Van Til Tool

Using the Van Til Perspective as the tool to discover what life means and how it ought to be lived.

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Democratic Socialism is Not Biblical by Gary DeMar


The alleged “biblical” values of Ocasio-Cortez’s Democratic Socialism

 by  

Share295
Tweet
Pocket
295SHARES
The folks at Sojourners have been pushing socialism in the name of Jesus and the Bible for decades. Claiming that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s economic policies are “biblical” is the height of absurdity. She does not know anything about economics. Her claim that a $3 billion tax break can be spent is prima facie evidence of her ignorance.
Here’s the latest incarnation of Democratic Socialism. The sad thing is, the Bible is being used to support it. The following is from Dr. Obery Hendricks who teaches Religion and African American Studies at Columbia University:
Virtually from the day she assumed office, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and her avowed democratic socialism have been under attack. Much of the condemnation is from the same crowd that so vigorously insists that America is and always has been a “Christian nation.” This is quite ironic, because democratic socialism and the Bible share a strikingly similar vision of what constitutes a fair and just society. Capitalism, however, does not share that vision.
Democratic Socialism is theft by popular vote, by the majority. If the majority can determine what to do with other people’s property, then the majority can determine what to do with people. How about Democratic Abortion, Democratic Slavery, Democratic Limits on Speech and Assembly?
By the way, Columbia University has an endowment of nearly $11 billion. The majority of that money came from people with money—money they can afford to give away. Columbia most likely owns stock in companies that are worth billions of dollars.
To support his position, Dr. Hendricks makes the following arguments (followed by my responses):
  • Health care for all
    Jesus modeled universal health care by healing everyone who asked, regardless of their gender, nationality or ability to pay. “Great multitudes followed him,” mostly poor peasants, “and he healed them all” (Matthew 12:15).
Response: When the government can turn stones into bread and heal people by touch, then I’ll be for it. Jesus never outlined a government healthcare program. Jesus didn’t say, “Follow my example and call on Rome to establish a national healthcare program.” When non-miracle workers are mentioned, it’s the Good Samaritan who comes to mind. He used his own money to care for the man who was nearly beaten to death (Luke 10:25-37). That’s not Socialism, that’s private charity. Over the centuries, hospitals and charitable organizations have been named Good Samaritan in honor of the unnamed benefactor.
  • A fair wage
    Prophets consistently excoriated those exploiting their employees. For example, “Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness, and his upper rooms by injustice; who makes his neighbors work for nothing and does not give them their wages” (Jeremiah 22:13, 17).
Response: The above passage doesn’t say anything about a government-imposed “fair wage.” The employer and employee agreed on a wage and the employer did not pay him. Notice that it says “makes his neighbors work for nothing and does not give them their wages.” The employer was stealing. When employees and employers agree on a wage and the work to be done, the employer is required to pay the worker in full: “Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields which has been withheld by you, cries out; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts” (James 5:4) and “You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of a hired man are not to remain with you all night until morning” (Lev. 19:13). Who gets to define “fair wage”? It is the private agreement between the parties, not the government.
  • A minimum income for everyone
    The book of Leviticus is clear: “There should be no poor among you … if any of your neighbors become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them … so they can continue to live among you” (Leviticus 25:35-36).
Response: Once again, there’s nothing in this passage that mandates wealth confiscation and redistribution by the government. The goal is to help the person out of their temporary condition. Money should be lent to him or her at no interest (v. 36). This is a far cry from empowering the State to create a massive bureaucratic welfare system that often keeps people in poverty and dependent on the State.
  • Fair treatment of workers
    The Book of Deuteronomy declares, “you shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the immigrants who are in your land …” (Deuteronomy 24:14).
Response: Once again, this passage is dealing with unethical behavior: “you shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy.” Paying a person an agreed-upon wage in a timely fashion is not oppression. On the contrary, it is oppression to coerce and control other people’s wealth through the State.
Dr. Hendricks quotes three passages from the Old Testament and does not find a single passage calling for wealth confiscation and redistribution. This is a solid indictment of so-called “Christian Socialism.”
Others have pushed Socialism in the name of the Bible. Dr. Hendricks is not the first. In the Foreword to Tony Campolo’s book Red Letter Christians, Jim Wallis tells a story about a secular Jewish country-music songwriter and disk jockey who told him that a new social movement was being birthed as a result of Wallis’ book God’s Politics and other “social-conscience” books. Here’s how Wallis tells it:
“I love your stuff and have been following your book tour.” Then he told me he believed we were starting a new movement, but he noticed we hadn’t come up with a name for it yet. “I’ve got an idea for you,” he said. “I think you should call yourselves ‘The Red Letter Christians.’ You know those Bibles that highlight the words of Jesus in red letters? I love the red-letter stuff. The rest I could do without.”1
Wallis continues by telling how he shared this story with Campolo, whom he calls “the ‘godfather’ of Red Letter Christians” and how excited Tony got when he heard it.
Campolo declared “that there are more than 2,000 verses of Scripture that call us to express love and justice for those who are poor and oppressed.”2  What Campolo, Wallis, and the folks at Sojourners need to find in these 2,000 verses, however, is one verse that gives authority to the State to redistribute wealth.
Campolo takes verses that are directed at individuals and turns them on their head by giving them a political twist. Here’s a representative example:
Most important, when we reflect on all Jesus had to say about caring for the poor and oppressed, committing ourselves to His red-letter message just might drive us to see what we can do politically to help those he called, ‘the least of these’ (see Matt. 25:31–46).3
Campolo sees a political solution in these verses when Jesus is addressing what individuals have or have not done. By “politically” Campolo means government intervention and wealth redistribution.
To base government programs like welfare, food stamps, and social security on Matthew 25:31–46 is without foundation. The division in Matthew 25 is between sheep and goats, that is, individuals within nations.
Nations don’t visit people in prison; private citizens do. Governments put people in prison; private citizens do not. Civil governments are the biggest hindrance to helping the poor, and it’s not because they don’t tax enough and redistribute wealth efficiently. High taxes and control of the money supply (inflation/deflation) enable civil governments to control people and their property.
Wealth redistribution policies, with all their good intentions, have the effect of hurting the poor and making them dependent on civil government—forever.
Liberals love the Bible when they think they have found something in it that supports their concocted moral, social, and political theories. Even some conservatives fail to recognize that the Bible does not support an expansive tax-and-spend centralized government no matter how beneficent the cause is said to be.

