Socialism in the Early Church 

"Karl Marx didn't invent sharing."

Christ couldn't have been a Socialist, Scripture clearly says He was able to feed people.

EXCELLENT EXCELLENT! I was born and raised in communist Cuba and can attest that communism is the complete opposite of Christianism- Under communism the Man is forced to be part of the machinery, it is the only way communism can be implemented. I thank you for this video Brian! Would you consider writing a book? I will buy it ;) God bless you!

Even more damning is how communists are often Hegelians, which means they want to reconcile contradictions towards an end of history. Well, you don't think there's a contradiction in building your communist empire on murder?

Actually the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," was coined by Henri St. Simon and his circle in Paris in the 1820s, decades before Karl Marx. Much of the philosophy that is now attributed to Marx was already being put forth in print by others in the 1810s-1830s. They were trying to replace Christianity with Ideology (the science of "the Idea" -- a new word at the time), which in the 1830s became known instead as "Socialism." Pantheism or Atheism is at the core of this philosophy, though it is rarely stated as such.

“To each according to needw”…as a lay woman I worked in the Vatican in the late 1960’s as a “scrittore” (scribe), what could be better understood as a translator. I was asked to make a list of my expenses and needs, and was paid accordingly, just as was everyone else there….ie no fixed salaries. I think it has always been done there. So I was paid more, living on my own, than, say, an eminent Dominican father who lived in his community, and so on. This is a very little known fact, I would imagine. +

This is what irks me about Catholics who say Jesus was a socialist. "He believed in giving to your neighbors". Yes, yes he did, so give your stuff to the less fortunate. The govt is not less fortunate. You don't give your money to the govt, so they can redistribute it as they see fit, meanwhile skimming off the top.

You guys kill me with just applying these “ideologies” whenever it suits you. The early church capitalism and socialism are irrelevant in biblical literature. The command to give had nothing to do with economics.

This is such a great video!! Would you consider a video on Liberation Theology and the confusion it has caused in our Church over this last century? My diocese on the border of Texas/Mexico teaches almost everything from the perspective. Our family has found a respite in a more traditional parish, but so many are confused by this ideology that, from what I understand, is rooted in Communism and materialism.

People conflate the surface level appearance of socialism with religious systems like distributism.

Yes, TY for this as I have had a friend put this forward that the early Christians were socialists, which of course is false. Thank you for these points! 🕯 🕯 🕯🕯

Another brilliant commentary. Thank you Brian.

Democracy and Communism ARE BOTH ALIKE and BOTH ARE idiotic.

Christianity isn't capitalist or socialist. Independent and self sufficient families should be the goal of any Christian economy

Giving should be voluntary not forced. If you can't own anything and can't give, everything is distributed by the govt, then how can you be a good person? You cant learn to be giving, that lesson is impossible to learn. You have nothing to give and everyone 'has what they need according to their needs'.

It also wasn't capitalist - an economic system that would not yet arrive until the French Revolution. If it is important not to introduce one anachronism - then don't try to introduce another.

I mean it wasn't a political thing at all but Acts 2:45; 4:32-37, and 5:1-11 is a lot more "socialist" than "capitalist". The thing is, it's deeper than either. It's this revolutionary behaviour that Roman historians noted in Christians, which spread with Christianity and which everyone with conscience including socialist philosophers recognise as deeply righteous. That they then attempt to justify it without God is where they err. The same can be said for many seemingly "capitalist" values we see in the Bible. They're right in a way that is deeper than godless venture capitalism untethered by any concern shown in Acts. That's why as Christians we should not be tempted to label ourselves politically. That's what satan and the world wants us to do. Depending on the issues closest to our hearts there is a group that affirms it, blames all the world's fallenness on "the others" and excuses its own imperfections while vilifying those of the opposition. Honeytraps. Divide and conquer. Anti-Christ. Stop being tempted to join. Capitalism and socialism are godless and both make you look for the devil in others rather than Christ.

Amazing video! Thank you for breaking this down.

