• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Methodist Vs Pc USA (or really denominational differences)

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
So it has been a while since I have done confirmation. I was wondering if anyone has any good material (preferably Internet) to explain the differences? I've always considered Methodists "baptist lite." But I know that may not be adequate. I'm rt just trying to get a good way to explain it.
 
So it has been a while since I have done confirmation. I was wondering if anyone has any good material (preferably Internet) to explain the differences? I've always considered Methodists "baptist lite." But I know that may not be adequate. I'm rt just trying to get a good way to explain it.

Pc - Presbyterians? If so, the Presbyterians are Calvinists--the Methodst are not. The Baptists are more 'once saved always saved' and more likely to be more paternalistic than the others when it comes to their leadership--Methodsts allow women to do everything the men do. All three denominations consider communion (Eucharist or the Lord's Supper) to be symbolic instead of more literal as the Catholics and Episcopalians treat it. Presbyterians and Methodists sprinkle and the Baptists immerse only for the sacrament of baptism. All three practice believers baptism--i.e. the person being baptized is fully aware of what he/she is doing and consents to it--rather than infant baptism as practiced in some churches. All three have great music with the Baptists having the edge there IMO. The Presbyterians and Methodists use more written creeds and have a more ritualistic service than do the Baptists but none are 'high church' and most people are pretty comfortable in a worship service in all three.

There isn't a huge difference in theology within the three denominations except for the Calvinistic aspect of Presbyterianism. All three believe Jesus was God incarnate and all three believe Jesus to be Lord and Savior. But because of the Calvinism, Methodists and Baptists are probably most closely aligned in docrines re salvation.
 
The only place I'd differ is that Methodists will baptize infants.

Calvinism is (imo) a pretty big theological gap between PCUSA and the UMC/SBC, although you get some Baptist churches (since they are more individually autonomous than UMC) who lean in that direction. Wesley once stated that "Calvins' God is my Devil", or something to that tune. It's not just the Predestination, it's the Limited Atonement, etc.
 
The biggest difference is that Methodists are Wesleyan and Presbyterians are Reformed (Calvinist). This makes their very conception of who God is different and as a result it affects all aspects of their belief. We could call Wesleyan (or Arminian) and Reformed (or Calvinist) theology competing world views, for they affect all aspects of your belief.

Presbyterians believe in a God whose providence and sovereignty are absolute. God is the author of all things that have occurred, are occuring, or will occur. Nothing has happened or will happen but that which is willed by God. This obviously clashes with the idea of free will, so the reformed doctrine presbyterians adhere to ends up re-defining free will so that it no longer means what the rest of us mean when we use that term. The God of the presbyterians is the divine of author of creation and of all of history; although our individual choices may feel free, we wind up choosing to do only those things which God pre-ordained we would do.

Methodists and other Wesleyans, on the other hand, believe in a God that has chosen to limit his sovereignty in order to allow for the existence of free will.
 
The biggest difference is that Methodists are Wesleyan and Presbyterians are Reformed (Calvinist). This makes their very conception of who God is different and as a result it affects all aspects of their belief. We could call Wesleyan (or Arminian) and Reformed (or Calvinist) theology competing world views, for they affect all aspects of your belief.

Presbyterians believe in a God whose providence and sovereignty are absolute. God is the author of all things that have occurred, are occuring, or will occur. Nothing has happened or will happen but that which is willed by God. This obviously clashes with the idea of free will, so the reformed doctrine presbyterians adhere to ends up re-defining free will so that it no longer means what the rest of us mean when we use that term. The God of the presbyterians is the divine of author of creation and of all of history; although our individual choices may feel free, we wind up choosing to do only those things which God pre-ordained we would do.

Methodists and other Wesleyans, on the other hand, believe in a God that has chosen to limit his sovereignty in order to allow for the existence of free will.

Wesley actually said something to the effect that Calvins' God was his Devil.
 
Wesley actually said something to the effect that Calvins' God was his Devil.

That's a mischaracterization of what he said. He put together a philosophical rebuttal to Calvinism wherein he demonstrated that accepting Calvin's doctrines leads to a situation where God winds up looking worse than the devil. That's the typical way philosophical debates work; it does not mean Wesley really considered Calvin's God to be his devil. It means that he felt that Calvinist doctrines set up a framework, the consequences of which are that God winds up looking worse than the devil and that therefore Calvinism should be rejected because it creates a framework that leads to blasphemy.

That's how philosophical debates often work. You show how someone's beliefs lead to conclusions they are unwilling to accept and you thereby force them to either adjust their beliefs or "bite the bullet" and accept the consequent beliefs they don't like. Against a strict utilitarian, for example, you might argue that since more good can be done by killing one child and distributing his vital organs to several other children (trading one life for many), it is therefore acceptable within their moral framework to murder children for their organs when their life can save several others; the strict utilitarian will then have to either bite the bullet and agree with you, or adjust their beliefs to account for that. It does not mean that you really think a strict utilitarian approves of child murder. The same thing goes for Wesley, he never really believed that Calvin's God was his devil, he used philosophical arguments to show that the consequence of accepting Calvinism is a blasphemy wherein God looks worse than the devil; it was a philosophical rebuttal to Calvinism. To simply misquote Wesley as saying that Calvin's God is his devil, is a gross mischaracterization of what he said that fails to take into account the context in which he said it.
 
Honestly though there are major theological differences.

That being said pastorally it probably (at least in the liberal churches) doesn't really make a difference, you could go to a PC USA Church you probably wouldn't know it's Calvinist.

The mainstream Churches in the US and Europe are dying, because of the failure to realize that theology matters.
 
The only place I'd differ is that Methodists will baptize infants.

Calvinism is (imo) a pretty big theological gap between PCUSA and the UMC/SBC, although you get some Baptist churches (since they are more individually autonomous than UMC) who lean in that direction. Wesley once stated that "Calvins' God is my Devil", or something to that tune. It's not just the Predestination, it's the Limited Atonement, etc.

Yes, you're right about the infant baptism. The Methodist congregation I grew up in only offered believer's baptism so the kids didn't get baptized until they were 10 years old or so and understood what they were doing, but many if not most do baptize infants if the parents request that. I haven't been Methodist since my college years though and that was a long, long time ago. :)
 
Honestly though there are major theological differences.

That being said pastorally it probably (at least in the liberal churches) doesn't really make a difference, you could go to a PC USA Church you probably wouldn't know it's Calvinist.

The mainstream Churches in the US and Europe are dying, because of the failure to realize that theology matters.

That's what I meant that anybody from any of those denominations would be comfortable in a worship service at any of the others. IMO the mainstream churches are dying because they are preaching a more social gospel and no longer put an emphasis on salvation through Jesus Christ. They are trying to appear as big tent and accepting to all ecumenically as possible. And in so doing they so water down their beliefs and doctrine that it becomes pretty meaningless and looks unnecessary to the casual observer.

But unless you get into the nitty gritty of heavy doctrine, there isn't really all that much difference between Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists these days and few are teaching the heavy doctrine. Certainly during the Reformation, there was total focus on doctrine and a lot of angst, finger pointing, and judgmentalism among the church fathers who spearheaded the various schisms that would result in the major Protestant denominations forming. Certainly Luther had no respect for the Calvinists and there was no love lost between the Calvinists and Wesleyans. They all disapproved of the Baptist who likewise disapproved of all them--the Baptists, while formally classified 'Protestant' because they aren't Roman Catholic--generally refuse the label as they claim to be descended from the First Century Christians as much as does the Roman Catholic Church.

At least only a few dogmatically fundamentalist groups refuse to see the other denominations as fellow Christians these days. :)
 
That's what I meant that anybody from any of those denominations would be comfortable in a worship service at any of the others. IMO the mainstream churches are dying because they are preaching a more social gospel and no longer put an emphasis on salvation through Jesus Christ. They are trying to appear as big tent and accepting to all ecumenically as possible. And in so doing they so water down their beliefs and doctrine that it becomes pretty meaningless and looks unnecessary to the casual observer.