Dr. Joel McDurmon's 'God vs. Socialism'
Shop AV Resources
***
For a fuller examination and response to “Red Letter Christianity” and “Christian Socialism,” see our resource,God versus Socialism: A Biblical Critique of the New Social Gospel.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. Jim Wallis, in the Foreword to Tony Campolo, Red Letter Christians: A Citizen’s Guide to Faith and Politics (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 2008), 9.(↩)
  2. Campolo, Red Letter Christians, 24.(↩)
  3. Campolo, Red Letter Christians, 22.(↩)

posted by Forrest Schultz @ 4:39 PM   0 comments

Friday, February 15, 2019

Dubrow: Accurate Portrayal of Today's American Christians; Inaccurate Portrayal of Christian Reconstruction

Dubrow:  Accurate Portrayal of Today's American Christians; 

Inaccurate Portrayal of Christian Reconstruction

A Review of

Mickey Dubrow American Judas (Southern Fried Karma Press, 2018)
                           $16.99   331 pp   ISBN: 978-1-7325398-0-8

Reviewer:  Forrest W. Schultz

     Dubrow in this new book accurately portrays today's American Christians, as anyone who has been keeping up with the news can see.  But, like many people, Dubrow is NOT accurate is his portrayal of Christian Reconstruction, as that term was defined by the twentieth century Christian scholar Rousas J. Rushdoony in his many articles and books.  AND, his son Mark Rushdoony, who now runs the Chalcedon Foundation established by his father, adheres to his father's view and in the Chalcedon publications is continually pointing this out.  Here is one of his latest statements:  My father’s only political interest was in reclaiming power from the political arena and returning it to the spheres of family, church, and the free enterprises of individuals. His political involvement was to fight statism, not use it as a mechanism of Christian action. Too much thought in theonomy centers around what the state would look like and do in a Christian social order. That makes theonomy an academic subject when it should be a very practical one when God’s Law is brought to bear on our family, businesses, and church life. A theocratic order cannot be imposed by state action and that is not what my father suggested, advocated, or taught.       






