Ideologies‎ > ‎

Socialism

Socialism believes in the "redistribution of the wealth" by the government to people they deem worthy or in need. Socialism is based in greed and uses the government to steal from the wealthy rather than using a gun to rob individuals of their wealth. Europe is a good example of a social welfare system in which money is taken by taxes from the nations and redistributed to poorer nations that have economic problems or that are victim to people that will not work. Many Christians have fallen for the lie that it is the responsibility of the government to look after the poor and needy.

The truth is that Jesus commanded his own people (the church) to take care of the poor and needy. Jesus never instructed that Caesar was supposed to fulfill this role. And yet, many Christians believe that social justice demands that Christians use the government to redistribute the wealth to the needy or other programs. The following video describes the danger of doing this:


Socialism 101

Socialism 101




Democratic Socialism?

Democratic Socialism?




Slippery Slope of Socialism



 
Written on JULY 5, 2012 AT 10:45 AM by JOEL MCDURMON


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Trinity Talk on God Versus Socialism: ‘God Owns Everything’

Filed under ARTICLESETHICSFEATURED{10 COMMENTS}

Trinity Talk this week had me on their show to speak about my book God Versus Socialism, and how we’re seeing the ideas of that book being lived out even this very week. You can listen to the audio interview in the embed at the bottom of this article, hear it at the Trinity Talk web site, ordownload it and listen later.

The premise of the book God Versus Socialism is simply this: God Almighty owns everything. This is the biblical view: “The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it” (Ps. 24:1); God says, “[E]very beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, and everything that moves in the field is Mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world is Mine, and all it contains (Psa. 50:9–12).

God created mankind in His own image. Man reflects God’s character and order. Just as God owns everything, God delegated the stewardship and dominion of property to His image, mankind (Gen. 1:26–28), and thus humans have the capacity and calling to act as private owners. God planted a special garden—the Garden of Eden—and placed man in it to till it, and to guard its boundaries (Gen. 2:8, 15). When Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s law-order, God kicked them outside of those boundaries, and placed a “no-trespassing” sign in the form of an angelic guardian at their gates (Gen. 3:23–24). Adam and Eve very quickly learned the ins and outs of private property.

This doctrine continued as God’s way of ordering and prospering society, and we see this in the fact that God’s fundamental laws for living— the Ten Commandments—include the prohibition of theft (Ex. 20:15). No man or group of men can take another man’s property—by individual act, legislation, petition, conspiracy, or appeal to the “common good”—in disregard for God’s law. The Old Testament frequently refers to the moving of a neighbor’s landmark (a property corner) in order to increase one’s own property (Deut. 19:14; 27:17; Job 24:2; Prov. 22:28; 23:10; Hos. 5:10). The references forbid or condemn the act as an attack on inheritance and possession (Deut. 19:14).

The same doctrine holds in the New Testament. In the early Church in Acts 5, as many Christians voluntarily sold their goods and gave to the poor among them, one couple sold some land and laid only a portion at the apostles’ feet pretending they had given all. Nevertheless, even for these corrupt-hearted individuals, Peter upheld the doctrine of private property: “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?” (Acts 5:4). God punished them, not for not giving all, but for lying about what they gave.

Other apostles upheld the doctrine as well: Paul preached against theft (Eph. 4:28), as did Peter (1 Pet. 4:15) and James (Jam. 5:4). Not to mention that Jesus saw the command as quite relevant as well (Matt. 19:18).

The biblical witness is clear: God believes in private property, and He not only desires us but commands us to live by that rule as well. Under this system, our rights and freedoms come from God. No man can take them away. He who tries must answer to the law, and ultimately to God.

