In Defense of Social Justice

[HankD]

Forgive me if I read you wrong. I did not intend to misrepresent you.
Do you, then, believe that Bible-believers today are to try to correct social injustice -- or not? Personally, I don't see Paul commanding or commending that or anything similar -- or rebuking believers for not doing it.

No problem. You are correct. Our relationships with the brethren take priority (apart perhaps those of immediate family) in our lives.

Social injustices and their alleviation are usually used by Jesus as lessons taught pointing to a greater theme.

The OT nation of Israel was a theocracy, so it was expected of the individual to help in the alleviation of physical needs when possible, countryman first and then the "stranger".

Today, it's up to the believer. Personally I like to give to missions which do both - aid both aspects of life spiritual and physical.

Remembering Jason Nightingale of Wordsower International

BTW this is a debate forum - be careful what you say, you just might be challenged

 

[Covenanter]

So Anglicans and Episcopalians have accused anabaptists of being communists? On what basis?

XXXVIII. Of Christian Men's Goods, which are not common.
The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same; as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

In context, all "established" versions of Christianity maintained a church-state alliance and required oaths of allegiance to church & state which anabaptists could not give, as independent baptists gave their first allegiance to the Lord Jesus. They were outcasts, suffering persecution & it is recorded that they shared what possessions they had.

See "The Reformers & their stepchildren" which is a very informed study of those who did not conform.

 

[Covenanter]

XXXVIII. Of Christian Men's Goods, which are not common.
The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same; as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

In context, all "established" versions of Christianity maintained a church-state alliance and required oaths of allegiance to church & state which anabaptists could not give, as independent baptists gave their first allegiance to the Lord Jesus. They were outcasts, suffering persecution & it is recorded that they shared what possessions they had.

See "The Reformers & their stepchildren" which is a very informed study of those who did not conform.

Further the "Act of uniformity" which is still in CofE Prayer Books prescribes prison for all non-conformists (Presbyterians, Independents & Anabaptists, etc) if they deviate from the prescribed way of performing the sacraments.

[Page 460] And that if any manner of parson, vicar, or other whatsoever minister, that ought or should sing or say common prayer mentioned in the said book, or minister the sacraments, from and after the feast of the nativity of St. John Baptist next coming, refuse to use the said common prayers, or to minister the sacraments in such cathedral or parish church, or other places as he should use to minister the same, in such order and form as they be mentioned and set forth in the said book, or shall wilfully or obstinately standing in the same, use any other rite, ceremony, order, form, or manner of celebrating of the Lord's Supper, openly or privily, or Matins, Evensong, administration of the sacraments, or other open prayers, than is mentioned and set forth in the said book (open prayer in and throughout this Act, is meant that prayer which is for other to come unto, or hear, either in common churches or private chapels or oratories, commonly called the service of the Church), or shall preach, declare, or speak anything in the derogation or depraving of the said book, or anything therein contained, or of any part thereof, and shall be thereof lawfully convicted, according to the laws of this realm, by verdict of twelve men, or by his own confession, or by the notorious evidence of the fact, shall lose and forfeit to the queen's highness, her heirs and successors, for his first offence, the profit of all his spiritual benefices or promotions coming or arising in one whole year next after his conviction; and also that the person so convicted shall for the same offence suffer imprisonment by the space of six months, without bail or mainprize.

These laws were applied in a draconian manner under King James & his son Charles 1 (resulting in the emigration of the Pilgrim Fathers, and the English Civil War) , and particularly viciously after the Civil War by Charles II who had 2,000 Puritan ministers expelled from their churches & forbidden to meet within 5 miles of any town. It even became an offence to assist with food or hear such ministers.

John Bunyan & Isaac Watts' father were among those godly men imprisoned under those laws. They were repealed in 1689, & Baptists celebrated with the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

As Peter declared to the Sanhedrin -

Act 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.
God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.
And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”​

And they responded -

33 When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them.
​

 

[Covenanter]

Where did I say to "correct social injustices!".

You have falsely accused me.

You seem to overlook the fact that in the NT Books written to the Church we are NOT told to correct social injustices!. Instead, we are to live transformed lives -- full of the Holy Spirit -- and care for fellow believers, NOT the anti-God world of sinners.

Why is it that the Apostle Paul never commends "the Good Samaritan" or tells his readers to do anything similar to what Jesus told His audiences? Could it be that Jesus "came unto His own" (Jn 1:1) and ministered to them as their Messiah? When the Jews rejected Him, things changed when the gospel of God's grace was preached to Jews but also (mainly) to Gentiles.

