Posted on 03/15/2010 6:29:32 AM PDT by SLB
bump
Here's a clue - if you have to enforce your "justice" at the point of a gun, as the United States of America does, it probably doesn't please Christ.
Good article by Dr. Albert Mohler. Informative/educational. Thanks for posting.
You are welcome. I have found the majority (all) of his articles are great. He usually posts three or four times a week.
Beck is right. Mainstream Religion has been going this route for a long time. Any organization that is a member of the World Council of Churches, or the National Council of Churches is basically an arm of the Communist party.
That said, Beck’s warning rings hollow when you realize he doesn’t run from his own cult which is steeped in the hallucinogenic rantings of a sexual pervert.
That is because the Christian community does not study Torah sufficiently to understand the many New Testament references to the social action it prescribes.
I think you might advise them to 'flee' that apostate place....
..which is what Beck, imo, is doing.
As far as I know, I've never had reason to disagree with Mohler, but I find this particular diatribe out of line.
I think he disagrees with Beck because of Beck's denomination, regardless of any common sense Beck has to say....and Beck has plenty of common sense.
If he's truly worried about Beck's salvation....PRAY for him.
This article is pure nit-picking to me.
The marxists are always happy to declare that jesus was a communist to co-opt the church......
Then shoot you in the head later for havng a bible...
I think the difference between the social justice that Beck talks about and the social justice that is part of the traditional teachings of Christ is that today’s social justice demands that the government have programs for social justice. The traditional teachings are that Christians are saved by grace and are therefore inspired by their salvation to go out and personally help the poor and afflicted. They are not to pay more taxes and “delegate” that social justice to someone else. The end goal is to get these people to Christ, not a Heaven on Earth mentality.
Mohler is wrong. I usually like his articles, but he is flat wrong here. He is taking a Marxist term "social justice" and assuming that it means "justice in society." It does not. It means placing one's hope in the government to redistribute wealth 'fairly'.
There are battle lines being drawn, and the church has been infiltrated by agents of Satan. Anyone who suggests putting faith in government is no friend of the Gospel. I stand with Beck: leave churches that are committed to 'social justice'. Nuance is for sissies.
It is hard to determine because the Marxist and Orwellian perversion of the language. In this case it is the words “social justice”.
“Social justice” sounds so warm and fuzzy. Doesn't it? But in the Orwellian word of Marxism words do not mean what they mean. Sow confusion in language and we have a confused people. A confused and rudderless people are more easily controlled.
By the way...I am glad that the movie “Alice in Wonderland” is a mega-hit. It will prompt thoughtful people to actually read the book. In the wonderland world of Marxism words don't mean what they mean.
Lib Protestant clergy and Catholic bishops who think they can create some social justice Utopia where the government provides for everyone without oppressing them are dangerously disconnected from reality.
The Bible teaches faith in God and faith in one self. If our righteousness does not exceed that of the Pharaohs, the liberal church and political leaders of the day, we'll never be able to enter the kingdom.
Churches teaching "social justice" are condoning the sinful lifestyles that got the poor in their dreadful position in the first place.
This Jim Wallis was on the evening news on (Friday, I think) as a “Christian leader” criticizing Beck.
This Jim Wallis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Wallis
Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850; The Law
The Proper Function of the Law...
And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law — which necessarily requires the use of force — rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution — so long searched for in the area of social relationships — is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.
Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law — that is, by force — this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization — justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?
The Seductive Lure of Socialism...
Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.
This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.
Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty (excerpt)...
Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: “Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity.” I answered him: “The second half of your program will destroy the first.”
In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot
Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.
The Law and Morals...
You say: “Here are persons who are lacking in morality or religion,” and you turn to the law. But law is force. And need I point out what a violent and futile effort it is to use force in the matters of morality and religion?
It would seem that socialists, however self-complacent, could not avoid seeing this monstrous legal plunder that results from such systems and such efforts. But what do the socialists do? They cleverly disguise this legal plunder from others — and even from themselves — under the seductive names of fraternity, unity, organization, and association. Because we ask so little from the law — only justice — the socialists thereby assume that we reject fraternity, unity, organization, and association. The socialists brand us with the name individualist.
But we assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under Providence.
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G708
Thanks to FReeper raygun for the link.
May I suggest the best way to resolve such issues is to look at what these calls meant in the time, place, and society they were issued. Some things jump out at you. God did not want the wealthy to take unfair advantage of the poor simply because they could overcome the limited power of the poor to seek justice. God wanted the rightful cause of the widow and of the orphan to be pleaded in court, rather than ignored or turned aside with nonsense (”a word”). God smiles on private charity to the poor (the ancient Hebrews had no equivalent to our modern tax funded dole). Yet God did not want envy of the stature of the contender in court to pervert what was legally right, i.e. no “reverse discrimination” as we call it today. Some pieces taken in isolation seem to bolster favorite liberal causes, but the whole thing tells a much more evenhanded story.
When a church believes you are not truly a Christian because you believe God called YOU to open your heart and give to those in need instead of forcing everyone to give through taxes, it is time to leave.
If something had to be said, which it did, and Beck was the one who said it, which he was, he only deserves praise.
Government is the wrong tool for any form of charity. Someone has to have the permission for the controlled use of force to prevent the uncontrolled use of force.
The only proper use of force is the suppression of uncontrolled force, any other use is evil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.