Is Christianity a Socialistic structure?

Palmfever · Dec 6, 2019

seeking.IAM said:
Fits the definition of socialism pretty well. What would you label it?

Faith that Works.

Palmfever · Dec 6, 2019

RDKirk said:
I don't think the sharing was really all that "free."

If one working member of the Body has a resource needed by another working member of the Body, there is an explicit responsibility to make that resource available.

True. We are not told to feed the lazy. They are told to get to work or be booted to the curb.

Palmfever · Dec 6, 2019

seeking.IAM said:
Socialism need not be externally imposed. It's a different sort of economic system which doesn't necessarily make it bad. Nor is capitalism inherently good.

Socialism, works in theory in my opinion it will not work on earth. Perhaps in heaven, then we won't need it.

Palmfever · Dec 6, 2019

seeking.IAM said:
Perhaps you should offer your definition of socialism.

An idealistic Marxist utopia. A theory which must presume all humans to be altruistic. An impossible order.

Sketcher · Dec 6, 2019

RDKirk said:
I don't think the sharing was really all that "free."

If one working member of the Body has a resource needed by another working member of the Body, there is an explicit responsibility to make that resource available.

There were several examples of collections taken in the New Testament. Which of them relied on apostles, pastors, elders, deacons, or any other church officers forcibly taking any monetary or material resources from the congregation? Where is anything like our system of taxation described, where the worker only received what was left of his pay from his employer after the church took its cut?

Palmfever · Dec 6, 2019

Sketcher said:
There were several examples of collections taken in the New Testament. Which of them relied on apostles, pastors, elders, deacons, or any other church officers forcibly taking any monetary or material resources from the congregation? Where is anything like our system of taxation described, where the worker only received what was left of his pay from his employer after the church took its cut?

This is why we have different perspectives. Personally I view giving thus: Each one should give what he has decided in his heart to give , not out of regret or compulsion. For God loves a cheerful giver. 2 Cor, 9:7
As far as taxation, We live in an democratic Republic, Not a true democracy since we do not vote on specifics, but on people we determine will look after our interests. They've gone off a cliff. However I'm don't think the Jews during Christ had opportunity to vote. So, it's difficult to compare our form of Government with the one they lived under. Giving should be a natural result of our faith, the fruit of our attachment to the root, the foundation, which is Christ.

Not David · Dec 6, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
Christianity is liberalism. What the liberals do is what Jesus would do.

Liberalism is a modern idea.

Not David · Dec 6, 2019

Palmfever said:
No Christians are not to make rules for the world, they are to be "A city on the hill, a light unto the world. God made the rules. Yes, it is as a man determines in his own heart, not grudgingly.

Nowhere does Scripture say Christians can't be leaders.

Not David · Dec 6, 2019

Palmfever said:
Saul as first King was a kingdom. Not really God's first choice as a mode of government.

King David was called the man according to God's heart.

Palmfever · Dec 6, 2019

David Neos said:
King David was called the man according to God's heart.

Yup, And that is quite a compliment. David was very human, and he knew his need for God's voice, for an honest relationship. When I think of faithful men of old these come to mind.
David; a man after God's heart.
John the Baptist; the greatest man ever born
Enoch; Walked with God. Taken
Elijah; God took him.
Job; a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God. When God is bragging about you, you are something special.

RDKirk · Dec 6, 2019

Palmfever said:
Limited. Not enough to presume it is a hard and fast rule. They were not to put a widow on church help unless she fulfilled some pretty stringent requirements. I believe it to be individual choices, in Love.

Every member of the Body is to be working for the Body. Paul described women who had no material means of support, but were still working in the Body, generally as the teachers of younger women.

Every member of the Body has a resource, every member of the Body has a need. Every member of the Body should be working for the good of the Body so that the Body is able to perform the mission given by Christ.

RDKirk · Dec 6, 2019

Palmfever said:
True. We are not told to feed the lazy. They are told to get to work or be booted to the curb.

Every part of a body has a role to fill. When something in a body absorbs resources but does no work for the body, that's called a tumor.

The work of each member of the Body is to support the Body in its performance of the mission of Christ.

But...if that member is working for the body, then the body has an obligation to provide it the resources that it needs.

RDKirk · Dec 6, 2019

Sketcher said:
There were several examples of collections taken in the New Testament. Which of them relied on apostles, pastors, elders, deacons, or any other church officers forcibly taking any monetary or material resources from the congregation? Where is anything like our system of taxation described, where the worker only received what was left of his pay from his employer after the church took its cut?

What "our system of taxation" are you talking about?

This thread is about the Church. I'm talking about the Church?

What are you talking about, and what makes you bring other things into a discussion about the economy of the Body of Christ?