But unless you get into the nitty gritty of heavy doctrine, there isn't really all that much difference between Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists these days and few are teaching the heavy doctrine. Certainly during the Reformation, there was total focus on doctrine and a lot of angst, finger pointing, and judgmentalism among the church fathers who spearheaded the various schisms that would result in the major Protestant denominations forming. Certainly Luther had no respect for the Calvinists and there was no love lost between the Calvinists and Wesleyans. They all disapproved of the Baptist who likewise disapproved of all them--the Baptists, while formally classified 'Protestant' because they aren't Roman Catholic--generally refuse the label as they claim to be descended from the First Century Christians as much as does the Roman Catholic Church.

At least only a few dogmatically fundamentalist groups refuse to see the other denominations as fellow Christians these days. :)

Oh I agsolutely agree .... I am ABSOLUTELY a Social Justice Christian, but if you're running a Church, and that's all you are ... why should People go there and not just join a political Group, if you're reducing Jesus Christ to no more than just a very righteous MLK or Ghandi or whatever, then you'er not a Church.

I think Christianity definately does have social, economic and political consequences, and Capitalism is definately at odds With Christian principles, but that being said, if Christ wasn't raised from the dead, Our faith is nothing, if there is no escaton, then there Kingdom of God is nothing.

Does it matter whether or not God preordains everything or not? YES it does ... and I'm sorry, it matters more than whether or not the US legistlates for or against gay marriage, and whether or not we have more or less help for the poor, because the glory of God is above all.

Any Church who says "we should get With the times" or "lets be a modern Church" run ... it's a dying Church without a gospel, it's a social Club, that's a crappy one at that.
 
Oh I agsolutely agree .... I am ABSOLUTELY a Social Justice Christian, but if you're running a Church, and that's all you are ... why should People go there and not just join a political Group, if you're reducing Jesus Christ to no more than just a very righteous MLK or Ghandi or whatever, then you'er not a Church.

I think Christianity definately does have social, economic and political consequences, and Capitalism is definately at odds With Christian principles, but that being said, if Christ wasn't raised from the dead, Our faith is nothing, if there is no escaton, then there Kingdom of God is nothing.

Does it matter whether or not God preordains everything or not? YES it does ... and I'm sorry, it matters more than whether or not the US legistlates for or against gay marriage, and whether or not we have more or less help for the poor, because the glory of God is above all.

Any Church who says "we should get With the times" or "lets be a modern Church" run ... it's a dying Church without a gospel, it's a social Club, that's a crappy one at that.

I don't have much to quarrel with this except that I don't think capitalism is at all at odds with Christianity.
 
Oh I agsolutely agree .... I am ABSOLUTELY a Social Justice Christian, but if you're running a Church, and that's all you are ... why should People go there and not just join a political Group, if you're reducing Jesus Christ to no more than just a very righteous MLK or Ghandi or whatever, then you'er not a Church.

I think Christianity definately does have social, economic and political consequences, and Capitalism is definately at odds With Christian principles, but that being said, if Christ wasn't raised from the dead, Our faith is nothing, if there is no escaton, then there Kingdom of God is nothing.

Does it matter whether or not God preordains everything or not? YES it does ... and I'm sorry, it matters more than whether or not the US legistlates for or against gay marriage, and whether or not we have more or less help for the poor, because the glory of God is above all.

Any Church who says "we should get With the times" or "lets be a modern Church" run ... it's a dying Church without a gospel, it's a social Club, that's a crappy one at that.



Yes and no.

"You're not a church" interests me. I have severed some time as elder or 'council member', in the business affairs of my church and have to ask 'what is a church'?

What does Jesus himself tell us what a "church" is supposed to be? Little or nothing. There are two schools, Paulean and the blueprint for an authoritarian, Roman model or Acts, and what John tells us of those early days. But then we have the much overlooked Book of James, Jesus half brother; what is called "The letter from home to the 12 tribes of Israel" which many scholars say is intended for diaspora Jews to observe Christ's teachings. Neither of which fits the Roman model nor that of protestantism, although the later appears closer to Acts than Paul.