Where did I say to "correct social injustices!".

You have falsely accused me.

Forgive me if I read you wrong. I did not intend to misrepresent you.
Do you, then, believe that Bible-believers today are to try to correct social injustice -- or not? Personally, I don't see Paul commanding or commending that or anything similar -- or rebuking believers for not doing it.

Did Jesus advise the "good Samaritan" to check the religious credentials of the victim before helping him?

When Jesus advised us to love our enemies, did he restrict such love to fellow Christians -

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.​

I find it extraordinary that you, Acts1:8not4me, should set the writings of Paul above the teaching of Jesus. I hope I've misunderstood you, but that's seems to be what you are saying.

Paul did confirm the words of Jesus. And he followed up his godly living advice in Galatians with -

Gal 6:10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
​

We do have opportunity in our democratic society to help the poor & vote for Socialist candidates. I am a Labour Party member & friends with our local candidate. I support justice for the oppressed people of the world including the Palestinians & contribute to humanitarian organisations, particularly Christian ones like TEAR Fund, Barnabas & Open Doors.

I don't consider the religious standing of homeless people sitting outside shops hoping for gifts of food & money. I consider their need, & give in Jesus' name.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The issue here, I believe, is that you seem to repudiate modus ponens.

Your modus ponens confusion is due to faulty logic poorly informed by eisegesis, which may not be directly attributable to you, but perhaps to others who have so deeply influenced you.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Either the principles of all logically admissible governments are equally righteous/(unrighteous) or some governing principles are better than others. If you don't believe that the best government actually attainable by mortals would be guided by Christian principles (as I assert), then please define the governing principles of your ideal fantasy government that would most effectively restrain our sinful race in our present circumstances.

You express a less nuanced approach than the Bible, perhaps because you are confused by the special case of the nation of Israel led out of Egypt.

Certainly any national government properly informed and influenced by a Christian worldview will be superior, but your idea of a Holy American Empire, though tempting, seems untenable, unjustifiable, biblically speaking. Again, you would need an all-Christian populace to implement anything of the sort.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Perhaps you secretly believe that Sharia law or the Noahide laws are just as good as the Christian principles I cited from Scripture. Shame on you.

No, you have it backward, and there has been no secret about it. You have been repeatedly warned in your threads that your position could very well lead to Sharia law or something very much like it. Perhaps you should shame yourself for not paying closer attention and heeding the warnings.

 

[HankD]

Your modus ponens confusion is due to faulty logic poorly informed by eisegesis, which may not be directly attributable to you, but perhaps to others who have so deeply influenced you.

noun: modus ponens

1. the rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.
2. An example of an argument that fits the form modus ponens: If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work.

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

Further the "Act of uniformity" which is still in CofE Prayer Books prescribes prison for all non-conformists (Presbyterians, Independents & Anabaptists, etc) if they deviate from the prescribed way of performing the sacraments.

These laws were applied in a draconian manner under King James & his son Charles 1 (resulting in the emigration of the Pilgrim Fathers, and the English Civil War) , and particularly viciously after the Civil War by Charles II who had 2,000 Puritan ministers expelled from their churches & forbidden to meet within 5 miles of any town. It even became an offence to assist with food or hear such ministers.

John Bunyan & Isaac Watts' father were among those godly men imprisoned under those laws. They were repealed in 1689, & Baptists celebrated with the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

Proverbs 28:5
Evil men do not understand justice,
But those who seek the Lord understand all things.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

noun: modus ponens

1. the rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.
2. An example of an argument that fits the form modus ponens: If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work.

The example isn't quite complete for those uninitiated:

An example of an argument that fits the form modus ponens:

If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work.
Today is Tuesday.
Therefore, John will go to work.​

This argument is valid, but this has no bearing on whether any of the statements in the argument are true; for modus ponens to be a sound argument, the premises must be true for any true instances of the conclusion. An argument can be valid but nonetheless unsound if one or more premises are false; if an argument is valid and all the premises are true, then the argument is sound.​

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

your idea of a Holy American Empire, though tempting, seems untenable, unjustifiable, biblically speaking.

I recommend that you reread post #43.

 

[Covenanter]

noun: modus ponens

1. the rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.
2. An example of an argument that fits the form modus ponens: If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work.

My logic may not be a rigorous example of modus ponens ....

Jesus said "Love your Neighbour."
MP logic - if that needy person is my neighbour - I must love & help her.
False MP logic - If she isn't my neighbour, I needn't help her.

