# Jesus was a socialist......blah blah blah



## Pergamum (Dec 30, 2017)

Okay....

It is very fashionable now to claim that Jesus was a Socialist. 

Can you give me an easy-to-read primer on why Jesus was not a Socialist and why Christianity does not condone communism. I want to translate it into the national language here because this error is spreading among the minorities here in this country.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 30, 2017)

Also, if got any thoughts on why Christians ought not to wear Che Guevera shirts, please write them. My audience is a poorly educated allegedly oppressed minority group that seems to be latching onto a form of Liberation Theology. They are leveraging Scripture as a weapon against the government instead of focusing on the Gospel. However, granted, the Scripture does not allow injustice....but Liberation Theology seems to invert the priorities of Scripture and politicize it.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 31, 2017)

This is probably not quite what you want but the esteemed political philosopher Edmond Burke, made this perceptive statement:
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites…in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2017)

That is great..but too complicated. Explain it to the 3rd-grader.


----------



## timfost (Dec 31, 2017)

Kuiper explains that Jerusalem "communism" says "what's mine is yours." Modern communism says "what's yours is mine."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Krak3n (Dec 31, 2017)

My first thoughts are that one should take all of Scripture into account, not just what we see in Acts as a special circumstances for a new church composed of people who thought they were going to Jerusalem for a week of holiday and ended up needing to stay to be taught by the apostles. Also we don't know all that the apostles taught, but Christ warned them they'd need to flee Jerusalem within a generation, 70ad. That makes it easier to sell property as far as I'm concerned. (This account in Acts is what I generally hear being used to prove socialism.)

Concerning Christ's way of life specifically, he gave up a family, a home, and his life... If someone is called to that then I guess they can try to live that way. Private property seems kinda important in Scripture, given all the laws surrounding it. What I'm saying is, if you want to be a hobo go for it, but you've no right to anyone else's property.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 31, 2017)

Three chapters later in Acts from the Jerusalem "commune," Peter tells Ananias and Sapphira that their property and the proceeds from its sale belonged to them and that they were free to dispose of it however they wished. The community has no right or title to the property of the individual though the individual may freely give it if he so desires. It's the latter we see in Acts 2. 

Calvin:



> We gather out of this, that no man was enforced to sell his goods or lands. For Peter saith, that Ananias had free liberty to keep both his land and his money; because in the second member, the field which was sold is taken for the price itself. Therefore he should nevertheless have been counted faithful, though he had kept that which was his own. Whereby it appeareth that they are men destitute of their right wits, who say that it is not lawful for the faithful to have anything of their own.



Even more basically, it would seem that the 8th and 10th commandments presumes an unequal distribution of private property as God's will for this world. The most effective vehicle for the spread of communism is covetousness and discontent, neither of which are biblical values.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 31, 2017)

He said that we would always have the poor with us. Socialism tries to rectify this by redistributing wealth to make everyone equal. He also said of you don't work you don't eat. He also said not to covet.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Dec 31, 2017)

Under "Jerusalem communism," we can learn a lot from Peter's words to Ananias and Sapphira as Chris already explained:

"But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? *While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control*?'" (Acts 5:3-4a)

The sin was not withholding money, but lying to the Spirit about how much was given. "Jerusalem communism" was voluntary, hence "what's mine is yours."


----------



## Poimen (Dec 31, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Okay....
> 
> It is very fashionable now to claim that Jesus was a Socialist.
> 
> Can you give me an easy-to-read primer on why Jesus was not a Socialist and why Christianity does not condone communism. I want to translate it into the national language here because this error is spreading among the minorities here in this country.


Some of what I have written here may be of assistance to you:

kingandkirk.com/2017/12/23/Jesus-conservative-or-liberal-an-analysis/

"Though the command it is often presented in a universal fashion, Jesus did not require every rich person to sell all that they possess and give to the poor. This is illustrated in the example of Zacchaeus who voluntarily sold of his possessions to repay those whom he had stolen from.

Jesus allowed himself to be lavished upon, even to the extent that the poor might, conceivably, be neglected in that act itself (Matthew 26:8-13). More to the point, Jesus even went so far as to imply that he was and is more important than the poor for the latter would always be among them but “me ye have not always.”

