Johnathan Edwards in light of Roots and possible Double Standards

[seal]

Do you believe there is a difference between a lifestyle of these sins, and simply falling in to them spuraticaly?

Hmmmmm.....If you read scripture would it appear that having hundreds of concubines is a lifestyle??? Hmmmmm.... Let's think hard on this on

Look guy, we are tired of these threads blasting Edwards for him being a sinner rather then his teachings. The reasons we debate about these other guys isn't b/c of their life but their teachings. So there's no double standard, we shouldn't be posting to condemn someone for their lifestyle b/c God ordained him to be who he was but their doctrine is another thing. These guys are still alive therefore they have ample time to repent and I pray God grants it to them. Edwards is dead and gone, but only his teachings are things we have to go off. So if you want to criticize Edwards, let it be his teachings and we can go from there. B/c if we are going to bring up his shortcomings let it be just something for us not to repeat, you know like his son who was one of the leading Abolitionist of his day.

[eternal]

Hmmmmm.....If you read scripture would it appear that having hundreds of concubines is a lifestyle??? Hmmmmm.... Let's think hard on this on

Look guy, we are tired of these threads blasting Edwards for him being a sinner rather then his teachings. The reasons we debate about these other guys isn't b/c of their life but their teachings. So there's no double standard, we shouldn't be posting to condemn someone for their lifestyle b/c God ordained him to be who he was but their doctrine is another thing. These guys are still alive therefore they have ample time to repent and I pray God grants it to them. Edwards is dead and gone, but only his teachings are things we have to go off. So if you want to criticize Edwards, let it be his teachings and we can go from there. B/c if we are going to bring up his shortcomings let it be just something for us not to repeat, you know like his son who was one of the leading Abolitionist of his day.

Ok. I believe our actions are doctrine, and Paul says that living as a trade trader is an issue of "sound doctrine."

Do you believe as Christians we are saved from sin? Are Christians "sinners?" Are we still "slaves to sin?"

Also, would you have a problem with someone who had sound reformed and covenant theology doctrine, but was a practicing and unrepenting homosexual to the day he died?

[seal]

Ok. I believe our actions are doctrine, and Paul says that living as a trade trader is an issue of "sound doctrine."

Do you believe as Christians we are saved from sin? Are Christians "sinners?" Are we still "slaves to sin?"

Also, would you have a problem with someone who had sound reformed and covenant theology doctrine, but was a practicing and unrepenting homosexual to the day he died?

Okay guy are you saying that Paul is condemning these OT saints b/c they all lived as Perverts, Adulters, and Murders? Is there something about David and Solomons Doctrine we need to be aware of?? Answer the question, Cookie..... I never imposed that Christians are slaves to sin, this is your distractive tactics to try and take away from the point I've clearly made. If these Great men of God committed these sins but they are still considered righteous why are you all picking on Edwards. We are all sinners saved by Grace. Edwards is dead, but his writings and teachings live on. Man ... are you guys really that miserable to pick on a dead man b/c you hate his doctrine b/c he's still banging your views to this day... This is sad .... Really it is....

Also to your last subjective question. It's too hypothetical to answer b/c to this date we've yet to see such a thing. You need to stop it with these questions b/c all it does is prove your bias against JE. Let it go Eternal... please let it go. Edwards is Right, you're wrong . At least in our eyes.... Have a nice day Cookie....

Hail King Jesus,
seal

[eternal]

Okay guy are you saying that Paul is condemning these OT saints b/c they all lived as Perverts, Adulters, and Murders? Is there something about David and Solomons Doctrine we need to be aware of?? Answer the question, Cookie..... I never imposed that Christians are slaves to sin, this is your distractive tactics to try and take away from the point I've clearly made. If these Great men of God committed these sins but they are still considered righteous why are you all picking on Edwards. We are all sinners saved by Grace. Edwards is dead, but his writings and teachings live on. Man ... are you guys really that miserable to pick on a dead man b/c you hate his doctrine b/c he's still banging your views to this day... This is sad .... Really it is....

Also to your last subjective question. It's too hypothetical to answer b/c to this date we've yet to see such a thing. You need to stop it with these questions b/c all it does is prove your bias against JE. Let it go Eternal... please let it go. Edwards is Right, you're wrong . At least in our eyes.... Have a nice day Cookie....

Hail King Jesus,


seal

Do you think multiple wives and fornication are identical? Serious question.

It is an interesting question about having the concubines. It is likely the only example I can think of that can pertain to this in the bible. Good question.

It fits right in with my question earlier, about homosexuals. Would we consider a lifestyle of homosexuality to be of the same regard?

Can we openly live in drunkeness and greed and homosexuality and slave trading and still be saved?

Great questions.

You suggest that Solomon had concubines thus it is reasonable to believe someone can persist in a sinful lifestyle and be saved as long as their intelectual doctrine is accurate.