His treatment of that outcast Samaritan living in adultery was a remarkable example of such love. With remarkable results - a town full of Samaritans became his followers.

Those immigrants are NOT my neighbours, nor do I want them to be.
IF they were my neighbours, I would move house.

As the UK Conservatives once had as an political slogan -

Vote Labour if you want a N----r for a neighbour.
​

Now the argument seems to be -

Jeremy Corbyn supports justice for the Palestinians, he's even prepared to hold peace talks with terrorists like Hamas & Irish Republican leaders & Moslems - he's an antisemitic terrorist himself.
In any case, his Socialist policies will make rich people poorer by forcing them to pay higher taxes.​

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

Now the argument seems to be -

Jeremy Corbyn supports justice for the Palestinians, he's even prepared to hold peace talks with terrorists like Hamas & Irish Republican leaders & Moslems - he's an antisemitic terrorist himself.
In any case, his Socialist policies will make rich people poorer by forcing them to pay higher taxes.​

That's the only argument the enemies of truth have against social justice. It's going to cost them money. True believers everywhere need to know that this superficial argument of the anti-social-justice movement is an apocalyptic endtime delusion called The First Demon's Message.

 

[church mouse guy]

My logic may not be a rigorous example of modus ponens ....

Jesus said "Love your Neighbour."
MP logic - if that needy person is my neighbour - I must love & help her.
False MP logic - If she isn't my neighbour, I needn't help her.

His treatment of that outcast Samaritan living in adultery was a remarkable example of such love. With remarkable results - a town full of Samaritans became his followers.

Those immigrants are NOT my neighbours, nor do I want them to be.
IF they were my neighbours, I would move house.

As the UK Conservatives once had as an political slogan -

Vote Labour if you want a N----r for a neighbour.
​

Now the argument seems to be -

Jeremy Corbyn supports justice for the Palestinians, he's even prepared to hold peace talks with terrorists like Hamas & Irish Republican leaders & Moslems - he's an antisemitic terrorist himself.
In any case, his Socialist policies will make rich people poorer by forcing them to pay higher taxes.​

What makes you think that you are going to get mercy from the communists?

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

What makes you think that you are going to get mercy from the communists?

What communists? You've accused me of being communist for merely believing in social justice. Frankly, I appreciate and feel safe with all believers in social justice but don't expect to receive any justice or mercy from any of the avowed enemies of social justice or other confused opponents, such as yourself.

 

[church mouse guy]

What communists? You've accused me of being communist for merely believing in social justice. Frankly, I appreciate and feel safe with all believers in social justice but don't expect to receive any justice or mercy from any of the avowed enemies of social justice and other confused opponents, such as yourself.

The Seventh-day Millerites are communists. You are liable to post anything. First you say Revelation 18 and then you say that you never said that. You have sided with the enemies of the American people and have admitted yourself that you are a fan of the psychopathic murderer communist Che. Why should we think that you mean anything by social justice other than the usual death of your enemies? I don't know if you are the leader of the Seventh-day Millerites or merely a follower but if you were wise, you would leave that anti-Christian, anti-Semitic group and make your own way in the world unless they are paying you to troll.

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

You have sided with the enemies of the American people and have admitted yourself that you are a fan of the psychopathic murderer communist Che.

Why don't you post the link? Answer: there is no clickable link to your fantasies.

 

[church mouse guy]

Why don't you post the link? Answer: there is no clickable link to your fantasies.

Now, now, tell the truth, Mr. Zog.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

That's the only argument the enemies of truth have against social justice. It's going to cost them money. True believers everywhere need to know that this superficial argument of the anti-social-justice movement is an apocalyptic endtime delusion called The First Demon's Message.

Zog Has-fallen, you seem to have fallen prey to typical antichrist rhetoric that takes a good sounding phrase and applies it to evil practices. The progressive left is very good at this, e.g., “pro-choice” means widespread, legalized abortion, and now includes infanticide.

The only “social justice” movement of note, by name in the US, promotes all manner of sexual perversion, baby murder, child molestation, human trafficking, and destruction of the family and social order.

Of course mature Christians know what these phrases should mean. But in the current political climate, they do not mean what they should. They have been misappropriated. So, if you side with those using these phrases, you in effect side with evil. Don’t judge a book by its title.

 

[Zog Has-fallen]

The Seventh-day Millerites are communists.

I think it's obvious that Seventh-day Millerites are Christian Communalists, not anti-Christian communists, and that you refuse to discern the difference.