Are non-Chrisians obligated to follow God's Law?

[Ex Nihilo]

You can talk to them about obeying God's Holy Law, they will laugh in your face. The Commandments mean nothing to them outside of Regeneration. Why would they care if they are in depravity (and worse) like it that way?

This is again not true. Ungodly men are created in the image of God. If the church refuses to demand that God's law be enforced on all men, then YES, they will begin to mock God's law and refuse to obey. However, once the gospel infuses the society to which it comes, men are no longer allowed to mock God's law. They may do so in their hearts, but when they run their businesses, and social lives in accordance with divine law. If they don't, they will find that their lives and their goods may be at stake. This, my friend, will silence their mockery, if even in public. This will drive the bestialist back into the closet, rather than him pushing for a constitutional right.

Why are the wicked so bold? Because the church has refused to take public sin seriously. "Oh well, boys will be boys". This is likewise related to views on covenant, old testament law, and eschatology.

Cheers,

Adam

I agree. We have to distinguish between whether unbelievers will follow God's law for its own sake (which they cannot do) and whether unbelievers will (usually) follow God's law when there are penalties. It seems to me that the purpose of human law, after the fall, is to restrain an individual's behavior more than he can restrain himself. An unbeliever cannot do good out of a desire to be righteous, but, through pure selfishness, he can refrain from evil because he wants to avoid punishment.

I guess the next question is whether is it really valuable to restrain unbelievers' behavior if their motivation in following the law is selfish. I think it is, for two reasons: First, this restraint protects others and preserves order -- this is especially true of laws regulating violence and protecting property. Second, we can use our laws to constantly remind people that sin is sin, thus showing them their need for the gospel.

Of course, when it comes to the situation with McDonald's, McDonald's certainly isn't violating any law by supporting homosexuality. But I think similar reasoning applies: We should hold them accountable for the behavior their support, if only out of our duty to preach sin as sin. We obviously shouldn't be surprised when they don't uphold God's law, but that doesn't mean we should be silent.

 

[moral necessity]

If the church refuses to demand that God's law be enforced on all men, then YES, they will begin to mock God's law and refuse to obey. However, once the gospel infuses the society to which it comes, men are no longer allowed to mock God's law. They may do so in their hearts, but when they run their businesses, and social lives in accordance with divine law. If they don't, they will find that their lives and their goods may be at stake. This, my friend, will silence their mockery, if even in public. This will drive the bestialist back into the closet, rather than him pushing for a constitutional right.

Why are the wicked so bold? Because the church has refused to take public sin seriously. "Oh well, boys will be boys". This is likewise related to views on covenant, old testament law, and eschatology.

Cheers,

Adam

Just wanting some friendly interaction on this. But, what do you think the church ought to practically do once it invades a culture that is already established? Do we picket their businesses and publicly speak out against their social gatherings, making them offended at our attempts to aggressively resturcture of their society? Or do we strive to focus our offense on that of the gospel and moderate any attempts at the other? Or, something in the middle, perhaps? And, what is the scriptural example that we should follow? Some would say that we can quickly let our zeal get ahead of our wisdom, and we'll end up having more martyrs and underground church movements than we would evangelists.

Blessings and kind regards!

 

[MrMerlin777]

