The Puritans as racists (Anthony B. Bradley)

[Seeking_Thy_Kingdom]

I wrestled through this not long ago and the reality is that you can't find a person that isn't stained with sin. Do you think the presupposition from the posters on twitter is that Edwards mistreated slaves, or was his statement in regards to actually owning slaves? If its the latter you can't forget Paul returning the runaway slave Oneisumus to Philemon. We don't actually know what happened to Oneisumus but by the way Paul worded his letter he was requesting his release. The bible never reveals his fate.

In regards the former, I am not aware of evidence that Edwards actually mistreated the slaves. Either way the era was a difficult era to live. For example, would it be moral to use my hard earned money to buy a slave with the goal to free them, or do I voice my concerns to the government allowing a man/woman to be separated and sent to a ruthless owner? If you fast forward 150 years into the future you may hear Christians judging us for things they believe are sinful. They bought clothing that was made in sweat shops that were made by enslaved children, or by Adults under extreme poverty. ect..

I found the following podcasts that explains the great lengths the RPCNA church went through to support black men and women during that era. Here is the link to the lecture series. https://www.theaquilareport.com/can...-copeland-on-the-rpcnas-anti-slavery-history/

Thank you for this, read Founding Sins not to long ago and was unaware of the lecture series.

 

[A.Joseph]

So Ive been thinking about Machen and this issue. It’s not a stumbling block for me, because I believe we all have blind spots. But even taking for granted he was a man of his time, is it reasonable to conclude that Machen did not really look to scripture to formulate a deeper understanding on this issue? Also, I get the impression Machen was skeptical of radical social change and obviously government intervention. I get the impression he feared provoking unrest. It seems he feared instability that could come with drastic uprooting of norms overall. Obviously in hindsight, he could have seen all men as created in God’s image but also I’m not sure if it is our job to facilitate some type of utopian social structure. We don’t want anyone to be mistreated but we can’t truly ensure everyone has the same social status and high standing in society or if that’s even desirable and beneficial to the soul. God has greater intentions and priorities for each individual. This topic brings out so much sensitivity and insecurity in everyone because we are moving away from the God who determines rights, wrongs, mercies and justice.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I was listening in the car today to a radio discussion on the 'evils' of Colonialism in New Zealand's history. As I reflected on the discussion (which was very 'woke'!!), it seems to me Europeans were somewhat guilty for colonial attitudes to the native peoples and that forms the basis for much of the BLM movement. Yet I realise that statement needs to be qualified. Dawnins book " On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races" did a lot of harm because it influenced colonial attitudes. Answers in Genesis has helpfully documented this problem https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/did-darwin-promote-racism/

That said a woke 'repentance' is not the answer. The issue is that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom 3:23. it is not that white people are guilty and coloured peoples are innocent. ALL have sinned. We all need a Saviour.

 

[KMK]

Sure, except those who have a platform, like Twitter.

What's Twitter?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

https://www.dranthonybradley.com/about/

He included "Dr" in his URL? C'mon!

I notice on his page, his name is never mentioned without it being prefaced by "Dr."

 

[Edward]

M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary

There's that connection again.

 

[fredtgreco]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1304481148165189632

 

[Taylor]

I have a serious question. At what point do we consider men like this—men who have an obvious sinful obsession—to be infidels, and apostates? I'm not asking whether ever we should examine their faith, attempting to pry into their hearts to determine whether or not they are regenerate. That is obviously neither within our ability nor purview. But Paul does instruct us to "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17). Does this only apply to the local assembly? Or, because of the public nature of this madness, should it be exercised in a public manner?

 

[Chad Hutson]

I wonder what degree of arrogance must be present in an individual to think that they would behave any differently if they lived in the 17th or 18th century? If this man was a member of a tribe of slave traders in Africa during those times, what makes him think he would have made a difference? Or if he were enslaved in the colonies and heard the gospel proclaimed by a Jonathan Edwards or the like, would he not be glad to receive the good news? Would he not be thankful that the Spirit drew him to salvation in spite of his circumstances? What historical and generational arrogance is on full display in these times!

