Amos is not speaking about the nonsense being called "social justice" today. He is speaking of an entirely different system. The churches are to be charitable, but Paul directs us in this charity. Paul is explicit that only the truly deserving are to be helped. I can guarantee you Paul would not support "BLM".It certainly is a common claim. But the proof is in actually doing it. Otherwise it is just wishful thinking, at best.
“Liberalism” is not the issue. The issue is social justice and that Amos, speaking for God, tells us that God is not interested in our worship or religious ceremonies unless we are engaged in social justice. That seems to be explicit in the passage.
It can be, but it is often used to downplay passages that we don’t like in order to create a religious system that conforms to our own fallen preferences.
Have you ever wondered why God didn’t simply give us a systematic theology instead of the Bible? That clearly indicates that systematic theologies are not sufficient for faith and practice.
Systematic theologies are built around the opinions of human beings as to what the key elements of belief should be. If someone has a prejudice against social justice (for instance, equating it with “liberalism” which is equated with everything they hate), they are unlikely to build a theology that seriously explores what the Bible has to say about social justice. They can become idols for us to exchange the truth of God for something created in our own image.
I appreciate systematic theologies, but I am not fool enough to believe they are essential to understanding the scriptures or to be faithful to Jesus. In fact, a poorly prepared systematic theology can be a stumbling block to biblical faith.
You can’t understand the plain language of Amos? Even children can understand it.
Your unwillingness to even engage with me regarding Amos 5 tells me you are afraid or unwilling to confront the truth of God’s word.
You are simply screaming “liberal” and running away like a child.
I have no idea what you see in Amos 5. Nothing supporting the U.S. concept of "social justice".
Last edited: