Bible Study Separation of Church and State

[GodsGrace]

I'm disappointed in you both. I lob the acronym PPL out there like a fishing lure and neither of you rise for the bait!

PPL ===> Preferred Poster List

Hey!
I know what PPL means.
I thank you.
I appreciate it.
I return the compliment.
You're also on MY PPL list!

Happy now??


Wondering

 

[smaller]

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?

The natural man will always read the law in the natural. The laws of Israel all speak spiritually, and directly of Jesus.

John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

The natural man will never get those laws, nor will they understand them in the Light of Jesus, above.

Paul shows us the same thing here:

Romans 7:14
For we know that the law is spiritual:

In essence then, there are two basic forms of readers. Those who read the law in the natural, and those who read the law as spiritual. These two worlds will never meet and will never agree on the law, nor were they ever meant to.

In 1 Cor. 9 for example, Paul takes a very obscure law out of the O.T. and ALLEGORIZES it. When Paul does this, and he does it in many scriptures, those are our openings for spiritual studies. There are many what I call "code breakers" inserted into Paul's allegorical dissections that are used to "sort through" the understandings of spiritual law, though NONE of these will appear to "natural men." They can not and will not be able to make the connections.

8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

The natural man will always and only read the law in RED. The natural man will never see the law in BLUE. And vice versa. In the Spirit, the reader will never read the law in RED, and will instead be led to the BLUE.

Yet Paul shows that the BLUE is written, when as a hard line fact we won't locate the BLUE anywhere in the scriptures other than in the above.

So, yeah, this IS problematic. There is literally WRITTEN, in BLUE, all of those laws. Yet they can not be seen in BLUE, as to "how" Paul got there by the natural man. It's basically impossible.

There is a BOOK that is hidden within the book that the natural man will never find and will never see and was never meant to see.

That BLUE BOOK remains under LOCK AND KEY by the Holy Ghost.

 

[th1b.taylor]

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

Well, not really, you missed my point. Thw people are still working in these instances, in and of themselves. By and large, the churches here are in the same position, not surrendered but working on their own instead of working in faith aqnd not in submission to the Hand of God.

The EU being the EU I doubt the real Christian, the Church is any stronger than it is here in the US and here it is less than 2 in a hundred that believe and submit. Without that submission you will remain on point but what I was trying to say is that if we look for God working on the problem and if we go over join in there is no limit possible to what the Church can accomplish.

That is about how Henry Blackabe would say it. Simply put; There is nothing impossible for the Church as long as they act purely on faith. Tthe issue here is that less than two percent believe and without that faith you are right but with that faith, there is no limit because God! Strange way to end a sentence but think about it.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I'm disappointed in you both. I lob the acronym PPL out there like a fishing lure and neither of you rise for the bait!

PPL ===> Preferred Poster List

If I were not in this bed I would prefer to be in the wind, horse or harley, love both!

 

[Hospes]

If I were not in this bed I would prefer to be in the wind, horse or harley, love both!

Used to have a BMW GS. I recently got all depressed when I pulled my helmet out of a closet. So I probably know a bit of what you feel. Some day I will ride again. You will too, but Harley's are not going to make it into heaven. Sorry to be the one to tell you.

 

[GodsGrace]

Well, not really, you missed my point. Thw people are still working in these instances, in and of themselves. By and large, the churches here are in the same position, not surrendered but working on their own instead of working in faith aqnd not in submission to the Hand of God.

The EU being the EU I doubt the real Christian, the Church is any stronger than it is here in the US and here it is less than 2 in a hundred that believe and submit. Without that submission you will remain on point but what I was trying to say is that if we look for God working on the problem and if we go over join in there is no limit possible to what the Church can accomplish.

That is about how Henry Blackabe would say it. Simply put; There is nothing impossible for the Church as long as they act purely on faith. Tthe issue here is that less than two percent believe and without that faith you are right but with that faith, there is no limit because God! Strange way to end a sentence but think about it.

Taylor,
OF COURSE all of the above is right.
Problem is - it's not like that - just like you said.
I did mention this somewhere - that it would take a lot of people
And there aren't too many with this type of faith.
The church here is weaker than in the U.S. It's almost non-existent.
It's a little bit like: I can do all things through God who strengthens me.
Same goes for the church - and for the Church.
Things are how they are...

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

Used to have a BMW GS. I recently got all depressed when I pulled my helmet out of a closet. So I probably know a bit of what you feel. Some day I will ride again. You will too, but Harley's are not going to make it into heaven. Sorry to be the one to tell you.

Maybe if God knows you and Taylor need a Harley to be happy, He'll allow you to have one!
You never know...


And just think of those roads up there!!