Socialism

Socialism is the belief that individual private property is a bad idea. It is thus an anti-Christian and anti-biblical belief. Socialists believe that governments should own most or all property and distribute it out as government experts, scientists, politicians, or occasionally voters see fit. Under socialism, the State puts itself in the place of God and says, “The earth is the State’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it.” Under this view, the individual has no protection from his neighbor if his neighbor is in the majority, or if the State somehow deems his neighbor as needful in some way; the State simply uses force to take that individual’s property and give it to someone else. In this sense, the State moves landmarks every day. In this view, the State determines our rights, and gives us our freedoms; here there is no appeal beyond the State.

Socialism is the belief, therefore, that stealing is acceptable as long as another man or group of men says so. Socialism believes in theft by majority vote, or theft by a majority of representatives’ votes in Congress. Socialism is the belief that armed robbery is OK as long as you do it through proxy of the government’s gun. Socialism places man, and ultimately the State, in the place of God. Man becomes owned by other men, instead of by his Maker. Socialism is an entirely humanistic, God-denying, God-usurping belief.

Conclusion

Between these two beliefs—private property and socialism— there exists fundamental conflict. They represent contradictory views of sovereignty, man, law, society, and inheritance. They are fundamentally rival religious systems. Choosing one, you reject the other— service and honor to God, or servitude to fellow men. Either God commands and judges man, or man commands and judges man. The following studies illustrate this war of worldviews in the economic and political realm, and argue the necessity and superiority of choosing God over humanism’s false god, socialism, in all its many faces.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 28:01 — 13.1MB) | 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Socialism destroys Detroit


Bible on Wealth Distribution

Bible doesn't command wealth redistribution,

presenters say at theological meeting

Posted on Dec 13, 2012 | by David Roach

 

MILWAUKEE (BP) -- Scripture does not require governments to redistribute wealth to help the poor, presenters in a session at the Evangelical Theological Society's annual meeting said this fall.

"Class warfare, wealth redistribution, and socialism can, at best, make people only equally miserable," Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary professor Craig Mitchell wrote in a paper he presented during a session titled "Does God Require the State to Redistribute Wealth?"

Mitchell asked, "Is it surprising that free markets, which respect property rights, maximize both producer and consumer welfare, and create wealth (rather than dividing it) are far more compatible with biblical Christianity?"

The meeting, attended by more than 2,000 evangelical scholars in Milwaukee, included the election of two Southern Baptists as officers. Thomas Schreiner, a professor of New Testament interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., was elected president-elect, and Gregg Allison, professor of Christian theology at Southern, was elected secretary.

Focusing on the theme "Caring for Creation," plenary session speakers at the Nov. 14-16 meeting included Russell D. Moore, senior vice president for academic administration and dean of the school of theology at Southern, and E. Calvin Beisner, founder of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

In addition to Mitchell, the session on wealth redistribution featured Scott Rae, professor of philosophy of religion and ethics at the Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif.; Art Lindsley, vice president of theological initiatives at the Institute for Faith, Work & Economics in McLean, Va.; and Wayne Grudem, research professor of theological and biblical studies at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona.

Mitchell, chair of the ethics department and associate director of the Richard Land Center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, said those who argue that the Bible requires governments to redistribute wealth often take Old Testament passages out of context. He told Baptist Press that the Land Center's website includes audio, video and printed resources on economics from a Christian perspective.

God required Israelites to leave a portion of their crops in the field after harvest for the poor to gather, Mitchell said, and He instituted the Year of Jubilee, when land was returned to its original owner every 50th year. But neither Old Testament requirement means that modern governments should redistribute wealth to the poor, Mitchell said.

"The laws concerning the gleaning of fields in the Pentateuch (Leviticus 19:9-10 and also Deuteronomy 24:21) require the poor to work by picking up the leftovers at the edge of the fields," Mitchell wrote. "Those who own the fields do not have their produce taken by the government and then given to the poor. Since the Old Testament extols the virtue of work and deplores the vice of laziness, the contemporary concept of wealth redistribution is alien to the Ancient Israelite conception of justice or righteousness."

The Year of Jubilee was intended only for ancient Israel and has no application to modern social policy, Mitchell wrote, adding that New Testament commands on economic justice are directed toward individual believers, not governments.

