 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Acts Stuff | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/1/2010 8:35 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Hadn't Acts reported earlier that everyone was having ALL THINGS in common? That might imply that, by coming to live in their commune, that was just part of the deal. IOW, living in that commune may have been an all or nothing deal. If so, it doesn't, per se, address our economic discussion.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 12/1/2010 7:43:13 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/1/2010 10:01 AM (GMT -6) | | | Thanks for the birthday kudos, everyone . Had a good one! ;o)
Tom's got me right on...
Perhaps you and Asher aren't that far apart. We have to assume that Peter explicitly mentions the offense for which A & S die, namely, misrepresentation/lying (to God and the Church) for the purpose (it's safe to assume) of appearances. That's the OFFENSE. But what's the underlying PERCEPTION FAILURE that motivates the lie? Here I think D is on the money...they failed to internalize a kingdom value that redefines personal property (however necessary the formal structure may be) in terms now of personal responsibility or stewardship. In other words, what's mine to dispose of freely is now my responsibility to dispose of freely on behalf of God with a view to maximizing the Kingdom. A & S hadn't really bought into that CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE regarding those things that were theirs to dipose. We have to remain FREE stewards and so language like "this is mine to..." and "it was theirs to..." has to remain. That language expresses the freedom we still exercise. BUT whatever is "mine" is now, in the Kingdom, "my responsibility as a steward" to dispose of on God's behalf. Their lying (Asher's right, the offense) was just the outward manifestation of a failure to relate themselves to the Kingdom (D's right, the motivation) in terms of the shared oneness and commonality at the heart of stewardship........I think.
Exactamundo. The "all-things-in-common" sensibility talked about in Acts 2 AND Acts 4-5 (and the views undergirding it) was not "bought into" by A & S...and it showed.
********************************************
Tom:
What D and I are doing is asking ourselves, "What possible form of misrelation or misunderstanding might have motivated A & S to lie about the procedes?" Did they JUST want more money? Well, that hardly accounts for it. They have less money after giving 1/2 of it away! So the particular form of misreation (or the failure to perceive that motivated their misrelation) that accounts for their lying has to be more than sheer greed. It has to be related to the Church and how A & S wanted to be perceived in it by others. In other words, what others in THIS community should come to think about them for giving all their money is what A & S are after.
They wanted to play both ends of the middle. LOOKING LIKE everyone else who gave all the proceeds...while IN FACT retaining possession of some of their proceeds, unlike everyone else. Actually being greedy while looking like you're not. And Tom is right...
...who would make THAT sort of mistake (i.e., to mistake your identity within the Body of Christ in such a way that lying about your finances/possessions gets you what you want) but someone who fails to see that all they are and possess is God's ANYWAY?
Right.
*******************************************
Similtude:
Hadn't Acts reported earlier that everyone was having ALL THINGS in common? That might imply that, by coming to live in their commune, that was just part of the deal. IOW, living in that commune may have been an all or nothing deal. If so, it doesn't, per se, address our economic discussion.
Good catch, Similtude. YES, it had been reported as such. That's part of why I was ON that. The author made a very obvious CONTRAST between the other landowners in the group of believers and A & S. A & S just we not thinking like the others. AND Peter said that their self-concerned ways of thinking were Satan-inspired.
Now, here's an issue: Are we saying that the early church existence in Acts as merely a all or nothing "commune"...and NOT a pattern for the way the American Church should think and act among its members?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 12/1/2010 9:10:15 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/1/2010 10:07 AM (GMT -6) | | I like Tom's words. And think this principle fits all Christians:
In Christ, whatever is mine to dispose of freely is my responsibility to dispose of freely on behalf of God in Christ with a view to maximizing the Kingdom of God. In other words, whatever "belongs" to me is NOT my "own" primarily for personal gratification and consumption...but it's for the "common good" of the Kingdom and it's members.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/1/2010 10:12 AM (GMT -6) | | And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
...
Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.
(HERE'S THE CONTRAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?
---------------------------------------------------------------
The very LEAST that can be said is that A & S were NOT in the "same spirit" as the other landowners in the community of believers. And, per Peter, that it was Satan's "filling of his heart" that lead to the actual keeping back part of the proceeds.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 12/1/2010 9:16:18 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/1/2010 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Luke: ...no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common...
Tom: This is fascinating because of the sense in which things have to "belong" to us in order for us to be in a place to view them as "common to all," i.e., in order for real commonality (in terms of possessions) to be the result of CHOICE and not something that's given to us per se.
