Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Sanctified Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and responding to posts. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
ObamaCare and God's Law
Topic Started: Jul 1 2012, 07:26 AM (94 Views)
Ray Nearhood Jul 1 2012, 07:26 AM Post #1
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
 I did not write this, a friend did. I have not, yet, considered with how much I agree or disagree. It seemed to me to be a good jump point to start discussion.

ObamaCare and God's Law, by Tim Prussic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User Jul 1 2012, 07:31 AM Post #2
Deleted User

 While I think the gleaning laws of the OT are illustrative of God's concern for the poor, this country is not under OT law (yet). To evoke these illustrations to say then that the government of our nation should not have concern for the poor is really turning them on their heads.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ray Nearhood Jul 1 2012, 07:33 AM Post #3
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
 For the readers' edification. Tim is not a Theonomist. So, when he says things like -
Quote:
 
I think that the gleaning laws should also guide our modern legislation.
- realize that he is not saying that the unbeliever should be coerced into abiding by theocratic law. He is saying that the law reflects something of the character of God, therefore what it says is good. We should use it to inform us in voting for or proposing law because it is good.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ray Nearhood Jul 1 2012, 07:40 AM Post #4
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
xulon
Jul 1 2012, 07:31 AM
To evoke these illustrations to say then that the government of our nation should not have concern for the poor is really turning them on their heads.
He said that? I read him saying the opposite. His questions weren't "should we care for the poor?" or "should the government coerce care for the poor?" The answer to both those questions, if we use the gleaning laws as a guide, is "yes." Not even an argument there.

The question I think is interesting is, "Does the way America do this (with any number of programs) reflect care for the poor or theft (or both or neither, I suppose)?"



Edited for poor grammar...
Edited by Ray Nearhood, Jul 1 2012, 07:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User Jul 1 2012, 08:18 AM Post #5
Deleted User

 Okay. Yes I know none of you are theonomists. You just want God's law as the law of the land so as to win the culture wars.

I think couching this as enforced wealth distribution is a dog whistle. I guess the Bible nowhere talks like it's best to not be a third world country.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ray Nearhood Jul 1 2012, 03:21 PM Post #6
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
 Man! It's amazing how I can be wrong without even expressing a view on something. Furthermore, I'm amazed at how much I have invested in the culture wars - regardless of the fact that I've said over and over again that I abhor the "religious right" (and the "Christian Left" for that matter).

Putting all of that aside... I'm going to share what my thoughts on this are.

  • Concerning God's Law and civil law. Starting with God's Law, specifically the gleaning laws, then moving to the civil law.
    • I believe that all of God's Laws are good.
    • I believe that the civil laws of Israel were handed down by God and specifically applicable for a specific nation with a specific purpose for a specific time.
    • I do not believe that these laws are directly applicable to nations (any nation) this side of the cross, having been fulfilled in Christ
    • I do believe that each of these laws, being from the Almighty and good, reflect something about God and how God thinks about the situation of this fallen world. Therefore, I believe that there is application/purpose (in addition to the purpose of pointing to Christ) that can be drawn from each of the civil laws.
    • I think that general application that can be drawn from the gleaning law is twofold (there's probably more, but this is what I can think of now) -
      • There will be people in need of care (the poor and the sojourner) and their need should be provided.
      • Man, being fallen, will not meet these needs of his own accord. Government coercion is not only acceptable, but right, and should be enforced.
    • I think that it is right for me (or Christians in general) to support legislation that meets the needs of the poor, even so far as supporting legislation that coerces those that have to meet these needs under the force of law.
    • However, I believe that it is right to consider that legislation in context of the whole of Scripture.
      • As Tim points out in the blog, "The producer/owner gave directly to the needy... The gleaning laws necessitate quite limited local care of the needy... The needy gleaner had to go and glean..."
      • Paul explains to the church at Thessalonica, "It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies."
      • Also, the eighth commandment.

  • Concerning application of the Law in a modern context:

    • Taking into consideration the first four points I made above - I do not believe in bringing the whole of the country under the rule of the Old Testament Law, especially in the sense of compelling belief (mostly because it is impossible), compelling morality (again impossible), or compelling charity (again, impossible). However, I do believe that God's character and thoughts are reflected in the Law. Because of that, I believe that right application drawn from the Law is best for everyone. It is good and good for people. Because I want to see what is good for people reflected in modern civil law, I believe it best to support legislation that reflects some of the principles of the OT law (in this case - meeting the needs of the poor, even through law and enforcement) and oppose legislation that reflects opposition to principle of the OT Law (no fault divorce, for example).
    • This I want to see for practical reasons - because it is best for people. Because it is most just. Because it is most merciful. Etc... Not because I think this is a "Christian Nation" and needs to return to Christian principles.

  • I've said it before, I believe this nation (and many other nations in the west) are under the wrathful judgment of God right now. I don't think there is a culture war to be won. I do believe there has been a struggle against God that has been lost. I believe that the Gospel is the only hope for people in this country (and everywhere). I don't believe that implementing any amount of legislation will save a people or people or a nation. Sure, I would like to see the brakes pumped a bit, but that for the temporal good.
Edited by Ray Nearhood, Jul 1 2012, 03:24 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ray Nearhood Jul 1 2012, 03:23 PM Post #7
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
 Maybe I'm wrong about something in there. Fine. Show me where my thinking deviates from right thinking and I will loose it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User Jul 1 2012, 07:52 PM Post #8
Deleted User

 Wud eye do?

Sheesh. It's not easy being the only one who disagrees on this board.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ray Nearhood Jul 1 2012, 08:31 PM Post #9
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
xulon
Jul 1 2012, 07:52 PM
Wud eye do?

Sheesh. It's not easy being the only one who disagrees on this board.
Life's a...

...well, you get the picture.

Thing is, you didn't disagree. Maybe you made an argument. I must have missed it, having been lost in the comment about being a being both a theonomist and not a theonomist.
Edited by Ray Nearhood, Jul 1 2012, 08:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ray Nearhood Jul 5 2012, 07:28 AM Post #10
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
 CORRECTION: I was talking to Tim about this during a 4th of July BBQ. Tim is a theonomist. I do not know with whom I was confusing him. So, sackcloth and ashes and all that....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · News and Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply