Did the original church perform socialism?

onefaith2 · #1 11-15-2010, 02:41 PM

Acts 4: 32Now the full number of those who believed were of(AZ) one heart and(BA) soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but(BB) they had everything in common. 33And with great(BC) power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and(BD) great grace was upon them all. 34(BE) There was not a needy person among them, for(BF) as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35and(BG) laid it at the apostles’ feet, and(BH) it was distributed to each as any had need. 36Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means(BI) son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, 37sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and(BJ) laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Now to the above some have argued that the Bible actually condones socialistic government or rule.

How do you think the above scriptures compare with socialism at its core?

In what ways are the above scriptures different from socialistic rule?

Digging4Truth · #2 11-15-2010, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Now to the above some have argued that the Bible actually condones socialistic government or rule.

For my thoughts I will define socialism as simply people not viewing their own things as their own but, instead, live in an attitude of giving to the help of their brother.

What they took part is was not socialistic government. They did what they did as a body. Outside of secular government.

What they took part in was not socialistic rule. It was an attitude of giving that they had one toward another. There was no rule or demand that it be so. It was giving born out of the love for their brethren and not out of rule.

So... I agree that they viewed their own possessions and their brothers needs in a "socialistic" fashion but there was no rule, demand or government placed upon them to make this so. That is the key IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

How do you think the above scriptures compare with socialism at its core?

If, by socialism, you mean socialistic government then it doesn't compare hardly at all. Giving cannot be dictated. A rule of love for ones brother cannot be dictated or enforced. You either have it or you don't. They did not do what they did because they were under a government or rule. They did what they did because they freely chose to give to their brother.

There is a vast difference between the two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

In what ways are the above scriptures different from socialistic rule?

See my previous thought.

Digging4Truth · #3 11-15-2010, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

Good post and it was also voluntary.......

Indeed. The Bible makes that abundantly clear. Hence the absence of "rule" or "government" outside that of a people led, ruled and governed by the Holy Spirit of our God and creator.

That is the only government that will never do us wrong.

Sam · #4 11-15-2010, 03:17 PM

Some different attitudes:

What's mine is mine, I'll keep it. Selfishness
What's yours is mine, I'll take it. Thief or Socialist
What's mine is yours. I'll share it. Christian

The words that Peter spoke to Ananias and Sapphirah show that what they did with their property and with the money received from it was up to them and not a rule of the church.

Digging4Truth · #5 11-15-2010, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Some different attitudes:

What's mine is mine, I'll keep it. Selfishness
What's yours is mine, I'll take it. Thief or Socialist
What's mine is yours. I'll share it. Christian

The words that Peter spoke to Ananias and Sapphirah show that what they did with their property and with the money received from it was up to them and not a rule of the church.

Well said.

The sin of Ananias & Sapphira was not related to giving. It was related to lying.

Again...well stated.

TGBTG · #6 11-16-2010, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Some different attitudes:

What's mine is mine, I'll keep it. Selfishness
What's yours is mine, I'll take it. Thief or Socialist
What's mine is yours. I'll share it. Christian

Amen Sam!!!

Sharing because of love is the Christian way. Not sure if I would call it socialism though.(Socialist govt has to enforce the rules). No one in the early church enforced any rule. The motivation should be out of love.

Digging4Truth · #7 11-16-2010, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Amen Sam!!!

Sharing because of love is the Christian way. Not sure if I would call it socialism though.(Socialist govt has to enforce the rules). No one in the early church enforced any rule. The motivation should be out of love.

Amen.

All giving should come out of love... not law.

Socialite · #8 11-16-2010, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Indeed. The Bible makes that abundantly clear. Hence the absence of "rule" or "government" outside that of a people led, ruled and governed by the Holy Spirit of our God and creator.

That is the only government that will never do us wrong.

Actually, there was a form of government. 7 men full of the Spirit would oversee the collection.

Fact is, it wasn't an obligatory system in that one could be punished, but the idea was they were definitely encourage to give all they had to provide for others who didn't.

It was done of necessity, but also a beautiful picture of "sharing one another's burdens" and uniting in love to help a need.

Digging4Truth · #9 11-16-2010, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

Actually, there was a form of government. 7 men full of the Spirit would oversee the collection.

Fact is, it wasn't an obligatory system in that one could be punished, but the idea was they were definitely encourage to give all they had to provide for others who didn't.

It was done of necessity, but also a beautiful picture of "sharing one another's burdens" and uniting in love to help a need.

That isn't a form of government. That is a form of distribution.

They didn't demand anything. They didn't ensure x amount of giving.

They simply took what others gave and distributed it per the need.

onefaith2 · #10 11-15-2010, 03:22 PM

The people willingly gave correct? They willingly gave to the apostles who distributed it among everyone that had need. Did the apostles act as the official government or rule within the church? If so, how did this giving start, was it by their asking of such? Or did people just began to bring their possessions?

Why isn't it like this today?