I believe you're trying to deflect the discussion away from the economy of the Body of Christ by bringing up the economy of some other organization.

Josheb · Dec 6, 2019

Palmfever said:
Does Socialism always become Communistic?

If you want to understand Christianity then you look at Christians and how they actually live because they are the ones trying to operationalize their beliefs. Same thing with Marxism/communism/socialism. And when we do look at how Marxists endeavor to apply their beliefs it has in fact always become despotic and tyrannical.

Palmfever said:
Marxism at its core is a lofty ideal.

No, it is a gross perversion of lofty ideals; one built upon the moral capital (pun intended) of God's character articulated in God's law.

There are no conflicts between any of the Bible passages cited in this op. They are all built on the condition of real ownership. There is no actual giving if you didn't previously own what you're now giving. There is no earning if your labor is not yours with which to barter. Before Ananias was struck dead for lying he was told explicitly the land was his, it was his to do with as he pleased and he could have kept it or sold and kept the proceeds or given them away in whole or part. The reason the early Christians in Jerusalem were selling their property and sharing the proceeds is because they knew their property would soon be worthless because of the pending judgment that would destroy Jerusalem. It was the Christians in Jerusalem that sold everything, not all early Christians in all cities. After The Way was persecuted and forced to leave the synagogues they met in people's homes. That would be places they or someone else owned. They did not all sell their property and give away all the proceeds.

They were not socialists or communists.

They were cheerful and generous givers based upon real legitimate need and God's leading.

That is the NT standard and it remains the standard to which we are called in the 21st century.

That is not to say capitalism is all warm, fuzzy and perfectly moral. Sinners pervert everything they touch and until the church is filled with sinless people all economic models will bear the influence of sin.

However, God is a God Who bears fruit, a God of profit. It has been this way from the very beginning and this is observable in the very first command He ever uttered to humanity:

"Be fruitful and multiply; subdue the earth and rule over it."

It has been repeated by God in many wordings from beginning to end. Never revoked. Everything, including economics is built upon it.

"All things are permissible, but not all things are profitable."

The seed the grows bears fruit, sometimes 30, sometimes 60, sometimes 100 percent, as God enables it, but the seed that does not produce fruit is cut out and burned.

Marxism is not a lofty ideal at its core.

Maria Billingsley · Dec 6, 2019

Palmfever said:
Is Christianity a socialistic structure?

In Galatians, 6:10 we read, “So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.” And in Proverbs, 3:27, “Do not withhold good from those who deserve it, when it is within your power to act.” Eph, 4:28. “He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing good with his own hands, that he may have something to share with the one in need.”

How do we reconcile the above scripture with the following? 2 Thes, 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. The author reiterates in the following chapter, 1 Thes, 4:11 and to aspire to live quietly, to attend to your own matters, and to work with your own hands, as we instructed you.

Proverbs speaks frequently of laziness. Prov 20:4 “The sluggard will not plow by reason of the cold; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing.”

Yet what exactly is being conveyed here?

1 Tim 5:9 If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. A widow should be enrolled if she is at least sixty years old, the wife of one man, and well known for good deeds such as bringing up children, entertaining strangers, washing the feet of the saints, imparting relief to the afflicted, and devoting herself to every good work. One thing is becoming clear. Able bodied adults are responsible to support themselves and those dependent on them. Not only those in their immediate family, but also those who for legitimate reasons are incapable of providing sufficiently for themselves. If they do not do so, they are considered losers and are not to be associated with.

So, who is our family? Who is our neighbor? Who are we instructed to give assistance to? Many are familiar with the allegory of “the prodigal son.”

Luke 10:30 A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

This was not a long term welfare program. It was temporary assistance to a fellow man in need. The healthy, capable and lazy are not entitled to support. It is a disservice to both them and the truly hungry, sick, incapacitated. Those who need a hand. On the lazy it is a waste of resources.

So is Christianity Socialistic? Following we find a window into the early churches perspective on “welfare.” Acts, 2:43 “A sense of awe came over everyone, and the apostles performed many wonders and signs. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they shared with anyone who was in need. With one accord they continued to meet daily in the temple courts and to break bread from house to house, sharing their meals with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

While this group may have been overcome with a sense of awe and decided to share everything scripture does not teach sharing everything, nor does it teach giving for self glory as did Ananias and Sapphira.

