Even though the Bible doesn’t specifically condemn slavery per se, there is enough wrong with the way it was being practiced by many in the South for it to fall under Biblical condemnation. In the quote above, Warfield was willing to condemn it as a “sin,” “a gigantic evil,” and “inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel.”

As to what principle of separation led him to separate when it came to segregation but not over slavery, I’m not sure.

My best guess is that the complexities of the slave situation led Warfield to oppose denominational division based on that issue. For instance, though Warfield’s extended family included many members who opposed slavery, some of those who opposed slavery also own slaves. If my memory serves me correctly, they inherited them when a slave-owning family member died. They did not think it would be just to free them into a society for which they were not ready, so they kept them.

The segregation issue was clearer. Warfield believed segregation in the church clearly violated Col 3:11. Perhaps because the issue was clearer Warfield thought it demanded separation. This, however, is simply my guess.

As to the differences between Warfield’s separation and modern fundamentalism separation, I’m not entirely sure. Warfield in the paragraphs above is specifically talking about denominational unity. I don’t know what kinds of informal or trans-denominational cooperation he would have supported.

So that I may understand the context, what were “the deliverences of 1818 and 1845″ mentioned by Warfield?

Since you have read this excerpt in its context, could you post in a subsequent comment your take on the principle of separation which Warfield is applying here? Granting Phil’s point that it is not entirely parallel to the fundamentalist position(s?), how would you articulate it in a summary statement?

Enjoying your blog, by the way (HT Andy!) and have added it to my reader.

Thanks!

Good to hear from you, and thanks for the plug over on your blog.

I’m not claiming that Warfield’s separation precisely parallels the fundamentalist position. I’m not even claiming that he nailed all the issues in relation to slavery correctly. I’m making the more modest point that in Warfield we have a historical example of ecclesiastical separation over a sin issue and that Warfield did not think this separation cast doubt on the salvation of those separated from.

Of course exegesis is necessary to determine whether or not Warfield was correct on this point. Nevertheless, as far as it goes, I thought this was an interesting historical illustration.