6:40 it is in defense of the people who die everyday in Africa

Hallelujah! Thanks Brian for direct approach. 👍

Brian, you did an excellent job of sticking to the main problematic "-ism" during your talk: communism. All things held in common, no private property, and the rest of what Marx advocated in his work, which flies in the face of God, Christianity, and thoughtful common consideration. Then you put "socialism" in the title, which is an American semantic switch that muddies the water considerably, to the advantage of those who say with a hostile tone, "Am I my brother's keeper?" The current reverence toward wealth and the admiration of those who are willing to sacrifice everything to obtain wealth has got to end. We do have a duty to mercy and helping others. That isn't anything on the political spectrums these days.

Really enjoy the video! However, the title seems somewhat disingenuous given that you focus on communism. Not socialism.

🐺🐺🐺 Wolfpack!! Howling at the sun , taking a knee for Jesus Christ the King!! #paleocratdiaries

but, but, but ...........my feelings of justice based on envy.

You're so right--and so wrong. Your reasoning is backwards. Communism itself is of course based on false reasoning--that being their presumption that values unique to the Christian moral imperative are not based on such at all. Communists in their day and age presupposed that such a charitable inclination was embedded in our "natural" non-theistic disposition. Of course it wasn't: "worldly" benefits accrue to those who understand "natural" human inclinations--even positive ones--and exploit such for their own selfish benefit. Christian motivations to love and serve others--even at personal cost--only make sense for those who have chosen to love and serve our God because of how He loved and served us--and continues to do so--while we were still sinners. But then you set up communism as a "straw man." You expose the false rationale of communism--and its false basis--and yet never return to Acts 4 on its own basis. Forget communism and its false rationale. That has nothing to do with Acts 4 and its actual relevance to those who follow Jesus and follow Jesus's moral imperative of loving God wholeheartedly and others as ourselves. THIS is the basis of Acts 4, and the moral imperative expressed there: "from each according to (his/her) ability, to each according to (his/her) needs. You cannot bypass that moral imperative by referencing the moral failings of those who fail to subscribe to such.

7:50 If you want more Chesterton against both Communism and Capitalism, I highly recommend _What's Wrong with the World?_

The clear answer is that the early church was not communist. A better question would be: can communism be in harmony with scripture. Additionally, can capitalism, and which fits better? There also seems to be some confusion here between communism and socialism. Many points made in this video could be easily countered by pointing out that a communist society is stateless and classless.

Does anyone else see a God complex in this guy. I mean, his intro is a quire sing as his name is painted across the screen next to a church window. He grooms himself to look like traditional images of Jesus. But I think the biggest thing is that he seams to think so much of his own opinion that he doesn't thoroughly research his subject. For instance, in this video he doesn't even know the difference between socialism and communism.

It’s no great shakes to show that Christianity is not present in the track record of socialist states. A far more challenging task is to justify or excuse the treatment of Ananias (again in Acts 4) who sells all that he owns and places most (but not all) of the proceeds at Peter’s feet, and is struck dead (as is his wife a bit later) for not giving up all.

This doesn't quite make sense, because socialists existed before marx not everyone who described themselves as socialist was a Marxist, Clement Atlee for example was a socialists but not a Marxist

The only example of Christian Socialism working is on the micro-scale in the Anabaptist Hutterite communities.

Each of the phrases "from each according to his ability" (that was the first one) and (now the second) "to each according to his need" is found with approbation in Church documents. The entire phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," is not condemned _except_ in the context of a state bureaucracy trying to shoehorn every transaction or property arrangement into this. And this condemnation is from Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris. In other words, to the mind of the Church, the falsehood of Socialism is not in its most general statement of principles, it is in how it goes about to get what it purports to idealise. For my own part, I don't think there are all that many contexts in which both "from each according to his ability" and "to each according to his need" would be good to observe at the same time. Disaster relief might be one occasion, but that's about it. And general life in general society should not be equated with that. In taxation, you have "from each according to his ability"? No, according to his duty. He might be _able_ to pay more, doesn't mean he should be made to do so. In doles, you have "to each according to his need"? No, according to his rights (if fulfilling certain conditions). These would go beyond his barest needs, usually.

Why would a central planner be able to make better decisions than the diffused knowledge of all market participants?

2:31 didn't the Dominicans kinda do that using the term Domini canis?

Great video as always.

"Communism and capitalism are two sides of the same J-ish coin" - certain Austrian painter No, I don't share his uncatholic ideology, but only cite part on which I agree. Church condemns both socialism and (American styled) capitalism and promotes organic economy of free market and guild association oriented to the common good.

Very well explained thank you🙏

The Acts 4 style community failed. It's alluded to by St Paul when he says that those who do not work should not eat. Some of the Apostolic Fathers deal with the issue of welfare freeloaders and are very scathing of Christians who seek to live of handouts due to laziness. Look at the parables of Jesus and look at the world he describes. Whilst an Ayn Rand caricature of non-socialist economics must be discounted such as the Sheep and the Goats, and the Rich Man and Lazarus, and the Rich Fool (he is a fool because he doesn't care about God, not because he doesn't share). what about the Parable of the Talents? The parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard which assumes that the rich man of the town can do what he pleases with his money (in this case being generous). What about parables about property investment? Buying up land because of buried treasure? Parables assuming that the rich man in the town would....still be the rich man in the town? like the invitees to the wedding and the parodical son? Why doesn't Jesus decry the mere fact that the rich man is there with all his wealth? My last point is I challenge you to find me a single Socialist "Christian" who will give full throated denunciations of abortion, euthanasia, drag queen story hour or drag clubs for children, same sex marriage and the serious political scandals in Left wing political parties, such as the Democrats. (I'm not saying the GOP are innocent of scandals). The fact is these people don't exist. Or, they are considered Right Wing due to their concern for these issues.

Judas said sell this expensive oil and give the money to the poor, Christ refuted him. Jesus also said the number one commandment was to love the Lord God with all your heart. Put everything in order. Yes, help out the poor, but helping the poor isn't your religion or ideology. We are to do our part, but we must do it with free will, not compelled.

So my question is, does communism have to be Marxist? Can communism be Christian? Because if we were to have made up the word “communism” prior to Marx’s manifesto to mean “a pooling an redistribution of wealth and resources from those that have to those that don’t - within a system in which everyone is doing what they can, honestly and diligently according to their ability,” clearly the Bible teaches that type of communism. It does seem that it was expected that all who were part of the church must give up all their estate to the church. And that keeping even a portion after pledging to do so was considered a lethal offense against the Holy Spirit (Ananias and Sapphira stand as testament to this). So this giving wasn’t wholly voluntary. Almost as tho, when the spirit moves powerfully within you, you freely give all without concern - because you know the Spirit will provide. And therefore being stingy is a sign of unfaithfulness. At least in the early church. At least in the early church - when men of good faith, who had died to the world, were still in charge. The institution we call the “church” today is very different from its namesake.

I gave a thumbs up, but why did you say socialist when you meant communist?

Taking your analysis a little further, I think both capitalism and communism (or really everything under the Marxist umbrella) both only describe economic conditions as the driving force of human behavior. As Chesterton notes, economic satisfaction reveals that economic conditions do not motivate everything. Much of the Marxist thought leaves no room for the other concerns of life. On the other hand, capitalism doesn't even bother addressing it, but it leaves room for it to be a motivation. As I am want to always take the other side seriously, there is the very idea of democratic socialism. Democratic consensus seems to many as the definitive non-violent, but also material, way to force redistribution. In some sense, if you are voting for socialism, you are acting on an inspiration to satisfy the needs of those that are unable to produce as much as others. Sounds great, but the only problem I have with it is that this isn't happening by the direct consent of those actually doing the providing. I say "direct" because voting in any democratic system, socialist or not, is consenting that the winner gets his way. At least, theoretically that's the way it is. Practically, it's because it's an uphill battle to go against the will of the majority or whoever managed to convince the majority that that is the case. Regardless, capitalists tend to respond by deciding for themselves where to redistribute whatever funds that they can afford to give to whoever they think is worthy, although it's not purely because they are capitalists, but that capitalism doesn't get in their way of exercising whatever moral values they do hold. The major problem socialists have with capitalism though is that they have to trust those moral frameworks for redistribution, and they don't want to. Understandably, one can be very cynical about some moral frameworks because the claims to adhere to them don't always match up with what we observe, and some are just considered reprehensible.

It wasn't but also was not free market capitalist

Communism is economical. Christianity is spiritual

What do think about Distributism?

Read Acts 5. He and his wife died because either they were terrified or god killed them for not giving everything.

The problem is North Americans conflate communism and socialism. While communism is extreme socialist, not all socialism is communism. While Capitalism views taken by most right wing parties are often as bad as communism. The balance between the two is the ideal. The problem with this connection is that anything that discusses support for the poorer in society is then deemed as communism to demonise it, this is done by turning capitalism into a Pseudo-religion. Which is remarkably similar to communism.

In Acts 5 Ananias and Sapphira. Peter is pretty clear on it: 4While you kept your land, didn't it remain your own? Even after you sold it, the proceeds were under your control, weren't they? How could you let the thought of this pretence enter your heart? You haven't lied to men; you've lied to God.' ” (Acts 5:1-4). I don't know how people a confusion charity with socialism.

6:44 _"political or economic systems"_ Have you asked Bernadette McAliskey, if there was sth to be overthrown in Northern Ireland amounting to a legitimate self defense on part of the Gaelic and Catholic heritage population there? You know, back before her marriage, Bernadette Devlin. How long will Covidism be able to continue with only passive resistance?

Great Points Brian Holdsworth.

There really is more than just capitalism and socialism. There's always in between. There are parts of both socialism and capitalism which Christ would've opposed. Also, I think some people don't know the fair difference between socialism and communism. Or are those two definitions arbitrary?

2:29 Not too stupid. Orthodox have sometimes called us a wolf pack. Punning on pronouncing "catolics" instead of "Catholics" in most West European languages, specially Latin and Italian, the Orthos have sometimes considered it stands for "(he)kato(n) lukoi" instead of for "katholikoi" ... so, "wolf packs" in the early Church sounds like a response to them

3:36 Yeah, like Chesterton mentioned, Karl Marx was into the meanness of saying, people should skip the "narcissistic" ambition to privately make a difference in the social dimension. He didn't use the word narcissistic, since it was not a fashion word in his day, or even when I grew up. So much for the theory Tradition says Job needed forty years of correction from God for narcissism, and we actually see one of the guys trying to stamp Job as narcissist getting a fair rebuke from God (with an injunction to make some kind of monetary amendment for insults given).

Capitalism, ie a system of cooperation that upholds private property is not a panacea. But it isn't a bad thing. Capitalism essentially means: don't kill, don't steal. It isn't enough, but it is required. Friendship is an apt analogy. Just because you don't kill or steal from a person doesn't make you a friend to that person. But if you do kill or steal from a person you are absolutely not a friend. Before you can really love your neighbor and you have to agree not to steal from or kill them.

3 Aves for you 🌹🌹🌹🙏🏻

Great vid.

The most ironic thing is that the vision of a community without need that communists wants to see can be achieved if everyone in the nation became an ardent catholic.

Christ transcends all earthly ideologies.

The Early church existed far before any of these political theories and ideologies existed. Whilst of course you can find certain constituents of Christianity which may resemble aspects of different economic theories to ascribe any of them to the Church is rather silly.

This is powerful

Good video, Brian!

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Do you understand that an American can literally lose their home from debt from the birth of a child?

You haven't addressed what Jesus said about the rich. He wasn't exactly a huge fan of the rich. This is throughout the Gospels. How do you explain this?

There is a difference between generosity and mandates.

Oh ....nooooo not the microphones !!! Hahah it's Soo American ! 😂

Hey Brian, great video! Totally off topic but what's the deal with circumcision??

