Is there any doubt the first Christians were socialists?

Question

The disciples were forbidden to have money, except for a common purse, of which Judas was the treasurer (John 13: 29)
They had common ownership of property and the marxist principle of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is espoused
Acts 2: 44-47
And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Acts 4: 32-35
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
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.

IslandGuy is right, I just didn't want to freak you all out with the C word

oldguy and Martin, can you please stop correcting people who know the bible much better than you do

Matthew 10:9
Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses

Answer 1

No, they were actually COMMUNISTS. Socialism in something completely different. The Acts texts you quote are obviously communist in nature, not socialist.

BTW, "communism" is NOT a dirty word, you know, I say this because I see people coming up with all kinds of definitions above... just READ the Acts texts! It's pretty obvious.

See this interesting article in the Wikipedia on Christian Communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

Peace!

Answer 2

First of all you misquote John 13;29 - there is nothing in the Bible anywhere that says the disciples were "forbidden" to have money. Judas was the treasurer. I have been in many organizations including churches that have treasurers, and people are still able to have their own money. The initial church had everything in common, but that did not continue and there is nothing that teaches that is a guiding principle. It is just a historical fact. Christians ar taaught in the Bible that if you have and someone does not then you should give to their needs.

Answer 3

Noun: socialism
1. A political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. An economic system based on state ownership of capital

In the Bible quotes you give above, where is the state which owns either the industry or the capital?

Regardless, since the disciples always retained the freedom to choose, they were not "forbidden" to do anything. Instead, if they chose to be, or remain, disciples, there were rules to follow - just as there are rules for participation in most everything (including Yahoo Answers). If they decided to choose something else, the rules were entirely gone.

The same is true for all Christians today. Nobody is forcing them to be a Christian and they are not forbidden to do anything. Instead, they choose. Many atheists are not satisfied with that, and would, almost fanatically, rather see that choice removed.

Answer 4

The disciples were not forbidden to have money. Peter and John and Matthew the tax collecter all owned houses. Judas kept the donated money that they used to travel around with as a group since they were not back at their trades earning their own money.

When the church first started out many of the Jews lost their social standing and were in need of charity that the other Jewish Christians supplied. That was simply another special contingency situation where they all banded together and helped each other out just like people might do after a natural disaster.

The idea isn't a socialist form of government as much as it is of a large extended family where everyone is willing to help their many brothers and sisters with whatever they have out of love and loyalty to one another.

1 John 3:16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. 17 But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.

Answer 5

You really do not have to validate your point. Its a fact. The only difference is that socialism is built on the idea that people are basically good and will do right if you treat them well.. WRONG! (he he) The deciples were filled with the holy spirit wich enabled them to be reborn basically good therefore the socialism worked. I wish today's church would be so close. That would be awesome!
Great point!
GOD bless ya

Answer 6

There's a big difference between voluntary socialism and government-forced socialism. One works and one doesn't. They may have behaved as socialists, but that doesn't mean they would have condoned a governmental system in which everyone was required to behave as such.

Answer 7

Acts 2 places the early Christians as firmly socialist, but maybe they weren't the first.

Answer 8

a person could get assassenated for telling the truth like this

the republicans are working on a way to make it harder to get truth out, if we do not stop them b4 the election after it will slowly disappear like relitively uninterupted TV did back in the 50s
see this site

savetheinternet.com sorry don't know how to do the underline thingy

Answer 9

The short answer is no. The early church in Jerusalem was a unique case and not a pattern for the Church. The main difference between the early Church and socialism is that it was voluntary, there was not a government entity forcing people to "share" their wealth. The commentary below will help you sort this out.