posted by Forrest Schultz @ 12:13 PM   0 comments

Thursday, February 14, 2019

News of Latest Form of Chinese Persecution of Christians

Message body

posted by Forrest Schultz @ 11:59 PM   0 comments

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

1,000 Scientists Sign Statement Dissenting from Darwinism

1,000 Scientists Sign Statement Dissenting from Darwinism

Michael Foust | ChristianHeadlines.com Contributor | Tuesday, February 12, 2019
1,000 Scientists Sign Statement Dissenting from Darwinism

1,000 SCIENTISTS SIGN STATEMENT DISSENTING FROM DARWINISM

A list of scientists who are skeptical about the claims of Darwinism has grown to more than 1,000 signatures.
The list from the Discovery Institute was first issued in 2001 as a way to show that credible scientists do doubt the popular theory behind the development of life.
The statement reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” It is known as “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.”  
Among the scientists who signed it were evolutionary biologist and author Stanley Salthe; quantum chemist Henry Schaefer from the University of Georgia; Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov; and American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen (now deceased).
Roughly 100 scientists were on the original list in 2001, but it has since passed 1,000 signatures. Supporters say the statement has no political motivation. 
“It is a professional statement by scientists about their assessment of the scientific evidence relating to Neo-Darwinism and an affirmation of the need for careful examination of the evidence for modern Darwinian theory,” the website that houses the statement reads. 
The statement is receiving attention as supporters of Darwinian evolution celebrate Darwin Day, which takes place every Feb. 12 on Charles Darwin’s birthday. He was born 210 years ago, in 1809. 
To sign the list, a person must “hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences” or “they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine,” according to the FAQ section at DissentFromDarwin.org.
The statement is needed, supporters say, because some supporters of Darwinism have tried to silence opponents of the theory.  
“In recent years there has been a concerted effort on the part of some supporters of modern Darwinian theory to deny the existence of scientific critics of Neo-Darwinism and to discourage open discussion of the scientific evidence for and against Neo-Darwinism,” the DissentFromDarwin.org website reads. “The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement exists to correct the public record by showing that there are scientists who support an open examination of the evidence relating to modern Darwinian theory and who question whether Neo-Darwinism can satisfactorily explain the complexity and diversity of the natural world.”
Michael Foust is a freelance writer. Visit his blog, MichaelFoust.com.
Photo courtesy: Pixabay
Video courtesy: DiscoveryScienceNews

posted by Forrest Schultz @ 3:27 PM   0 comments

Sunday, February 10, 2019

The Four Jihads of Islam

Four Jihads
Jihad means more than warfare, but the sword is central to Islam's texts, its history, and its founder.Mateen A. Elass

April 1, 2002
 
Recently terrorist activities by purportedly Muslim groups have increased debate over the place of violence in true Islam. Moderate Muslims say violence has no place, because Islam is a religion of peace. In their minds, it is as unfair to judge Islam by extremists as it would be to judge Christianity only by the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Puritan witch hunts.
Is such a comparison reasonable? Does it do justice to the canonical teachings of both religions? The answer to these questions is found at least partly in a study of the Islamic concept of jihad and its lack of a full counterpart in Christian orthodoxy.
Spiritual jihad

The word jihad is often translated as "holy war," but it literally means "struggle" or "exertion." In its religious context, it always involves a fight against evil, but this can take many forms: jihad of the heart, of the mouth and pen, of the hand, and of the sword. Jihad of heart, mouth, and pen are sometimes spoken of as "spiritual jihad," particularly among the Shi'ites (the largest Islamic minority party, comprising roughly 10 percent of the Muslim world).
 
All Muslims must engage in jihad of the heart, which finds a rough parallel in the Christian command to put to death the sin nature. Muhammad clearly commanded his followers to fight their sinful tendencies, as did Jesus. Islam, though, offers no assistance in this struggle from the Holy Spirit, the counselor and guide promised to Christians.
 