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 31, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Also, if got any thoughts on why Christians ought not to wear Che Guevera shirts, please write them.



He shot gays and minorities.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 31, 2017)

Just ask them to show where Jesus advocated collective ownership of the means of production. 

Then ask them what they mean by "justice" and why they privilege that definition over any other.


----------



## monoergon (Dec 31, 2017)

This article refutes the idea of Acts 2-5 supporting socialism:

*Does Acts 2-5 Teach Socialism?*
_Dr. Art Lindsley_
https://tifwe.org/resource/does-acts-2-5-teach-socialism/


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 31, 2017)

The eighth commandment presumes private property (else how could someone steal?). Jesus kept the Law of God (including the 8th commandment) perfectly. He could not deny private property, as it was established by God and buttressed by the 8th commandment.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 31, 2017)

Before you let them ask that question, start asking basic questions that keep socialism getting off the ground?

1. How do you justify prices in a socialist commonwealth?
2. Who gets to be in charge and oversee the divvying up of wealth?
3. Why?
4. Why is Venezuela like it is?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Dec 31, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He shot gays and minorities.



....and children.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Nate (Dec 31, 2017)

RS Clark has a recent post with some simple applications of the 8th and 10th commandments to address late-modern evengelical suspicions of private property: https://heidelblog.net/2017/12/theft-envy-and-private-property/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 31, 2017)

God vs Socialism over at the American vision store is a good one.

Basically, once government believes it can regulate everything under the sun it becomes a god.
https://americanvision.org/15327/follow-risk-stevess-example-not-his-socialist-nonsense/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 31, 2017)

fredtgreco said:


> The eighth commandment presumes private property (else how could someone steal?). Jesus kept the Law of God (including the 8th commandment) perfectly. He could not deny private property, as it was established by God and buttressed by the 8th commandment.


I'm puzzled by the claim that unless there is such a thing as private property there couldn't be stealing, which Scott Clark also made on his website recently. The paintings in the national gallery belong to the nation, and not any one individual, but clearly they can be stolen. Dr Clark's response that they belong to the magistrate didn't seem compelling to me. Does the magistrate "own" the statue of liberty, or is he rather a steward of something that by definition is not his? I don't have any beef with private property as a Biblical concept, but I think we need to ground it properly.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 31, 2017)

iainduguid said:


> I'm puzzled by the claim that unless there is such a thing as private property there couldn't be stealing, which Scott Clark also made on his website recently. The paintings in the national gallery belong to the nation, and not any one individual, but clearly they can be stolen. Dr Clark's response that they belong to the magistrate didn't seem compelling to me. Does the magistrate "own" the statue of liberty, or is he rather a steward of something that by definition is not his? I don't have any beef with private property as a Biblical concept, but I think we need to ground it properly.



Given that communists have often spoken of those who claim exclusive right to their own property as "stealing" from the people, you have a point. It's more technically an act of misappropriation than theft though, I would think, since in socialism the "thief" would indeed have a right to that property--just not an exclusive one. 

Of course, if we look further into the Law's application of the 8th commandment, then we see that it presumes exclusive and private rights to property. With this context in mind I think that the argument stands, but a simple reading of the 8th commandment in isolation probably wouldn't get one very far in arguing with a communist.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 31, 2017)

Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 31, 2017)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.


I looked up a lot of social party websites. I do not exaggerate when I say they hate charity.


----------



## SavedSinner (Dec 31, 2017)

TheOldCourse said:


> Given that communists have often spoken of those who claim exclusive right to their own property as "stealing" from the people, you have a point. It's more technically an act of misappropriation than theft though, I would think, since in socialism the "thief" would indeed have a right to that property--just not an exclusive one.
> 
> Of course, if we look further into the Law's application of the 8th commandment, then we see that it presumes exclusive and private rights to property. With this context in mind I think that the argument stands, but a simple reading of the 8th commandment in isolation probably wouldn't get one very far in arguing with a communist.



The state enterprises in the Soviet Occupation Zone (communist ex-East Germany) were called "Peoples Own Enterprise" - VEB: Volkseigene Betrieb.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 1, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> That is great..but too complicated. Explain it to the 3rd-grader.


I have attempted to modernise the English (and have put explanatry comments in brackets)
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their desire to put moral chains upon their own appetites (self control)…in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good (such as the wisdom in the book of Proverbs), in preference to foolish advice. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within (personal self control), the more there must be without (that is external law, where the law limits freedom where there is little self control in society). It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

In other words where you have a godly society where people have a lot of self control, you need less law to govern. But a society where wickedness abounds, you need more law in society because people do not practice self control. But lack of self control brings less legal freedoms.

In my country as we have got more godless as a society, laws and regulations are limiting our freedoms at an alarming rate!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Jan 1, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He shot gays and minorities.



And designed and was the overseer of Castro's prison system in Cuba.


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 1, 2018)

Most socialists I know do not want the government to run things, they just want the government to stop spending all our taxes to bail out banks, subsidize large corporations and prop up third world dictators. Just my own experience.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 1, 2018)

I think we need to be clear what we are talking about when we use the term "socialism". There are plenty of people who claim to be socialists but reject communism. Communism is a form of socialism, yet it is not the only form. The idea that Jesus was a communist, however, is completely nuts. Communism wants to abolish private property and the nuclear family, which is completely anti-Christian.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 1, 2018)

iainduguid said:


> I'm puzzled by the claim that unless there is such a thing as private property there couldn't be stealing, which Scott Clark also made on his website recently. The paintings in the national gallery belong to the nation, and not any one individual, but clearly they can be stolen. Dr Clark's response that they belong to the magistrate didn't seem compelling to me. Does the magistrate "own" the statue of liberty, or is he rather a steward of something that by definition is not his? I don't have any beef with private property as a Biblical concept, but I think we need to ground it properly.



I think that is a reasonable point. Francis Turretin talks about stealing from public funds as the sin of peculation, which supposes that the state has the right to property as well as the individual. The tenth commandment does refer to coveting anything that belongs to our neighbour, not just to the government. I do not think it is too big a stretch to argue that the same principle refers to the eighth commandment as well.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 1, 2018)

Agreeing with Daniel, and respecting the 8th commandment (cited numerous times in the discussion), recall that WLC 142 not only forbids usury (in cataloging the sins forbidden by the 8th commandment) but, among other prohibitions, notes that of "unjust enclosures and depredation; engrossing commodities to enhance the price," hardly a commendation of some unfettered "all the market can bear" capitalism.

We should be against all materialism, since such is definitionally anti-supernatural. We all know that Marxism is materialist (as an all-embracive worldview) and thus reject that. Not all socialism is that, however, as Daniel notes (or even communism, all of which is not historically, though it is more recently, Marxist). 



Pergamum said:


> They are leveraging Scripture as a weapon against the government instead of focusing on the Gospel. However, granted, the Scripture does not allow injustice....but Liberation Theology seems to invert the priorities of Scripture and politicize it.



I think that this quote gets at a lot of it. Scriptures do teach justice and the church ought to do so properly. I don't know, Trevor, what this would mean in terms of your government there (and of the church's prophetic voice in that society), but I do know the church is not to lose its focus on the gospel *ever *and that its message is never to be politicized, but remain a message that cuts across all political systems and finds them all wanting in terms of the heavenly kingdom. 

I thus advocate a recovery of the doctrine of the spirituality of the church, properly understood and rightly practiced. I don't want to respond to politics of the left invading the church with the politics of the right, but with the gospel, the consequences of which bring about justice, not as defined by Marx or other atheistic utopianists, but the sort of Kingdom Life in a Fallen World (as SBF said) that we see in the Sermon on the Mount. That life is one that does not seek its own but ever gladly gives up all for the sake of the other and for the glory of our Savior. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 1, 2018)

How would you explain this all to a low-educated tribal population that feels oppressed by a larger ethnic group and so grasps onto Commie heroes? I am writing a letter to a group of Christians.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 1, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> How would you explain this all to a low-educated tribal population that feels oppressed by a larger ethnic group and so grasps onto Commie heroes? I am writing a letter to a group of Christians.



I would gather all I could about China's communist revolution and their situation now and show how the communist's agenda isn't to help out people to grab power and wealth through propaganda.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 1, 2018)

If I refuse to play along in the new socialist commonwealth, will I be shot? If you say no, then you can't enforce your socialism. If you say yes, well for crying out loud you are for shooting people! Jesus-style. It's like Jesus is Dirty Harry, "Go ahead, taxpayer. Make my day!"