I would be inclined to disagree, but will have to think further about the Solomon question. Thanks for offering it up, it gives me something to chew on.

In the mean time, could you answer the homosexual question?

Also, what do you make of Paul aligning "slave trading" with "sound doctrine?"

[king neb]

Didn't Paul encourage Philemon to receive Onesimus as a brother, instead of a slave? How does that support having slaves?

Lenz,

Your post is exactly the reason why i am done with the thread. All i have done is ask questions to keep Moody on a particular train of thought. No where...I REPEAT...NOWHERE have i said anything on this thread about justifying slavery.

I can't go two posts long before someone jumps in and reads baloney into my posts...things i never said.

[eternal]

Lenz,

Your post is exactly the reason why i am done with the thread. All i have done is ask questions to keep Moody on a particular train of thought. No where...I REPEAT...NOWHERE have i said anything on this thread about justifying slavery.

I can't go two posts long before someone jumps in and reads baloney into my posts...things i never said.

Dude, are you trying to say I'm fat? Man...explain yourself.

[seal]

Do you think multiple wives and fornication are identical? Serious question.

It is an interesting question about having the concubines. It is likely the only example I can think of that can pertain to this in the bible. Good question.

It fits right in with my question earlier, about homosexuals. Would we consider a lifestyle of homosexuality to be of the same regard?

Can we openly live in drunkeness and greed and homosexuality and slave trading and still be saved?

Great questions.

You suggest that Solomon had concubines thus it is reasonable to believe someone can persist in a sinful lifestyle and be saved as long as their intelectual doctrine is accurate.

I would be inclined to disagree, but will have to think further about the Solomon question. Thanks for offering it up, it gives me something to chew on.

In the mean time, could you answer the homosexual question?

Also, what do you make of Paul aligning "slave trading" with "sound doctrine?"

Multiple wives is adulterous, fornication is just that, fornicating. Scriptures says this...

Gen 2:23 And the man said, This now at last is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh. For this shall be called Woman, because this has been taken out of man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh.


Nope, not answering the question til after your done chewing on my questions as you say. I'd like for you to show ever in my post where I condoned any of the saints sins as being okity dokity or Edwards for that matter, God is the one who used both the saints and Edwards, so you don't disagree with me but God, but hey GO FIGURE. I will preach and teach that all the saints and Edwards were wrong for their sins, but their Doctrine is what we learn from b/c it teaches us Righteousness and Truth according to the Scriptures. Therefore once again SOLA SCRIPTURA rears it's beautiful head again, so we like good Christians take what they wrote and test it by the scriptures to see if it is true (Acts 17:11). So Edwards was a Juggernaut when it came to the scriptures, but we should never accept him owning slaves as something to adapt in our lives today. But his stress on the Depravity of Humankind and the Soveriegn God is something we should grasp.

Hail King Jesus,
seal

[eternal]

Multiple wives is adulterous, fornication is just that, fornicating. Scriptures says this...

Gen 2:23 And the man said, This now at last is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh. For this shall be called Woman, because this has been taken out of man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh.


Nope, not answering the question til after your done chewing on my questions as you say. I'd like for you to show ever in my post where I condoned any of the saints sins as being okity dokity or Edwards for that matter, God is the one who used both the saints and Edwards, so you don't disagree with me but God, but hey GO FIGURE. I will preach and teach that all the saints and Edwards were wrong for their sins, but their Doctrine is what we learn from b/c it teaches us Righteousness and Truth according to the Scriptures. Therefore once again SOLA SCRIPTURA rears it's beautiful head again, so we like good Christians take what they wrote and test it by the scriptures to see if it is true (Acts 17:11). So Edwards was a Juggernaut when it came to the scriptures, but we should never accept him owning slaves as something to adapt in our lives today. But his stress on the Depravity of Humankind and the Soveriegn God is something we should grasp.

Hail King Jesus,
seal

Um, I never said you thought sin was okay. That is a straw man. Not fair.

I started a thread entertaining your question. It is a good one. Maybe you can give me YOUR thoughts on your question there.

[seal]

Um, I never said you thought sin was okay. That is a straw man. Not fair.

I started a thread entertaining your question. It is a good one. Maybe you can give me YOUR thoughts on your question there.

You may call it a strawman, but did you read the rest of the sentence Cookie is the question. Are you saying that God didn't speak through Solomon even though he we was a Adulter??? I'd say he sure did since this guy penned some books in the Hebrew Canon. So if God can speak through Solomon why not Edwards? Don't tell me being a Slavetrader just debunked this guy from being able to know Truth b/c then you'd be disqualifying many of the Saints and then what foundation do you have. So you need to respect what he wrote and argue against that. His lifestyle can't discredit his Truth b/c if it lines up with the scriptures we can't do anything about that b/c God uses whom he wills to get the message of his Sovereignty out. Even Rocks if he has too...

