Health Care for America Now

Apparently not.

It is most relevant here. Your assertion that the making of "individual" disciples simply does not match what the text says. Jesus uses a word that connotes corporateness - the key point being that Jesus does not simply have authority over individual persons but over people as individuals but over the structures and attributes of people as a collective. And this is, of course, relevant to the issue of universal health care.

Incorrect. And this mistaken view about the nature of corporateness is what trips people up in texts like Romans 9 where they simply cannot (or will not) understand that "groups" of people can be elect to some role without that election necessarily implying anything about specific individuals.

People need to get more sophisticated in their thinking and not adopt the patently incorrect view that the whole is merely the sum of the parts. It is demonstrably not - collectives of persons have properties that need not be properties of the individuals. So it is that the instruction to make disciples of all nations does not simply reduce to "make disciples of all the individual persons in that nations". Jesus is talking about His authority extending beyond the "inner lives" of people to the institutions that are relevant to their being a collective.

 

I will again provide scripture to support my claim that the gospel is about the lordship of Christ. These are Paul's words. Now I challenge you to provide Scripture that makes a case that the gospel is simply a "system of salvation" - the news that faith in Jesus results in salvation. You will not produce any, because, despite the widely held myth, Paul never says that the gospel is simply "good news about how you can be saved".

1Paul, 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 of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord

This is what the term "gospel" meant to Paul - Jesus is the Davidic Messiah (as proclaimed in texts like the ones from Isaiah that I posted earlier) and his resurrection from the dead constitutes Him as the Lord of the world.

Again, let the scriptures themselves speak:

10your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven

If your view is correct, Jesus is telling people to pray for His lordship on earth, while all the while not expecting them to act in the world in a way that implements this lordship. That really makes no sense.

And what did Paul get into trouble for with the authorities? Talking about going to heaven when you die?. Again, let the Scriptures speak:

These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here, 7and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus

Paul is telling the people that Jesus is lord and Caesar is not.

And this:

Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. 24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands

The scriptures undermine your claim that we are not to enshrine His lordship over the nations. Paul does precisely this in statement above - asserting that Jesus (as God) has lorship over this present world.

 

My wording in the following was very bad:

My intended point is that the word "nations" connotes corporateness and that Jesus' authority is not restricted to persons as individuals but also embraces persons as a collective. And therefore Jesus is telling his followers to enact his kingdom values not only in the lives of individual disciples but also in the structures that exist when people are organized into "nations" or collectives. And this has implications for the issue of universal health care, since it is an undertaking that characterizes people acting as a collective and clearly implements the kingdom value of caring for "the least of these".

 

Paul, apparently unlike many who have posted in this forum, did not pull the meaning of the word "gospel" out of mid-air. The word for Paul did mean vague and non-specific good news. Paul, as a highly educated Pharisee, was steeped in the scriptures of the Old Testament. He was, for example, intimately familiar with the book of Isaiah. Now let's see what this book has to say about "good news":

You who bring good tidings to Zion,
go up on a high mountain.
You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, [c]
lift up your voice with a shout,
lift it up, do not be afraid;
say to the towns of Judah,
"Here is your God!"
10 See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power,
and his arm rules for him.

What does the good news consist in? Salvation by faith? No. Some vague and non-specified good news?. No.

It consisted in the announcement of God's establishing rule over this earth. And, of course, Paul uses this very "lordship" language in Romans 1 when he introduces the "gospel". So despite what they told you in Sunday School, the "gospel" is not primarily about a system of salvation - it is the imperial proclamation that Jesus is Lord.

And we who are the members of His church are called to work for the implementation of that lordship.

 

More about the context from which Paul drew his concept of what "the gospel" is, Starting with the last verse of Isaiah 41 and running on into chapter 42:

I was the first to tell Zion, 'Look, here they are!'
I gave to Jerusalem a messenger of good tidings.