All of mankind is responsible to the standard of perfection before the Father, and will be held accountable for it. So, they all fall under that idea that some called natural law. The rewriting of the natural law into a law designed to run God's chosen nation of Israel was for Israel and Israel alone. Moses did not apply this law, with all of it's ceremonies and sacrifices, to other nations surrounding him. Others were not circumcised and told to sacrifice and tithe unless they wanted to become converts and placed under the banner of God's nation. Now, we come to wonder what we are to do today, as we find no longer a nation on the earth that is God's nation. So, we are back to studying situations like Abraham, Lot, and David when he lived with the Philistines, to draw our examples from for what to do. Abraham and Lot did not strive with great effort to make the nations in which they sojourned become Godly nations, and neither did David when he lived under the banner of the Philistines. Rather, they subjected themselves to the normal laws that were already in place there, so long as it did not compromise their personal submission to God's ways and standard of holiness. I'm sure that had a vote been given to any of them while they were under the kings of other nations, they would have encouraged them towards laws that reflected godliness. And they would be like Lot, who, when the situation was pressed upon him, encouraged the men towards godliness by pointed out to them who came to his door to not do this great evil by having relations with those he took in. And, so should we. So, if I am driven to be a politician in the country in which I live, I will be the strongest advocate for laws that reflect the holiness and godliness, and as a citizen, I will strive to exemplify holiness and godliness as well. And, when encountered and pressed upon by the sinfulness of others, I will encourage them to not do evil. But, if the current law of that country allows for things like the McDonald's situation, then I cannot do anything to alter that except to become a politician and work to influence the leaders to make better decisions. I don't think Lot was walking around Sodom and Gomorrah with picket signs encouraging the boycotting of places where homosexuality was being practiced. And, I don't think David did the same in the Philistine land around the places where they practiced the worship of other gods. So, in short,.......yes, all are required to submit to the standard of holiness and godliness.

My friend, it is not about being required, it is about ability, how can an unsaved man be Holy outside of Salvation?

Ability and Obligation are two very different things. One can be obligated to somthing that they are incappable of doing.

 

[Christusregnat]

Just wanting some friendly interaction on this. But, what do you think the church ought to practically do once it invades a culture that is already established? Do we picket their businesses and publicly speak out against their social gatherings, making them offended at our attempts to aggressively resturcture of their society? Or do we strive to focus our offense on that of the gospel and moderate any attempts at the other? Or, something in the middle, perhaps? And, what is the scriptural example that we should follow? Some would say that we can quickly let our zeal get ahead of our wisdom, and we'll end up having more martyrs and underground church movements than we would evangelists.

Blessings and kind regards!

Charles,

It seems that there may be a good many examples from church history of how such things were handled. Take the life of William Wilberforce. He believed that manstealing was a sin against God's law, and that it ought to be ended in Britain. If you follow the course of his life, he began with boycotts, education, and fighting. By the end of his life, God had granted him the desire of his heart, and the trading of stolen men was ended. Many people are aware of his tireless efforts in parliament. Less might be aware of his boycotts of sugar created by stolen slaves, and other such activities.

He was certainly hated, but at the end of the day, even the wicked acknowledged his righteous character, and the force of a holy life, combined with biblical argument.

One very practical step is to refuse to support products that fund wickedness. For instance, it might be advisable to find out which Chinese manufacturers use slave labor, and refuse to buy from them. Not sure, but there may be a "voice of the martyrs" type organization that tracks this. The free market is powerful to send messages.

As you point out, more importantly would be educating the church on the duties of all people, in whatever station in life, to see that God's laws are obeyed: consumers, business men, magistrates, pastors, lawyers, accountants, etc. In tandem with this would be preaching the gospel to all creation, and calling sinners to repentance, lest they perish.

America wasn't lost to secularists over a few months: it took decades. The same is true in turning things around. We plant seeds, and do what we can, and wait upon the Power of God to bring the increase.

Not sure if that helps too much, but those are some thoughts.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[mybigGod]

In these words there is set before us the unchangeable and eternal purpose of God effectually to defend, even to the end, the kingdom of his Son, of which he is the founder; and this may well support our faith amidst the troublesome storms of the world. Whatever plots, therefore, men may form against it, let this one consideration be sufficient to satisfy us, that they cannot render ineffectual the anointing of God. Mention is here made of mount Sion in express terms, not because David was first anointed thereon but because at length, in God’s own time, the truth of the prophecy was manifested and actually established by the solemn rite of his consecration. And although David in these words had a regard to the promise of God, and recalled the attention of himself and others to it, yet, at the same time, he meant to signify that his own reign is holy and inseparably connected with the temple of God. But this applies more appropriately to the kingdom of Christ, which we know to be both spiritual and joined to the priesthood, and this is the principal part of the worship of God. Calvin's commentary on Psalm 2:4-6