So how do we define "church" with so little to guide us? I maintain that Jesus never intended for there to be the models we hold today. "Church" is "when two or more are gathered in my name, I am there with you."
 
I don't know what Jesus intended. But in his society much time was spent outdoors. A gathering of, say, 5000 lends itself to tent roofs so that the faithful can attend in bad weather...and then people of good will want to help, and some are organizers by nature, and they're going to come into conflict with others with different ideas on how to organize, and there you go. ;)
 
I don't have much to quarrel with this except that I don't think capitalism is at all at odds with Christianity.

On a very fundemental Level.

Capitalism as a system prioritizes private property above all other values ... for capitalism to work private property must be absolute.

Capitalism is entirely based on the system of profit maximization and Return on Capital, which is basically systemic mandated greed and usury.

Everything economic in the scriptures, prioritizes social welfare, the common good, over everything, and every economic system supported by God and economic principle supported by God is at odds With Capitalism.

(and no, individual advice to work hard and make Your own way is not pro-capitalism, every system and economic principle affirms that.)
 
Yes and no.

"You're not a church" interests me. I have severed some time as elder or 'council member', in the business affairs of my church and have to ask 'what is a church'?

What does Jesus himself tell us what a "church" is supposed to be? Little or nothing. There are two schools, Paulean and the blueprint for an authoritarian, Roman model or Acts, and what John tells us of those early days. But then we have the much overlooked Book of James, Jesus half brother; what is called "The letter from home to the 12 tribes of Israel" which many scholars say is intended for diaspora Jews to observe Christ's teachings. Neither of which fits the Roman model nor that of protestantism, although the later appears closer to Acts than Paul.

So how do we define "church" with so little to guide us? I maintain that Jesus never intended for there to be the models we hold today. "Church" is "when two or more are gathered in my name, I am there with you."

A Church is that which declares the gospel ... a community of believers who declare the gospel of the Kingdom of God.

The idea that Paul is authoritarian is total nonsense, you cannot read Paul outside of the context, Paul was keeping a communal, egalitarian Church together, it was NOT a Roman model at all.

James was basically jewish wisdom literature for christians, and yes, it was full of Social justice, so was Luke-Acts, and you know what, so was Paul, but James' letter was wisdom literature, Paul was trying to keep churches together, you're comparing Apples and Oranges.

James was not establishing churches in his letter.

I FULLY support the Church model in acts, but acts 2 and 4 in their social justice form CANNOT be seperated from their higher goal, that of preaching the gospel, and declaring Jesus is Lord and his Kingdom is coming.

If we are gathered in Christs name, what does that mean? Not that we follow his ethics, his ethics are not entirely unique, Christ means messiah, the messiah came to establish Gods Kingdom.
 
A Church is that which declares the gospel ... a community of believers who declare the gospel of the Kingdom of God.

The idea that Paul is authoritarian is total nonsense, you cannot read Paul outside of the context, Paul was keeping a communal, egalitarian Church together, it was NOT a Roman model at all.

James was basically jewish wisdom literature for christians, and yes, it was full of Social justice, so was Luke-Acts, and you know what, so was Paul, but James' letter was wisdom literature, Paul was trying to keep churches together, you're comparing Apples and Oranges.

James was not establishing churches in his letter.

I FULLY support the Church model in acts, but acts 2 and 4 in their social justice form CANNOT be seperated from their higher goal, that of preaching the gospel, and declaring Jesus is Lord and his Kingdom is coming.

If we are gathered in Christs name, what does that mean? Not that we follow his ethics, his ethics are not entirely unique, Christ means messiah, the messiah came to establish Gods Kingdom.



I did not ask for your opinion.

I asked what Jesus said, what scriptural foundation.

I appreciate your interpretation of scripture, but I find the militancy to be contrary to what we are supposed to be
 
On a very fundemental Level.

Capitalism as a system prioritizes private property above all other values ... for capitalism to work private property must be absolute.

Capitalism is entirely based on the system of profit maximization and Return on Capital, which is basically systemic mandated greed and usury.