"The sin of covetousness all too often ends in the sin of stealing," Mitchell wrote. "Those who argue for class warfare call this stealing the redistribution of wealth. The most gentle way that this theft occurs is by taxation."

Rae, in his paper, said the Bible requires all communities to create an economic "safety net" for the poor but leaves open the question of whether that safety net should be built with government or private funds. Some use of tax dollars to help the poor is legitimate and not a form of theft, Rae wrote.

"Providing for those who cannot provide for themselves is certainly not a 'leveling' of wealth per se (though it is a form of redistribution), but providing a means of sustenance for those who cannot provide it for themselves," Rae wrote. "Thus I would not say that all redistribution is necessarily theft, but instead is part of the price paid for being a responsible member of the community, to which we implicitly consent by virtue of our membership in society."

Still, proponents of wealth redistribution are wrong to argue that economic inequality is evil in itself, Rae wrote. God hates injustice and oppression but not mere inequality, he noted, adding that the Year of Jubilee -- a favorite topic of redistribution advocates -- did not help the poorest members of Israelite society because they did not have any land to reclaim.

"It's not true to say that all inequality is the result of injustice, or that the inequalities that result from participation in the market system are necessarily unjust," Rae wrote. "Certainly when people are exploited so that someone else can make a profit, that's wrong, and we have grave problems with human trafficking and a good deal of sweatshop labor that goes on around the world. But be very careful that you don't fundamentally equate capitalism with exploitation."

Lindsley, in his paper, said the Bible does not require governments to redistribute wealth and answered scriptural arguments used by redistribution advocates. The Year of Jubilee did not mean forgiveness of debt, he wrote, and it did not abolish private property.

Under the jubilee system, an Israelite who owned land could sell the right to farm it until the Year of Jubilee, with the price based on the value of each year's crop and the number of years remaining until the jubilee, Lindsley said. When the Year of Jubilee arrived, the land reverted back to its original owner.

"This understanding of Jubilee as the payoff of a lease is common in Old Testament commentaries," Lindsley wrote, noting that the jubilee does not provide an argument for wealth redistribution.

In the New Testament, advocates of wealth redistribution refer to Acts 2-5 to support their position, Lindsley wrote, where early Christians sold their property to meet one another's needs. But such sharing did not eliminate private property and was entirely voluntary, he wrote.

"These early believers contributed their goods freely, without coercion, voluntarily," Lindsley wrote. "Elsewhere in Scripture we see that Christians are even instructed to give in just this manner, freely, for 'God loves a cheerful giver' (2 Corinthians 9:7). There is plenty of indication that private property rights were still in effect (remember Barnabas, Ananias, and Sapphira). This is neither communism (abolition of private property) nor socialism (state ownership of the means of production). This was not even socialism as defined as a community-owned or regulated system."

Grudem did not present a paper but distributed an outline of the Bible's teaching on wealth redistribution. He warned that "the power of government is great and therefore exceptionally dangerous."

Government should provide a "safety net" for meeting basic needs like food, clothing and shelter, Grudem affirmed.

"But there does not seem to be any justification in Scripture for governments seeking to attempt to equalize income or property between rich and poor, or to take from all the rich," Grudem noted. "I do not think biblical terms for 'justice' indicate such responsibility."

Property in the Bible normally belongs to individuals rather than societies or governments, Grudem wrote. The command not to steal assumes private ownership of property and 1 Samuel 8 warns against a king who would take too much from the people.

In the end, God's standard of "justice" requires governments to uphold His moral code, not ensure an even distribution of wealth, Grudem wrote.
--30--
David Roach is a writer based in Shelbyville, Ky. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress ) and in your email ( baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp).