I also think this sort of attitude is definitive of the Kingdom and not an attitude that only Jewish believers in first-century Jerusalem were in a place to adopt. True, there's still room for this to LOOK different in different circumstances (Paul says to a believing community that "he who [refuses] to work shouldn't eat" which HAS to mean that Paul expected husbands and fathers to be the PRIMARY supporters of their families). An in-depth look at all the NT churches would be an interesting study. It doesn't seem that all Paul's churches adopted the Acts 5 model (i.e., all having land selling their lands and distributing the procedes to those in need). I wonder how sustainable that is this side of the eschaton. I mean, once everybody sells everything they own, nobody owns anything and everybody is homeless! And once a community eats through the procedes then they're ALL equally in need. Sure, one could argue that this life-style is meant to present SUCH a powerful invitation to unbelievers that the community's resources are constantly being replenished as land-owning unbelievers come to faith. I guess that's arguable. But we don't see it in the NT. There are instances of home-owership by believers AFTER Acts 5 (in ch. 12 Peter, in Jerusalem, goes to the house of Mary the mother of John Mark). Didn't she sell her house back in ch. 5? The language in ch. 5 seems pretty inclusive. I guess not. And we know that believers met in the homes of believers. So whatever Acts 5 means, or however it was understood by believers then, it doesn't seem that believers thought ALL home/property ownerers are to sell their properties and donate 100% of the procedes.
But wherever one comes out on the particular SHAPE that this attitude of commonality takes in a particular believing community, it seems to me that the attitude (that "nothing that belongs to me is my own but that it's at the disposal of the Spirit for redistribution to meet the community's needs" ) DEFINES the community of faith per se. HOW the Spirit may direct can look different from time to time, but however it looks it ought to result (in the household of faith to begin with, Gal. 6) in the hungry being fed, the homeless having a place to sleep, and other basic needs being met. If THAT'S not happening within the community of faith, then somebody's not hearing God.
I think seeing the Jerusalem commune in terms of the the Year of Jubilee is very interesting. That could work, so long as a) it's interpreted in terms of the Church (both Jew and Gentile in Christ) and not exclusively "Jewish" terms, and b) it's fulfillment is understood at definitive of the community in an ongoing sense and not something churches are to do every 50 years or so. In other words, how believers relate their possessions/belongings to one another ought to embody the equality and concern for the poor that the Year of Jubilee was designed to call Israel to.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 12/1/2010 11:19:47 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/1/2010 4:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
wherever one comes out on the particular SHAPE that this attitude of commonality takes in a particular believing community, it seems to me that the attitude (that "nothing that belongs to me is my own but that it's at the disposal of the Spirit for redistribution to meet the community's needs" ) DEFINES the community of faith per se. HOW the Spirit may direct can look different from time to time, but however it looks it ought to result (in the household of faith to begin with, Gal. 6) in the hungry being fed, the homeless having a place to sleep, and other basic needs being met. If THAT'S not happening within the community of faith, then somebody's not hearing God.
Excellently stated.
Just a thought...
How close is this concept to the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? In other words, it is not supposed to be the case that a person consumes resources without contribution (He that doesn't work shall not eat)...OR that a person contributes without having needed resources. (There was no lack among them). It is to be the case that each person contributes to the whole as well as they are able and consumes little more than what they necessitate, in order that there is "no lack" with respect to the community's needs for sustanance and growth. This is the way a HEALTHY HUMAN BODY works, by and large.
Break it down like this. If there was a group of Christians that believed that "nothing that belongs to me is my own; it's all at the disposal of the Spirit for redistribution to meet the community's needs" that simultaneously believed that "if a person will not work, that person will not eat" (such that all persons actively sought to contribute to the community as they were genuinely able), what would you have?
"Covenantal" socialism within a libertarian framework per Asher?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 12/1/2010 3:57:19 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/1/2010 5:31 PM (GMT -6) | | | http://bible.cc/acts/4-32.htm
"Covenantal..."
--------------------
(John) Wesley's Note on Acts 4:32
And the multitude of them that believed - Every individual person were of one heart and one soul - Their love, their hopes, their passions joined: and not so much as one
In so great a multitude: this was a necessary consequence of that union of heart;
that aught of the things which he had was his own - It is impossible any one should, while all were of one soul. So long as that truly Christian love continued, they could not but have all things common.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 12/1/2010 4:39:59 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/1/2010 5:44 PM (GMT -6) | | | What I am thinking, Tom, is that the sense of one saying "nothing that belongs to me is my own; it's all at the disposal of the Spirit for redistribution to meet the community's needs" can best be described as free, voluntary sharing of one's property/influence that is grounded in being "compelled" or "constrained" by the love of God in Christ and love for one's neighbor as oneself.
Basically, the "one-heart, one mind"-edness of the community in Christ's love is what empowered the "all-things-in-common" expression.
(Do I need to say that Ananias and Sapphira really didn't appear to flow with this kind of sensibility to do what they did?)
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 12/1/2010 4:49:43 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/1/2010 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | | Tom: I also think this sort of attitude is definitive of the Kingdom and not an attitude that only Jewish believers in first-century Jerusalem were in a place to adopt.
Jeff: THat's what I'm getting at about the "equality" point Paul makes in 2 Cor. All these cases are instances of the golden rule applied to different circumstances. This is what I mean when I say there's not so much a list of rules as that the golden rule is applied in a host of different ways depending on the circumstances.
E.g., with respect to profaning what is holy (which has to do with the love of God), the Jew would not normally work on the Sabbath. But getting an ox out of the ditch was a legitimate exception.
The point is, EVERY economic system defines what are the legal means of property acquistion. Some of these might even be down-right wrong. But to the extent that they are not, stuff that is acquired by those means is considered private property.
And though we, as benevolent theists, see "property" as means to do one's duty, it doesn't change the fact that neither the "legalized" means of property acquistion nor the "legalized" grounds for redistributing it are right MERELY because the government is doing the "legalizing."
This is what Asher is saying. Ultimately, even the government has bona-fide bounds. I think those bounds are determined by THEIR duty to God AS divinely-authorized ministers of that particular ministry. Consequently, merely saying that the government has a role to play in economics doesn't tell us what that role is. And I don't see how the communal situation of early Acts helps at all in answering that question.
I think Brandon is right to say it's about justice. It's about being as just as possible WITHIN the legitimate bounds of their delegated authority. Personally, I have no doubt that there will be a kind of utilitarian nature to some of that, when applied to economics. But the DEGREE of the utilitarian-ness of policy should be constrained by justice to the EXTENT that is KNOWABLY practical.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/2/2010 9:03 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Jeff: THat's what I'm getting at about the "equality" point Paul makes in 2 Cor. All these cases are instances of the golden rule applied to different circumstances. This is what I mean when I say there's not so much a list of rules as that the golden rule is applied in a host of different ways depending on the circumstances.
Tom: Yep. Good point. Totally agree.
2 Corinthians 8:1-15
We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints— and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us. Accordingly, we urged Titus that as he had started, so he should complete among you this act of grace. But as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in our love for you —see that you excel in this act of grace also.
I say this not as a command, but to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine. For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich. And in this matter I give my judgment: this benefits you, who a year ago started not only to do this work but also to desire to do it. So now finish doing it as well, so that your readiness in desiring it may be matched by your completing it out of what you have. For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have. For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.”
Hmmm...
Sounds a lot like..."from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
What do you think, Tom? Jeff?
Another thing. How would this "whoever gathered much had nothing left over" sense apply to highly affluent Christians who are members in the same church with poverty-stricken families? Should these affluent Christians at least SEEK TO, as they can, use their resources such that there was "no lack" in their local body? Just wondering what both of y'all think.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 12/2/2010 8:32:21 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/2/2010 9:33 AM (GMT -6) | |
|
|
Asher
Registered Member
      
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 357
|
Posted 11/20/2010 6:42 PM (GMT -6) |
  |
Dwayne: No one is stopping the AMERICAN CHURCH from doing this. So why aren't we?
That's a good question.
As an open theist in a pretty much traditional Christian area (Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc) I have not found a single church that will have me, unless I basically agree not to talk about open theism at all. So, I am churchless.
But on the other hand...as a mail man in a small town of about 3,000. I have known first hand those who were in need, and been able to put some of my own resources toward those needs. And there was even one instance when I was able to get a small group from a friend's church to collect for a particular dire need. So, it can be done, but it isn't being done all that often is it? Your point is well made. | |
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/2/2010 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | | D: As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.”
T: I'm laughing. I mean, LOOK where Paul goes to draw out implications for the Church when it comes to relating ourselves to our possessions and our possessions to the needs of others! Where it any of us and not Paul using THIS verse THIS way we'd all blow our whistles and cry "Foul" (hermeneutically speaking). Dang.
D: Sounds a lot like..."from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
T: Yep.
D: Another thing. How would this "whoever gathered much had nothing left over" sense apply to highly affluent Christians who are members in the same church with poverty-stricken families? Should these affluent Christians at least SEEK TO, as they can, use their resources such that there was "no lack" in their local body?
T: Yeah, it should at least mean that within the Body all peoples' basic needs are met. It still might be that after that the wealthy STILL have excess. Fine. But at least people are eating, have a place to sleep, etc.
