What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study Separation of Church and State

ezrider

ezrider

Member
I was reading through some other threads that were talking about welfare and liberal policies. Some one made a comment that basically said if the Church was doing it’s job, there would be no need for government welfare. But is that really the case? To whom was it given to dispense judgement and justice. Was it to the government? Or was it given to the Church?

When someone brings up welfare, my thought always tends to fall on this scripture:

Leviticus 19:9-10
And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the Lord your God.

But to whom was it given to enforce this law. Was it given to the priesthood? Or was it given to the King to judge among the people? Moses was their Law giver, and before the people desired to be ruled by a King, it was given to the Judges to judge among the peoples. Was there ever a time when it was given to the priesthood to execute judgement among the peoples? Or did the Lord established a model for the separation of Church and State?

I am not starting this thread to discuss what anyone thinks the founding fathers meant by the separation of church and state when they formed the constitution. This thread is intended to explore the idea that the Lord established a model for a separation between the Church and State. There were things given to the temple and duties given to the priesthood to perform and carry out, and then there were duties and other responsibilities that were given to Kings and rulers and governors to perform and carry out.

There are many here like jocor and Chopper among others that seem to have a well rounded knowledge concerning the priesthood. Hopefully with the help of all who wish to participate, we can identify things from the scripture that were separated to the priesthood and those things that were separated to the role of government.

Is there a natural separation between the Church and the State. In other words, has it been given to the State, to the governments to have rule over the nature our flesh bodies according to the laws of the land that we live in; But to the Church the things of the Spirit to be a beacon for the Kingdom of Heaven?

.
 
You will not find separation of Church and state in the Constitution.

It was given to the priest to keep the store houses full for times of need..

In reading Ruth.. we can see it was familys taking care of each other not some government
Also farmers/ranches were not to harvest every last bit off their land but leave some for the poor... note they had to do the gleaning them selfs
 
reba said:
You will not find separation of Church and state in the Constitution.

It was given to the priest to keep the store houses full for times of need..

In reading Ruth.. we can see it was familys taking care of each other not some government
Also farmers/ranches were not to harvest every last bit off their land but leave some for the poor... note they had to do the gleaning them selfs
Click to expand...

What would happen today to some poor homeless person who walked into a Napa Valley vineyard to glean the fruit of the vine for themselves? Would they not be charged with trespassing and thrown in jail?
 
If the government isn't going to do it,and no I'm not suggesting it should. Then when the poor aren't feed and taken care of and the church has members who faIL to give.what is the course of action?

Judaism uses the Beth Din to deal with that.we have defanged the church .in that we don't deal with that and then wonder why the world is the way it is.
 
reba said:
No doubt we people have let the government distort what is right.
Click to expand...
Yes mam, when we let the Supreme Court toss the constitution in file thirteen and begin to write laws such as the legalization of the murder of the Unborn, God's People erred.
 
ezrider said:
To whom was it given to dispense judgement and justice. Was it to the government? Or was it given to the Church?
Click to expand...
The question to be asking is to whom was given the welfare of humanity, the State or the Church? Welfare is not an issue of judgement and justice but mercy and compassion.
 
Malachi said:
The question to be asking is to whom was given the welfare of humanity, the State or the Church? Welfare is not an issue of judgement and justice but mercy and compassion.
Click to expand...
But you cannot approach the hard hearted from that position. Reba went where the issue is and I had hopped every Christian knew what she had said but maybe not. The Supreme Court used the same eight words from Jefferson's letter of assurance to the Philadelphia Baptists. The Baptists were worried that the Feds might declare another religion, one not of their flavor, as a State Religion. Those eight words when surrounded by the rest of the letter and they are read in that context appears as building a wall, vertical and unscalable from the government side with a gentle slope on the Christian Churches side allowing the churches to jump from the top to influence the Governing Body and forever preventing the Government from influence or control over the churches of the United States.
 
I agree with Taylor and Reba also. The pilgrims came to practice their religion freely, not to be bound by one - as in England. However, America was founded on Christian IDEALS and that should not be forgotten. (SHOULD).