28 I look but there is no one—
no one among them to give counsel,
no one to give answer when I ask them. 29 See, they are all false!
Their deeds amount to nothing;
their images are but wind and confusion
Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him
and he will bring justice to the nations.

2 He will not shout or cry out,
or raise his voice in the streets.
3 A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.
In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; 4 he will not falter or be discouraged
till he establishes justice on earth.
In his law the islands will put their hope."

And later in the chapter, the prophet writes:

"I am the LORD; that is my name!

Now what is the "good news" here? The announcement that we are "saved by faith? No. Yet again, the good news consists primarily in the proclamation of God taking charge of this earth and governing it.

Now, it is indeed true that wonderfully bound up in all this is the notion that people who place faith God's annointed one will have life. But that is a consequence of the gospel. It is not the foundational content of the gospel.

Paul, following Isaiah, sees Jesus as the one who brings justice to the nations. Paul's gospel, then, is not message that we are saved by faith, but rather the more all-encompassing declaration that Jesus is Israel's promised Messiah who is Lord of all creation.

 

Andre,

I just copied this in Word to respond and have found that you have written four pages, and have said nothing substantive. So much of what you are saying is just plain old convoluted misunderstanding. It is hard to know even where to begin. Rather than address it all, I will just hit a few points.

First, with respect to εθνη and discipleship, you will search in vain for a corporate discipleship in the NT. You are simply making that up from somewhere. The εθνη in Matt 28 is the people to whom they were to go and make disciples. They are to make disciples from people of all nations. Romans 9 is plainly about individuals, and it says so in the text. As I have pointed out, your position is just flawed. Discipleship and salvation are individual things. No one is a disciple or a Christian by proxy. Therefore the “corporateness” argument you are trying to make is illegitimate. It has no relevance to this topic. Jesus does have authority over all nations. But that has nothing to do with this issue. You are badly conflating things in the pursuit of an unbiblical point.

Second, the topic here is universal healthcare. It is plain from Scripture that the gospel does not address universal health care. As you can see, you have provided no legitimate connection between the two.

Third, your understanding of ευαγγελιον is wrong. The word means “good news.” It can be applied to a number of different things, such as the kingdom, salvation in Christ, etc.

You see, here is our main difference. I have this idea that we need to get more biblical in our thinking, and you think we need to get more sophisticated.

I never said that the gospel was merely a system of salvation.

If you actually read this passage (rather than get more sophisticated), you will see that Paul doesn’t define gospel as you do here. What you say is good news, but that’s not how he defines the gospel.

I can’t help but notice you haven’t gone to one of the only places in the Scripture where gospel is actually defined … in 1 Cor 15:1-4. Pretty telling, isn’t it?

Yes, the way you put it makes no sense. Think before you speak. That may help you to make sense. Jesus is teaching his disciples to pray for his reign to come on earth. That is the same thing we should be doing. But it will come when he returns.

Never in dispute.

More nonsense.

Your clarification doesn’t help.

I haven’t seen anyone here claim that it is vague and non-specific. The word translated as “gospel” means good news. It can be applied to a number of different things, as you yourself admit by saying it could be used to proclaim an emperor.

That certainly is the gospel, the gospel of the kingdom.

Yes, by making disciples, not by instituting universal health care.

In the end, there is really not much that can be said for your point. It has been demonstrated to be based on a misunderstanding of the gospel and a lack of biblical support.

 

The actual words of Jesus are not consistent with your position. Here is the relevant text in 3 different translations:

19having gone, then, disciple all the nations (Youngs)

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations (NASB)

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations (NIV)

Jesus simply does not say "make disciples of the people in all the nations", He says "make disciples of the nations". This, of course, does not mean that we are not to make disciples of the people, but it means that we are to do more - advocate for the enshrinement of kingdom of God values in the very institutions that make up "nations" - corporate sets of persons.

The text reads as it reads (unless you can make your case from the original greek). Jesus refers to nations, not to the "people in the nations". And there is a difference - when people are organized into nations they order their society to account for their corporate character.

