Suan, I think you're committed to the view that the teaching that slavery is intrinsically evil doesn't actually follow from the New Testament. You say it's not obvious and it "cries out for the church" to "put the pieces together." But this seems like a thinly veiled way of saying "it cries out for the church to complete the meaning of Scripture." That would violate Dei Verbum. Gideon is right on, here. Rather, I think minimally it's quite obvious that slavery is the result of the Fall. Even among those who supported slavery, the predominant position among them agreed that slavery was a result of the Fall (Aquinas says this, for instance). Okay, but what happens in the new covenant? Well, if the new covenant is the in-breaking of God's new creation, in which the curse is remedied, why wouldn't that necessarily entail that fallen realities (=the embodiment of the curse) are to be beaten back by the church? Furthermore, if we can come to know that the institution of slavery intrinsically undermines the possibility of treating the slave as "no longer a slave but as a brother" per Philemon, why couldn't we then say, "you know what, the institution of slavery categorically undermines this", and therefore get rid of slavery because we've come to understand that it institutionalizes *against* the task to treat the slave as a brother, and institutionalizes a fallen reality?
Found myself agreeing quite a bit with Gideon in terms of his advocacy of prudence, view of American history, and incorporation of natural law into the discussion. Prudence doesn't mean rationalizing evil as good but avoiding creating greater evils, as any conservative should know. The lack of a Magisterium doesn't necessarily make one interpretation or other more tenable or obvious for Protestants. Many Protestants rationalized slavery with Scripture while others later used Scripture for abolition. But the Catholic Magisterium provided greater clarity much earlier for Catholics. Lincoln didn't intend to abolish slavery, least not at the beginning, and the Emancipation Proclamation didn't do that (13th Amendment did) since it was military tactic only for certain states.
I actually hard disagree. If you consider the Protestant foundation of faith... scripture... you have to realize that bringing natural reason into the mix undermines the primary pillar of faith. The bible, in its literal historical context, does not imply slavery is a intrinsic evil. Gideon eventually revealed his own position (a bit before 1:48:06 ) that slavery, as described in the bible, was not morally wrong.
@@tonyl3762 you're probably very right. All the more reason to really press points like this that put whatever extra-biblical non-Jesus-instituted paradigms against the successor of Peter and the apostles. I think Suan is correct that only a divinely inspired authority that has been guided by the divine author can smoothly reconcile this issue.
@@krzy1446 Grace builds on nature though and God gave us rationality to know Him. Broken or not, natural reason's very purpose is to know God. And Ratio et Fides does not say to reject reason as reason, but to guide it by the Faith. It does seem likely that the Magisterium one day will definitively address this, that does not mean there is no reason to think on it theologically. One because this has not happened yet and we do not know if and when it will. Two, it may enlighten other adjacent issues, since nothing stands unconnected to other things. And three, it is good for us to seek and wrestle with Him to conform our will to His and this is one way to do so. Best practice imho is on such prudential matters, seek truth, scrutinize your own judgements again and again knowing one is always a student, and three, only rely on it as much as it warrants knowing its nature as fallible and if Holy Mother Church (i.e. the Magisterium) teaches contrary, be ready always to submit to her authority, as she is our mother, and only tells us what the Bridegroom declares to her.
I think Suan is correct in the way he frames both slavery and the literal sense of scripture. I sympathize with those like Gideon who are hesitant to concede some points to academia (e.g., distinguishing between the literal historical and divine context) but I am of the opinion we have nothing to fear. I welcome modern scholarahip into the discussion because i know it will bolster the catholic claims. Furthermore reason claims help inform my decision to be Catholic rather than something like mormon. I feel for Gideon types, but I don't have that draw to double down in views that are at least currently misaligned to the trajectory of the magisterium. Happy these ideas exist in some circles to offer counter balance, however misguided they may be.
Can someone elaborate on Suan's position? It went over my head. Is he saying that God didn't actually make rules on slavery in Exodus and it was just Moses? I'm guessing not? Because that would contradict DV 11: "since everything asserted by the sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit...". We don't assert words, we assert propositions and ideas. It doesn't. of course, mean that God is not also asserting something in addition to that.