Good thread EZ
Here's what came to mind while reading it:

Acts 6:1-3
The apostles were busy preaching and caring for the new church. Widows needed help because there was no work for women in those days.
So the church did feel it had to care for the widows.

Your Leviticus verse is perfect - I had thought of Ruth. Some wheat always had to be left on the threshing floor for the poor. Again the church caring for the poor.

Before Social Security (1930's?) people had to care for themselves and their families. The church was also stronger at that time and so families were stronger too.

Government slowly but surely started to take away the responsibility from the family and to itself.
I must say that although I'm conservative and for small government, I do believe that taking carer of the needy is a monumental task and could not be handled by the church. If I have my own family to care for, how can I also care for another family? It's nice to give clothing and food to a needy person. But people need to eat every day, not just once in a while - which would be the limitation on my help.

But, getting back to the O.P.

The priests, as the heads of the communities, were responsible for feeding the hungry - as is evident from Acts
and also from O.T. stories. It's apparent in Acts that the Jews of the time were accustomed to caring for the widows - and anyone else in need. I don't believe the Romans or the Babylonians or Assyrians were too concerned with the welfare of the Israelites and they, themselves, had only kings of which some were good to the nation, and some were not.

As far as to whom was it given to enforce the law to help the needy - I don't think a law was necesasry. It was ingrained into the teachings of the time - Rabbis taught that the helpless required care. It was built-in to Israelite tradition - going all the way back to the Hebrews. I mentioned Ruth.

So the responsibility was the churche's.
Today this would not work - so I could not agree that if the church were doing its job, there would be no need of welfare. The church IS doing its job and doing the best it can, but the govt is needed too.
The conversation would become to lengthy, but some governments actually hinder help to their population.
Ethiopia comes to mind.

Wondering
 
wondering said:
I agree with Taylor and Reba also. The pilgrims came to practice their religion freely, not to be bound by one - as in England. However, America was founded on Christian IDEALS and that should not be forgotten. (SHOULD).

Good thread EZ
Here's what came to mind while reading it:

Acts 6:1-3
The apostles were busy preaching and caring for the new church. Widows needed help because there was no work for women in those days.
So the church did feel it had to care for the widows.

Your Leviticus verse is perfect - I had thought of Ruth. Some wheat always had to be left on the threshing floor for the poor. Again the church caring for the poor.

Before Social Security (1930's?) people had to care for themselves and their families. The church was also stronger at that time and so families were stronger too.

Government slowly but surely started to take away the responsibility from the family and to itself.
I must say that although I'm conservative and for small government, I do believe that taking carer of the needy is a monumental task and could not be handled by the church. If I have my own family to care for, how can I also care for another family? It's nice to give clothing and food to a needy person. But people need to eat every day, not just once in a while - which would be the limitation on my help.

But, getting back to the O.P.

The priests, as the heads of the communities, were responsible for feeding the hungry - as is evident from Acts
and also from O.T. stories. It's apparent in Acts that the Jews of the time were accustomed to caring for the widows - and anyone else in need. I don't believe the Romans or the Babylonians or Assyrians were too concerned with the welfare of the Israelites and they, themselves, had only kings of which some were good to the nation, and some were not.

As far as to whom was it given to enforce the law to help the needy - I don't think a law was necesasry. It was ingrained into the teachings of the time - Rabbis taught that the helpless required care. It was built-in to Israelite tradition - going all the way back to the Hebrews. I mentioned Ruth.

So the responsibility was the churche's.
Today this would not work - so I could not agree that if the church were doing its job, there would be no need of welfare. The church IS doing its job and doing the best it can, but the govt is needed too.
The conversation would become to lengthy, but some governments actually hinder help to their population.
Ethiopia comes to mind.

Wondering
Click to expand...
We will need to agree to disagree because the Church is not an organization nor is it a building, it is the people and if the people, the Church, do as God instructed, it is amazing, they would, as I have not suffered. faith, it is all about faith.
 
th1b.taylor said:
We will need to agree to disagree because the Church is not an organization nor is it a building, it is the people and if the people, the Church, do as God instructed, it is amazing, they would, as I have not suffered. faith, it is all about faith.
Click to expand...
What do we disagree about?

