Health Care for America Now

I don't think this is entirely true. In fact, I was listening to NPR the other day who seemed to indicate the opposite.

But even at that, why does it matter? When the government is involved in health care, it will get worse for most people. It is not the government's job.

 

In case you have missed some of andre's earlier posts he/she believes in a gospel whereby Christ died to redeem planets and trees as well as man and we are to take part in the redemption of all. It appears to be a convoluted form of N.T. Wrights teachings.

 

That is the first question. No one is denied medical attention based on ability to pay.

So please be more careful with the facts. They are still too easily lost in here by people trying to score political points in areas where the truth doesn't help them.

 

I have missed that. That is nonsense. It is a denial of the biblical gospel. We can make arguments for universal health care without distorting the gospel to do it.

 

The above represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the "gospel" really is. Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the gospel is not the "good news that Jesus came to be everything we should have been and died the death we shoud hae died so that we can have life and forgiveness through faith in him". That is only one consequence, or entailment of the gospel.

The gospel is instead what Paul clearly states in Romans 1 - the proclamation that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth has been raised from the dead and thereby demonstrated to be both Israel’s Messiah and the world’s true Lord. ‘The gospel’ is not ‘you can be saved, and here’s how’; the gospel, for Paul, is ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’:

the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

As I have repeatedly pointed out and never been challenged on, the word "gospel" at the time was often used to announce the ascendency of a new emperor to the throne in Rome. Paul clearly used this term in relation to Jesus to make a political point - Jesus is Lord of this present world and Ceasar is not.

With a correct understanding of what the gospel is - the proclamation that Jesus is Lord - one then draws the appropriate conclusion: the church is to work to enshrine the Kingdom of God values in all spheres, including government. And universal health care is a clear example of this - claiming Jesus' kingship by implementing care "for the least of these" in the institutions over which Jesus is Lord.

 

Let the Scriptures speak:

19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

And again:

And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

Unless "all things" means "human beings", my point appears to be sustained.

And yet again:

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

And there are many other texts as well, not least Isaiah 55. God will redeem and restore all of his creation, not just the people.

 

Then Jesus and Paul and the rest of the apostles and the church throughout history has fundamentally misunderstood the gospel.

You are incorrect.

Well, what you have said here is exactly what I said, and it is not what you previously said. You will note that here in your own presentation of the gospel, there is no mention of universal health care.

Who would challenge that? It is likely declaring that the sky is up and wondering why no one challenges you. It is completely and totally irrelevant. The word gospel means "good news." That can refer to a vast number of things. The biblical gospel is the good news that Jesus died for sin to give life to those who believe in him.

Again, several glaring issues?

First, the church is not working to enshrine the kingdom. Jesus will enshrine the kingdom when he returns. This is the unanimous testimony of Scripture.

Second, the church is told to submit to government, not enshrine the lordship of Jesus in it. As you can tell (if you would actually read the NT and get your theology from it), the church is never told to do anything to the government except to submit to it and pray for its leaders.

Third, universal healthcare has absolutely nothing to do with enshrining teh lordship of Jesus. All we need do is point out the total lack of biblical support for your statement. The gospel is not about healthcare. In fact, as I pointed out, the gospel endangers your health. It does not make it safer.

 

Here is the text:

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Did Jesus mean "nations" or did He not? The greek term Jesus uses here has the sense of corporateness - I can prove this if needed. If his intent was to limit his authority to the training of specific individuals - "disciples" - to the exclusion of the corporateness of groups, He would not have used the term "nation".

As it is, however, He did use the term "nation" and I will take Him at his word - it is not just "disciples" over whom Jesus has authority, it is nations.

And of course, that is entirely consistent with Paul's treatment of Jesus, proclaimng his as King.

And, if anything, Jesus' choice of words only strengthens the argument that I have been advancing - that God is very much interested in extending His authority to the human race as seen corporately and, by obvious implication, to the laws that govern such groups.

 

You are only partly correct here. Paul is clear about the gospel as is Jesus. The church has indeed gone astray and lost sight of what the gospel really is.

Partly correct, partly incorrect. Correct that we are to submit to government, incorrect to assert that we are not to enshrine the lordhip of Jesus in the world. And the scriptures bear me out. All authority has already been given to Jesus - does this mean that the church is to concede the governance of the world to secular values until Jesus returns? Not likely. And Jesus came announcing the Kingdom of God has arrived and is being initiated by Jesus ministry.

28But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you

Has the Kingdom arrived or not? It clearly had arrived even 2000 years ago. And who is the King? Jesus is the King. And what do Kings do? Rule over the "interior spiritual lives" of people? No, they govern.

Hardly much of an argument. The scriptures do not (directly) address the issue of abortion either. Does that mean there is not an implicit argument against abortion in the Scriptures?