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=39349



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


God versus Socialism: The planks we walk to our doom

Dec 16, 2015 by Dr. Joel McDurmon 40 Comments

While it is helpful to remind ourselves that the technical definition of “Socialism” is quite narrow, and that by that definition we must understand “Socialism” is indeed a dead political and economic philosophy, let’s not be so black-and-white minded that we ignore the obvious. Whether the government technically owns the means of production, or whether the government simply has its finger in every pie, is only a matter of degree. I argue that both are therefore Socialism since they partake of the same principle: theft by government.

Let’s not ignore the obvious: Marx is dead and gone, and yet his manifesto haunts our culture in demonstrable ways.

From God versus Socialism:

People have no idea how much freedom we’ve lost, how far we’ve gone.

It is no stretch to say that America is not what it used to be. Many lovers of our country will readily identify with the sentiment. What needs to be pushed, however, is a reminder about how and in what ways we have changed. The program we have followed and where we have ended up needs commentary.

Not so long ago, Christians and conservatives in this country defined themselves politically by opposing the great threat of Communism. We hear hardly anything of this today. The idea that Communism was a real threat not so long ago, yet is almost forgotten today, presents a classic example of the American public’s short memory. Mention Marxism in a conversation today and you will almost definitely be hearing crickets in a short time. No one cares: it’s history. The wall fell, we won, move on.

Yes, the Berlin Wall fell, but it fell in our direction. No one talks about this. The Soviet Union fell, but Marxism and Socialism have long flooded all of Western and Eastern Civilization. America is no exception. Marxism is history, yes, and yet the influences of Marxism and various ideas of socialism have never been more dangerous than now, when it stands ready to expand further into every office of government, and when we are yet asleep to it.

So let me briefly state my problems with America as it has come to be. First, we pride ourselves on free-market economics and private ownership of property, but these ideas have been phantoms as long as there has been property tax, which is little more than rent paid to government. If you disbelieve that, then try to go a year or two without paying your property tax, and you will learn who your landlord is. You will be fined, jailed, or “your” property will have a lien filed against it, or it will be confiscated. We don’t own so much as rent from the government. That we have a free-market is likewise ridiculous to defend in the light of recent events. If the Federal Reserve can “print” money at will, and the U. S. Treasury can buy stakes in bank shares, then the market is not free of either State manipulation or intervention.

Second, we have a heavy progressive (or “graduated”) income tax. For the few who may not know, “graduated” means that those who make more money should not only pay more tax based on equal percentage of tax, but should also bear the added burden of an increased percentage. Greater wealth is disproportionately taxed, which penalizes and discourages financial success. The graduated system is unfair, arbitrary, and unbiblical. The United States instituted the graduated income tax by the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. It has been increased—again disproportionately—many times since.

Third, we have strong anti-family laws, including inheritance tax. In other words, when you die and leave wealth to your children or other designees, the government grabs anywhere from 18–55% of the amount for itself. This is a denial of the sacredness of the family as a unit, and the rights of families to determine the use of their own wealth. It is also a double tax on property, and a blatant attempt to again penalize wealth. It diminishes successful families’ strength in that it detracts from parents’ ability to advance their children’s future. Thus, it is an attack on the traditional family structure and leadership in society in general.

Fourth, following almost immediately on America’s 1913 imposition of income tax, was America’s less obvious 1913 Inflation Tax, which came in the form of the Federal Reserve. America’s first central bank was proposed by Alexander Hamilton and created in 1791. It was closed twenty years later and continued off and on due to mass opposition until the covert form emerged into law in 1913. . . . With recent events, the fall of many banks has left primarily only a few big banks standing. This “crisis” and the mindless and immoral actions of Congress to go along with the various “bailouts” have pushed our central bank closer to an exclusive monopoly.

