Thornwell doesn’t show up? He is one of the pillars of modern Evangelicalism and was one of premier defenders of the confederate position on slavery. This omission would make me do a hard pass on the book. As to the basic question, could we learn comic timing from Bill Cosby or military strategy from Rommel?
The book is explicitly framed and structured as a study of Edwards, Whitefield and Wesley, not attempting to summarize or identify all the "pillars" of evangelicalism of that era. It would be unfortunate to pass on a book like this just because it doesn't frame itself the way you wish.
@@JoelWentz Thank you for your response and for your channel. I think, however, that you miss my point, so let me put it this way. If a book purported to be about the British evangelical response to slavery and spoke of Wesley but omitted Wilberforce, would you give it high marks or deem it inadequate? Well, Thornwell was the central evangelical character in the defense of slavery. Moreover, his rationale was the same used by contemporary evangelicals, mainly a fear that the Bible as an absolute, inerrant, authority would be endangered. Thus, any book addressing the issue of slavery and evangelicalism needs to deal with Thornwell if it is to be considered an adequate treatment of the issue.
It's always worth remembering that the American Civil War was fought between a nation headed by a devout Anglican and another led by a notorious atheist.
I don’t think he “condoned” it. Slavery was just a fact of life in the First Century. He told slaves to obey their masters. Just like he told women to obey their husbands. It was a matter of applying the Gospel to interpersonal relationships. Slaves were to model submission, just as Christians submitted to their master, Jesus. But Paul was not a social critic. He gave instructions on how to live within the social and political system that existed at that time.
Thornwell doesn’t show up? He is one of the pillars of modern Evangelicalism and was one of premier defenders of the confederate position on slavery. This omission would make me do a hard pass on the book. As to the basic question, could we learn comic timing from Bill Cosby or military strategy from Rommel?
The book is explicitly framed and structured as a study of Edwards, Whitefield and Wesley, not attempting to summarize or identify all the "pillars" of evangelicalism of that era. It would be unfortunate to pass on a book like this just because it doesn't frame itself the way you wish.
@@JoelWentz Thank you for your response and for your channel. I think, however, that you miss my point, so let me put it this way. If a book purported to be about the British evangelical response to slavery and spoke of Wesley but omitted Wilberforce, would you give it high marks or deem it inadequate? Well, Thornwell was the central evangelical character in the defense of slavery. Moreover, his rationale was the same used by contemporary evangelicals, mainly a fear that the Bible as an absolute, inerrant, authority would be endangered. Thus, any book addressing the issue of slavery and evangelicalism needs to deal with Thornwell if it is to be considered an adequate treatment of the issue.
It's always worth remembering that the American Civil War was fought between a nation headed by a devout Anglican and another led by a notorious atheist.
No, only actual facts are worth remembering.
Didn't Paul condon slavery?
I don’t think he “condoned” it. Slavery was just a fact of life in the First Century. He told slaves to obey their masters. Just like he told women to obey their husbands. It was a matter of applying the Gospel to interpersonal relationships. Slaves were to model submission, just as Christians submitted to their master, Jesus. But Paul was not a social critic. He gave instructions on how to live within the social and political system that existed at that time.
@@toddstevens9667 I see.....so your saying "truth is relative?"