 

Romans 9 is about Israel and God's treatment of it. While Paul indeed refers to individuals as examples, the entire flow of Romans 9, not to mention the entire letter, make it clear that Paul is again dealing with God's treatment of nations and peoples, not individuals. And in Romans 9, Paul argues that, like the potter and his clay pot, God has the right to "elect" national Israel to be a vessel fitted for destruction in His great plan of redemption.

I am happy to argue this issue further, although it is only remotely related to the topic at hand. However, one more thing needs to be said.

The reader familiar with Isaiah and Jeremiah will note that these writers frequently use the "potter and his pot" specifically in relation to God's dealings with Israel. I can list many texts if you like.

As with the matter of the content of "the gospel", Paul is leveraging on the Old Testament tradition, drawing on the Israel-specificity of this metaphor to drive home a point about the election of Israel as a nation.

He is not concerned in Romans 9 with the eternal destination of individuals.

 

How do you make a disciple out of a nation? You can't. Disciples are people. And making disciples is making followers of Christ, not enshrining "kingdom of God values" in government or society.

When this command is begun to be carried out in Acts 2, guess who they are preaching to: people from the nations. It is right there in the text when a number of the nations are listed. And then you have in again in Rom 1:4 (which you have cited often but apparently don't pay attention to) where it says that Paul is bringing about the obedience of faith among the Gentiles. That is not talking about corporateness but about individuals.

 

Frankly, no. It is about individuals. Paul is making the point about why all Israel is not Israel ... why all ethnic Israel (the nation) is not truly saved (individuals).
\

 

I can only hope your argument is not something like "since there is no explicit statement supporting universal health care in the scriptures, we can conclude that we should not work for its implementation."

Such a position is easily refuted. There is nothing in the Scriptures that says we should make treaties against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but one can easily conclude that such a course of action is consistent with the Kingdom of God values we do see in the Scriptures.

Again, as the scriptures show, the gospel is fundamentally the good news that Jesus is Lord of the universe, not "salvation by faith". And a natural outworking of this gospel is the enshrinement in all our institutions of the values Jesus advocated for, including care of the least of these.

To argue otherwise is really to say "some authorty on earth has been given to Jesus" when Jesus claims "all authority"

 

It is not that simple. Collections of people organized corporately have attributes and behaviours that are not reducible to the attributes and behaviours of individual persons in that collection.

This is easily seen. When the US votes "Yes" on UN proposal XYZ, does this mean that each American has so voted? No it does not. There are "emergent" properties of collectives - properties of the system of people.

That's what governmental institutions are. So to take Jesus at his word, we make disciples of the nations, ensuring that not only the individuals are discipled, but also that the group or collective behaviours are subjected to such discipleship.

 

You seriously need to read better. I have plainly stated on p. 4: By all means, make an argument for universal health care. There are some to be made. But none of them have to do with the gospel, and we should not compromise and demean the gospel by tying it to universal health care. Jesus didn't die to give you health insurance.

Simply incorrect, yet again.

Jesus never advocated for universal health care. He didn’t even heal everyone, though he had the power to do so.

Not at all.

Actually it is that simple. Disciples are people. You will not find one reference in the NT to a nation that is a disciple.

Why do you think the NT is so starkly silent on this goal? And since the NT is so silent, why are you pursuing it?

 

Excellent point, Pastor Larry, and even more specifically Jesus didn't die for us to agree or disagree to a design for a government program that would force us to pay for health care or health insurance.

He did encourage us to be charitable to others and especially to our brothers and sisters in Him. His instructions would be much better served by our voluntary assistance to others less fortunate than by being forced to turn over the fruits of labor to yet another government agency. Such an agency would not do anything in the name of Christ nor for His glory nor would it have the ability to make intelligent judgments such as deacons must do regarding the distribution of such charity. The precedence for waste, fraud, and vote buying is already well established by all the existing welfare programs of our federal, state, and local governments. We just don't need any more of it.

