Johnathan Edwards in light of Roots and possible Double Standards

[BlackCalvinist]

I've made my statement on it.

You and the rest of your Edwards-bashing club can keep pushing the page on to page 7-8 or whatever.

You are and continue to be a divisive man and threads like these only continue to show it to be fact.

Good day.

[DJ Links]

I've made my statement on it.

You and the rest of your Edwards-bashing club can keep pushing the page on to page 7-8 or whatever.

You are and continue to be a divisive man and threads like these only continue to show it to be fact.

Good day.

I beg to differ with you saying that I am devisive and I would say other would back me up on that claim. Your own avatar says that you are zealous for truth. So the fact of the matter you haven't answered the question which is the crux of this thread. You have in fact discussed a side issue which I made it very clear that Edwards was. However this questions still remains....

Why is it that the same criteria of someone possibly being a false convert won't be applied to Edwards? I view this as a double standard here on HCR amoungst the brethren. We are quick to jump on a Hagin, or Copeland or Hinn, Dollar and most recently Ted Haggard yet we won't apply that same indignation against Edwards. Why?

[ctide]

a double standard indeed,

in fact black, it find it interesting that you are harping on Links for support preachers that are ... (names sins)

then say it's unfair to name edwards sins.... in the same aspect, is it unfair for you to lable preachers are false because of there sin, yet claim yourself a true teacher?

are we never aloud to judge a tree by its fruit?

@ the comment that Newton "eventually renounced slavery"

dude, he was unregenerate & traded slaves... got saved and repented, all prior to his public ministry.... as a baby christian newton may have not been opposed to slavery... but as a mature believe he certainly was

are you arguing that edwards was in the same state as newton?

not even close

but its all good famo!

nice talking to you on the phone last night

[lisajames96]

Hey Links,

I started reading his defense of slavery(opposition to african trade) and I got sick on my stomach. I just closed the page. sigh(but i will finish)...James said I needed to see both sides....lol...Well i tried hubby.

The excuses(defenses) were really sickening(to me)...on a side note. he was NOT the only minister in that NE area who owned slaves. Some when faced with the extravagent conotation of slave owning, freed their slaves and some like JE kept them til his death and never made provision to be freed.

In reading I found it interesting too that his first slave he bought(for his wife, i hope) with almost have a year's salary!...what???...That is like me today paying $20K( or more depending on the economy), for someone to prove my stature, not to make me any money(seems stupid, but Christians buy extravagent things now for stature too).

Also interesting that part of his defense was not a real defense, but a pluck the log out of your own eye first rebuttal.
This is what I can't wrap my mind around... WHY is it wrong to trade a slave from africa to the caribean, but "institutional"(okay) to trade them within a homeland(where mothers and kids were seperated on the spot in NE)? There was no biblical basis to reject one but allow the other. If I am wrong QS/Links let me know yall...

edit: Links I have read through some of you posts and see the JE issue is not really your focus here, so you don't have to reply.

[eternal]

ummmm...owning a slave and saying that Christ become satan on the cross really don't compare in my book.

1) He didn't say Christ became satan. That is a misquote. He said that Christ became the nature of satan (sin). Now Christ did become sin on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21).

So the only dispute is if "sin" is the nature of Satan.

When looked at in context, it isn't as egregious as thought at first glance.

Secondly, a person's lifestyle is theology. If a pastor was a practicing and open homosexual would it change?

We are not supposed to steal or support the stealing of human beings.

[Quiet storm]

WHY is it wrong to trade a slave from africa to the caribean, but "institutional"(okay) to trade them within a homeland(where mothers and kids were seperated on the spot in NE)? There was no biblical basis to reject one but allow the other. If I am wrong QS/Links let me know yall...

Im glad you picked up on that as well in my earlier post I mentioned him being "inconsistent" this is what I had in mind. Great post by the way I just pray you will not be labeled as a "basher" since you have examined the evidence and have reached a conclusion which is accurate.

