 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/30/2010 1:28 AM (GMT -6) |   | | 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.
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? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.
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 11/30/2010 1:35 AM (GMT -6) | | I think about this part:
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.
It seems like there was an expectation that all of the proceeds would be brought back and "laid at the apostles feet"...but Ananias actually conspired with Sapphira to have lasting "private ownership" of some of the proceeds...rather than giving it all to the community chest, as it were. It's all revealed when Sapphira confirms the same phony price to Peter that Ananias was giving...the phony price they agreed to articulate to the others.
And it seems that this thought process, according to Peter, was inspired by Satan.
Interesting...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/30/2010 1:26:18 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/30/2010 1:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Let's check again...
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? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
What I see. When everyone else in the Christian community who were "owners of land or houses" "sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet" for distribution to those in the community who had need. A and S did NOT want to go along with this. They wanted to play both sides of the middle. Look pious, by selling a plot of land and laying the "proceeds" at the feet of the disciples...but inwardly lying to themselves and others...because A and S were not one with the spirit of those who gave as they did. Those people who believed WERE of "one heart and soul" (common beliefs and goals) thinking of others as themselves. In a "covenantally socialist" way, everyone one had everything in "common" such that there was no lack in the community.
"and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common."
That Scripture is highly significant. Seeing as the very notion "private property/ownership" is inherent (as I'm hearing) in capitalism.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/30/2010 1:28:06 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/30/2010 2:08 AM (GMT -6) | | And you can see the lesson clearly. It's NOT that "you better give God EVERYTHING or God will smite you." It's not that at all. It's this.
"You are better off retaining possesion/ownership of your private property...than to try to pretend like you are in the "all in common" spirit with your private property when you really aren't (actively keeping back some for yourself), trying to fool God and God's people in the process."
If God's interaction with A and S would produce any learning effect on the witnessing community, one would hope it would have been this. 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/30/2010 1:25:53 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/30/2010 2:16 AM (GMT -6) | | "and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own..."
I do want to reflect on this. What does this mean? Subjectively, convictionally speaking.
If I say "Whatever things that I believe 'belong' to me, they are not my own; they are to be 'in common' along with my other brothers and sisters of the Community."...how does that interface with the concept of actually physically having exclusive rights and control over various amounts of property/spheres of influence? Like say "owning" a car? Or a house? Or a boat?
If there's a starving family in my church, and I know that selling a boat I love can help to meet that need, how badly do I need that boat...if it's not my "own" anyway?
See how practical it gets for the Body?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/30/2010 1:24:32 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/30/2010 12:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
There's what some will call "ownership" and I'd call (given the big picture) "stewardship." The land was theirs to do with as they chose. Right?
Right. They physically had exclusive rights and control over various amounts of property/spheres of influence, both before and after the selling of the land. And they were free (not externally compelled) to give whatever amount to the community. What interests me is the stark contrast that appears to be made between the intentions of A & S...with those of the rest of the land-owning members of believing community including Joseph who sold a field who brought ALL the proceeds from the sale. In other words, all the other landowners (including Joseph) seemed to be among those that denied that "any of the things that belonged to him was his own..." and "everything was common" to the point where they apparently had no problem given ALL proceeds of sold land up for distribution to the poorer members of the Family of God. But A & S, on the other hand, did NOT seem to embody that belief, such that they DID have a problem with giving all the proceeds..and this brought forth their premeditated intention and concrete action of immoderate self-concern and duplicity/deceit for the explicit purpose of retaining some continuing "private ownership" of some of the proceeds from selling land.
And Peter said that Satan had inspired this very intention in their hearts...right?
“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? "
But it makes sense: A and S were being BAD STEWARDS of what God had given them...NOT primarily trying to use those things to meet God's purposes and responsibilities, but primarily thinking about using God's resources as their OWN...while trying to ACT LIKE good stewards before God's people. God called em out.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/30/2010 11:33:10 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/30/2010 12:30 PM (GMT -6) | | | Now, Tom. How does this interrelate to the ideas of "private ownership" and "profit maximization" being central aspects of a particular economic system? Does it relate at all? Do you see what I'm asking?
Thought: Let's say there is a Christian who believes in tithing. When this tithing Christian is struggling with whether to calculate their tithes from gross income or net income, what does that possibly mean? What thought process is actually going on there? Is it merely that they want to be completely accurate with what they give to God? Is it that they want to maximize the money they feel they get to administrate? (Tithing by net income allows the tither more personal discretionary income) Who knows, right? At the same time, I think it makes a HUGE DIFFERENCE whether or not the tithing Christian acknowledges and understands God's fundamental ownership of all things in Creation. The tither may be less prone to attempting to maximize personal discretionary income...and more prone to following the Spirit on what to give, even up to giving it all because he doesn't believe that "any of the things that belongs to him was his own". Yes, he has exclusive rights and control over what he physically and/or socially "possesses"...at the same time, he realizes that ALL that he has comes from God's good hand as gift and task. Ownership-cum-stewardship.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/30/2010 11:44:25 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/30/2010 12:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Go back to the Batman:War graphic novel I talked about. With Bruce Wayne, a multi-billionaire corporation owner, building a factory in a slum neighborhood for the primary purpose of community uplift and service...acknowledging a MINIMAL expection for "profit maximization" for himself or the shareholders.
I could see a Christian "covenantal socialist" using capitalist tools doing this. I cannot see an secular, rational, self-interested self-proclaimed capitalist doing this.