A worthwhile effort for government would be to help us establish some common sense and decency to the litigation process that has driven up the cost of medical services. Consumers have to pay for this in the end. You can see it in all the disclaimers and releases you have to sign. Doing away with all this would be a big cost savings for everyone! Such requires taking on the tort lawyers and the liability insurance companies. The present gang of representatives and senators can't and won't do that!

 

If those who claim that Jesus has not been enthroned as King in the present and who therefore assert that we should not be advocating for the enshrinement of Kingdom of God values in the institutions of government are correct, then we really should modify the scriptures to make that work.

So, for example, when Jesus says this in Matthew 28:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

....we should really add "....except that on earth no authority has been given to Me at all in respect to how you order and run your societies"

And when Jesus instructs us to pray this:

your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven

....we really should add "except that my will will be done on earth only in that part of "earth" that is made up of people's interior 'spiritual' lives - I will not answer any prayers to have My will done in the insitutions that shape and govern the world".

 

I am not the one needing the reading lesson. Here are the facts:

1. In Romans 1, Paul clearly states what the gospel is and it is about Jesus being Lord of the world. Read the words - that's what Paul declares the gospel to be.

2. In Paul's day, the word "gospel" was used to announce the ascendency of a new emperor to the throne in Rome. That does not prove the point, but it is compelling.

3. Paul gets in trouble in Acts. Why? Because he preaches that Jesus is King and Ceasar isn't.

4. There is significant prophetic language in books like Isaiah where "good news" is announced. What is this "good news"? What is this "gospel"? It is the return of YHWH to Zion to bring justice and order to the world.

This is getting too one-sided. Between the lot of you, surely someone can mount something better (i.e. scriptural) to counter this take on what the gospel is.

Can't one of you provide a scripture which shows that the gospel is the message that "you will be saved by placing your faith in Jesus"?

Until this happens, the point seems to have been sustained. For Paul, the gospel is the announcement that Jesus is Lord. And what do "Lords" do? They govern. And what policies would Jesus have us implement in His temporary absence? Would he have us retreat into the Christian ghetto and let the institutions over which He has authority be governed by principles other than His? I doubt it.

 

Hello Pastor Larry (and others):

When I posted:

You replied "Never in doubt". But it seems really strange to assert that Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not and then to remain entirely inactive in respect to advocating for the implementation of that Lordship in all institutions of our world. This really amounts to "Jesus is lord, but only of the inner lives of his people, we'll leave the ordering and structuring of society to Caesar after all."

 

How is it different from what we already have? Because the BUREAUCRAT works for a for-profit corporation. The primary motive for all decisions is making money. That's it, Bro. Curtis, nothing else.

 

Which country pays more for health care than the United States?

Evidence to the contrary is readily available.

Regards Pastor Larry,
BiR

 

What does Paul say Romans 1:5? Here are the first 5 verses of Romans:

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. 5Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

Again, this is "lordship" language. In verse 4, Paul summarizes the gospel message in asserting the lordship of Jesus. This is what the gospel is. And in verse 5, he advocates for the obedience that comes from faith. Obedience is what one does in response to a new lord. And that is the good news - the gospel - there is a new King we are called to obey. And not just in our "private" lives, but in all of human society.

Again, and filling out resonances from Isaiah, the "good news" is God's return to Zion, His establishment of his lordship, which summons us to obedience.

Why not let Paul tell us what he means by the word "gospel" instead of insisting it means something you will find no scriptural evidence for?

Is salvation by faith true? Of course. Is it "good news"? Of course.

Is it what Paul means by the gospel?

No, it is not. The "gospel" for Paul, following the Isaianic prophecies is the announcement that Jesus is Lord. And this clearly implies that the Church should be implementing his lordship in all spheres of human activity, including government. Hence the connection to universal health care.