Giver said:
(Acts 2:44-45)“The faithfull all lived togeather and owned everything in common; they sold their goods and possessions and shared out the proceeds among themselves according to what each one needed.”
(Luke 14:33) “So in the same way, none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up all his possessions.”
…
…
Now tell me your church stayed faithful to the teachings of the apostles.
Okay, I will tell you…“church stayed faithful to the teachings of the apostles.”
The problem is that you have wrongly interpreted scripture and you do not know/understand the teachings of the church.
I cannot agree with taking the example of Christians pooling their resources in Jerusalem, as outlined in the Book of Acts, to an extreme. The verse should not be construed to mean that this was mandatory, and the verse should not be construed to mean that it was a universal practice. The logic in doing such a thing is severely flawed.
I would agree with taking these passages all the way to your conclusion
if the rest of the Book of Acts and the other NT letters supported the position. The problem is that there is no support for the conclusion. Moreover, the body of scriptural evidence points the other way.
Even the case of Ananias and Sapphira demonstrates this point. Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit in regards to the amount of money they would contribute to the common purse. In this case they attempted to make it appear that they were donating the “entire proceeds” from the sale of their land. This was the lie. Peter makes a statement that clearly goes against your view of everyone “having” to donate their resources in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. In Acts 5:4 Peter says to Ananias,
"While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."
Clearly, Ananias and Sapphira could have kept the property or could have kept the proceeds from the sale. They were not obliged to donate it. Clearly, it is a holy and worthy thing to make such a contribution, but they
didn’t have to do so. What got them into trouble was the perverse thing they did in their donation by lying to the Holy Spirit.
I also gave you this example:
Generosity and giving have always been encouraged but “not required” in the fashion that you interpret the passage.
We know this to be true because there are many passages elsewhere in the Book of Acts and the other epistles where it is clear that Christians outside of the immediate period following Pentecost were not selling everything that they had. Moreover, they were not being asked to do so. In Acts 10 we read about Cornelius the centurion. He is described in Acts 10:2 as a devout man that “gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God.” There is also mention of his “household.” Peter visits Cornelius after receiving a vision and it becomes clear that an angel had been sent by God to Cornelius to summon Peter, that the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household, and that all of them were baptized. They were all Christian believers and filled with the Holy Spirit.
Cornelius serves as a wonderful example of how God was saving, not just the Jews, but the Gentiles as well.
So what is the up shot of this passage and how does it apply to the discussion? Cornelius never gave up his household and goods and was never asked to do so. I can give many other examples as to the truth in this matter and how your interpretation is too narrow and taken out of the proper context of the Book of Acts. If need be, I will supply the extra biblical data.
’))