Feel me?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/30/2010 11:50:05 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/30/2010 2:34 PM (GMT -6) | | | Man, that is a twisted interpretation of that passage...coupled with a caricatured, simplistic view of capitalism...leads straight to kookville. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/30/2010 3:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Dude. You really have to refrain from name calling. Serious. Love reading your stuff. But please. Don't demonize others or even come close to it. Maybe say something like, "I don't think that is a proper interpretation of that passage..." and "I think it takes us into some quandaries." Saying its twisted or leads to kookville seems to label the person who is making the case as twisted or a kook. Know what I'm saying? I think it was noted by Tommy or Jeff once before about your etiquette. Cool?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/30/2010 4:03 PM (GMT -6) | | | Asher said this in another thread...
Also, it is important to point out that there was nothing binding on anyone, except their common beliefs and goals, Ananias, as Peter said, could have kept any part of his property and still been in good standing with the church...his blameworthiness was in trying to take credit for giving more than he actually gave.
In other words, in Ashers's view, A & S's main offense was misrepresentation of affairs, knowingly "taking credit" for things they had not actually done. I'm thinking that their main offense was not merely this misrepresentation of affairs for the sake of external piety, but the overall intention for "keeping back for himself part of the proceeds" that LED to the misrepresentation of affairs.
How is this "kooky"?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/30/2010 3:19:41 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/30/2010 4:09 PM (GMT -6) | | My spidey senses are telling me you're starting to flare up One Love. (my brother). 
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/30/2010 4:16 PM (GMT -6) | | 
Nah. It' just ain't that deep...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/30/2010 4:22 PM (GMT -6) | | 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? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own?
Blam! There goes your whole theory.
And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?
Pow! Even when liquidated, the value of the property was rightfully Ananias'
You have not lied to men but to God.”
Here is the nature of the offense. Lying about what he was doing. Wanting unearned moral credit.
----------------------------------------------
If you really believed what you say about this passage, then right about now you should be pronouncing judgment on me. Because I wholeheartedly reject your position. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/30/2010 4:27 PM (GMT -6) | | | Seriously? Your offended by the "kookville" thing? I apologize. I'll watch my P's and Q's. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/30/2010 4:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher:
While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own?
Blam! There goes your whole theory.
And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?
Pow! Even when liquidated, the value of the property was rightfully Ananias'
I have not once denied that Ananias had exclusive rights and control over his property/sphere of influence, both before and after sale. I've said that numerous times. That is clear from the text. What I'm saying is this: Ananias did NOT share the same "spirit" of "all in common" that the other landowners in the group seemed to have. Just look at the difference between Joseph and Ananias to see that.
******************************
Asher:
You have not lied to men but to God.”
Here is the nature of the offense. Lying about what he was doing. Wanting unearned moral credit.
So, Asher. What was Ananias' (and Sapphira's) main intention in the lying activity to...
1) get "unearned moral credit" from God and God's people, getting props for something he really didn't do
or
2) hide and keep part of the proceeds from God and God's people, retaining some of the proceeds the totality of which was supposedly to be dedicated to God and God's people.
Which do you think?
---------------------------------------------
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.
... 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.
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.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/30/2010 3:38:40 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/30/2010 4:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Sweet! Happy Birthday D! I know you are about 10 years younger than me. So that would put you at about 36? Glad to have known you for the last 10 years. I've learned soooo much!
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/30/2010 5:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Happy B-Day Bro.
I get what you're saying. I feel ya.
D: In other words, in Ashers's view, A & S's main offense was misrepresentation of affairs, knowingly "taking credit" for things they had not actually done. I'm thinking that their main offense was not merely this misrepresentation of affairs for the sake of external piety, but the overall intention for "keeping back for himself part of the proceeds" that LED to the misrepresentation of affairs.
T: 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.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 11/30/2010 4:12:28 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/30/2010 5:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: 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.
Let us say that A & S didn't lie.
They sold their property for 2000 units of whatever.
They gave 1000 units to the church. They kept 1000 units for themselves.
They said, "We sold our property for 2000, here's 1000, we're keeping 1000."
No lying.
No taking credit for doing more than they actually did.
But evidently, according to you guys thinking, they were still guilty of "failing to relate themselves to the Kingdom in terms of the shared oneness and commonality at the heart of stewardship."
So...
Does Peter pronounce judgment on A & S under these circumstances?
Does God kill A & S under these circumstances?
And, so therefore, since this "failing" is much more common than the other type, why don't we see more of this type of judgment and execution? What was so special, or infamous, about A & S actions (once having taken away the lying) compared to the actions of countless Christians through the centuries, that it warranted death?
Should I be killed right now since I think your whole position on this and related issues is utterly wrong?
At this very moment, I am failing to relate myself to the Kingdom in terms of the shared oneness and commonality at the heart of stewardship. (For Brandon...In this last sentence, I'm speaking from the perspective of Tom's viewpoint, not my own actual viewpoint, I don't agree and think differently) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/30/2010 8:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher: But evidently, according to you guys thinking, they were still guilty of "failing to relate themselves to the Kingdom in terms of the shared oneness and commonality at the heart of stewardship" [that is, had A & S kept 1/2 the proceeds for themselves, donated the other 1/2, and been honest about it].
Tom: I don't think they would still be obviously guilty of some sin, no. It's one thing to keep 1/2 and donate 1/2 and be honest about it. That's a possible good-steward move of course. But it's another thing to account for their lying about it.
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. And 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? So it's not that keeping 1/2 per se could only be done by somebody who so misrelates. There are legitimate conditions under which a person who give 1/2 the procedes of a sail away to charity. But that doesn't mean "A & S lied" is the end of the story here. WHY did they lie?
about their deaths, that's interesting, because I have no doubt that A & S's offense was and is repeated in the Church a lot without God striking people dead. So does the fact that A & S die have something to do with the context in Acts 5 that's not repeated in other situations? I don't know.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 12/1/2010 6:16:20 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/30/2010 8:48 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 48 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:40 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 |
|
|