View Full Version : What do you think of this Financial equality doctrine?
COOPER
03-21-2007, 09:14 PM
What about this financial and possessions equality for the Church of the 21st century.
Are we to sell everything we have put in in a pot and have everything common?
Sounds very unpractical and cult like.
rrford
03-21-2007, 09:16 PM
What about this financial and possessions equality for the Church of the 21st century.
Are we to sell everything we have put in in a pot and have everything common?
Sounds very unpractical and cult like.
Psssst, don't tell the early Church that. :tiphat
berkeley
03-21-2007, 09:17 PM
What about this financial and possessions equality for the Church of the 21st century.
Are we to sell everything we have put in in a pot and have everything common?
Sounds very unpractical and cult like.Communism... won't work today.
rrford
03-21-2007, 09:19 PM
Communism... won't work today.
Actually, what he describes is more akin to Socialism.
MissBrattified
03-21-2007, 09:20 PM
I think if we were in survival mode like many in the first church were, our collective outlook and willingness to work together would be vastly different.
berkeley
03-21-2007, 09:20 PM
Actually, what he describes is more akin to Socialism.
Where would I be if you wasn't here to correct me?? :tiphat
COOPER
03-21-2007, 09:21 PM
Psssst, don't tell the early Church that. :tiphat
But I am asking todays Church.
Just because the early Church had cafeteria's and saints for waiters do we start the First American Church of the all you can eat Buffet?
berkeley
03-21-2007, 09:22 PM
I think if we were in survival mode like many in the first church were, our collective outlook and willingness to work together would be vastly different.with a 90% backslider rate. People need to "pray through" because brother Bible Thumper didn't shake their hand... sister Sally Mae walked past without saying "Praise the Lord.." etc.
berkeley
03-21-2007, 09:22 PM
But I am asking todays Church.
Just because the early Church had cafeteria's and saints for waiters do we start the First American Church of the all you can eat Buffet?
No. Give when you can, and even when you can't. And be blessed.
COOPER
03-21-2007, 09:23 PM
Actually, what he describes is more akin to Socialism.
What is the diff? especially when you have no freedom to question leadership, but just shut up and obey.
Scott Hutchinson
03-21-2007, 09:23 PM
The conditions of the first century church under Roman rule were different than things today.
Hoovie
03-21-2007, 09:23 PM
I think God prompts members of his body to do what it takes to accomplish His mission. In the case of the early church that was the most effective way to spread the gospel and provide a safety network - not so sure the same is true for today, though someday it might return to that - who knows?
berkeley
03-21-2007, 09:23 PM
The conditions of the first century church under Roman rule were different than things today.
Right, but may be similar in a decade or two.
ManOfWord
03-21-2007, 09:24 PM
It didn't work long in the early church either. It appears that there was no mandate from the Lord to do this. It was a decision they made on their own.
freeatlast
03-21-2007, 09:24 PM
And we all say we are apostolic.
Come RRFORD, send me the keys to your Town Carm, for I am in need of it this week.
Are we or are we not apostolics?
Less sell it all and send it to St Louiis and let the Elder's divvy it all up.
rrford
03-21-2007, 09:25 PM
Where would I be if you wasn't here to correct me?? :tiphat
Sorry if it was offensive. Just wanting to clarify. With communism the state owns it all. In true Socialism the people own it all. In America the creditors own it all.
rrford
03-21-2007, 09:25 PM
And we all say we are apostolic.
Come RRFORD, send me the keys to your Town Carm, for I am in need of it this week.
Are we or are we not apostolics?
Less sell it all and send it to St Louiis and let the Elder's divvy it all up.
LOL! Not even a Town Car or luxury car in the driveway. Don't own my own home. Now, about that house of yours...
rrford
03-21-2007, 09:26 PM
I think if we were in survival mode like many in the first church were, our collective outlook and willingness to work together would be vastly different.
So true.
berkeley
03-21-2007, 09:26 PM
Sorry if it was offensive. Just wanting to clarify. With communism the state owns it all. In true Socialism the people own it all. In America the creditors own it all.
It wasn't offensive.
freeatlast
03-21-2007, 09:27 PM
LOL! Not even a Town Car or luxury car in the driveway. Don't own my own home. Now, about that house of yours...
Ah yes..it's a beaty..built by a Doctor...it's almost paid for. If'n I had a big mortgage on it..you could have it. :happydance
rrford
03-21-2007, 09:28 PM
Ah yes..it's a beaty..built by a Doctor...it's almost paid for. If'n I had a big mortgage on it..you could have it. :happydance
Sure take my Town Car but keep your mansion. Sounds Christian to me...:toofunny
Scott Hutchinson
03-21-2007, 09:30 PM
At least if we were under severe persecution we should share our things with one another, and take care of each other.And it could get down to that.