9:39 Ah, this looks more like how he thought and was taught back when still a more or less Catholic!

Brian! Where did you get that shirt!

3:35 Powerwolf did it first hehe

The early church was not a Fascist, or a Capitalist either. They weren't greedy and self-serving as capitalistic society teaches. They were a community of believers who counted nothing as their own. Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. (No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. Clearly, they did not see their possessions as their own but shared as everyone had needs)

Thanks!

The early Christians were communalists not communists-big difference. When people say "socialism" today, they mean government-based and government-enforced socialism. The early Christians were a community of individuals who *voluntarily* lived in a communal manner and governed themselves according to Christian principles. The Roman government was not involved. "Socialism", as it is used today, as well as communism, are *mandatory* government-enforced systems where the individual has no choice, and typically, the government administrates not only in a secular manner but also in an anti-Christian manner (e.g. paying for "health care" that is the opposite of health care).

Norman Mattoon Thomas, a Christian leader of the Socialist Party of America, was awesome.

Brian: makes a video about how socialism and Christianity are incompatible Socialists: JeSuS WaSn't CaPiTaLIsT EiThEr (he has a video on Capitalism too, you guys still have to disprove what Brian said in this video)

You do an excellent job of clarifying the church.🌿🙏🏽

It was called Community… share everything… Communism ?!?!

And it wasn't fascist either.

Love your work as always Brian, gotta say though, and I mean this with the utmost love and respect, my brother in Christ, fellow son of the church, when you're not smiling in the thumbnails you look like the cave man from the Geico commercials.

The early church wasn't capitalist if that's what you were hoping for.

Matthew 7:26((C.E.V.))🍯

The Gospel: Plain and Simple “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” - 2 Corithians 11:3 Ask someone today if they are saved and you will most likely hear responses like these: “I have accepted Jesus into my heart.” Or “I have made him Lord of my life.” “I’ve been baptized.” “I said a prayer.” Sounds all good and churchy don’t it; but it is difficult to de-termine whether or not a person actually knows the gospel that saves them. These use￾less phrases don’t describe a thing about what the gospel is and has left a devastating effect of people not knowing what it is that they are saved from nor how they are saved; which leaves a more serious effect of people ques￾tioning their salvation. Let’s not muddy the simplicity of salva￾tion that is in Christ with vague church sounding phrases that do not communicate anything. But rather present God’s word with clarity and assuredness. So here is the gospel: plain and simple. Sin was passed upon all men by one man Adam, and death is a consequence of this sin (Rom 5:12). Mankind has an eternal destiny of condemnation and wrath - Hell - because of this sin (Rom 6:23). No matter what good works one might do we are still found sinners in the sight of our Creator God. And all un￾righteousness and those who follow get in￾dignation and wrath. We cannot be found righteous for by God’s law we are found sin￾ners (Rom 3:19-20). If we have broken even one law we are found guilty. It is for this reason of not being able to create our own righteousness and being born in a sinful flesh that we need a savior (Titus 3:5). Christ is that Savior, God manifested in the flesh, sinless, died in our place on a cross 2000 years ago. Taking upon him the wrath and judgement that was intended for us sin￾ners. And it is through his bloodshed, burial, and resurrection on our behalf that we are able to have peace with God and forgiveness of our sins (1 Cor 15:1-4, Col 3:14). This good news is unto all but only those that believe in it are made righteous in Christ (Romans 3:22). It is then after we have heard this good news of Christ’s righteousness available to us freely, that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit and we are now part of Christ’s body the church (Eph 1:13) There is nothing that we need to do, no good works that are required, and no bad works that can separate us from our new po￾sition in Christ (Romans 8:35-39). Faith and belief in this information from God’s word is the gospel. The gospel is not accepting Jesus into your heart. The gospel is not making him lord of your life, it is not saying a prayer and it is not being baptized with water. So next time someone asks you if you are saved. Give them the clear assured answer “Yes! And let me tell you why!” Find more free resources at: www.graceambassadors.com