/minkema.html
Again Seal I am just showing you these things to say that the info is out there on Edwards but people decide to overlook it. If you are going to go after others ie; Dollar then use that same indignation to those that are in your own camp.