Jihad of the mouth aims to undermine opposition to Islam through speech that takes one of two forms. The first, verbal argumentation, finds a Christian parallel in the discipline of apologetics. The second, curses and saber-rattling, has roots in pre-Islamic Arabia, where the art of extemporaneous imprecatory poetry was prized as a means of verbal jousting between warring tribes.
 
Generally, a war of words is considered preferable to one of physical violence. Muslims still employ this tactic. When Saddam Hussein bragged before the Gulf War that coalition troops were facing "the mother of all battles," he was engaging in a jihad of the mouth.
 
Jihad of the pen applies the written word to Islam's defense. Over the last thirteen centuries, much Islamic ink has presented Muhammad as the ultimate prophet of God and his message as the perfect will of Allah for all humanity. The central doctrines of the Christian faith, though sadly misunderstood by many Muslim scholars, have been the special target of Islamic apologetics.
 
Jihad of the hand seeks to promote the cause of Allah through praiseworthy deeds. Muslims' exemplary treatment of others and devotion to God are supposed to prove the superiority of their message and serve as a vehicle for the proclamation of their beliefs.
 
Christians also embrace the concept of jihad of the hand. As Francis of Assisi is credited with saying, "Preach the gospel at all times; if necessary, use words."
 
"Lesser" jihad
The last and most troublesome form of jihad is that of the sword. This aspect dominates Islamic history and jurisprudence.
 
When the word jihad occurs in the Qur'an without any modifier, or with the typical modifier "in the cause of Allah," it invariably refers to the call to physical combat on behalf of Islam. It is often linked with the word qital (fighting) in the context of dealing with unbelievers.
 
Some modern Muslims downplay this understanding, arguing that in Islamic tradition war is called the "lesser jihad." Indeed, according to one disputed tradition from the hadith (the collection of texts concerning Muhammad's actions or statements, second only to the Qur'an in authority), when Muhammad returned from the field of war he said, "We have all returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad."
Some companions asked, "What is the greater jihad, O prophet of God?"
 
He replied, "Jihad against the desires."
 
Presumably the jihad of the heart is greater because it is unceasing, whereas the jihad of the sword continues only as long as there are unbelievers unwilling to submit to the rule of Islam. Nonetheless, this tradition demonstrates that Muhammad engaged in military jihad, and he commanded his followers to engage in it as well.
 
Doctrines of war
The Qur'an contains seemingly contradictory teachings on jihad of the sword. Islamic scholars, however, note that Muhammad's teaching on jihad developed over time as the circumstances of his growing community changed. This accounts for the seeming contradictions, which actually describe four distinct stages of development.
 
First, when Islam was a fledgling movement and Muhammad endured persecution from his extended tribe in Mecca, he counseled his small band to engage in a policy of peaceful persuasion. Sura (chapter) 16:125-6 declares, "Invite [all] to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious . …But if you show patience, that is indeed the best [course] for those who are patient."
 
Many Muslims today regard this as the proper approach for the Muslim community any time it finds itself an overwhelmed minority in an unreceptive host culture.
When Muhammad fled Mecca in 622 (the Hegira) to the friendlier confines of Medina, followers still in Mecca faced serious threats of property loss and bodily harm. This antipathy arose in response to the prophet's attacks on the Meccan caravan trade—the primary means by which Muhammad financed his mission.
 
Muhammad subsequently decreed that fighting was permissible only to ward off aggression and reclaim property confiscated by infidels. So, for example, Sura 22:39 says, "To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to fight], because they are wronged, and verily, God is most powerful for their aid. [They are] those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right, [for no cause] except that they say, 'Our Lord is God.'"
 
Within a few months, this permission to fight in self-defense became a religious obligation to battle those who initiated hostilities against the Muslim community or its interests. "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out . …But if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith" (2:190-194).
 
As the doctrine of jihad developed, Muhammad taught that those who sacrificed their lives in battle for the cause of God would be guaranteed admission to the highest level of heaven—no small reward in a religion where one's hope of heaven otherwise depends on near perfect obedience to divine law.
 
Conversely, those able-bodied Muslims who refused the call would suffer divine punishment (9:38-9). Not surprisingly, the number of Muslim men willing to commit their lives to warfare surged from this point on.
 
