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.

onefaith2 · #5 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?

Digging4Truth · #6 11-15-2010, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

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?

The people did willingly give. The apostles facilitated the distribution of these gifts. I don't consider what the apostles did as official government or rule. They facilitated the distribution of what was given. Had it not been given. They wouldn't have distributed anything.

Why is it not like this today?

Because preachers teach giving by rule. When you teach giving by rule then you get what you demand (sometimes) but no more. Teaching giving by rule only brings about robotic giving that was not born out of a spirit of being led by the Holy Ghost to give but rather led by command, demand and fear of hell.

The results are vastly different but there is too much fear that it "won't work" so preacher stick with the demand & command by rule of law method and, thereby, miss out on the blessing of people giving as the Spirit leads them. The people miss out as well.

Digging4Truth · #7 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.

Sam · #8 11-15-2010, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onefaith2

T
...
Why isn't it like this today?

don't know. maybe it is that way some places.
maybe people are tired of being beat up about, "if you with hold your tithe you are a thief and a robber and you are going to hell" or maybe they are tired of the way the minister seems to be "handling the finances."

ReformedDave · #9 11-15-2010, 03:28 PM

It had nothing to do with the civil government. As Sam pointed out it was voluntary. The apostles presented a need and it was filled by the parishioners.

onefaith2 · #10 11-15-2010, 03:31 PM

Why do you think we as saints do not practice what they practiced in the early church, even if we have to buypass the minister who "mishandles" things?

Is it that we, especially in America, expect the government to take care of the needy, rather than the church being the welfare system?

back to the question, even though the gift was willing, how does that differ from the core of socialism? People give to those in charge and those in charge give to all men accordingly.