Importance of Original Sin

They did:

quote:

---

Acts 5:34-35 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

---

NOBODY has suggested salvation by works alone.Salvation is by faith. That much is plain. But faith is NOT just mouthing, "Lord! Lord!" The way God measures faith is by what you do for the least of His brethren. The branch that does not produce fruit is thrown into the fire.The arguments against works are entirely self-serving.Edited by ringo, : Clarification.

Again, if that was to be a rule for all believers it would have been preached to all of us all these centuries and practiced by all and it wasn't. That's because you are pointing to particular specific events in the history of the Church that were not meant to be rules or commands, and imposing a false interpretation on them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You keep missing the point. Works are essential confirmations of faith but they HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SAVING US.

The fact is that they did practice it.Of course there's an easy copout for those who would rather grab all they can for themselves. That doesn't negate the principle. You make claims about what was "meant to be" but you don't back up your claims. Your denial is just self-serving.

You keep missing the point. Nobody has said that works have anything to do with saving us. But the works are the only measure of real faith. Without the works, you don't have real faith. If you hold back, like Ananias and Sapphira, you don't have real faith. Professions of faith mean nothing.

OK, Mr.Smartie Pants. Have you sold your house yet?

quote:

---

Acts 5:34-35 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

---

The Apostles were to be trusted and were directly in charge of the distribution. The people were as one, in communion. Whose feet would you lay it down in front of today? And dont give me that song and dance about socialists being a larger brotherhood of kum-ba-yah. Nor that any government can substitute for the Apostles. I'll take my chances with Jesus scolding me rather than fall for that Marxist utopian ideology.

Well, the city is threatening to take it for back taxes. But I'm not the one who claims to be a follower of Jesus, am I? I don't need to practice what YOU should be preaching. Not Ananias and Sapphira. They had your attitude and they were struck dead for it. Stop it. I have told you many times that I do NOT have a Utopian ideology.I'm just pointing out what YOUR religion says.

Yes works validate faith, nobody has denied that; if there are no good works there is no genuine faith.But just as you miss the point of the communal sharing among the believers and the story of the young man Jesus advised to sell all he owned and give it to the poor, you now as usual completely miss the point of the story of Ananias and Sapphira. I think I must have explained it at least half a dozen times by now. But here goes another: as the apostles explain, they were not at fault for holding back part of the sale money, since they had it within their power to decide to give whatever portion they wanted to give; their sin was lying about it to create the impression they were giving it all when they weren't. Lying to the Holy Spirit yet, as if He didn't know the truth no matter what they said.This is well understood and taught by all the preachers and theologians I've ever read on the subject, as is also the case with the other examples mentioned. As I said, if the Bible teaches that we are all to give away everything, that would have been taught and practiced down the centuries, but it has not. You misread these things. The testimony of the Church's leaders for two millennia is against you on all these examples.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There would have been no reason to lie if they hadn't been doing wrong in the first place. They did wrong and they knew they did wrong. You can't erase the wrong that they did.

Here's a typical commentary on this: So here greed is considered to be part of his sin, but there is no implication even in that fact that he was obligated to give all the money. He was free to choose to give whatever portion he wished. Greed he was guilty of, but not failing to give all since that was not required.But I'll simply repeat for the umjpteenth time: All these passages you interpret as requiring all believers to give up everything we own have never ever ever been understood that way by the teachers of the Church, and they certainly would have been if that's what they meant. Yes we know that you as an unbeliever who rejected your own Christian upbringing, think you know better than the millions who have been faithful to it for two millennia, but your credibility is just a teensy bit lacking.

I have never said that it's a requirement. I've said that it's a principle.If you give less than 100% you can never be sure that you've given enough. And the principle doesn't apply only to money.

It's not even a principle, but if their crime deserved instantaneous death why quibble: that makes it a requirement, not a principle anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's a principle illustrated by Elijah and the widow, Jesus and the widow with two mites, Jesus and the rich man, Ananias and Sapphira and possibly some other examples that are not on the top of my head. Acts 4 even uses the exact same phraseology as socialism: "and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."You can try all you like to justify individual greed but it ain't scriptural.

I am not justifying greed for pete's sake: we should always give generously, and yes often faith is involved. I'm arguing with your claim that any of this is REQUIRED, or even that there is a principle involved beyond being generous. Go back and read through this discussion.; You aren't talking about the obvious fact that greed is a sin, you are claiming there is a definite requirement involved. Soi now you seem to be changing your argument. But nobody has been arguing that greed isn't a sin.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.