 

[JTB.SDG]

Every generation has their blind spots. We grieve and look at ourselves with greater care, fear, and humility. We don't make unqualified sweeping statements like this. I'm saddened. He's lost respect in my book, for what it's worth.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I have a serious question. At what point do we consider men like this—men who have an obvious sinful obsession—to be infidels, and apostates? I'm not asking whether ever we should examine their faith, attempting to pry into their hearts to determine whether or not they are regenerate. That is obviously neither within our ability nor purview. But Paul does instruct us to "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17). Does this only apply to the local assembly? Or, because of the public nature of this madness, should it be exercised in a public manner?

If you make a public statement then I believe it is ok to make a public response. I believe the issue would be if you made something public that was private or solely within the local church. These SJW types certainly aren't getting disciplined within their own churches otherwise this wouldn't keep happening. Someone needs to tell them the truth. It is sad how many are converting to this new religion and forsaking the true gospel.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

D. G. Hart, while specifically referring to something else, has a good take on why this sort of purity-spiralling and virtue-signalling regarding the sins of previous generations of Christians is unnecessary: The Stumbling Blocks Whom You Should Read for Edification.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Westminster Confession 26 is actually at odds with Jim Crow segregation in the church, but that point is probably inconvenient for those who do not wish to attend churches with too many white people in membership and who want racially segregated minority churches.

By the same argument aren't denominations also in violation of WCF 26?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

By the same argument aren't denominations also in violation of WCF 26?

That is a very good question, though it might be a little for this thread. You may be interested to know that there is an essay by the late Hugh Cartwright in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century (I cannot remember if it is in volume 1 or 2) wherein the argues that "the schismatic notion of denominations" is incongruous with the establishment principle.

 

[alexandermsmith]

That is a very good question, though it might be a little for this thread. You may be interested to know that there is an essay by the late Hugh Cartwright in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century (I cannot remember if it is in volume 1 or 2) wherein the argues that "the schismatic notion of denominations" is incongruous with the establishment principle.

Not every denomination, of course, is guilty of schism. I would agree it is rather off topic to discuss denominationalism. My point, however, was to illustrate that people today can justify breaching the communion of the saints for many different reasons. In the past race was one of those reasons (rightly or wrongly).

 

[alexandermsmith]

Bret Weinstein has talked about that. Often with Woke, if you can get a person to talk to you one on one often you can seem to get somewhere. Sadly the go back to social media or back to borg Woke collective and the SJW programming is reloaded.

Bret Weinstein's view of reasonable and a Christian's view of reasonable wouldn't be the same thing. He is a left-liberal. He is just not as extreme as the far left. I don't think there is any point in trying to reason with anyone who carries a BLM poster. They need to be converted. That is the only thing which will bring them out of that Hell-born delusion they are under.

 

[ZackF]

Bret Weinstein's view of reasonable and a Christian's view of reasonable wouldn't be the same thing. He is a left-liberal. He is just not as extreme as the far left. I don't think there is any point in trying to reason with anyone who carries a BLM poster. They need to be converted. That is the only thing which will bring them out of that Hell-born delusion they are under.

No, it isn’t. Many non-Christian people have left bad and destructive movements without conversion. I will agree that only saves one from a kind of temporal destructiveness but not eternal destruction.

 

[DecafCoffee]

Daniel, while I certainly agree with you, would you be able to point to some solid resources combating this claim?

Well for one, look up Samuel Hopkins (just google him). He was a direct disciple of Jonathan Edwards, and he championed abolition of slaves. Furthermore, Jonathan Edwards Jr. (JE's son), also differed from his father by advocating for abolition. In fact, SH and JE jr were pillars of the New Lights Movement that was the direct spiritual progeny of JE's theology. So while JE himself did own slaves, his theological influence actually paved the way for abolition.