Everything economic in the scriptures, prioritizes social welfare, the common good, over everything, and every economic system supported by God and economic principle supported by God is at odds With Capitalism.

(and no, individual advice to work hard and make Your own way is not pro-capitalism, every system and economic principle affirms that.)

The Bible promotes VOLUNTARY provisions made for the poor and those needing help. There is nothing in the Bible suggesting that such is a government function or shall be made mandatory for anybody or that anybody can justifiably demand that others support him/her. Capitalism is nothing more than the ability of each to pursue and look to his/her own interests without government interference with that. There is zero in the Bible that suggests such is not right and good. It does say that the laborer deserves the pay he agreed to work for--even the ox that treads out the corn shall not be muzzled--and the proprietor is justified in demanding his profits.

The problem with the modern 'social justice' mantra being preached in many of the mainline churches is that they are encouraging the same mindset that created so many dependencies in the first place, and there is almost no promotion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the way God intended us to live. It is an empty Gospel that leaves people feeling incomplete and not at all inspired. And I believe it is driving people from the Church.
 
There are two schools, Paulean and the blueprint for an authoritarian, Roman model or Acts, and what John tells us of those early days.

Acts was written by Luke (according to tradition), not John. If that's not what you meant then I'm confused about what you are referring to when you say John tells us of those early days.

I find it hard to read Acts in any way that doesn't clearly show a transition into the church Paul went on to spread. I don't see two competing views there, but a clear transition. We see the apostles organizing from the start; first by choosing Judas' replacement, then as the church continues to grow, by the choosing of the seven to administer their mercy ministries. In Acts, we see the institution of elders and we see the first church council. We see the leadership of the church acting with authority in Acts 15, determining official church dogma and sending it out as an official proclamation for the first time.

I don't see two models for church in the bible. I find a wider narrative showing how the Church spread and developed in the book of Acts and then more details about the specifics of that same church from reading the letters of Paul. I don't see two models at all.

But then we have the much overlooked Book of James, Jesus half brother; what is called "The letter from home to the 12 tribes of Israel" which many scholars say is intended for diaspora Jews to observe Christ's teachings. Neither of which fits the Roman model nor that of protestantism, although the later appears closer to Acts than Paul.

I'm not sure what you mean by "much overlooked". James is a popular and beloved book of the bible.

I fail to see any church model at all being promoted by James. I could see an argument for claiming James teaches a different theology of salvation from Paul; one based more on works and less on grace. You'd have strong arguments there (though I would still disagree). But I don't see how you can argue that it promotes a different kind of church. James doesn't seem to address church structure at all.
So how do we define "church" with so little to guide us?

There is a lot to guide us, both in the bible and outside of it. Acts is a great guide as are the letters of Paul. Outside the bible, we have a wealth of church history which clearly shows us what "church" meant to the early Christians. Then we have generations upon generations of refinements on those views to work with. We are not the first people to consider what church means and if you are truly interested in that topic, there is an enormous body of work on this topic to draw from.

I maintain that Jesus never intended for there to be the models we hold today. "Church" is "when two or more are gathered in my name, I am there with you."

That's a very difficult view to support given that so much of the New Testament is dedicated to the building and administration of "The Church". Unless you discard or demote much of the bible, I can't see how you could support that view.
 
Last edited:
I did not ask for your opinion.

I asked what Jesus said, what scriptural foundation.

I appreciate your interpretation of scripture, but I find the militancy to be contrary to what we are supposed to be

There are a few scriptures.

Matthew 7
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’


John 15
5 I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. 6 Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become[c] my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 11 I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.

Then the great Commission in Matthew 28
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

There are a couple Things Jesus said that would be used to define what a Church (community of Christians following Christ) is.

I don't know what militancy you were talking about ... other than pointing out what Paul actually was doing as opposed to what James was doing and so on.
 