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 1, 2018)

Trevor:

I would tell them that all the kingdoms of this world (and all its economic systems) are based on self-love and come to nothing. There is only one kingdom for which the King dies and who gives what He requires to all who are in it. 

This is a kingdom in which we are called, like the King, to give, not to take. Lives are won for this kingdom not with swords loud clashing or roll of stirring drums, but when we lay down our arms and submit to Him who is the King of kings.

Then we seek to live in His kingdom in the righteousness which is ours and to which we are called, to live the true Kingdom Life, even in this fallen world, calling the world to the only hope that it has. And we are willing to lay down our lives for this King and this kingdom. 

Communists and countless totalitarians hate all of this because they want political and military revolution, all of which leads to nothing but death and destruction. They seek to wipe out Christianity (Madame Mao said in the height of the Cultural Revolution, "Christianity will be wiped out in ten years." It flourishes in China), but "The church shall never perish!, Her dear Lord to defend, to guide, sustain, and cherish is with her to the end; though there be those that hate her, and false sons in her pale, against both foe and traitor she ever shall prevail" (_Trinity Psalter Hymnal_, forthcoming 2018).

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Edward (Jan 1, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> How would you explain this all to a low-educated tribal population that feels oppressed by a larger ethnic group and so grasps onto Commie heroes?



I'd start with 'One wrong doesn't justify another wrong. ' 

If they are truly victims of sin, start there, not with their sinful response. Put yourself with them, not against them.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ThomasT (Jan 6, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Okay....
> 
> It is very fashionable now to claim that Jesus was a Socialist.
> 
> Can you give me an easy-to-read primer on why Jesus was not a Socialist and why Christianity does not condone communism. I want to translate it into the national language here because this error is spreading among the minorities here in this country.



Let me approach this from a different angle. We can all agree that God became a man to make our lives better, not worse. And yet socialism a) has produced virtually nothing but misery and b) has been rejected everywhere it's been tried, with the exception of Cuba, where it's beginning to unravel but still holds on, and North Korea, where the people are powerless to change the system. 

It's the people of former socialist countries themselves that ended up rejecting socialism. And it's the people that socialism purports to help. The proof of any scheme is in the results, and the results of socialism are uniformly dismal. Capitalism, on the other hand, has raised billions out of poverty, or at least the worst forms of poverty, in just a few short decades. (Remind the people you're conversing with that capitalism in the developing world is relatively young and thus tends to be mixed with other elements, such as caste systems, aristocracies, feudal land-ownership, oppressive religion, etc, and that as a country's capitalist economy matures -- assuming it's allowed to mature -- these residual elements eventually fade away.)

So if Jesus wants to make our lives better, and he also wants us to be socialists instead of capitalists, then we'd have to conclude that he's a much better redeemer than he is an economist. 

As for "socialism" in the NT, I think this is often misunderstood. Communalism, which is what some Christian groups practiced, works (to the extent that it does) precisely because it operates within a broader private-property/profit-making system. It's no different from the economics of the huge extended immigrant families in America that pool their money to buy a house. The family members own the house in common, but their purchase of the house in the first place was possible only because of the jobs and a thriving economy (which allowed their house to be built) a capitalist system offers. 

But even communalism, which differs from socialism in that a) it isn't a state system and b) participation is voluntary, doesn't have a great record in terms of producing human material happiness. Israeli kibbutzes, the most well known examples of communalism in modern times, have almost all been privatized, with members now being paid according to output rather than need. The new kibbutzes, many of which are very successful, are more like large proprietary companies than communes...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ThomasT (Jan 6, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> I would gather all I could about China's communist revolution and their situation now and show how the communist's agenda isn't to help out people to grab power and wealth through propaganda.



I would also point out, speaking of China, that China's economic growth began only after China mostly privatized its agricultural and industrial sectors. This confuses people, because China still calls itself "socialist" or "communist," but any economist, even one from China, knows perfectly well that China's economic system is, and has been for many years, mostly capitalist, never mind that its political system remains authoritarian. China's use of the terms "socialist" and "communist" is purely propagandistic.


----------