It depends how you look at the slavery situation. Bradley seems to assume that non-slavery should be the default state of the world. Although in a perfect world that would be nice, millennia of world history has shown that slavery is the norm, not the exception. The question should not be "How could they have allowed slavery?" That's extremely historically naive. THe better questions should be "how is it that slavery as an institution ended in Britain/America?" The answer to the first question is mute. The answer to the second question is surprisingly inconvenient for Bradley: Jonathan Edwards' (a Puritan) theological influence began the process that eventually led to the end of slavery in America.

Is Jonathan Edwards the only factor? No. I wouldn't argue that. But many of the Puritans Bradley criticizes should actually be remembered as precursors of the abolitionists rather than the precursors of the Alt-Right/KKK lunatics of today.

 

[Andrew35]

Well for one, look up Samuel Hopkins (just google him). He was a direct disciple of Jonathan Edwards, and he championed abolition of slaves. Furthermore, Jonathan Edwards Jr. (JE's son), also differed from his father by advocating for abolition. In fact, SH and JE jr were pillars of the New Lights Movement that was the direct spiritual progeny of JE's theology. So while JE himself did own slaves, his theological influence actually paved the way for abolition.

It depends how you look at the slavery situation. Bradley seems to assume that non-slavery should be the default state of the world. Although in a perfect world that would be nice, millennia of world history has shown that slavery is the norm, not the exception. The question should not be "How could they have allowed slavery?" That's extremely historically naive. THe better questions should be "how is it that slavery as an institution ended in Britain/America?" The answer to the first question is mute. The answer to the second question is surprisingly inconvenient for Bradley: Jonathan Edwards' (a Puritan) theological influence began the process that eventually led to the end of slavery in America.

Is Jonathan Edwards the only factor? No. I wouldn't argue that. But many of the Puritans Bradley criticizes should actually be remembered as precursors of the abolitionists rather than the precursors of the Alt-Right/KKK lunatics of today.

Well, this is a rare opportunity!

To be perfectly frank, decaf coffee, I've never liked you. And I'm not convinced you're healthier than regular coffee.

 

[Taylor]

Jonathan Edwards' (a Puritan) theological influence began the process that eventually led to the end of slavery in America.

But don't you know that our high and exalted evangelical gurus over at The Gospel Coalition have written a lamentation for Edwards? Why would you go against TGC's supreme and unquestionable wisdom here?

 

[DecafCoffee]

But don't you know that our high and exalted evangelical gurus over at The Gospel Coalition have written a lamentation for Edwards? Why would you go against TGC's supreme and unquestionable wisdom here?

I'm evidently not woke enough. Perhaps I should start drinking regular coffee. The fault is mine. I'll go flagellate myself now....

 

[ZackF]

Well for one, look up Samuel Hopkins (just google him). He was a direct disciple of Jonathan Edwards, and he championed abolition of slaves. Furthermore, Jonathan Edwards Jr. (JE's son), also differed from his father by advocating for abolition. In fact, SH and JE jr were pillars of the New Lights Movement that was the direct spiritual progeny of JE's theology. So while JE himself did own slaves, his theological influence actually paved the way for abolition.

It depends how you look at the slavery situation. Bradley seems to assume that non-slavery should be the default state of the world. Although in a perfect world that would be nice, millennia of world history has shown that slavery is the norm, not the exception. The question should not be "How could they have allowed slavery?" That's extremely historically naive. THe better questions should be "how is it that slavery as an institution ended in Britain/America?" The answer to the first question is mute. The answer to the second question is surprisingly inconvenient for Bradley: Jonathan Edwards' (a Puritan) theological influence began the process that eventually led to the end of slavery in America.

Is Jonathan Edwards the only factor? No. I wouldn't argue that. But many of the Puritans Bradley criticizes should actually be remembered as precursors of the abolitionists rather than the precursors of the Alt-Right/KKK lunatics of today.

Excellent points. I learned some good stuff and have yet another thing to look into sometime. For Bradley and those captive to this ascended ideology, I wonder if it matters. I find it hard to believe there are no black theologians in history, while knowing about about Edwards history with slavery, that nevertheless quoted him favorably. Is it because those in different places and time didn't have Critical Race Theory and it's "analytical tools" to make sense of things? JE jr. is still guilty by CRT's rubrics anyway. It does not matter that he may started have things in the right direction.