[DJ Links]

Hey Links,

I started reading his defense of slavery(opposition to african trade) and I got sick on my stomach. I just closed the page. sigh(but i will finish)...James said I needed to see both sides....lol...Well i tried hubby.

The excuses(defenses) were really sickening(to me)...on a side note. he was NOT the only minister in that NE area who owned slaves. Some when faced with the extravagent conotation of slave owning, freed their slaves and some like JE kept them til his death and never made provision to be freed.

In reading I found it interesting too that his first slave he bought(for his wife, i hope) with almost have a year's salary!...what???...That is like me today paying $20K( or more depending on the economy), for someone to prove my stature, not to make me any money(seems stupid, but Christians buy extravagent things now for stature too).

Also interesting that part of his defense was not a real defense, but a pluck the log out of your own eye first rebuttal.
This is what I can't wrap my mind around... WHY is it wrong to trade a slave from africa to the caribean, but "institutional"(okay) to trade them within a homeland(where mothers and kids were seperated on the spot in NE)? There was no biblical basis to reject one but allow the other. If I am wrong QS/Links let me know yall...

LJ no disagreements here and the pluck the plank from your eye summarization about Edwards defense is on point. Knowing all this it still leads me back to this question.....

Why is it that the same criteria of someone possibly being a false convert won't be applied to Edwards? I view this as a double standard here on HCR amoungst the brethren. We are quick to jump on a Hagin, or Copeland or Hinn, Dollar and most recently Ted Haggard yet we won't apply that same indignation against Edwards. Why?

[king neb]

eternal,

Who am i misquoting? I didn't mention any names. I did have a particular person in mind based on a book i used to sell as a Christian Bookstore manager 10 years ago...do you even know who or what i was referring to?

[eternal]

eternal,

Who am i misquoting? I didn't mention any names. I did have a particular person in mind based on a book i used to sell as a Christian Bookstore manager 10 years ago...do you even know who or what i was referring to?

Pretty sure, as I have heard the quote many times.

Maybe I am wrong, and you are reffering to someone who said that exact quote. Maybe you can PM me.

I was talking about Benny Hinn though. I am not a fan of his at all, I just like to keep things nice and neat when critiquing folks.

[Moody]

I read all the posts in this thread, and DJ Links, you got a good point and I agree with you.

I think the reason some cats on here don't want to recognize what you are pointing out is because quite frankly, they highly esteem Jonathan Edwards and for them acknowledge what you are suggesting, it would really screw with their theology and thoughts on certain subjects.

For Edwards to have slaves and to do what he did showed that he was just as nasty of a man as anybody else. For some reason though, history tends to polish people up and make them not look so bad. Sometimes folks don't like reading that their "heros" did some stuff that if done today, they would just as quickly label them as a "heretic" or what not. You are basically asking people to re-evaluate what they think about the man, and clearly some are not ready to do that.

You've made a very poignant observation.

Anyway, I checked out some of the "evidence", and this is my thought. Edwards must not have been very sensitive to the Holy Spirit, because if he were, we wouldn't have 1) toiled about what to do and 2) he wouldn't have owned slaves in the first place. That means he was probably somewhat of a carnal man, and blended in just well with the good White Men back in the day.

What a man to model yourself after.

[lisajames96]

Im glad you picked up on that as well in my earlier post I mentioned him being "inconsistent" this is what I had in mind. Great post by the way I just pray you will not be labeled as a "basher" since you have examined the evidence and have reached a conclusion which is accurate.

Well if I can take the "basher" moniker at homeand around friends, I can surely take it on a message board. I love my fam on HCR even if I don't agree.

[king neb]

it would really screw with their theology and thoughts on certain subjects.

Like what?

Am i the only one that has read Philemon in here?

[lisajames96]

LJ no disagreements here and the pluck the plank from your eye summarization about Edwards defense is on point. Knowing all this it still leads me back to this question.....

Why is it that the same criteria of someone possibly being a false convert won't be applied to Edwards? I view this as a double standard here on HCR amoungst the brethren. We are quick to jump on a Hagin, or Copeland or Hinn, Dollar and most recently Ted Haggard yet we won't apply that same indignation against Edwards. Why?

