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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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.
 
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.
 
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.”
 
Kuiper explains that Jerusalem "communism" says "what's mine is yours." Modern communism says "what's yours is mine."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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).

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
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top