Importance of Original Sin

quote:

---

Acts 4:34-35 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.

---

So why is your system better than theirs?

You're an upstart arrogant modern unbeliever against some huge number of believers over the millennia, who cares how many since there are a lot more than just you and those who agree with you.

It isn't just me. It's pretty much everybody in this thread except you. It's everybody who can read. It's everybody who doesn't have an axe to grind.If you had an argument, you could present it instead of falling back on fallacy.

You are lying. I've made the argument many times over.

Every "argument" you've made has been soundly refuted. Leaving out things like, "and to keep back part of the price of the land," is not a valid argument. Legality is not a valid argument. Popularity is not a valid argument.

Because we no longer have Apostles...people we can trust---to hand it over to. There is no comparable system today that is anywhere near as integral as the one described in Acts.I can accept your argument that we are charged to give 100% in life. I can even agree with your argument that the specific group of believers mentioned in the Book Of Acts did, in fact, have a group consensus on giving 100%. What I am telling you and have told you before is that there is no group with trusted leaders with which I feel comfortable being in that same type of commitment with.On an individual level, I cannot argue with you. The lack of a modern group of people like the Believers in Acts makes the case for what Faith is frustratingly trying to explain.Finally, there is no comparable church that I know of today.

Nothing was left out. Ananias died on hearing the specific words about lying to the Holy Spirit. THAT'S WHAT THE TEXT SAYS.

There is other scripture that says we must work to take care of ourselves and our families, so it is simply not possible that we are charged with giving 100%. Ringo is as usual defending his own ridiculous misreading of the Bible.The best model I've heard of was John Wesley's policy of giving away whatever was in excess of what he needed to live on. He calculated his needs, quite conservatively I'm sure, and gave away anything he received that was more than that.People who have been asked to give all were especially chosen for some particular mission, such as a Hudson Taylor who became a missionary to China. During the years that led up to that he helped poor people in his area. In one case he had a coin left for his own meal and felt the Holy Spirit telling him to give it to the poor family instead. He did and it became a lesson to him in how the Lord provides for those who trust Him. But we are not all called to that degree of sellf-sacrifice. You have to be dedicated way beyond the norm. Taylor spent hours on his knees in prayer, and then spent the rest of his life in China.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There are lots of believers I don't agree with on some things but are nevertheless believers and would agree with me about this scripture..

It would be anybody who puts all trust in Christ for salvation which can vary from my own specific beliefs. If we don't believe we do not have the spiritual means for communicating with God. There are some basics, like you desire to know God, like you respect God's offer of salvation, like you are willing to repent and do things God's way. Those who have none of that should also have no ability to understand the Bible correctly. His stated intention was that He wanted everyone to repent and believe but we know there are lots of people who won't do that. You for instance.

They were handing their possessions over to God. Don't you trust God? You saw what happened to Ananias and Sapphira when they were untrustworthy. What do you think would happen to the trustees if they were untrustworthy? The trustworthiness of the system has nothing to do with whether or not you should obey God. And I'm telling you that that copout doesn't fly. No it doesn't. It's an excuse to hold back. And holding back makes you a goat.And Faith is not trying to "explain" anything. She's denying what the Bible says. There's no "explanation" that excuses that.

You're leaving it out again.

quote:

---

Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?

---

You're leaving out, "and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself." That's what the text says. Those are the specific words that Ananias heard. That's what you're leaving out.

As I said, he heard the words about lying to God and died. No mention of holding back money as the cause of his death. It's about lying to God, period.Yes, AGAIN, they were morally wrong to hold back part of the money but they were legally in the right to do so as the statement about it beig in their control shows. God punished them for lying to Him about it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I said, he heard the words about lying to God and keeping back part of the price of the land and he died. You're leaving out verse 3. It was definitely mentioned, right there in the same speech. It's about lying to God and keeping back part of the price of the land. You don't get to write periods into the Bible. AGAIN, the legality is irrelevant. It was the moral wrong that they were punished for. God punished them for lying to Him and keeping back part of the price of the land, as the text plainly says.

Well, you aren't going to give an inch and neither am I. I represent the history of Christian thought on this one though and you represent nothing but your own misreading of the text.