Act 2:44 -
All that believed - That is, that believed that Jesus was the Messiah; for that was the distinguishing point by which they were known from others.
Were together - Were united; were joined in the same thing. It does not mean that they lived in the same house, but they were united in the same community, or engaged in the same thing. They were doubtless often together in the same place for prayer and praise. One of the best means for strengthening the faith of young converts is for them often to meet together for prayer, conversation, and praise.
Had all things common - That is, all their property or possessions. See Act_4:32-37; Act_5:1-10. The apostles, in the time of the Saviour, evidently had all their property in common stock, and Judas was made their treasurer. They regarded themselves as one family, having common needs, and there was no use or propriety in their possessing extensive property by themselves. Yet even then it is probable that some of them retained an interest in their property which was not supposed to be necessary to be devoted to the common use. It is evident that John thus possessed property which he retained, Joh_19:27. And it is clear that the Saviour did not command them to give up their property into a common stock, nor did the apostles enjoin it: Act_5:4, “While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold was it not in thine own power?” It was, therefore, perfectly voluntary, and was as evidently adapted to the special circumstances of the early converts. Many of them came from abroad. They were from Parthia, and Media, and Arabia, and Rome, and Africa, etc. It is probable, also, that they now remained longer in Jerusalem than they had at first proposed; and it is not at all improbable that they would be denied now the usual hospitalities of the Jews, and excluded from their customary kindness, because they had embraced Jesus of Nazareth, who had been just put to death. In these circumstances, it was natural and proper that they should share their property while they remained together.

Act 2:45 -
And sold - That is, they sold as much as was necessary in order to procure the means of providing for the needs of each other.
Possessions - Property, particularly real estate. This word, κτήματα ktēmata, refers properly to their fixed property, as lands, houses, vineyards, etc. The word rendered “goods,” ὑπάρξεις huparxeis, refers to their personal or movable “property.”
And parted them to all - They distributed them to supply the needs of their poorer brethren, according to their necessities.
As every man had need - This expression limits and fixes the meaning of what is said before. The passage does not mean that they sold all their possessions, or that they relinquished their title to all their property, but that they so far regarded all as common as to be willing to part with it if it was needful to supply the needs of the others. Hence, the property was laid at the disposal of the apostles, and they were desired to distribute it freely to meet the needs of the poor, Act_4:34-35.
This was an important incident in the early propagation of religion, and it may suggest many useful reflections:
1. We see the effect of religion. The love of property is one of the strongest affections which people have. There is nothing that will overcome it but religion. That will; and one of the first effects of the gospel was to loosen the hold of Christians on property.
2. It is the duty of the church to provide for the needs of its poor and needy members. There can be no doubt that property should now be regarded as so far common as that the needs of the poor should be supplied by those who are rich. Compare Mat_26:11.
3. If it be asked why the early disciples evinced this readiness to part with their property in this manner, it may be replied:
(1)That the apostles had done it before them. The family of the Saviour had all things common.
(2)it was the nature of religion to do it.
(3)the circumstances of the persons assembled on this occasion were such as to require it. They were many of them from distant regions, and probably many of them of the poorer class of the people in Jerusalem. In this they evinced what should be done in behalf of the poor in the church at all times.
4. If it be asked whether this was done commonly among the early Christians, it may be replied that there is no evidence that it was. It is mentioned here, and in Act_4:32-37, and Act_5:1-7. It does not appear that it was done even by all who were afterward converted in Judea; and there is no evidence that it was done in Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, Rome, etc. That the effect of religion was to make people liberal and willing to provide for the poor there can be no doubt. See 2Co_8:19; 2Co_9:2; 1Co_16:2; Gal_2:10. But there is no proof that it was common to part with their possessions and to lay them at the feet of the apostles. Religion does not contemplate, evidently, that people should break up all the arrangements in society, but it contemplates that those who have property should be ready and willing to part with it for the help of the poor and needy.
5. If it be asked, then, whether all the arrangements of property should be broken up now, and believers have all things in common, we are prepared to answer “No.” Because:
(1)This was an extraordinary case.
(2)it was not even enjoined by the apostles on them.
(3)it was practiced nowhere else.
(4)it would be impracticable. No community where all things were held in common has long prospered. It has been attempted often, by pagans, by infidels, and by fanatical sects of Christians. It ends soon in anarchy, licentiousness, idleness, and profligacy; or the more cunning secure the mass of the property, and control the whole. Until all people are made alike, there could be no hope of such a community; and if there could be, it would not be desirable. God evidently intended that people should be excited to industry by the hope of gain; and then he demands that their gains shall be devoted to his service. Still, this was a noble instance of Christian generosity, and evinced the power of religion in loosing the hold which people commonly have on the world. It rebukes also those professors of religion, of whom, alas, there are many, who give nothing to benefit either the souls or bodies of their fellow-men.

Answer 10

I wouldn't call it "socialism" per se. The reason is that they did this out of their hearts and did not have to. That is more "communalism".
For me, "socialism" is more forced on someone.