The church since it's inception has always been in tribulation somewhere ,to borrow something from the historicists.
COOPER
03-21-2007, 09:33 PM
with a 90% backslider rate. People need to "pray through" because brother Bible Thumper didn't shake their hand... sister Sally Mae walked past without saying "Praise the Lord.." etc.
That reminds me of something: {changing the subject for a sec}
I work with a Holiness Trinitarian assistant Pastor.
Family looks like UPC and hold similar standards.
That man is so rude too me, nice to others, but has been mean to me at times.
He knows I was UPC and no longer attend a church.
One day I just told him to get off my back, you are so annoying.
He wouldn't look at me or speak to me for about a month after that.
He seems creepy and in a bad mood most of the time.
He walked in one morning and I said "Waz_ZuP? "
He said, something wrong with you?
The uniform man suggested he might have left a missing shirt at home.
He got hot!!!
If you question or put his integrity in check he really gets HOT!!
Don't dare em-ply he might be wrong.
Arphaxad
03-21-2007, 10:57 PM
Actually, what he describes is more akin to Socialism.
Originally Posted by Berkeley
Communism... won't work today.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when Marx wrote "the communist manifesto", the only time the word "communist" was used was in the title, and between the covers he used "socialism".
ARPH:doggyrun
berkeley
03-21-2007, 10:58 PM
Originally Posted by Berkeley
Communism... won't work today.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when Marx wrote "the communist manifesto", the only time the word "communist" was used was in the title, and between the covers he used "socialism".
ARPH:doggyrun
don't recall.. haven't read that in several yrs
Arphaxad
03-21-2007, 11:02 PM
What about this financial and possessions equality for the Church of the 21st century.
Are we to sell everything we have put in in a pot and have everything common?
Sounds very unpractical and cult like.
Sounds good to me, I':tumbleweed m poor
ARPH:doggyrun
What is the diff? especially when you have no freedom to question leadership, but just shut up and obey.
LOL! you mean like the first century church? where peter looked at a couple and they were struck down by God for lying?
and you have a problem with overbearing preachers today? hee hee.
I think if we were in survival mode like many in the first church were, our collective outlook and willingness to work together would be vastly different.So true, and something that I think is coming. May not be in our lifetime, but there will be a point when the "Church" will have to revert back to this, IMO.
Many say it won't work today, but how do they know? It doesn't have to be like the hippy communes of the 60s or the cult-type communities we see here and there. There is a biblical way to do it and those that do will desire nothing but the best, physically and spiritually, for the saints there.
What about this financial and possessions equality for the Church of the 21st century.
Are we to sell everything we have put in in a pot and have everything common?
Sounds very unpractical and cult like.It didn't work in the Jerusalem church, why would it work today? If you remember from Acts, the Jerusalem church got into a position where it needed help from other churches, which was why Paul collected that offering from his various church plants.
Digging4Truth
03-22-2007, 07:40 AM
Communism... won't work today.
Wow... the apostles were communists? :)
when governemnts require citizens to give up everything and become wards of the state, that is communisim.
when a group of people choose to work collectively as the apostles did, there is at least biblical precedent. I have no problem with a group of people working together in such a manner.
It isnt communism
It isnt socialism
in fact it isnt any form of state governemnt because it isnt the action of any state.
it is a kabutz (sp). there better be some good controls. these things tend to end badly...(think 70 AD)....did I say that?????
Digging4Truth
03-22-2007, 07:49 AM
when governemnts require citizens to give up everything and become wards of the state, that is communisim.
when a group of people choose to work collectively as the apostles did, there is at least biblical precedent. I have no problem with a group of people working together in such a manner.
It isnt communism
It isnt socialism
in fact it isnt any form of state governemnt because it isnt the action of any state.
it is a kabutz (sp). there better be some good controls. these things tend to end badly...(think 70 AD)....did I say that?????
When people do something like this they will almost always be deemed as cookes & nuts. Not because they are nuts... not because they are wrong... but GASP because they do it differently than the mainstream.
The church will generally lead the charge.
I feel sure Jesus would be the one the majority of the church would snicker at and roll their eyes at were he in bodily form walking the earth today.
the Jerusalem church got into a position where it needed help from other churches, which was why Paul collected that offering from his various church plants.What led to the Jerusalem Church needing added assistance?
Digging4Truth
03-22-2007, 07:51 AM
It didn't work in the Jerusalem church, why would it work today? If you remember from Acts, the Jerusalem church got into a position where it needed help from other churches, which was why Paul collected that offering from his various church plants.
Can you provide scripture & verse for me please Chan... I would like to read into this...
Does it say it wasn't working or do we just have evidence of one church sending an offering to another?
What led to the Jerusalem Church needing added assistance?
