Did the original church perform socialism?

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

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?

Good questions.
Does the bible condone socialistic government? I believe the Church in Jerusalem was somewhat socialistic but they were very unique in that they already had a cultural and religious identity with YHWH as they understood Him through the Holy Scriptures.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

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.

The core of socialism is one of forced wealth redistribution....

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

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.

Indeed. They were even admonished to not use the secular governmental judicial system but to work things out amongst themselves.

The church operated outside of government but in peace with government as much as possible.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

The core of socialism is one of forced wealth redistribution....

Is that the core or the result because people generally don't give their stuff away to help fellow man? Therefore the government "knows" more and acts upon the knowledge.

Can anyone say why the church does not act this way anymore?

[Socialite]

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.

[Socialite]

I'm always amused when Evangelicals make the assumption that Socialism itself is evil, and I've even heard "unbiblical." They've moved their political opinion about the proper rule of government into their theology. It never ends...

[onefaith2]

I don't think the concept itself is evil, us sharing our possessions with everyone. However the enforcement of that concept is evil. It also quells no due payment for hard work for your wage is fixed, given by the government. Socialism does not feed capitalism and doesn't encourage enterperneurs. But aside from political arguments, did the church truly practice a form of socialism?

[TGBTG]

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]

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.

[Digging4Truth]

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.