Quote:
Originally Posted by G.Wetmore  I have thought on this as well. But I also think that if Marx gave a rip about what Scripture said, that he would probably just say that you are somewhat correct, with a false inference. He would say that you are correct in that stealing presupposes property, but that you weren't correct in infering that it is private property. He would simply say that verse means you can't jack the government.
Of course he would have to deal with all of the case law, which further define the law. The case law would prove that it assumes the existence of private property.
home run. |
What is ownership of private property? How does that interact with the concept of stewardship?
Are you ready to state that there was private property in the garden before the Fall? Because Adam had the moral law. Are you willing to state that there will be private property in glory? Because the moral Law is eternal.
You see, Sproul has placed himself in the place of making private property a
an eternal matter. If the moral Law of God presupposes a human institution, what does that mean.
In order to make a (weak and unhelpful) hoo-rah for capitalism, this view butchers the theology of the Law. Why is it not simply possible to say that private property is a post-Fall concept that God uses to support His eternal Law?
All Scripture is indeed profitable, and indeed it is proper to bring Scripture to bear on society. But it is quite another thing to load up human categories onto the eternal will of God.
Less a home run and more hitting oneself in the face with a bat.