I dont know that the scripture records the reason? or am I wrong?
we do know that property values declined somwhere around 70AD though.
we do know that property values declined somwhere around 70AD though.Because the Church has all things in common?
:nah
Digging4Truth
03-22-2007, 07:54 AM
I dont know that the scripture records the reason? or am I wrong?
we do know that property values declined somwhere around 70AD though.
LOL...
I do always find it amusing when people make a pilgrimage to the "Holy Land" and "walk the streets Jesus walked" and get shown by the guides the "street called straight". Everybody oooohs & aahhhhhs because this is the very place Jesus walked.
LOL
That place is GONE.
Torn down completely and utterly.
Digging4Truth
03-22-2007, 07:55 AM
Because the Church has all things in common?
:nah
Because Jerusalem was completely destroyed. Not one stone of the temple was left unturned.
mizpeh
03-22-2007, 07:56 AM
Because the Church has all things in common?
:nah
No because Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans.
mizpeh
03-22-2007, 08:02 AM
It didn't work in the Jerusalem church, why would it work today? If you remember from Acts, the Jerusalem church got into a position where it needed help from other churches, which was why Paul collected that offering from his various church plants.
Why do you say it didn't work? Paul compared it to the Israelites and the daily manna they received from the Lord.
But what you are speaking of in Corinthians came later. The first weeks and months of the church in Acts 4:32-37, the church gave liberally to such an extent that the apostles had to appoint trusted saints to distribute the money according to need. It sounds like they gave the money to widows and such not to those who were able-bodied to work....
LOL...
I do always find it amusing when people make a pilgrimage to the "Holy Land" and "walk the streets Jesus walked" and get shown by the guides the "street called straight". Everybody oooohs & aahhhhhs because this is the very place Jesus walked.
LOL
That place is GONE.
Torn down completely and utterly.
well it IS old you know.... :grampa
but yea, didnt they pretty much break the place down to parade rest?
Why do you say it didn't work? Paul compared it to the Israelites and the daily manna they received from the Lord.
But what you are speaking of in Corinthians came later. The first weeks and months of the church in Acts 4:32-37, the church gave liberally to such an extent that the apostles had to appoint trusted saints to distribute the money according to need. It sounds like they gave the money to widows and such not to those who were able-bodied to work....
well, what began with great gusto seems to eventually ended in hard times.
what I dont know, was the hard times sufferd by the church in Jeruselem caused by Vespasian and Titus or was this before the sack of Jereselem?
Digging4Truth
03-22-2007, 08:17 AM
well, what began with great gusto seems to eventually ended in hard times.
what I dont know, was the hard times sufferd by the church in Jeruselem caused by Vespasian and Titus or was this before the sack of Jereselem?
Could you provide scripture for what you do not at this point?
Digging4Truth
03-22-2007, 08:22 AM
well it IS old you know.... :grampa
but yea, didnt they pretty much break the place down to parade rest?
History says the area was used for farming for a while after that. A certain portion of the wall was left so that those passing by would see what great a city had once stood there.
Why do you say it didn't work? Paul compared it to the Israelites and the daily manna they received from the Lord.
But what you are speaking of in Corinthians came later. The first weeks and months of the church in Acts 4:32-37, the church gave liberally to such an extent that the apostles had to appoint trusted saints to distribute the money according to need. It sounds like they gave the money to widows and such not to those who were able-bodied to work....
Yes, what I referred to did happen later - I suspect several years later. But the account in Acts said that they had everything in common, meaning not that money was just distributed to the widows and such but that what they had set up was very much like a commune.
Can you provide scripture & verse for me please Chan... I would like to read into this...
Does it say it wasn't working or do we just have evidence of one church sending an offering to another?
The evidence that it wasn't working was in the Jerusalem church being in such need that Paul was taking up a collection from several Gentile churches, not just one church. Paul talks about not only the Corinthians sending an offering but at least one other church as well (the Philippian church, I think).
The evidence that it wasn't working was in the Jerusalem church being in such need that Paul was taking up a collection from several Gentile churches, not just one church. Paul talks about not only the Corinthians sending an offering but at least one other church as well (the Philippian church, I think).Wasn't there something about a famine in the land? Is this when that offering was taken up? I can't find it right now.
Wasn't there something about a famine in the land? Is this when that offering was taken up? I can't find it right now.I don't remember any specific explanation being given for the Jerusalem church's dire straits but the situation was enough to show that having all things in common (the commune system) was unable to see them through.
Digging4Truth
03-22-2007, 10:55 AM
The evidence that it wasn't working was in the Jerusalem church being in such need that Paul was taking up a collection from several Gentile churches, not just one church. Paul talks about not only the Corinthians sending an offering but at least one other church as well (the Philippian church, I think).
I was hoping for scripture & verse so I could look it up and read the account.