The third stage of development moved jihad from defense to offense. Muslims were told to take the initiative in war but to refrain from attacks during the four sacred months, which were recognized by all tribes within the Arabian peninsula as months for religious pilgrimage.
 
"When the forbidden months are past," the Qur'an declares, "then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent, perform the prayers and give alms, then leave their way free" (9:5).
 
The final development of the Qur'anic concept of jihad removed any limitations on the timing of battle in the cause of Allah. When commanded by a recognized Muslim leader, Muslims could attack non-
believers in any season and on any land not yet surrendered to the armies of Islam. The famous Sura 9:29 (see page 18) lays out this ambitious plan.
 
Applying the law
Which of these stages is meant to be normative for Islam?
According to standard Islamic jurisprudence, it is the fourth—expansionist jihad, understood as armed struggle against unbelievers, whether or not the Muslim community has been attacked. The law of abrogation in Qur'anic hermeneutics (see Suras 2:106; 13:39; 16:103), in which later revelation always trumps earlier texts, affirms this.
 
Islamic history bears out this expansionist bent. One century after the appointment of the first caliph, Abu Bakr, Islam had become an empire reaching across North Africa up to Spain in the west and across Asia into India in the east. By the end of the next century (the second century Anno Hegirae), Muslim territorial conquests had peaked, and Islamic jurisprudence had fully defined the behaviors and conditions governing "holy war."
 
The terms of jihad closely parallel Augustine's "just war" conditions. Only proper government authorities can conduct jihad. Fighting must avoid harming non-combatants, hostages, prisoners, and property (especially trees and landscape), and its ultimate goal must be to secure justice and peace.
 
For Islam, however, the causes of justice and peace are synonymous with the advance of the Muslim state, for politics and spirituality are inextricably bound together in the dream of one world under the complete dominion of Allah and His followers. So whereas Christian "just war" principles do not support the notion of establishing the kingdom of God by force, the Islamic doctrine of jihad unapologetically does.
 
When the ummah (community or state) of Islam faces its history of coercion and expansion, there is no shame or repentance. Islam, unlike Christianity, teaches in its most authoritative sources that force is justifiable in the cause of Allah. Far from feeling regret over past conquests, Islam takes pride in this heritage.
 
Indeed, many Muslims look back on the first three centuries of Islam as the golden years of their heritage and long for a return to world ascendancy.
 
Tales of two founders
The actions of Jesus and Muhammad show the stark contrast in founding principles between their two religions.
 
When Jesus is arrested at the Garden of Gethsemane, the disciples grab their swords. Peter strikes off the ear of one opponent. Jesus immediately commands his followers to stand down and declares that violence is not the appropriate means to accomplish the Father's will.
 
According to Matthew 26:53, Jesus claims that, should he want to win a military victory, he could easily call on his Father, "who will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels." Instead, rebellion is met with love, animosity with forgiveness.
 
While hanging on the cross, he prays for those who have wronged him, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Love for enemies, sacrifice for their well-being, is the way of Jesus.
 
According to Sahih al-Bukhari (4:280b), one of several similar stories about Muhammad reads thus: "Anas bin Malik said, 'Allah's Apostle entered (Mecca) in the year of the conquest (of Mecca) wearing a helmet over his head. After he took it off, a man came and said, 'Ibn Khatal [a pagan opponent] is clinging to the curtains of the ka'ba [a recognized behavior for seeking mercy]. The Prophet said, 'Kill him.'"
While there is certainly room for debate over how well Christians and Muslims have followed the teachings of their respective leaders, there is no doubt about the contrasting visions of Jesus and Muhammad for how God's kingdom should be advanced. Just war theory has played a relatively minor role in the spread of Christianity across the globe. Jihad has been at the heart of Islam's expansion.
 
 
Mateen A. Elass is senior pastor of Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Warrenville, Illinois. Born to a Syrian Muslim father and an American mother, he converted to Christianity at age 20 and was disowned by his father for 14 years. They later reconciled. Mateen loves Muslims and has deep respect for his heritage.
 
Copyright © 2002 by the author or Christianity Today International/Christian History magazine.
Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

posted by Forrest Schultz @ 8:08 PM   0 comments