I was having breakfast last week with some men in our church. We were all sharing prayer needs. One brother said, "Well, I've actually had an amazing few years income wise, since the recession. No problems there. Financially I'm doing super!" As we went around the table one other brother said, "We've lost our home and I've been unemployed for a year; we can't pay bills and sometimes don't know where the next meal is coming from. Please pray for my family." I was thinking to myself, "WTF!" Of course, "I" didn't give the guy $20 either, but I did think, "OK, here's a guy who has had 3 or 4 windfall years and here's a guy in the same church who's struggling to feed his kids...please SOMEBODY tell me the ANSWER to this problem is right here at this table."
I don't want to judge. Like I said, I was too busy thinking about the rich guy to consider giving the poor guy $20 from my own pocket. But I do think we so often fail so desperately to BEEEEEEEEE the Body that we don't even see ourselves as failing. We don't often enough SEE the real thing to compare ourselves to.
Is the real thing out there anywhere?
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/2/2010 4:18 PM (GMT -6) | | T: Yeah, it should at least mean that within the Body all peoples' basic needs are met. It still might be that after that the wealthy STILL have excess. Fine. But at least people are eating, have a place to sleep, etc.
J: Yeah. In fact, the translation I remember reads "it's not for one to have pressure and the other to have ease."
So we see here that it's not just about not starving. It's about not having to spend inordinate amounts of time and energy just scratching out a living when that is not necessary because there is sufficient wealth in the community.
Now, that doesn't mean that those "receiving" should spend their newly-acquired time goofing off, either. Where something is given, something is required. E.g., "FREELY YOU HAVE RECEIVED, FREELY GIVE." And again, "if thou are able to become free (from slavery), USE IT (freedom) MORE." That something required may just be thanksgiving. It may be more, depending on what's given.
IOW, giving is a kind of investment. It's like capitalism, in that sense. Because it's doing short range sacrifice for long range good of a certain KIND. The kind that increases the FRUITFULNESS of the WHOLE BODY. Thus, yes, there needs to be judgment. For he who won't work (if able) ought not eat (at least if they are professing Christians), etc. But the judgment is a FRUIT-oriented judgment, etc. It's not communism, per se. It's not socialism, per se. It's not capitalism, per se.
But I see economic freedom kind of like I see the Mosaic allowance of divorce for the hardness of heart. It's easier for fallen man to make ETHICAL sense out of justice than seemingly poorly-grounded (but feel-good, perhaps, for some) efforts at utilitarianism.
We need to resort to utilitarian attempts when no just solution can be conceived of and, yet, doing nothing is even more dire. But the burden of proof is on the utiltarian. Because justice can ALSO be utilitarian IN EFFECT, even though not so in conception.
And yet, justice is easier to make sense of rationally than utilitarian thinking, because utilitarian thinking involves a lot more guess-work. And yet it's backed by the government sword. It's the mixing of more guess work than seems justified with a backing of a sword that ruffles many a feather.
But I think D is saying, rightly, that even if what seems to be less than just utilitarian redistributions of wealth are the best we can do, given the fallen governments we have, then we have to accept that just as we accept much of the other nutty seeming policies of the State--as lessers of evil.
I just think we need to FEEL where the opponents of State sword-backed utilitarianism are coming from. They are not necessarily selfish in an economic sense. They may be TOO over-optimistic about human nature (and politicians) and wrongly suppose that the State could do MUCH better when, in fact, it may not be capable of much better.
Moreover, it may not be capable, even, of relinguishing the control it currently has even IF they thought some other group was willing and able to do better. They may be much more solidified in the love of the fruits of the abuse of power to give it up, volitionally. IOW, we need an argument to settle WHY is the government the way it is in the first place that can ground the optimistic posture of getting us to the next step in the discussion?
I agree with all of you in some sense or another. I'm just not seeing the grounds for plausibly inferring the State is "corrigible." And that makes all the difference when trying to determine what the Christian duty TO the State is, or what a Christian's participation in it should be, etc.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 12/2/2010 5:47:02 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/3/2010 8:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: My new signature for discussion board posts!
"It's not communism, per se. It's not socialism, per se. It's not capitalism, per se." Jeff
;o)
Jeff: LOL! And I hope you guys realize that just because I start a rant in response to what one of you says doesn't mean my whole rant is even remotely addressed at that. It's just to get me cranked up.
On that note, let me add that it seems clear to me that a LOT of what government does with respect to redistribution of wealth is a form or "firming up support" from those who perceive them as benefactors. This can be done both for strategic reasons and because politicians tend to be narcissists. They rarely act, policy wise, in terms of the most just policy that is also practical.
Does this mean that libertarianism should be adopted? My answer would be this: IF the electorate had the volitional CAPACITY to adopt libertarianism, "yes." But, IMO, if they had the capacity, they would already BE more civil people in the first place, and therefore, we wouldn't need as much power delegated to the State. Thus, the real answer seems, to me, to be that libertarianism CAN'T be adopted because of the already-existing solidification of vices.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 48 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:48 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|