I'm curious about "New Lights Movement" though it sounds a bit Quakery. The Quakers of course were among the earlier groups to oppose slavery.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I'm evidently not woke enough. Perhaps I should start drinking regular coffee. The fault is mine. I'll go flagellate myself now....

Welcome to the board Mr. Coffee; please see the link down below under useful links about fixing a signature so folks know how to address you properly.

 

[DecafCoffee]

Excellent points. I learned some good stuff and have yet another thing to look into sometime. For Bradley and those captive to this ascended ideology, I wonder if it matters. I find it hard to believe there are no black theologians in history, while knowing about about Edwards history with slavery, that nevertheless quoted him favorably. Is it because those in different places and time didn't have Critical Race Theory and it's "analytical tools" to make sense of things? JE jr. is still guilty by CRT's rubrics anyway. It does not matter that he may started have things in the right direction.

I'm curious about "New Lights Movement" though it sounds a bit Quakery. The Quakers of course were among the earlier groups to oppose slavery.

Actually believe it or not, there are black historians who are fine with Edwards... namely [drumroll].... Thabiti Anyabwile (and others)! see here.

The New Lights Movement was a movement within Calvinist circles that started with JE and his supporters of the revivals during the Great Awakening. It didn't actually have anything to do directly with slavery. It had more to do with the legitimacy of revivalism and the "enthusiasm" that many of Whitfield's and Edwards' revivals caused.

Yeah y'know I've read Anthony Bradley's works before, and honestly he comes across as a conundrum to me. You would read his stuff and think he's a Trump supporting Republican. But then he'll write something that makes you think he's super lefty with the BLM and CRT. He is an enigma to me. That's all I can say.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Actually believe it or not, there are black historians who are fine with Edwards... namely [drumroll].... Thabiti Anyabwile (and others)! see here.

The New Lights Movement was a movement within Calvinist circles that started with JE and his supporters of the revivals during the Great Awakening. It didn't actually have anything to do directly with slavery. It had more to do with the legitimacy of revivalism and the "enthusiasm" that many of Whitfield's and Edwards' revivals caused.

Yeah y'know I've read Anthony Bradley's works before, and honestly he comes across as a conundrum to me. You would read his stuff and think he's a Trump supporting Republican. But then he'll write something that makes you think he's super lefty with the BLM and CRT. He is an enigma to me. That's all I can say.

That video from Thabiti is from 7 years ago. I bet if you asked him today about the subject, he would agree with Bradley. I hope I am wrong though. However, from what I hear coming out of Thabiti lately, it sounds like he has left the faith.

 

[Taylor]

I'll go flagellate myself now....

I think you mean “caffeinate.”

 

[Chad Hutson]

Just received in the mail Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Took me almost 4 months to get it. Ended up ordering it from the UK due to American suppliers refusal to fill the order (suspicious!). Dr. Sowell's research points to the adoption of lower class Southern white culture (imported from Northern England, Scottish highlands, and the borderlands) as the root cause of much of the perpetuating problems of black Americans rather than the ongoing effects of slavery. As a minister in the foothills of Appalachia (not as remote as much of Appalachia) I have long said that the issues plaguing the inner city blacks are the same issues of the Appalachian culture.
Alas, there is no benefit for others in addressing these issues because they/we are victimizing themselves/ourselves. Victimhood is very profitable, so there will be no solution anytime soon.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Newsflash for this Anthony Bradley fellow: voting for baby-killers is worse than racism. Homosexuality is a far greater sin than slavery.

 

[Herald]

Galatians 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

The difficult part is when it is another "brother" who is doing the biting and devouring. Part of me wants to ignore this guy and assign him the label of "irrelevant'. However, his type are making noise and misleading some. It is hard to ignore that.

 

[Herald]

Not everybody walking around with BLM posters is woke. They can be reasoned with.

That is because there is a difference between the Neo-Marxist BLM movement and the declaration that black lives matter. The latter is a statement that blacks still face injustice. One can agree with that while not buying into the BLM movement. The difficult part is dissecting the two.