Acts20.com

I hear Pat Robertson on CBN for the first time in a really long time. Someone asked about socialism or communism and the early church. He said that the early church sold their belongings and had all things in common, and that was the reason they were poor and Paul and others had to raise funds for them. What do you think

Lol. Absolutely absurd.

Re: Pat Robertson-- having all things in common made them poor

I think that is a terrible approach using present day thinking applied to life 2000 years ago. OUCH! Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/

It makes me uncomfortable when modern Christians judge the actions of the apostles and the early church in Acts as unwise, sinful, etc.Pat Robertson is really into laissez faire and free operation of the market. Is he interpreting scripture through that rubric, making his economic theory superior to scripture in this instance? I read where one guy thought the apostles were wrong to appoint the Seven because they thought they were too good to wait tables.I've heard or read preachers or commentators blame the apostles for not spreading the gospel past Jerusalem, raising up Paul to do their job, or blaming the apostles for the persecution that arose which spread the gospel out of Jerusalem.Some other thoughts-- selling land was giving away lease-hold rights until the next Jubillee--- presumably. I'm assuming this applied to agricultural lands around Jerusalem. It might not have to houses in the city. That is assuming they were following the Jubillee. I assume they would have because I have heard about Hillel making some adjustments to the seventh year interest laws. Joseph/Barnabas was a Levite, so he might have been surrendering lease-hold rights without having land return to him later.Also, a laissez faire cannot function without some sort of government structure to ensure the contracts are enforced. Intellectual property rights are government interference and not laissez faire

When are you guys going to quit putting any stock into what Robertson says

Because Robertson said it?Every new movement, flush with passion and true-belief, usually goes to extremes. Just like the early Church of God made some decisions about what holiness was that, later, had to be set aside. And yet some of us (me) still has a fondness for those times, because it was associated with our youth, with a golden time in the Church of God in terms of evangelism and the such, etc.The early church was not commanded to hold all things in common. They almost certainly did it out of having an abundant and generous heart. But, indeed, it likely DID make them poor. Yes, they also had a lot of other guff to put up with due to their faith, but that alone would not seem to explain their poverty.Oh, because they loved the Lord and gave so generously, God would have blessed them anyway? Fine. Give your ENTIRE PAYCHECK to your local church from now on. See if your electric bills and other things still get paid.Yes, God DOES bless us for giving. But we are also called upon to be good stewards of what He DOES give us. And if we get all excited about something and make a poor decision, that's on us. I know of one woman who got taken in a Ponzi scheme. She had asked me my advise and I told her that returns like that were just not feasible, but she was so sure the person was a good Christian man.... And so she lost $50,000. Do we suppose that a church that doesn't pay IT'S bills in order to send money to missions will long survive? Indeed, if God lays it on the heart of that church, DO IT! And sometimes that DOES happen. But when people are giving to mission, but are then hit upon to give to now pay the bills of the church...it's not going to end well, usually.There is NO REASON to think that Robertson isn't right. Now, he may be limited in his views--since I think that capitalism can make people very poor also (as can ANY worldly economic system, due to the greed of men)--but it certainly stands to reason that if WE (here, now) sold what we had and gave everything to the church...WAIT, we kind of tried that...and it cost Tomlinson his general overseership.In a nutshell, tithes came to headquarters for redistribution as needed. Only Tomlinson felt (and in a sense, he was likely right) that the bills for the Publishing House had to take priority over this or that local pastor, since the PH as reaching many more with the gospel.It's also didn't work due to some pastors feeling as if their successful labors to grow their church and, ultimately, support themselves, was being undercut by having to pay for pastors who weren't doing as good of a job. (This is the same thinking that many of us have about having to work so hard for what we have, but then pay taxes to support those who won't work.)So, this NOBLE and WELL-INTENTIONED desire to hold all things in common and the such, well, it unfortunately just doesn't work for long. Why? Because people, even Christians, are human. And some are going to work night and day to deserve what they get...and others, like Dave and Nature Boy Florida...are going to sit around and collect welfare (SMILE).

OK.So guys like Barnabas were selling property and giving it to the church.Everybody was taking care of everybody's needs.The church was growing 3,000 per day at times. If only they had a Pat Robertson back then to tell them the truth.Hmmm - perhaps there was something to everyone making sure every church member was taken care of - instead of just asking for tithes to support a building and preachers salaries