Well, i am really gonna get in now, but I don't see the difference in any other the names you mentioned, that is why like QS, i wont comment on whether any of them are regenerate or not(like i would before), cause they all fall into the same bucket like me, God will condemn or save them.
As you get older, you learn that all our lives are an open book, and people will examine(pick apart) your life whether you like it or not. dead or alive...lol

[TrueConvert]

it would really screw with their theology and thoughts on certain subjects.

Like what?

Am i the only one that has read Philemon in here?

Just read it last week lol. It's what comes to mind right now.

[The_Expositor]

1) He didn't say Christ became satan. That is a misquote. He said that Christ became the nature of satan (sin). Now Christ did become sin on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21).

So the only dispute is if "sin" is the nature of Satan.

When looked at in context, it isn't as egregious as thought at first glance.

Secondly, a person's lifestyle is theology. If a pastor was a practicing and open homosexual would it change?

We are not supposed to steal or support the stealing of human beings.

Actually, the phrase "became sin" or "to become sin" is derived from the word that we use for scapegoat. I'd have to go home and pull it up to give you the specific word. It means to become a "sin offering" and not sin itself. You have to go back to Old Testament sacrificial system and understand that the actual sin offering was without blemish. It was merely symbolic of the magnitude of sin that something innocent and spotless must die. If Christ had actually become sin, then He would have no longer been the spotless Lamb and would have not been a sufficient offering. Christ was our scapegoat. He remained perfect and without sin, but he took the punishment for our sin.

[The_Expositor]

I read all the posts in this thread, and DJ Links, you got a good point and I agree with you.

I think the reason some cats on here don't want to recognize what you are pointing out is because quite frankly, they highly esteem Jonathan Edwards and for them acknowledge what you are suggesting, it would really screw with their theology and thoughts on certain subjects.

For Edwards to have slaves and to do what he did showed that he was just as nasty of a man as anybody else. For some reason though, history tends to polish people up and make them not look so bad. Sometimes folks don't like reading that their "heros" did some stuff that if done today, they would just as quickly label them as a "heretic" or what not. You are basically asking people to re-evaluate what they think about the man, and clearly some are not ready to do that.

You've made a very poignant observation.

Anyway, I checked out some of the "evidence", and this is my thought. Edwards must not have been very sensitive to the Holy Spirit, because if he were, we wouldn't have 1) toiled about what to do and 2) he wouldn't have owned slaves in the first place. That means he was probably somewhat of a carnal man, and blended in just well with the good White Men back in the day.

What a man to model yourself after.

Curious, but how would it screw with one's theology? If you mean Reformed Theology, then I don't understand.

[Moody]

Am i the only one that has read Philemon in here?

Are you saying the letter that Paul wrong to Philemon is justification for "enslaving people" so that you can build them up in Christ? I can't answer why Paul would have a "slave", but because He did doesn't mean he was justified, and it doesn't mean Jonthan Edwards, AKA the gully preacher, was justified either.

[Moody]

Curious, but how would it screw with one's theology? If you mean Reformed Theology, then I don't understand.

I wasn't intending to get specific. The point was, some have put a lot into Jonathan Edwards and what he wrote. To acknowledge that he was involved with "shady" stuff (i.e. slavery) would mess with some folks, that's all. I'll have to put more thought into it to come up with specific examples. Point being, it shows why it is important to read the Word for youself and allow the Holy Spirit to illuminate it, vs reading the "teachings" of a man who supposedly did the same.

[Danielle]

I agree with the views of Links, QS and Lisa.....

[king neb]

Are you saying the letter that Paul wrong to Philemon is justification for "enslaving people" so that you can build them up in Christ? I can't answer why Paul would have a "slave", but because He did doesn't mean he was justified, and it doesn't mean Jonthan Edwards, AKA the gully preacher, was justified either.

No, i didn't say that.

Have you read Philemon?