The Bible promotes VOLUNTARY provisions made for the poor and those needing help. There is nothing in the Bible suggesting that such is a government function or shall be made mandatory for anybody or that anybody can justifiably demand that others support him/her. Capitalism is nothing more than the ability of each to pursue and look to his/her own interests without government interference with that. There is zero in the Bible that suggests such is not right and good. It does say that the laborer deserves the pay he agreed to work for--even the ox that treads out the corn shall not be muzzled--and the proprietor is justified in demanding his profits.

The problem with the modern 'social justice' mantra being preached in many of the mainline churches is that they are encouraging the same mindset that created so many dependencies in the first place, and there is almost no promotion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the way God intended us to live. It is an empty Gospel that leaves people feeling incomplete and not at all inspired. And I believe it is driving people from the Church.

Well ... it's voluntary in the sense that you can decide not to live by biblical standards.

But no, the mosaic Law system and the Christian community were not just regular systems that allowed individual voluntary philanthropy, they were actual COMMUNAL and Social justice based econoimc systems.

And yes, there is something in the bible suggesting it's not right and good, InFact in the mosaic Law Usury is illigal, which is the Foundation of Capitalism, and God Condemned a Society (not individuals) for not taking care of the poor, meaning God considers it a communal and societal obligation, which is why the jubilee, sabattical, gleaning, anti-usury laws and other LEGAL systemic institutions were in the mosaic Law code and why the first Century CHristian community didn't just practice philanthropy, they actually set up a communal economic system.

Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is a secular mantra ... it's not in the bible.

The bible Calls for justice and righteousness.

The social Gospel is, and always has been part of the gospel, People leave when the rest of the gospel is left out.
 
Well ... it's voluntary in the sense that you can decide not to live by biblical standards.

But no, the mosaic Law system and the Christian community were not just regular systems that allowed individual voluntary philanthropy, they were actual COMMUNAL and Social justice based econoimc systems.

And yes, there is something in the bible suggesting it's not right and good, InFact in the mosaic Law Usury is illigal, which is the Foundation of Capitalism, and God Condemned a Society (not individuals) for not taking care of the poor, meaning God considers it a communal and societal obligation, which is why the jubilee, sabattical, gleaning, anti-usury laws and other LEGAL systemic institutions were in the mosaic Law code and why the first Century CHristian community didn't just practice philanthropy, they actually set up a communal economic system.

Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is a secular mantra ... it's not in the bible.

The bible Calls for justice and righteousness.

The social Gospel is, and always has been part of the gospel, People leave when the rest of the gospel is left out.

You've acknowledged in a previous post (in another thread) that God created economy. So why would it be wrong to practice it?
There's nothing wrong with capitalism - since we're supposed to work anyway for what we have.

FYI, the socialist countries have been or are run by communists - an ideology that does not recognize any God(s). Though your intention in promoting socialism is well, it is naive to think that everything will imporve when we get into communal living. Corruption is the evil that will see those sitting in adminstration (and their cohorts), filling up their coffers while they give mere handouts to the rest.

If you think there will be equality for all in a socialist society - that is being naive.

During Jesus' time, there were still slaves and servants - Jesus never preached anything against that!
Slaves/servants in those days voluntarily sought to be slaves/servants that they may be taken cared of by their masters, or to re-pay debts. If we're all supposed to be equal as you argue, then that system would have to be the first to be preached against by Christ.



True, there was communal among the Christians of the first church, but it was voluntary. References were made to DONORS and benefactors who were still rich - richer than most!

Here are the wealthy people of the New Testament:

There was Lydia who hosted the first church in Europe.

https://bible.org/illustration/wealthy-people-new-testament
 
Last edited:
You've acknowledged in a previous post (in another thread) that God created economy. So why would it be wrong to practice it?
There's nothing wrong with capitalism - since we're supposed to work anyway for what we have.

Economy =/= Capitalism.

And I didn't say God created economy ... God created certain economic systems (mosaic Law and Christian Church), as well as economic principles.

FYI, the socialist countries have been or are run by communists - an ideology that does not recognize any God(s). Though your intention in promoting socialism is well, it is naive to think that everything will imporve when we get into communal living. Corruption is the evil that will see those sitting in adminstration (and their cohorts), filling up their coffers while they give mere handouts to the rest.