I dont really understand how you can believe slavery is intrinsically evil as a Catholic, except by adding in modern sensibilities. How do you argue against anarchists who would say all hierarchies constitute slavery (men vs women, parents vs children, employer vs employee, state vs citizens, etc)? I could say, to some extent, yes, the relationship between slave master and enslaved and those other relationships share many things in common, and that is ok. We believe those other hierarchies are orderly and just, so likewise, slavery should not intrinsically/theoretically (in all circumstances) be immoral. You say in slavery the one enslaved is treated as property, but couldn't somebody say you are treated as property also in those other above mentioned relationships? What Catholic theology allows you to make this distinction?
14:54 I think that’s a jump to go from every assertion is inerrant to every word. I think it’s possible for the authors to write something without making an assertion.
Suan, for my part, Deuteronomy may be prophetic of the manner of which God divorces Israelcfor her idolatry which defiled the land entirely. I'd say in the literal sense, this was actually the case in Jeremiah 3, where the prophet describes the Divine divorce and irreconciliation in the language of Dt 24:1-4, ESPECIALLY verse 4, which said that the defiled, divorced wife can not return to the first husband. Which is why the Incarnation needs to happen for the Sacrifice that purifies the Bride, as St. Paul says in Ephesians 5, that she be reconciled with the Bridegroom God. That all I believe stays in the literal sense of each author, while recognizing inspiration by God in the greater Scriptural reality. So as the divorce between God and Israel was actually because of the hardness of Israel's heart, then I believe Jesus actually recognizes Deuteronomy's divorce law as part of the Divine plan, while actually reflecting the hardness of heart of Israel in all levels of understanding said passage, literally and allegorically.
1:29:25 If they thought there was nothing wrong w the institution, then why would there be a need to free the slave in the jubilee year? Don’t we have to take this into account as part of the literal sense of scripture?
Yes, we should take that account but how that is explained is another. I have a few theories, like signifies the sabbath, reminding israelites how they escaped Egypt, God teaching people to rest and not overwork etc.
@@whitevortex8323I think there could be multiple explanations. I’ve never studied the issue, but it seems like there’s multiple layers to the interpretation.
Do you think everything written in the bible is considered an assertion of the Holy Spirit? Or is that which the Spirit asserts just a subset of the biblical text?
most people, religious, historians, and theologians, do not accept or do not fully understand the limits of slavery in the bible. slavery was not absolute. God instituted the year of jubilee, specifically for the release of debts and slaves. slaves were to be treated also with respect and compassion. it was not meant to be a permanent state of affairs. with the inauguration of the new covenant, it then fell within the authority of the church to bind or loosen this practice, within the fullness of time, in the history and the mind of the church. in the words of Christ, "For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you." this is repeated by matt. 11:29, 1 pet. 5:3, 1 john 2:6, 1 pet. 2:21, etc.
Could you please review the WLC V HIJAB debate on Capturing Christianity. It's deceiving and virally serious. FROM CATHOLIC ANSWERS: "To undo the creed is to undo the Church. The integrity of the rule of faith is more essential to the cohesion of a religious society than the strict practice of its moral precepts." All of you are defending a heresy to defeat a heresy. Craig himself states he opposed the "eternal generation" in the Nicene Creed. Cameron applauds and brings on three Zionists, two of which are schismatics and one of which doesn't seem to know what he believes. This is not a victory for the Trinity IF that Trinitarian model denies that Christ is the BIBLICAL JOHN 3:16 MONOGENE μονογενῆ Everyone that agrees Craig won is at least a material heretic while Craig is a formal heretic. INCLUDING CAMERON.
Suan, did God do something evil by commanding the Israelites to have slavery in this way? I understand Him allowing slavery, but it seems to me that He is directly commanding the unjust treatment of slaves that we see through a human author. I understand that you arent a Divine Command Theorist so I was wondering how God's actions could be morally good when he goes against the natural law. Thank you
He discusses this issue in the Slavery in the Bible: A Roman Catholic Approach video that he did a couple days ago. I know it's a long watch, I wouldn't do the topic justice trying to summarize in a brief comment.
@@John_Fisher I watched the video. I don't understand how he responded to my exact point here tho. He seems to advocate that either God directly had the author write down the law through divine inspiration or allowed the author to write it himself. Can you give a specific timestamp please? Thank you
Suan, I think you're committed to the view that the teaching that slavery is intrinsically evil doesn't actually follow from the New Testament. You say it's not obvious and it "cries out for the church" to "put the pieces together." But this seems like a thinly veiled way of saying "it cries out for the church to complete the meaning of Scripture." That would violate Dei Verbum. Gideon is right on, here.