I don't remember any specific explanation being given for the Jerusalem church's dire straits but the situation was enough to show that having all things in common (the commune system) was unable to see them through.
We do know that reguardless of cause, the efforts of those in Jerusalem were not financially successfull. weither or not it was the Roman invasion, famine, or poor planning. We have clear indication that they did not have success in monatary matters.... that is no reflection on thier spirituality.
We do know that reguardless of cause, the efforts of those in Jerusalem were not financially successfull. weither or not it was the Roman invasion, famine, or poor planning. We have clear indication that they did not have success in monatary matters.... that is no reflection on thier spirituality.Who said anything about spirituality? I was talking about that commune system they set up.
I don't remember any specific explanation being given for the Jerusalem church's dire straits but the situation was enough to show that having all things in common (the commune system) was unable to see them through.If you separate the Jerusalem Church from the other's, I see your point. But, maybe Paul viewed giving between distant churches the same as the local church sharing within itself? Maybe the sharing between Joe and Jim was the same to him as the sharing between Jerusalem and Galatia? When viewed that way, I see no problem that Jerusalem needed help. It's just substituting a larger group for an individual within that group.
QueenEsther
03-22-2007, 11:19 AM
That reminds me of something: {changing the subject for a sec}
I work with a Holiness Trinitarian assistant Pastor.
Family looks like UPC and hold similar standards.
That man is so rude too me, nice to others, but has been mean to me at times.
He knows I was UPC and no longer attend a church.
One day I just told him to get off my back, you are so annoying.
He wouldn't look at me or speak to me for about a month after that.
He seems creepy and in a bad mood most of the time.
He walked in one morning and I said "Waz_ZuP? "
He said, something wrong with you?
The uniform man suggested he might have left a missing shirt at home.
He got hot!!!
If you question or put his integrity in check he really gets HOT!!
Don't dare em-ply he might be wrong.
Sounds like he needs a good dose of the Holy Ghost!!!!
If you separate the Jerusalem Church from the other's, I see your point. But, maybe Paul viewed giving between distant churches the same as the local church sharing within itself? Maybe the sharing between Joe and Jim was the same to him as the sharing between Jerusalem and Galatia? When viewed that way, I see no problem that Jerusalem needed help. It's just substituting a larger group for an individual within that group.I do separate the Jerusalem church from the others. There is no evidence in scripture that any of the other churches followed Jerusalem's commune model.
Newman
03-22-2007, 11:32 AM
The evidence that it wasn't working was in the Jerusalem church being in such need that Paul was taking up a collection from several Gentile churches, not just one church. Paul talks about not only the Corinthians sending an offering but at least one other church as well (the Philippian church, I think).
I was going to say that but since you beat me to it, I am going to let you defend the position. Hehehe ;)
I do separate the Jerusalem church from the others. There is no evidence in scripture that any of the other churches followed Jerusalem's commune model.True. :tiphat
I think. :winkgrin
Who said anything about spirituality? I was talking about that commune system they set up.
Nobody. I agree with you. I was just heading anyone off at the pass, if they wanted to suggest otherwise....
I belive in this we are very much in agreement.
Digging4Truth
03-22-2007, 01:31 PM
I do separate the Jerusalem church from the others. There is no evidence in scripture that any of the other churches followed Jerusalem's commune model.
Just a stray thought here...
One would tend to think that something is lost in the communal model.
In the communal model all come together to one unit. When you do that then you have created something that requires a level of maintenance on it's own that was not there before when they simply met in each others homes.
When each family had their own life and came in from that life to meet in a brothers/sisters home then they brought some of that outside productivity with them. Some of what their outside life produced fed & ministered to the body as a whole whether that be financial, in object lessons gleaned from living their individual lives or experiential.
When they came together in a communal fashion their productivity outside the gatherings would seem to have been turned into simply maintaining what they had built.
After a while they had nothing left to give and needed to be supported.
In a nutshell... it is what we bring to the table out of who we are as individuals that enriches the body as a whole.
Pragmatist
03-22-2007, 04:41 PM
I do separate the Jerusalem church from the others. There is no evidence in scripture that any of the other churches followed Jerusalem's commune model.
I was taught (I don't remember by whom), that the reason the Jerusalem church sold all they had and gave it to the church was because the destruction of Jerusalem was coming and it would have all been lost anyway.
How's this??? ... IT'S ALL HIS ....
Who alone is the rightful owner of this world and everything in it?
"The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein". Psalm 24:1
What else does God claim?
"For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills".
Psalm 50:10
"The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts". Haggai 2:8
Who gives us the ability to obtain wealth?
"But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for it is He that giveth thee power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day". Deuteronomy 8:18
FOR ME, A CHILD OF THE KING ....
His grace is SUFFICIENT ....
And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.. 2 Cor 12:9
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.