Absolutely, and those countries are and were monstrocities, they wern't communist or socialist in any meaningful sense of the Word, they were authoritarian state capitalists.

They were not communal, and yes, corruption is a threat in ANY system, which is why you need checks and balances.

If you think there will be equality for all in a socialist society - that is being naive.

It's not naive to think we can do better than Capitalism.

During Jesus' time, there were still slaves and servants - Jesus never preached anything against that!
Slaves/servants in those days voluntarily sought to be slaves/servants that they may be taken cared of by their masters, or to re-pay debts. If we're all supposed to be equal as you argue, then that system would have to be the first to be preached against by Christ.

Luke 4:18,19 .... Jesus upheld the anti-usury principles in his teachings, and his disciples created a communal system.

Yes there were still servants and slaves ... there were also homosexuals, Jesus didn't preach anything directly against them ... the point is we take the principles from scripture and apply them.

True, there was communal among the Christians of the first church, but it was voluntary. References were made to DONORS and benefactors who were still rich - richer than most!

Here are the wealthy people of the New Testament:

There was Lydia who hosted the first church in Europe.

https://bible.org/illustration/wealthy-people-new-testament

It wasn't voluntary in the sense that one chose to participate in it or not ... they ALL held in common ... Now there was also along With that a system of distribution where People could decide what to and what not to give. There was collectiosn from one city to another as well.

So you had shared property, as well as the distribution system.

Lydia was wealthy ...

But again ... what is the principle ... what made the Mosaic economic system different from all the others ... the social justice laws.

What made the Christian economic system different from all the others, the communal property and sharing.

If you think that this should have 0 impact on what kind of economic systems and institutions we support you're simply putting Your head in the sand.
 
There are a few scriptures.

Matthew 7
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’


John 15
5 I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. 6 Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become[c] my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 11 I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.

Then the great Commission in Matthew 28
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

There are a couple Things Jesus said that would be used to define what a Church (community of Christians following Christ) is.

I don't know what militancy you were talking about ... other than pointing out what Paul actually was doing as opposed to what James was doing and so on.



????

You will have false profits among you does not speak to a church at all. The comments are about individual beliefs.

The rest is window dressing but thanks for the effort.
 
Well ... it's voluntary in the sense that you can decide not to live by biblical standards.

But no, the mosaic Law system and the Christian community were not just regular systems that allowed individual voluntary philanthropy, they were actual COMMUNAL and Social justice based econoimc systems.

And yes, there is something in the bible suggesting it's not right and good, InFact in the mosaic Law Usury is illigal, which is the Foundation of Capitalism, and God Condemned a Society (not individuals) for not taking care of the poor, meaning God considers it a communal and societal obligation, which is why the jubilee, sabattical, gleaning, anti-usury laws and other LEGAL systemic institutions were in the mosaic Law code and why the first Century CHristian community didn't just practice philanthropy, they actually set up a communal economic system.

Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is a secular mantra ... it's not in the bible.

The bible Calls for justice and righteousness.

The social Gospel is, and always has been part of the gospel, People leave when the rest of the gospel is left out.

I did not say there is no social gospel in the Bible. Of course there is both in the Old and New Testaments. But again, charity as expressed in Biblical doctrine is voluntary, not mandatory and justice is commanded by God and not a dictate of government. The people organized the Church via social contract--voluntarily--not by decree. Yes, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are words from the Declaration of Independence, not the Bible, but they were hardly 'secular': ". . .“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”. . .

And in my opinion they are supported by scripture:

“he said to them, 'Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words for you—they are your life. By them you will live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to possess.'”
Deuteronomy 32:46,47

“the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.” (James 1:25).

“To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, 'If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.'”
John 8:31,32

Galatians 5:13 - For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only [use] not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

Galatians 5:1 - Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Isaiah 61:1 - The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound;

2 Peter 2:19 - While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

“if you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.” (John 15:10,11)

There are many many more Biblical references for God's intention for humankind to live in a state of life, liberty, and joy. But absolutely no scriptures assigning the responsibility for that to either the Church or the government.
 
Back
Top Bottom