God is not interested in giving for show, to be noticed nor for the purpose of gaining stature in the eyes of others. 2 Cor, 9:7 “Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”

And therein may lie the answer. It is not for the vote seeking, loquacious, duplicitous jesters on our political stages who seek to buy votes with promises of magic money rained down from ambiguous golden clouds. It is not for the obstreperous crowds to shove a socialistic agenda on those who have worked for their money, those who may have been blessed with good fortune and success. No, not for hedonistic mobs to dictate… or is it, has the church relinquished its right to intervene having given over the care for the needy to government? Has the church failed? Or is the church no longer capable of supporting and supplying for such great need. I knew a man who after reaching a certain income bracket reasoned that the increase in taxes decreased his wages to a level where he no longer saw a sufficient return on his efforts and restricted his labors thereafter.

Does Socialism always become Communistic?

I suppose that when power and authority is relinquished to a central government the need for fiscal control over the beneficiaries facilitates the need for stricter guidelines and tighter discipline. This will undoubtedly spark push-back.

Marxism at its core is a lofty ideal. I don’t know that it can ever be implemented in a pure sense. It fails to factor in basic human desires. The desire for wealth, status, power, greater reward for greater effort. Resentment toward an unfair system that rewards the hard working and the lazy equally. Greed and power are great motivators. And our politicians, while some may have begun with altruistic aspirations, Do any believe they aren’t more concerned with re-election to their esteemed position of power and wealth than the concerns of a silent majority? The vociferously obnoxious lost children demand attention.

While pure Christianity may have some commonality with Marxism, this earth is a divided earth not some Utopian fairyland, and well… look around. We humans are in varying degrees an amalgamation of the good, bad, ugly and beautiful. As individuals and as societies. There is none sinless, and perhaps very few absolutely evil. Our lives are defined daily by our responses to extrinsic causal motivators. And we, in spite of those who proffer determinism are free agents and have choices to make. Christianity is not a mandate, not a communal socialist organizational structure, it is an individual choice to love your neighbor as yourself. A response from a heart to “do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves”.

As James writes in James,1:27 “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Christianity is not of this world, it is the Kingdom of God. When we combine two things that are contradictory, unsupported or misguided we introduce traditions of men into Christianity. We know how Jesus Christ of Nazareth reacted to traditions of men. So best to keep social structure in its place and God in His while keeping His commandment, "Love one another".
Be blessed.

Sketcher · Dec 6, 2019

RDKirk said:
What "our system of taxation" are you talking about?

This thread is about the Church. I'm talking about the Church?

What are you talking about, and what makes you bring other things into a discussion about the economy of the Body of Christ?

I believe you're trying to deflect the discussion away from the economy of the Body of Christ by bringing up the economy of some other organization.

My argument is the church relied upon voluntary giving rather than simply taking its cut of its members income or property, whereas socialism takes first rather than asking people to give. I simply gave two examples of what it means to take first. While it is true that the church did preach the moral necessity of giving, that is not the same as coercively taking, like our government does, and like socialist governments do. The early church could ask and preach all day, but it was still dependent upon the hearers to take the message to heart and voluntarily give.

GodLovesCats · Dec 6, 2019

Palmfever said:
God offers his grace liberally, other than that unfortunately "liberal" has come to have bad connotations for many. It is certainly not what we see in our political system. That in my opinion is self aggrandizing prevaricators of b.s.

The only bad connotation is an incorrect assumption that liberals want to murder babies. (The truth is no Democrat wants to kill fetuses just for the sake of killing them.) Aside from giving women a choice to not remain pregnant for nine months, liberals want what Jesus wants. The complaints about tax increases are from greed, which Jesus repeatedly spoke out against, and one of his friends was a tax collector.

RDKirk · Dec 6, 2019

Sketcher said:
My argument is the church relied upon voluntary giving rather than simply taking its cut of its members income or property, whereas socialism takes first rather than asking people to give. I simply gave two examples of what it means to take first. While it is true that the church did preach the moral necessity of giving, that is not the same as coercively taking, like our government does, and like socialist governments do. The early church could ask and preach all day, but it was still dependent upon the hearers to take the message to heart and voluntarily give.

In Christ, a "moral necessity" is not optional or voluntary. It is a command.

Sketcher · Dec 6, 2019

RDKirk said:
In Christ, a "moral necessity" is not optional or voluntary. It is a command.

It's commanded by God, yes. But what was the church going to do if somebody didn't give "enough" at a collection? Forcibly take the difference? Break their legs? Remove them to a labor camp? If not, they still relied upon voluntary cooperation and the non-aggression principle. That's the foundation that capitalism is built on, not socialism.

GodLovesCats · Dec 7, 2019

Palmfever said:
John the Baptist; the greatest man ever born

This is a denial Jesus is fully man. He is not half man just because he has only one human parent. In fact, he often called himself the Son of Man.

Is Christianity a Socialistic structure?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Born Imperishable

Well-Known Member

I'm back!

I'm back!

I'm back!

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Christian

Well-Known Member

Born Imperishable

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Born Imperishable

Well-Known Member

Similar threads