Wondering
 
wondering said:
What do we disagree about?

Wondering
Click to expand...
I suspect it's not disagreement; just confusion from you talking little-c church and Mr T talking/thinking big-C bride-of-Christ Church.

(Just doin' what I can to keep the peace between two on my PPL.)
 
reba said:
You will not find separation of Church and state in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it technically is separated. English law and laws in other European countries were specifically cut out and away from the churches, primarily from the church that can't be spoken of here, and were based on an entirely different methodology, which is "ethics" based. But even the laws that came from the church came from Roman law to start with, and were blended/linked to church law, which is how the whole mess with the church started, by mixture with the world.

The church and state are two entirely different animals. And I'm OK with that. They were never meant to be in the same bed. The world of flesh was always meant to be ruled by cruelty and basest of men. And we can certainly see that is the case of history as well, everywhere.
 
wondering said:
What do we disagree about?

Wondering
Click to expand...
The responsibility is the Churches and you seem to agree but you indicated an inability for the Church to care properly for the poor and the widows. I have never thought to save anything and have been quite extravagant when a need has arisen in other's lives and yet, God has made certain I lack for nothing I need, just as long as I was giving the funds in secret so God would get the Glory. After all, God has a large Tool Box but the tools therein are not wrenches or screwdrivers as one expects to find in a Tool Box. Rather the tools are you, I and the, relatively few others with the faith to submit to the hand of God.
 
Hospes said:
I suspect it's not disagreement; just confusion from you talking little-c church and Mr T talking/thinking big-C bride-of-Christ Church.

(Just doin' what I can to keep the peace between two on my PPL.)
Click to expand...
LOL! W is one person I will never fight with but you are a peace keeper!
 
ezrider said:
What would happen today to some poor homeless person who walked into a Napa Valley vineyard to glean the fruit of the vine for themselves? Would they not be charged with trespassing and thrown in jail?
Click to expand...
If it's government land it's one thing. If private, then that is law breaking.

There was a bit of a tiff in Washington not too far back where a man (who claimed he was starving) fished out of season in a government river in order to sustain his life, which is a right of life in the constitution. The DNR charged him for fishing out of season. I believe the judge ruled that he had the right to sustain his life.
 
Hospes said:
I suspect it's not disagreement; just confusion from you talking little-c church and Mr T talking/thinking big-C bride-of-Christ Church.

(Just doin' what I can to keep the peace between two on my PPL.)
Click to expand...
No need for a referee Hospes.
Taylor and I love each other!

Wondering
 
th1b.taylor said:
The responsibility is the Churches and you seem to agree but you indicated an inability for the Church to care properly for the poor and the widows. I have never thought to save anything and have been quite extravagant when a need has arisen in other's lives and yet, God has made certain I lack for nothing I need, just as long as I was giving the funds in secret so God would get the Glory. After all, God has a large Tool Box but the tools therein are not wrenches or screwdrivers as one expects to find in a Tool Box. Rather the tools are you, I and the, relatively few others with the faith to submit to the hand of God.
Click to expand...
Taylor,
As usual, we don't disagree.
I believe it's both the responsibility of the Church and of the church. Hospes was quick to catch that.

As the Church, we do what we can. I'm not sure we could do enough was my point. A lot depends on where you live too. Here by me there is much need. Many jobs lost in the crises. Families with no one working. The Church is not big - one could do his best, but it'll never be enough.

So the government steps in. It doesn't do much either, to tell you the truth. It does have soup kitchens set up. The Church or the church do not do this here (it is sporatic here and there, but not very well organized). The church does help a lot in distributing used clothing.

The church, OTOH, has organizations to help the needy world-wide. Most churches do. With clean water, food, medical supplies and the such. This really does take a church. It's too big of an operation for the Body of Christ to handle.

Are we good?

Wondering
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top