Fifth, we have many, massive, subsidized government programs. These are all transfers of wealth based on factors other than the market. There are too many to name here, but farm subsidies come to mind: farmers are paid in various ways in order to manipulate crop prices across the board. Ethanol alone has been subsidized to the tune of $10 billion. This diverts corn from other markets into an otherwise market-doomed purpose (ethanol would never brew in a free market); not only does the public get hit with the $10B, it also suffers a rise in the price of meat and other products that require otherwise market-rate corn. These billions are a miniscule part of the overall government subsidy equation, which from 1995–2010 equals about $262 billion.1

Sixth, and finally for now, we have compulsory public education regulated at federal, state, and local levels. “Compulsory,” because even if we home school or privately school our children, we are still compelled to pay taxes for public schooling. “Public,” because the taxes are used to fund government-run schools. This tax-funded schooling is presented as free, of course, but it is only free to those who don’t pay property taxes. Our government spends about $700 billion per year on public education, just for primary and secondary levels. The State determines whether, when, and what you will teach your kids. If people want to participate in this system, that is fine with me, but do not compel me to pay for it. This is a robbery of freedom. Also, when schools function legally as “in place of the parents,” the State has again usurped the role of the family.

Why the Concern?

The concern over these particular aspects of modern America—and believe me there are many others—is that they are all innovations imposed upon America in direct contrast to the original American way of life. More to the point is the historical source of these points of discussion:

I have lifted them all from the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

The reason these points are un-American and anti-biblical is that their source was anti-American and anti-Christian in principle.

What I have described above cover roughly seven of the ten “planks” of the Communist Manifesto. I could probably work to show others, but have neither the time nor necessity. The relevant points are these (1, 2, 3, 5, 7/9, 10):

(1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

(2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

(3) Abolition of all right of inheritance.

(5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

(7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state . . .

(9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries . . .

(10) Free education for all children in public schools.

The historical connections are clear, too. For example, the springs of the graduated income tax in America flow directly from Marxism. The connection is direct and unmistakable. The first group in American history to advocate the graduated income tax was the Socialist Labor Party, a dedicated collection of Marxists founded originally as the “Workingman’s Party of America” in the People’s Republic of New Jersey in 1876. Their 1887 platform unashamedly declared “we strive for the acquisition of political power.”2 Among their many “Social Demands” is “Progressive income tax and tax on inheritances; but smaller incomes to be exempt.”

The short-lived Populist Party followed in 1892. Their platform decried “a vast conspiracy against mankind” to demonetize silver and monopolize gold in the hands of a few, among other things. The document contains classic Marxist verbiage, accusing “bondholders” of wanting to “decrease the value of . . . human labor,” and to “fatten usurers, bankrupt enterprise, and enslave industry.”3  The party died out quickly but had a lasting impact, much of its platform being picked up by the Democratic Party the following election year.

It was then in 1896 that William Jennings Bryan gave that most famous political speech in American history: the “Cross of Gold” speech. Bryan adapted ideas of the former Marxist groups to please American ears and persuade American hearts. Already two years prior he had argued in favor of the income tax, and was now calling it “a just law” and further pushing for the inflation of the money supply. The success of his speech derives from his successful weaving of Marxism and Christian language. Lines like “[tarrif] protection has slain its thousands the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands,” echoed to the religious mind unreligiously bent on envy of other people’s wealth. He called his crusade a “righteous cause” and “holy.” It was brilliant political propaganda. Unequally yoking Marx and Christ (2 Cor. 6:14–18), Bryan argued that the gold standard would be a crucifixion of the “producing masses” and the “toiling masses.” The famous concluding lines leveraged the suffering of Christ for the Marxist agenda: “you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.” Christians by millions bought into the rhetoric. Tens of millions still do.

And lest we forget the fundamentally anti-religious nature of this plank of Socialism in the country, the Socialist Party platform of 1887 demanded “Separation of all public affairs from religion; church property to be subject to taxation” (note the irony here: the church cannot get involved in public affairs, but the public treasury should benefit from the church’s property). What the Socialist Party could not accomplish with its explicitly anti-church platform, Bryan and his Democrats accomplished by appropriating biblical language to say the same thing.