Rather, I think minimally it's quite obvious that slavery is the result of the Fall. Even among those who supported slavery, the predominant position among them agreed that slavery was a result of the Fall (Aquinas says this, for instance). Okay, but what happens in the new covenant? Well, if the new covenant is the in-breaking of God's new creation, in which the curse is remedied, why wouldn't that necessarily entail that fallen realities (=the embodiment of the curse) are to be beaten back by the church? Furthermore, if we can come to know that the institution of slavery intrinsically undermines the possibility of treating the slave as "no longer a slave but as a brother" per Philemon, why couldn't we then say, "you know what, the institution of slavery categorically undermines this", and therefore get rid of slavery because we've come to understand that it institutionalizes *against* the task to treat the slave as a brother, and institutionalizes a fallen reality?
Found myself agreeing quite a bit with Gideon in terms of his advocacy of prudence, view of American history, and incorporation of natural law into the discussion. Prudence doesn't mean rationalizing evil as good but avoiding creating greater evils, as any conservative should know. The lack of a Magisterium doesn't necessarily make one interpretation or other more tenable or obvious for Protestants. Many Protestants rationalized slavery with Scripture while others later used Scripture for abolition. But the Catholic Magisterium provided greater clarity much earlier for Catholics. Lincoln didn't intend to abolish slavery, least not at the beginning, and the Emancipation Proclamation didn't do that (13th Amendment did) since it was military tactic only for certain states.
I actually hard disagree. If you consider the Protestant foundation of faith... scripture... you have to realize that bringing natural reason into the mix undermines the primary pillar of faith. The bible, in its literal historical context, does not imply slavery is a intrinsic evil. Gideon eventually revealed his own position (a bit before 1:48:06 ) that slavery, as described in the bible, was not morally wrong.
@@krzy1446 I don't think you understand just how erratic sola Scriptura is in the many diverse conclusions that come from it.
@@tonyl3762 you're probably very right. All the more reason to really press points like this that put whatever extra-biblical non-Jesus-instituted paradigms against the successor of Peter and the apostles. I think Suan is correct that only a divinely inspired authority that has been guided by the divine author can smoothly reconcile this issue.
@@krzy1446 Grace builds on nature though and God gave us rationality to know Him. Broken or not, natural reason's very purpose is to know God. And Ratio et Fides does not say to reject reason as reason, but to guide it by the Faith.
It does seem likely that the Magisterium one day will definitively address this, that does not mean there is no reason to think on it theologically. One because this has not happened yet and we do not know if and when it will. Two, it may enlighten other adjacent issues, since nothing stands unconnected to other things. And three, it is good for us to seek and wrestle with Him to conform our will to His and this is one way to do so. Best practice imho is on such prudential matters, seek truth, scrutinize your own judgements again and again knowing one is always a student, and three, only rely on it as much as it warrants knowing its nature as fallible and if Holy Mother Church (i.e. the Magisterium) teaches contrary, be ready always to submit to her authority, as she is our mother, and only tells us what the Bridegroom declares to her.
I think Suan is correct in the way he frames both slavery and the literal sense of scripture. I sympathize with those like Gideon who are hesitant to concede some points to academia (e.g., distinguishing between the literal historical and divine context) but I am of the opinion we have nothing to fear. I welcome modern scholarahip into the discussion because i know it will bolster the catholic claims. Furthermore reason claims help inform my decision to be Catholic rather than something like mormon. I feel for Gideon types, but I don't have that draw to double down in views that are at least currently misaligned to the trajectory of the magisterium. Happy these ideas exist in some circles to offer counter balance, however misguided they may be.
Can someone elaborate on Suan's position? It went over my head. Is he saying that God didn't actually make rules on slavery in Exodus and it was just Moses? I'm guessing not? Because that would contradict DV 11: "since everything asserted by the sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit...". We don't assert words, we assert propositions and ideas. It doesn't. of course, mean that God is not also asserting something in addition to that.
I dont really understand how you can believe slavery is intrinsically evil as a Catholic, except by adding in modern sensibilities. How do you argue against anarchists who would say all hierarchies constitute slavery (men vs women, parents vs children, employer vs employee, state vs citizens, etc)? I could say, to some extent, yes, the relationship between slave master and enslaved and those other relationships share many things in common, and that is ok. We believe those other hierarchies are orderly and just, so likewise, slavery should not intrinsically/theoretically (in all circumstances) be immoral. You say in slavery the one enslaved is treated as property, but couldn't somebody say you are treated as property also in those other above mentioned relationships? What Catholic theology allows you to make this distinction?
