# The Socialism of the Early Church



## N. Eshelman

Does Socialism have biblical roots?


----------



## Herald

Was the early church socialistic? The early church banded together in order to survive and become grounded by the teaching of the Apostles. The church was than scattered across the known world. A verse to consider:

*1 Timothy 5:8* 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 

Seems like Paul was more concerned with a believer taking control of his own family as opposed to an autonomous collective.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The functions of state and Church are separate. It is not the Governments job to do the Churches work nor the Churches job to do the work of the State. They should cooperate with each other under the Kingship of Messiah the Prince though. Maybe there is some cross over in some issues but I don't think the church was socialistic as defined in the terms of governmental rule. It was not forced taxation but voluntary giving by individuals.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

nleshelman said:


> Does Socialism have biblical roots?



Hi:

It is the duty of the Church to take care of the poor, sick, hungry, and needy. It is not the responsibility of the government.

However, if the Church will not take care of the poor, then God will see to it that the government does. Thus, "socialism" is a curse upon the Church for not doing its job.

-CH


----------



## Grymir

nleshelman, what a good quote. It is sooo true. The early church wasn't a bunch of commies or socialists. Voluntary sharing is alot different than when the government does it.

Nice Blog - Grymir


----------



## AV1611

*Christianity:* What's mine is yours.
*Socialism:* What's yours is mine.


----------



## Virginia Marine

Unfortunately, today's society has come to EXPECT the government to fill the void that the church has left...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

nleshelman said:


> Does Socialism have biblical roots?



Definitely not. The early Christians *sold* their possessions. Which shows us that they still believed that private property was legitimate and should not be controlled by the state or removed by compulsion.

I show that Christian Socialism is Economic Arminianism in chapter 5 (Christianity versus Statism) of _A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government_.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

nleshelman said:


> Does Socialism have biblical roots?



Keep in mind that people (like Barak Obama whom you have pictured) twist the people to prove homosexuality is legitimate, so we should not be surprised when they twist Scripture in order to prove that Statism and Socialism is Biblical.


----------



## puritan lad

David Chilton also points out that, during this time, Jerusalem was condemned property, and the Jewish Christians needed to be prepared to leave in a moments notice. The communal living of the early church was not meant to be the norm, as the Scriptures over and over again defend the rights of private property, something that socialists hate.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Eventually, the Christians left in Jerusalem were destitute and deprived. Hence, Paul takes up a collection from the Gentile churches to help the mother church. One is left thinking that the ones who stayed to the last (70AD) were either die-hards: "we'll witness to the end," or else had to remain for the sake of old relatives. They abandoned the place when the Romans rolled in. They knew this was the end.

In any case, there is no compelling evidence that the Jerusalem _church_ served as a *social* model for earthly mixed-people groups or nations. Nor do we see Paul establishing communes of separatist governments, i.e. nations-within-nations, where he planted churches.


----------



## Answerman

AV1611 said:


> *Christianity:* What's mine is yours.
> *Socialism:* What's yours is mine.



Another way to put it:

Christianity: Voluntary giving
Socialism: Involuntary giving

or

Christianity: An economic system that allows the populace to become independently wealthy and therefore have greater wealth to distribute.
Socialism: An economic system where a ruling elite leach wealth from the populace and therefore have little or no wealth leftover to re-distribute. And since the ruling elite are smarter and more moral than the general populace (tongue planted firmly in cheek) this is the best system to have.


----------



## Herald

Answerman said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Christianity:* What's mine is yours.
> *Socialism:* What's yours is mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another way to put it:
> 
> Christianity: Voluntary giving
> Socialism: Involuntary giving
> 
> or
> 
> Christianity: An economic system that allows the populace to become independently wealthy and therefore have greater wealth to distribute.
> Socialism: An economic system where a ruling elite leach wealth from the populace and therefore have little or no wealth leftover to re-distribute. And since the ruling elite are smarter and more moral than the general populace (tongue planted firmly in cheek) this is the best system to have.
Click to expand...


David, is it okay to agree with you even if I'm not a Ron Paulite?


----------



## Amazing Grace

The main focus of the early church is the fact they shared what they had out of Love of Christ. Perhaps it does have a sense of socialism, but not what socialism is today. For one there was no high paid hierarchy of ruling popes within the church. The church was the people, not a building or some seperate entity. Is it possible to get back to that point? I am not sure.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The functions of state and Church are separate. It is not the Governments job to do the Churches work nor the Churches job to do the work of the State. They should cooperate with each other under the Kingship of Messiah the Prince though. Maybe there is some cross over in some issues but I don't think the church was socialistic as defined in the terms of governmental rule. It was not forced taxation but voluntary giving by individuals.


----------