Likewise, the socialization of education stems directly from the work of early socialists in America. The “Father of the Common Schools” was Massachusetts lawyer and politician Horace Mann (1796–1858). He predates Marx, and thus is not dependent on him, nor was Mann an atheist like Marx, but an enthusiastic churchgoer. His theology, however, was suspect, as he embraced Unitarianism in its early days when it was mission-minded—presenting itself as the culmination of Protestantism and ready to lead the direction of the natural order. Mann rejected orthodox Calvinism and believed strongly in the “perfectibility of man.”4 This naturalistic belief was, however, couched in religious language: public education would eliminate ignorance, poverty, and crime. In his system, the State replaced both the church and the family: “Society, in its collective capacity, is a real, not a nominal sponsor and god-father for all its children” (classic political salvation).5  Rushdoony summarizes, “Mann’s work was two-fold, first to secularize education, and, second, to make it the province of the state rather than the community and the parents.”6 The story of the socialization of education, then, is the product of unbiblical theology. It results in an unbiblical view of education and society that abolishes the role of church and family.

Fall and Recovery

Why do I rehearse these aspects of American history specifically, and why should they bother you so much? Simple. These changes in the American system directly reflect the famous Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. We have witnessed a gradual progression into a Marxist America, all the while boasting ourselves champions of freedom. Well, the “land of the free, and the home of the brave” has become, in fact, the “land of the Fed, and the home of the slave.” We no longer live in the America that fought for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but in the America which will fight tooth and nail for government funding and special-interest politics. America today is more Marxist than anything, and a large portion of the voting public wishes to make it even more so.

I say these things realizing that many will pelt me with tomatoes and bricks, call me un-American, an America-hater, and most definitely unpatriotic. But here’s the catch: it is only because I absolutely love and adore the America of the Pilgrims, the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers, etc., that I point out how much we have lost. This is not the same country. It has been flooded with socialism. Envy, greed, and subsequent lust for political power have raped lady liberty, ravaged our land, and stolen the inheritance of the American Dream. It is not patriotism to keep saying “America, America,” when the America of our fathers is all but gone. It is ridiculous to sing “America the Beautiful” when socialists and statists have marred the cheeks of her once-free and optimistic smile. The America that remains is but a shell filled with Prussian and European-style Socialism, wrapped in red, white, and blue. This is not true patriotism.

No, the true patriot loves freedom, family, and property. The word “patriot” literally means “of the fathers.” A true patriot, therefore, conserves the good his fathers built and passed down. He loves vast horizons untaxed by cold marble institutions in distant Capitols, unfettered by radicals in black robes. A true patriot loves the land, and his Father is God not “the State,” and not “the People”; his land is protected by law, respect for law, and as a last resort, the right to defend, not progressively taxed away by politicians wanting to “spread the wealth around,” neither rented from the State as a privilege to live under its almighty watch.

Is there a way to stop, even reverse the godless trend of the past 150 years? As pessimistic as this all may sound, change is possible. It begins with mentally and spiritually reclaiming our founding principles of individual freedom and enterprise. We must make up our own minds and hearts that these principles are worth defending. And unlike those spineless Congresspersons who, after voting “no” on the bailout, sickeningly caved and voted “yes” after some of the loot was thrown to their pet projects and districts. We must never compromise our principles.

Once we secure these convictions, we must pass them to the next generation. This means maintaining a strong biblical view of the family and of education. Education should be compulsory (in the sense that Deuteronomy and Ephesians command us to educate our children), but this is compulsory before God and not the civil State; and education should be costly (in personal time, money, and effort), but no one should ever be forced to pay for someone else’s education. This seemingly simple tax for public education violates nearly every sacred boundary known to man, especially when the content of that education begins and ends with blasphemy. Unless we recover education as a distinctly family- and church-oriented mandate, we will continue to watch society slide into secularism.