Hail King Jesus,
seal

[eternal]

You may call it a strawman, but did you read the rest of the sentence Cookie is the question. Are you saying that God didn't speak through Solomon even though he we was a Adulter??? I'd say he sure did since this guy penned some books in the Hebrew Canon. So if God can speak through Solomon why not Edwards? Don't tell me being a Slavetrader just debunked this guy from being able to know Truth b/c then you'd be disqualifying many of the Saints and then what foundation do you have. So you need to respect what he wrote and argue against that. His lifestyle can't discredit his Truth b/c if it lines up with the scriptures we can't do anything about that b/c God uses whom he wills to get the message of his Sovereignty out. Even Rocks if he has too...

Hail King Jesus,
seal

Seal I think you have made a lot of assumptions.

I have never said that God could not speak through Edwards. And I have said in this thread that I have no comment or opinion on his salvation. Only questions. I think you need to read more of what I said, so as to cut down on some of the false speculation.

The strawman was that you claimed I said you believe sin is ok. I have never said that, and I do not believe you believe it to be. So yes it was a strawman.

But not everyone God uses, or everyone who says true things are saved. That is the point. You are confusing a lot with your speculation and assumptions.

peace.

[CHRISTion]

You may call it a strawman, but did you read the rest of the sentence Cookie

Have a nice day Cookie....

Okay cookie....I haven't missed any point but proven a tremendous point instead.

Are you saying David didn't teach sound doctrine COOKIE????

Edwards was just sinner saved by Grace just like all you Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29 are

SYLVESTER YOU ARE HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!

[jnorman888]

Is being a "sinner" different then teaching false doctrine?

Did JE "teach" about slavery? If so then people can attack his false teaching just like people attack other false teachings.



1 Timothy 1:9-11

9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.


Did Edwards sleep with some of his slaves? Did Edwards see himself as being better than slaves or racially more superier?






INLOVE Jnorm

I just got done watching roots on TV so I am a bit upset right now.

[Devin]

man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please let us not judge JE for this one sin, I hope all of his accusers are living a more righteous life than JE, Jonah, David, Samson and Solomon.

Thank you LORD for your grace that you would forgive men like these

yawn....

[DJ Links]

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 -

“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 -

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.....

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.

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.

[BlackCalvinist]

yawn....

That was very stupid, Devin. Perhaps you need to spend time in your Word and getting hooked up with a local church rather than yawning when folks praise God for His mercy and grace over their sin.

[Devin]

That was very stupid, Devin. Perhaps you need to spend time in your Word and getting hooked up with a local church rather than yawning when folks praise God for His mercy and grace over their sin.

Yawn....



im not yawning because the man is talking about Grace.that is beatiful to me.im Yawning because the dude is calling people "JE accusers"

aint no one accusing JE of anything.this topic is about How cats sweep this stuff under the rug.ok.

[DJ Links]

That was very stupid, Devin. Perhaps you need to spend time in your Word and getting hooked up with a local church rather than yawning when folks praise God for His mercy and grace over their sin.

I see no response with the evidence at hand.

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?

[illuminaticx]

So Edwards was a false convert? Is that was is being argued?

J =]

[BlackCalvinist]

Ok. I believe our actions are doctrine, and Paul says that living as a trade trader is an issue of "sound doctrine."

Two things.

#1 - the text doesn't say slave trader. It says kidnapper or manstealer. That's not the same as a slave trader or a slave owner. Otherwise, Paul would be contradicting himself in Col. 3 and Ephesians 6.

#2 - Edwards didn't kidnap or steal his slaves. He bought them.

and a third - American slavery was wrong and his owning of slaves and some of his responses were wrong. However, as noted earlier, he struggled with the issue at times. He's written contradictory things about it in his life.......so at the very least, it was a conscience issue.... exactly what we would expect to find when a BELIEVER tries to justify sin.

[Devin]

Two things.

#1 - the text doesn't say slave trader. It says kidnapper or manstealer. That's not the same as a slave trader or a slave owner. Otherwise, Paul would be contradicting himself in Col. 3 and Ephesians 6.

#2 - Edwards didn't kidnap or steal his slaves. He bought them.

and a third - American slavery was wrong and his owning of slaves and some of his responses were wrong. However, as noted earlier, he struggled with the issue at times. He's written contradictory things about it in his life.......so at the very least, it was a conscience issue.... exactly what we would expect to find when a BELIEVER tries to justify sin.

ok kerry.i'll give u that.i think i understand where u getting at.but i would have to disagree with number 2.even if he BOUGHT a slave He knew very well it was KIDNAPPED person.no different then buying a DVD from a guy that supposedly "founded" it from a Delivery truck.but i guess you admitted that dude was wrong.and thats what counts.