The closest to my view from the video is at about 1:45:00 from Gideon.
if a man is destitute and decides it is the lesser of the two evils to become a slave to a master.Is he wrong to do so?
14:54 I think that’s a jump to go from every assertion is inerrant to every word. I think it’s possible for the authors to write something without making an assertion.
Suan, for my part, Deuteronomy may be prophetic of the manner of which God divorces Israelcfor her idolatry which defiled the land entirely. I'd say in the literal sense, this was actually the case in Jeremiah 3, where the prophet describes the Divine divorce and irreconciliation in the language of Dt 24:1-4, ESPECIALLY verse 4, which said that the defiled, divorced wife can not return to the first husband. Which is why the Incarnation needs to happen for the Sacrifice that purifies the Bride, as St. Paul says in Ephesians 5, that she be reconciled with the Bridegroom God.
That all I believe stays in the literal sense of each author, while recognizing inspiration by God in the greater Scriptural reality.
So as the divorce between God and Israel was actually because of the hardness of Israel's heart, then I believe Jesus actually recognizes Deuteronomy's divorce law as part of the Divine plan, while actually reflecting the hardness of heart of Israel in all levels of understanding said passage, literally and allegorically.
1:29:25 If they thought there was nothing wrong w the institution, then why would there be a need to free the slave in the jubilee year? Don’t we have to take this into account as part of the literal sense of scripture?
Yes, we should take that account but how that is explained is another. I have a few theories, like signifies the sabbath, reminding israelites how they escaped Egypt, God teaching people to rest and not overwork etc.
@@whitevortex8323I think there could be multiple explanations. I’ve never studied the issue, but it seems like there’s multiple layers to the interpretation.
Do you think everything written in the bible is considered an assertion of the Holy Spirit? Or is that which the Spirit asserts just a subset of the biblical text?
Everything asserted in scripture is asserted by the Spirit
@@carsonianthegreat4672 Yes, of course. That was not the question.
@@BrandonG667 Sentences are by nature assertions.
most people, religious, historians, and theologians, do not accept or do not fully understand the limits of slavery in the bible. slavery was not absolute. God instituted the year of jubilee, specifically for the release of debts and slaves. slaves were to be treated also with respect and compassion. it was not meant to be a permanent state of affairs. with the inauguration of the new covenant, it then fell within the authority of the church to bind or loosen this practice, within the fullness of time, in the history and the mind of the church. in the words of Christ, "For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you." this is repeated by matt. 11:29, 1 pet. 5:3, 1 john 2:6, 1 pet. 2:21, etc.
Could you please review the WLC V HIJAB debate on Capturing Christianity. It's deceiving and virally serious.
FROM CATHOLIC ANSWERS:
"To undo the creed is to undo the Church. The integrity of the rule of faith is more essential to the cohesion of a religious society than the strict practice of its moral precepts."
All of you are defending a heresy to defeat a heresy. Craig himself states he opposed the "eternal generation" in the Nicene Creed. Cameron applauds and brings on three Zionists, two of which are schismatics and one of which doesn't seem to know what he believes.
This is not a victory for the Trinity IF that Trinitarian model denies that Christ is the BIBLICAL JOHN 3:16 MONOGENE μονογενῆ
Everyone that agrees Craig won is at least a material heretic while Craig is a formal heretic. INCLUDING CAMERON.
Suan, did God do something evil by commanding the Israelites to have slavery in this way? I understand Him allowing slavery, but it seems to me that He is directly commanding the unjust treatment of slaves that we see through a human author. I understand that you arent a Divine Command Theorist so I was wondering how God's actions could be morally good when he goes against the natural law. Thank you
He discusses this issue in the Slavery in the Bible: A Roman Catholic Approach video that he did a couple days ago. I know it's a long watch, I wouldn't do the topic justice trying to summarize in a brief comment.
@@John_Fisher I watched the video. I don't understand how he responded to my exact point here tho. He seems to advocate that either God directly had the author write down the law through divine inspiration or allowed the author to write it himself. Can you give a specific timestamp please? Thank you