Further steps include continual effort to secure public debates and discussion in churches and public forums. Debates should center on America’s Christian history and the necessity of Christianity as the foundation of social order. Marx consciously erased this foundation, claiming it was but an abstraction of the real problems of mankind. He said that any objections to his system from a religious standpoint “are not deserving of a serious examination.”7 But he was too self-consciously opposed to Christianity for his dismissal to carry any truth. Christian freedom, God-given rights, and law-protected family and property all posed the ultimate threat to his man-centered takeover of the world (and thus of other men). His program of abolishing property, abolishing the traditional family, socializing education, and socializing sex were all contrived precisely as anti-biblical ideas. It was the institution of his system that Marx saw, not as the product of, but as the means to abolishing religion itself.8 He saw his program as the economic and social counterpart to Darwin’s work in nature: an explanation of social order that does not require God.

Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of Marx’s success was the fact the he only succeeded because Christians refused to get involved to begin with. Marx always kept this in mind and exploited it. Reporting on the socialist Hague Congress of 1872, Marx made this unfortunately true remark:

One day the worker will have to seize political supremacy to establish the new organization of labor; he will have to overthrow the old policy which supports the old institutions if he wants to escape the fate of the early Christians who, neglecting and despising politics, never saw their kingdom on earth.9

This “neglecting and despising” of politics by Christians has continued in modern American history, and America has since followed the anti-Christian program of Marx and abandoned that of the Bible. This blind following has included many Christians. The reversal of this trend will require bringing these issues into the open as worldview issues. The church must allow and encourage political and economic discussion, and the public must be made to know that we have the answers. The transformation will not happen overnight, but it can happen.

Print Friendly

1.   This number has been updated from the figures available for the book in 2009. [↩]

2.   “The Socialist Labor Party of North America Platform,” 1887; http://www.slp.org/pdf/platforms/plat1887.pdf, accessed October 16, 2008. [↩]

3.   “National People’s Party Platform”; http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5361, accessed October 16, 2008. [↩]

4.   Quoted in R. J. Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of American Education: Studies in the History of the Philosophy of Education (Philipsburg, NJ: Prebyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1963), 19. [↩]

5.   Quoted in R. J. Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of American Education, 24. [↩]

6.   R. J. Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of American Education, 27. [↩]

7.   Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy, ed. Lewis S. Feuer (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1959), 26. [↩]

8.   Karl Marx, “Capital, Book I,” Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels On Religion (New York: Schocken Books, 1964), 136. [↩]

9.   Karl Marx, “On the Hague Congress,” Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Works, 50 vol. (New York: International Publishers, 1988), 23:255. [↩]

 Source: AmericanVision.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SUBTITLE: A BIBLICAL CRITIQUE OF THE NEW SOCIAL GOSPEL


About the Title: God owns everything. The earth is the Lord's, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it (Ps. 24:1), and God delegated ownership and dominion of His property to man (Gen 1:26–28).

God sanctioned the protection of private property in His law — the Ten Commandments — by including a prohibition of theft. Jesus and the Apostles upheld this law.

The biblical witness is clear: God believes in private property, and He not only desires us but commands us to live by that rule as well. 

Socialists believe that private property is a bad idea, and that governments should own most or all property and distribute it as government experts, scientists, politicians, or voters see fit.

Under socialism, the State puts itself in the place of God and says: "The earth is the State's, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it."

Fundamental conflict separates the rival religious systems of private property and socialism. Choosing one, you reject the other. Either God commands and judges man, or man commands and judges man.

God Versus Socialism illustrates the war of worldviews in the economic and political realm, and argues the necessity and superiority of choosing God over humanism's false god, socialism, in all its many forms. 

About the Author:  Joel McDurmon, M.Div., Reformed Episcopal Theological Seminary, is the Director of Research for American Vision. He is the author of: Manifested in the Flesh: How the Historical Evidence of Jesus Refutes Modern Mystics and Skeptics,The Return of the Village Atheist, and Zeitgeist Refuted: Is Jesus an Astrological Myth? He also serves as a lecturer and regular contributor to the American Vision website, joining their staff in June of 2008.

Specifications: 235 pages