There is clear Biblical support for the concept of universal health care, not least in the story of the 99 sheep and the one that goes missing. If one "spiritualizes" this story into a parable about salvation, then the breadth of its meaning is lost. The imperative to care for all members of society is implicit in that parable.

 

I ask the reader to consider what Paul actually writes about the content of the "gospel" and compare it to the widely held view that it is essentially the message that one can be saved by faith in Jesus:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

To quote NT Wright:

 

Thanks for the Clarifications, RevMitchell! Andre's incorrect identifications of what the Gospel is makes it impossible to really reach any kind of agreement.

If we are now living in a kingdom in which Jesus is reigning - I speak with tongue firmly planted in cheek - I want another kingdom.

 

This is an oversimplification that denies the sweep of the scriptural story.

Consider these texts from Isaiah:

You who bring good tidings to Zion,
go up on a high mountain.
You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem,
lift up your voice with a shout,
lift it up, do not be afraid;
say to the towns of Judah,
"Here is your God!"

How beautiful on the mountains
are the feet of those who bring good news,
who proclaim peace,
who bring good tidings,
who proclaim salvation,
who say to Zion,
"Your God reigns"

The writer is not introducing miscellaneous non-specific good news - he is announcing God's return to Zion and the return of Isreal from exile in Babylon.

These assertions are not generalized "good news" but specific statements about Israel and her state in exile.

The connections to Jesus should be self-evident. It precisely in Christ that God "returns to Zion" and it is precisely in Christ that the true meaning of Israel's redemption from exile is realized.

This is why a unified reading of the scriptures underscores the proper sense to be accorded to the word "gospel". It is not "you can be saved by faith", but rather "Jesus is Lord".

 

Did Paul make a mistake when he defined the gospel thus in Romans 1:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

I am only repeating what Paul is saying - the gospel is the declaration that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah whose resurrection from the dead constitutes him as Lord.

Why am I the only one making a scriptural case here?

 

"To die is gain," is it not?

 

How is it so better for "the church" if the government stays out of it, but it's so much better for medicine if the government not only involves itself therein, but runs the whole racket?... i.e., does government involvement help or hinder what is there to be a positive force?

 

My emphasis was that neither should have controlling over the other. This is a very pointed lesson from history. You question can not be answered with a simple yes or no. It depends on what the government is doing ... is it protecting peoples rights, or protecting one group while harming the other. The gov. spends tons of money on research into new medicine and that is good. Medicine is for everyone, no discrimination in the ideal. [This could lead to a discussion of health care policies, but that is being discussed in a different thread.

The problem with govenment funding of religious institutions is which ones are to be funded and which are not. That is would it be ok to fund Christian groups but not Muslim or Hindu? In a democratic society it is a valid question.

If Christian groups are funded, is it all right to fund liberal groups and not fund fundamental ones ... or vise versa. Is it all right to fund the Catholic Church but not independant churches.

My major point is look at the lessons of history.
It would be a huge can of worms.

What do you think?

 

I am quite sure I know the text better than you do.

The word is εθνη which means nations. If you would like to offer some support of your view of corporateness, I will be glad to look at it. However, it isn't relevant in the least here.

That’s nonsense. Disciples are individuals, which is what nations are made up of.

No one suggested he had authority over only disciples.

I am totally correct, and you are almost totally incorrect. NT Wright has been at the forefront of the recent continued going astray from the gospel.

No, totally correct. Jesus never calls on his disciples to enshrine his lordship over nations. As you will note, there is no Scripture for that.

Yes, and the Jews rejected it, and so it was taken away to be given a nation producing the fruit of it, which will be end-time Israel.

No, not according to Scripture. If you read what the Scriptures say about the kingdom, you will be able to very clearly see that we are not living in it. If this is the kingdom, then God is a liar.

Scripture doesn’t address abortion? Surely you jest. The command to not murder is an explicit command about abortion.

Again, total and utter nonsense.

I am sure that the lexicographers of history will be interested to find out that they have oversimplified the meaning of a word. Ευαγγελιον means “good news.” You can look it up in any lexicon. The fact that there may be several ευαγγελιονs is hardly relevant here.

Yes indeed, which incidentally is more proof that the kingdom is not here. But that’s another issue.

These two are not opposed.

Andre, you demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of the Scripture that does a great injustice to the glory of the gospel in Jesus Christ.

You haven’t made a scriptural case yet. As has been demonstrated, your entire case is flawed beyond repair.

Again I repeat, Jesus didn’t die to give people health insurance.

 

It is best not to poke a stick through the fence at the barking dog. All that noise only works to give you a headache.

 

Really? So what exactly has been the loss to American businesses as a direct result of the businesses choosing to provide insurance to employees as part of their compensation package?