Wondering

 

[th1b.taylor]

Used to have a BMW GS. I recently got all depressed when I pulled my helmet out of a closet. So I probably know a bit of what you feel. Some day I will ride again. You will too, but Harley's are not going to make it into heaven. Sorry to be the one to tell you.

LOL! Now I'm depressed and so is Chopper. But I have heard somewhere that the "Beam me up, Scotty" ain't got nothin' " on what God has in store for us.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Taylor,
OF COURSE all of the above is right.
Problem is - it's not like that - just like you said.
I did mention this somewhere - that it would take a lot of people
And there aren't too many with this type of faith.
The church here is weaker than in the U.S. It's almost non-existent.
It's a little bit like: I can do all things through God who strengthens me.
Same goes for the church - and for the Church.
Things are how they are...

Wondering

Then we are in complete agreement. god bless.

 

[Deborah13]

The natural man will always and only read the law in RED. The natural man will never see the law in BLUE. And vice versa. In the Spirit, the reader will never read the law in RED, and will instead be led to the BLUE.

 

[Jim Parker]

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.

There is no reference to "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. It states that the federal government is prevented from establishing a national religion and that the federal government is prohibited from interfering with the practice of religion.

The "wall of separation" phrase comes from a letter which President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. They had written him to request he intercede on their behalf with their state legislature which discriminated against them. Jefferson wrote that he could not interfere with the affairs of a state legislature with regard to religion because there was a "wall of separation between church and state. By the word, "state" he referred to the federal government.
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

For a copy of the Danbury Baptist Association letter go to: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/baptist.htm
For a copy of Jefferson's letter go to: http://loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

The current vogue of the atheist, socialist, progressive left to object to any reference to any form of religion in or on any government property or activity is absurd. It is simply the atheist socialist assault on God whom they hate.

iakov the fool

 

[ezrider]

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.

I find it hard to understand that when I said I was not starting this thread as a discussion about the constitution and what the founding father's implied or rather did not imply as to a separation of church and state is just not accepted, and then that is the only premise they wish to discuss. I also did not start this thread to discuss the nature of welfare. If you wish to discuss these issues, then I would politely ask that you take those conversation back to the Current Events forum where they belong.

Also, because I have place this thread in the Bible Study forum, it was actually intended to be an actual study of the scripture. For the sake of this discussion, I would hope that we can leave our personal objections to the government and the perceptions of the evils perpetrated thereof to that other forum as well. The Lord laid out what would happen when his people sought a King to rule over them, and the evils that would befall them, but for the sake of this discussion I should hope that we can respect the notion that the State, or in other words the Government is and ordained institution from the Lord.

Romans 13:1-7
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also:for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues:tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

So with that thought in mind, maybe we can get back to the intent of the OP.

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.

What were the separation of powers between the ruling King and the Priesthood?

 

[reba]

Thinking back to Sunday School.. God set up the priest hood the only reason King Saul came along was the folks wound not stop whining... .. Christ is King..

 

[ezrider]

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.

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.

As far as to whom was it given to enforce the law to help the needy - I don't think a law was necesasry.

I am a little confused by your statements. How can you say you don't think a law was necessary when you agreed that the verses of law that I quoted from Leviticus was perfect?

To whom was it given to rule over the people and judge matters according to the laws: Was it given to the King? or was it given to the Priesthood?

 

[reba]

Leviticus is from God ... Todays welfare is from human government

 

[ezrider]

Thinking back to Sunday School.. God set up the priest hood the only reason King Saul came along was the folks wound not stop whining... .. Christ is King..

Yes, the Lord set up a priesthood, but he also set up Judges as well. Was the answer of King Saul given in place of the priesthood or was he given in place of the Judges?

Judges 2:16
Nevertheless the Lord raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.

Isaiah 1:26
And I will restore thy judges as at the first,
and thy counsellors as at the beginning:
afterward thou shalt be called,
The city of righteousness, the faithful city.

 

[reba]

Saul was in place of their whining
When he honored God he was subject to the priest.

 

[Malachi]

Except neither the priests nor the judges were charged with looking after the poor, the needy, and the oppressed. That was a charge to all of God's people, and now it is a charge to the Church.

 

[reba]

This government kills the unborn at a rate of thousands a day it is not Godly.. and by accepting the government handout we teach government is the provider .. Government is the father figure.. and look what it has produced..

The church has failed.. we see that .. the church failed and let the sin in the door..

 

[Deborah13]

Except neither the priests nor the judges were charged with looking after the poor, the needy, and the oppressed. That was a charge to all of God's people, and now it is a charge to the Church.

Just a question that I don't know the answer to.......
Who is the Church willing to provide food, clothing, and shelter to?