I gave the example of Ananias and Sapphira to show that there is no principle of giving everything required. You take a specific text and extend it to a principle without any warrant, and you want me to prove that's wrong?
No, as I said, Ananias and Saphira were not punished for holding back since they had every right to dispose of their property as they wished, they were punished for lying about it. That is very clear in the text.
What was the other NT example? Neither of those I answered show anything but a specific situation, not a principle.
Id did prove that it is not a principle by the example of Ananias and Saphhira.
...they were punished for lying about it. That is very clear in the text.
That isn't what it says:
quote:Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
What they did wrong was lying AND keeping back part of the land.
What was the other NT example?
1. Jesus telling the rich man to sell what he had and give to the poor. 2. The lady giving all she had while the rich men held back.
And in the Old Testament: 1. Elijah telling the widow to give him all of her food (TELLING her, mind you, despite her protests). 2. Achan, who was punished for holding back some of the spoils from a captured Canaanite city. (I didn't mention that one before.)
These examples are just off the top of my head. There may be more.
Neither of those I answered show anything but a specific situation, not a principle.
A plethora of examples suggests a principle. Have you given a counter-example at all?
Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
IF there is any impolication that they were wrong to keep it back it could only be because they'd promised to give it all and then changed their mind or something like that because clearly they had no obligation to give iit all otherwise as the verse above says very clearly.
... they had no obligation to give iit all otherwise as the verse above says very clearly.
The verse says nothing of the kind. It says that their violation was lying and holding back, period. You can take your crayon and write in that they would not have been punished if they ha only held back the land, but that isn't what the verse says.
What the whole incident illustrates is that the early Church considered giving everything to be an important principle. Maybe because of what Jesus said to the rich man, or maybe because it was an important principle going back to Old Testament times.
All you did was claim that they were isolated examples. How many examples do you need before they're not isolated any more?
... except Achan, and he stole the stuff against the clear command not to touch any of it. What does that have to do with a principle of giving all?
He was told to give it all and he didn't. How much plainer could it get?
Achan stole from the community and the community is equated with God. Remember, the tithe belongs to God but is used by the community. Similarly, the spoils of war belong to God but are used by the community. God owns the cattle on a thousand hills but they are used by the community.
Re: Conservative Cal Thomas (on a conservative site townhall.com) said this:
No. Public wqrks is a function of every responsible government, it is not socialism. No. Public works is for the nation itself, socialism takes from some to give to others.
Okay, lets follow the logic. Taxes are collected without your consent from the private sector in order to fund various public programs, like fire, police, public works, courts, libraries, public transportation, etc. How do you not understand that is, on the most basic level, socialism?
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine