Either you’re writing a caricature of my approach or else I didn’t communicate clearly enough. Let me try again.

I have nothing against the practice of having all things in common in Jerusalem. I do not think that was a mistake, though I perhaps I made it sound that way. Jesus frequently preached that Jerusalem would fall, and so selling off properties that were soon to be worthless anyhow was an excellent move. Awful for the unbelievers who bought soon-to-be-conquered property, but a great move for the believers.

My basic point is this: complete sharing, with the needs of new believers provided for by the selling off of the properties of new entrants to the faith, is an unsustainable situation. Whenever it is attempted, it has resulted in poverty and will do so again. Even when it is a good idea, it is a temporary one, not a long-term plan.

I am most definitely not preferring a way which cannot be found in the Bible. The Bible is repeatedly clear about the government’s role in enforcing property rights and preventing theft. Paul, likewise, urges people to live off the work of their own hands and provide for their own families. He insists so strongly on this that he says that he who does not provide for his own has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Timothy 5:8). The context he says this in is when he is insisting that widows not go on church aid if they have relatives to provide for them.

Paul is very clear in stating that each person is to economically provide for himself, and that living off family is to be an exception, and living off the larger community even more exceptional. There is, of course, the option of throwing out Paul’s direct commands and instead relying on a particular one-time example from Acts, but I don’t think that’s a sound route to take.

It has never been my intention to argue that being a poor Christian is a failure state. Not providing for one’s own, however, is a failure state. That’s a critical distinction. There is no shame in not having much. There is shame in an able-bodied employable person demanding that the property of others be used to support him.

The same argument I am using to be anti-socialist is this: the government repeatedly supports the rights of people to their own private property. Throughout the New and Old Testaments, taking away what belongs to another for one’s own use is condemned as theft — even when the poor do it. Nowhere in the Bible is there an amendment which send “Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.”

That is most definitely not the same argument that could be used to legalize gay marriage, prostitution, or other biblically forbidden things. The Bible consistently reinforces property rights; never once does it declare a right to do whatever one wishes sexually. (As to gambling, the Bible never once prohibits it, and I wouldn’t either, though I don’t practice it myself.)

2. You have assumed being a poor christian is a failure state, whereas in numerous times throughout the New Testament it is clear the opposite is true. It’s quite a jewish way of thinking according to some jews (it’s one of their arguments for why Jesus isn’t the Messiah) but not at all a christian one. Besides the aim of socialism isn’t that you get richer, but the millions of people who are much poorer than you, become less poor.

In the end, throughout the NT, it’s been shown that glorifying personal possessions is a bad thing, but an allowable thing. The man who couldn’t get rid of his possessions, lost his faith because he couldn’t walk away, not because he had possessions, but the point you need that as a justification is the point perhaps where you need to give away all you have. You can’t look at it and say “right, I want to keep my possessions, so I’m just not going to be like that” . I think there is a good case about the voluntary aspect, and it seems to be biblical to try and do the best you can whilst letting everyone else, who is beyond God in their actions, carry on doing evil.

The man was wrong for lying. But it’s also clearly shown that it was his weak heart that made him keep his possessions and it is no glory to him that he kept them.

But in that case, the argument you are using to be anti-socialist and you must be aware of this, would be the same argument used for legalising same-sex partnerships, gambling, prostitution etc and everything else (except for abortion because you could argue that it denies of the choice of the unborn child). Maybe you do argue these things, in which case your argument is consistent, just not all of what you’ve presented here

Which is naturally a dangerous conclusion to make and in making it, you would be suggesting that a lot of things that people take as a lesson from the bible aren’t. No matter how you phrase it, you are suggesting it would be wrong of us to be like the examples given to us. And basing it off the phrase “But now I’m going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints. For it has pleased those from Mecedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints who are at Jerusalem.”

Makes for an inobvious conclusion. It shows further wealth distribution, and not the failing of a common property system, but merely a system where a lot of the people sharing are poor. You conclusion that the system made them poor is illogical and reading your own perspective into the bible.

I think of private property partially through this analogy (though I realize it is incomplete): If you have forty dollars, you could buy yourself a fancy dinner. Or you could buy me fancy dinner. Or you could get McDonald’s eight times. Or you could buy dinner for some kid for a month in the third word, for a month, along with a month worth of education and basic medical, through a charity like my personal favorite, Compassion International.

Now, you’d be doing a much better deed if you gave it to the third-world kid. And since the money is really the Lord’s we could argue that you must give it to the kid. Perhaps you would be selfish and choose McD’s instead. Suppose I, believing that you were misusing God’s property, decided to forcibly take it from you and give it to the kid. I would be wrong, because whether you are making a good or bad choice, it’s your money.

One problem that occurs when people discuss “capitalism” is that they may mean any of several different things. Some people mean a system which is designed to concentrate as much wealth as possible by legalizing the forceful exploitation of others, as happened in the early years of the U.S. and the Americas when they were first colonized. This I reject as immoral.

Some people mean an attitude of trying to make as much money as possible no matter what, and hoarding wealth at the expense of other people. This attitude I also reject as evil.

But when I use the word capitalism, I am referring to a system which allows people to spend their money as they see fit and work wherever they and an employer can reach mutual agreement on wages. That’s all. And I fail to see any clear reason that this capitalism is evil. Certainly, the fact that it did not exist in the garden of Eden does not make it evil, or else clothing, Old Testament law, Jesus Christ, and children would all be considered evil.

Again, the NT teaches against sin, but does allow that Christians will sin. Does that implicitly validate the sin?

I would after to disagree about capitalism. It is about individual profits, where as socialism is about creating a way for others to make profits. For me, capitalism is evil. For that matter, so is any economic system, as it wasn’t in God’s original plan.

I’d have to disagree with you as to whether private property is a biblical concept, because both the Old and New Testaments contain repeated support for the concept that people have the right to decide what to do with what is theirs. And if that’s not private property, I don’t know what is. And socialism, for all its talk of sharing common resources, inevitably includes redistribution of wealth and governmental control of factors of production, even when those were previously privately owned.

The passage in Acts was not about validating property rights, but property rights are implicitly assumed by Peter as valid in the discussion, as Peter makes it clear that Ananias was, before and after the sale, free to do what he wanted with his own land and money, but that it was his fraudulent speech that was unnacceptable.

There is no doubt that pooling of resources communally, and sharing, are part of the New Testament mindset. And it is my firm belief it should be part of our mindset today. But throughout the NT, as made clear by both Paul’s letters and Peter’s words to Ananias, it was always the sharing of whatever resources were voluntarily given from the possessions of private individuals. The agape meals are a continuation of that principle.

I disagree with your statement that capitalism is about profits. Both capitalism, socialism, and communism are systems which are all about money. I don’t see capitalism as a uniquely wealth-motivated system any more than the other two; it’s just a more efficient producer of material prosperity.

If humanity was without sin, any system would work. But in the meantime, one which recognizes the rights of the individual and contains strong incentives for effective work (capitalism) is still going to be the best at preventing poverty and allowing for the rule of law and order.

That all being said, I want to stress that I am absolutely in favor of the Church sharing resources.

No, the New Testament texts do not mention government enforcement, unless, you know, you count God among that. Considering that sharing resources is a church imitative, and that one day, we will rule with Christ, then pretty soon, you will have to sign a red card

In reality, a socialistic government is not about private property – which is not a biblical concept – neither is socialism about redistribution of wealth; but about sharing common resources through a democratically elected government. Nor was the passage in Acts about validating property rights, far from it. It is about lying to God, first of all, and second, about honoring your devotion to the community.

No, there is no government enforcement, but neither is their government enforcement with a lot of biblical (NT) commands. The passage does detect a communal understanding of resources and the sharing of resources, which is followed with the agape meals in later works and later times in the life of the primitive Church. Remember, a Christian is free to see after he or she comes to Christ, but does that mean that we are validating that sin? Hardly.

If capitalism is about profits – and it really is – then socialism is about the providing the basic needs of the community, especially those who cannot fend for themselves. Granted, if humanity was without sin, then no government or economic system on earth would be imperfect.

And legendary? Yeah, I can see that.