I have an interesting question for christians and I would love to know your thoughts on the topic. Not only your thoughts but how you back up what you believe with scripture.

We all as Christians still sin but we don't die when we do. I believe the Bible teaches the grace of God is how we get saved this side of the cross. In other words, it is about the finished work of our savior the Lord Jesus Christ by grace through faith. So how does the story of Ananias and Sapphira fits in with grace and the church. How could this have happened?

Tess – I’m sure there are many others who have wrestled with this same event…myself included. I’d like to offer my thoughts on this and I mean to continue our other discussion.

Ok, let’s summarize Acts 1-5 (up until the event with Ananias and Sapphira (A&N)). Luke has been recording the events immediately following Christ’s ascension. Miracles are performed; the power of the Spirit of God is displayed through the Apostles and the church is growing and thriving…so much so that the collective generosity of the church was documented by Luke; he made a point to illustrate how united they were in one spirit and how the supernatural activity of God was working wonderful things in the midst of all to see.

People were experiencing the grace and the mercy of God in such a profound and powerful way so as you are reading this account, suddenly we come to the events of A&N, which seems to disrupt all of the wonderful things that were being done. The reader is left to puzzle over why Luke decides to record this event after all the great things God had done. Why? Why this event? Why does Luke record this? I think we find this event sandwiched in the middle of all these wonderful things to remind the church and the reader of something very important: God is a God of mercy first; but God is also just and righteous and he hates sin.

Ok, but couldn’t any of us have been A&N? All of us are guilty of the same kinds of sin; and at times even worse. Why aren’t we struck down dead for our sins like they were? Well, maybe it is fitting to first understand what it was they were guilty of and go from there. Were A&N guilty of just lying? No. Peter says that they “lied to the Holy Spirit.” That’s certain. But what else? Barnabas had earlier been recorded as having given his land up for sale and giving all of the proceeds to the church and the church no doubt were encouraged by his sacrifice. So much so that A&N decided to get in on the act. Presumably, they saw the attention that Barnabas’ act of generosity received and desired to follow Barnabas in his act…only it is later revealed that their act of generosity was motivated for the wrong reasons. A&N had sold their land but they withheld all of the money; they wanted the glory of their sacrificial act without the reality of it…they wanted their cake and to eat it, too. What was their evil? They were hypocrites. They acted as if being charitable to the saints was what was motivating their hearts but their real desire was for glory and not to bless the saints. “They wanted the credit and the prestige for sacrificial generosity, without the inconvenience of it. So, in order to gain a reputation to which they had no right, they told a brazen lie. Their motive in giving was not to relieve the poor, but to fatten their own ego” (John Stott). They failed to realize that the Spirit of God knew their hearts and so they were put to death for their evil.

But again, why weren’t they just ridiculed in the same manner that Peter was by Paul? Wasn’t Peter’s evil just as bad as this offence? Why wasn’t Peter struck down? Why wasn’t Peter struck down when he denied Jesus? Here are a couple of thoughts to consider. First, when it comes right down to it, if mercy is mercy, we don’t deserve mercy; mercy is given to us from God. God reserves the right to grant mercy to whomever he wants to, whenever he wants to. And if he chooses not to be merciful, then he has the right to destroy someone. That’s God’s prerogative. We cannot presume on God’s mercy…it is not a given.

Is God unjust for killing A&N? No. Killing them served his purpose at that moment. What was that purpose? I think it was to remind the church of the fact that he is both merciful and longsuffering but that he is also just…he will not always respond to sin with mercy. I think that he also demonstrated his desire for the church to be filled with authentic believers. Jesus often rebuked the Pharisees for being hypocrites. They claimed to be one way but inwardly they were not committed to God at all. Jesus gave the sternest rebukes of all to them because ultimately their hypocrisy was damnable…God wasn’t just saying to them “hey, guys, cut it out…be real and stuff.” He was saying to them, “unless you repent and bear fruits worthy of repentance, you will be destroyed.” You cannot fake a commitment to God to both men and God…we can fool men, but God searches our hearts.

So were A&N not authentic believers? Were they unbelievers masquerading as believers? Ultimately, we don’t know…the text doesn’t say. There’s no reason to believe that they were but it’s also equally possible that they were believers and God just chose to take their lives at that moment. But if they are believers, then for God to judge them in that way is not a problem; they will not be found guilty for their sins on the Day of Judgment…God will overlook their sins and be merciful to them. But if they are not believers, then this event served as a visible reminder of God’s attitude towards hypocrites. Ultimately, I believe that God’s mercy triumphs over his judgment but lest we forget…he is just.

This event is a sobering reality. It was awe-inspiring…” Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.” Not fear in the sense that God is a ruthless tyrant, waiting to drop the hammer on us; but godly fear. A healthy respect for who God is and for his rightful place of importance in this world. It is a fondness for his love and his mercy and a right understanding that God is different from us…he is awesome and morally perfect; we are not. And godly fear is good because with it we see our need for mercy and God’s willingness to give it. And I also see in this event an invitation for others to see their evil and come to God for mercy.

I think the key is the "great fear" that came upon the church. A lot of these people were used to the little games that their Jewish leaders played with the law and the rules; this event illustrates that we've got something new here. This is no game, folks. You're in or you're out, there are no fringes here where you can be a part-time believer. Peter pointed out that the money was theirs to do with as they pleased, and if they didn't want to give it, they didn't have to. If they only wanted to give part of it, they could do that, too. But you're giving to God, not to men, so be straight about whatever you're going to do. You notice it only took one example and nobody tried that again. I suspect that's the reason. Harsh, but effective.

I see it as perhaps a reminder to the church, that Yes, there is grace, and yes there is forgiveness, but that God also can and does punish us for our actions. They may well be forgiven and saved, but it also does not mean that we can not be punished for our misdeeds. A Christian does not have freedom to sin and sin without paying a price also

Fr-Chuck,

but your thoughts are in contrast to what the bible teaches. Now that isn't to say we can sin and sin and there is no consequence as a believer. The Lord will chastise us. But he doesn't KILL us. The bible says where sin abounds Grace much MORE abounds. You can't out sin grace. And Jesus was already PUNISHED completely for our sins. I'm just saying...

Dave,

Think your thoughts don't line up with grace. There are no exceptions. Sin is sin, grace is grace. Jesus was PUNISHED for our sins already. The Lord chastises us this side of the cross.. he doesn't take our lives or we would all be dead. Any sin I commit is always against the LORD. So I am struggling to buy that explanation. All scriptures must fit together. It doesn't go with what Paul preaches.

Jake,

as usual you really dove into this question and put a lot of thought into it.

The thing is the bible doesn't SAY they were believers. However, Peter certainly thought they were and remember if you were a Jew and you believed in the Lord Jesus you were an outcast to your family and all other Jews. It wouldn't be easy back then to follow the Lord Jesus and be part of that group. So we are NOT sure they were believers but I really think they were but if they weren't that would be the answer. I think.

I still stand by the word of the God that Grace more abounds over sin in the church period today. God does NOT deal with his church this way. I mean, I have wanted my cake and I have eaten it too! Too many times and even at my lowest point all I ever received from the Lord Jesus was grace,grace and MORE grace. I stand in awe at how much grace was poured out on me when I was in a sin cycle. It is understanding this grace that made me want to die to the sin. It wasn't judgement that made me stop. It was love, grace and mercy. I think the NT is full of that truth. We'd all be dead in my estimation if the Lord dealt with us in this way.

My father always said this is how the Lord first dealt with the church and because sin came in it is in ruin. That is why we have all these denominations and the body doesn't agree. Can't buy that one either. No one can satisfy me because we have to compare scripture with scripture and put it all in context. This story doesn't fit into what we call the church period today.

OK... how about this explanation. See if I am off the wall here.

I am really big into putting the bible into context. Understanding what is going on at that point in history, who is speaking, why and all that. If you have read any of my posts, you know that.

Even when Peter preached at Pentacost and 3000 were saved, he didn't know anything about Christianity, the body of Christ, Grace, the church period. We see Peter and the others still going to temple.. still following the law. They are waiting for the Lord to set up his Kingdom here on earth. They have no clue that gentiles would be included. This is another reason people get so confused and think you have to be baptised in order to be saved! Because Peter said to repent and be baptised! It needs to be put in context.

Now I understand if A&S were saved they were part of the church.. but none of them had any knowledge of the church period. It wasn't until several chapters later that Paul was introduced and saved. Paul was the one that was given the gospel as we know it today and the revelation of the church, the bride or the body of Christ.

So, I'm just asking you all, Could this be a picture ( A&S) of how it will be when the Lord Jesus sets up his kingdom on earth for 1000 years. If people sin openly in that day, they die. There will be no trial, no jury. The Lord Jesus willl judge every morning. In fact after 1000 years of him having totally authority, satan is let loose and the people who obeyed the Lord because they HAD to will revolt. They don't like his power OK.t I am digressing... sorry.

Any thoughts? Enlighten me.

Jake,

I read your post again. I get it. I know exactly what you are saying and I think you are right and yet it SILL doesn't fit with grace. Does it? It fits under law and the OT.

Dave,

Think your thoughts don't line up with grace. There are no exceptions. sin is sin, grace is grace. Jesus was PUNISHED for our sins already. the Lord chastises us this side of the cross..he doesn't take our lives or we would all be dead. Any sin I commit is always against the LORD. So I am struggling to buy that explanation. All scriptures must fit together. it doesn't go with what Paul preaches.

I get what you're saying, and I'm inclined to agree. At the same time, we have passages like this one.

For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Cor 5:3-5)

(The NIV reads "sinful nature" instead of "flesh" which is one of my biggest gripes, and why I went with the KJV here, just so' you know.)

And this:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (1 Cor 11:29-30)

So even Paul seems to allow for the Lord to practice a little corporal punishment when He deems it necessary. I really don't know a definitive answer to your question, that's just my take on it, and I sure won't go to the stake for it!

Jake,

I read your post again. I get it. I know exactly what you are saying and I think you are right and yet it SILL doesn't fit with grace. does it? It fits under law and the OT.

I want to answer this question and I will when I get the first opportunity to today.

TTYL

Ohhhh great verses Dave.

Ok here on my thoughts. If you read what Paul was writing to the church in cornith and put it in context it is easy to see that communion is a big deal. It wasn't their sin that made them unworthy. It was their not decerning the bread and the wine. I believe taking holy communion can heal the body but when you go to the Lord's table to eat drink and be merry... you miss the whole point. It is no longer holy communion, it is no longer representing the Lord's broken body for us or his shed blood. They weren't sick and weak and dying because of sin. It was because they didn't come to the table understanding it wasn't a meal. These elements represent the Lord and has healing qualities if we take them with understanding.

AND... love that you brought up the guy living with his step momma ( ewwwwwww I have a step son... it is a disgusting thing to think abou fyi)
OK the way I read it, in context is simple... the congregation in general were glorying in the relationship. Paul was appalled rightly so. He told them to put him out of their fellowship so he would change his behavior. The Lord always disciplines the ones he loves... letting Satan get a hold if this guy IS discipline. ( This brother gave satan access to his life by living this way. When we get to 2 corinthians, it looks as though the man repented. But he never lost his salvation... not ever. Don't you just love eternal security.

and I don't have the answers either.. I'm just thinking outloud and love to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter. It is a great way to grow. Enjoyed your comments, scripture and thoughts. :)

I want to answer this question and I will when I get the first opportunity to today.

TTYL

Great. Just when you can. Love hearing your thoughts.

Hi Tess,

I think you have hit upon is yet another example of what is known as as the 'Euthyphro Dilemma'. Seems to happen sometimes when people compare the Old and New Testaments.

The story goes something like this. In Ancient Greece there was a priest named Euthyphro. He was only his way to court to prosecute his uncle for the death of a slave. Socrates stops Euthyphro on his way to court and asks him why he is going to prosecute his favorite uncle. To which Euthyphro replies, "Because the Gods require I do this". Socrates in his usual annoying fashion asks. " Is what you are doing morally right simply because the Gods command it, or is it the case that the Gods would only ever command something morally right?". Euthyphro goes away totally confused.

The same problem still exists today and there doesn't seem to be a satisfactory answer. Today it is know as the problem of immoral commands. In other words, either God prohibits something because it is wrong, or God commanding something automatically makes it wrong. This is regardless of whether we see certain acts such as the killing of A and S to be wrong.

Clearly, there is a problem here. People tend to say, "clearly there must be something wrong here with God's commands if he demands the death of people who haven't done much wrong at all. Anyway, compared to other people in history.

Like yourself. Most people want an objective account of morality. In other words, there is a necessary connection between religion, morality and objectivity. God, sometimes doing things 'out of the blue' doesn't fit in well with this account.

Some people would counter by saying that God has certain attitudes towards what is right and wrong and his attitude towards these things is all that matters. If God decides that A and S should die, then this is all that matters. Clearly this is an objective account of some type, but it is not an objective account of morality.

On the other hand, if we want an objective account of morality then we need to come up with something other than a version of the divine command theory. In other words, we would rather claim that God prohibits things which are morally wrong. On this basis we need to provide a satisfactory explanation of some of the O.T stories while at the same time providing an objective account of morality. I have no idea how this would be done.

Regards
Tut

Clearly, there is a problem here. People tend to say, "clearly there must be something wrong here with God's commands if he demands the death of people who haven't done much wrong at all. Anyway, compared to other people in history.

Good points, Tut. This episode compounds the question, because God didn't just command their deaths, he struck them down directly. If someone in the room, even Peter, had said "God commands that you be put to death," there might be room to question whether he actually heard from God or misunderstood something, but what is recorded here leaves little room for doubt!

HI Tess,
I personally see them as still under the law and not under grace. So, under the law their crime was punishable by death. And death is what they got.

Tut,

The Lord will never do something randomly or outside of his word. He places his word ABOVE his name.

There IS an answer to A&S. A definite reason why this story is recorded. I'm not comparing this story with the OT. I'm comparing it to the Church period. It doesn't appear to fit in with grace and what Paul wrote that where sin abounds grace much MORE abounds. Since the gospel of grace and the church period was something that Peter and the 12 were completely in the dark about during the time A&S were struck dead by GOD, perhaps we need to take a second look at it. I don't think the Lord was dealing with them like he does the church today. He delt with them like he will when he rules and reigns when he sets up his Kingdom.

HI Tess,
I personally see them as still under the law and not under grace. So, under the law their crime was punishable by death. And death is what they got.

Hey! How are you?

Yes, it doesn't fit at all with grace. But the Lord has died and rose.. so it doesn't fit under the law either. I think it is a picture of the Kingdom and how it will run when the Lord Jesus is on the throne.

Also it really is important to notice the bible never records these two were saved. I have a tendency to think they were, like I stated before, you were an outcast to own the name of Christ back then.

Tut,

The Lord will never do something randomly or outside of his word. He places his word ABOVE his name.


Hi again Tess,

Isn't this the thing you are questioning in your original post?


Tut

Yes, it doesn't fit at all with grace. But the Lord has died and rose ..so it doesn't fit under the law either. I think it is a picture of the Kingdom and how it will run when the Lord Jesus is on the throne.


An interesting idea... if one is premillennial :p But seriously, I do have a problem with it, because it only seems to have happened this one time, and if it's such a picture, it's a mighty obscure one.

Hi again Tess,

Isn't this the thing you are questioning in your original post?


Tut

Tut,

Well, sort of. But I know that I know God doesn't do something random or without a reason. It does fit... but I want to know where. Either these two were NEVER saved... or the Lord is showing us something else. It just has nothing in the world to do with Grace. It can't. That is my point... ( I think?):confused:

An interesting idea...if one is premillennial :p But seriously, I do have a problem with it, because it only seems to have happened this one time, and if it's such a picture, it's a mighty obscure one.

Well OK again thinking outloud. When Peter preached and 3000 were saved... what did he preach? Wasn't it repent and be baptized. He had no knowledge of Ephesians... where we are placed, the gift of righteousness... living not under the law but by faith. Am I right or am I right? Where do you think this story belongs. Is it under grace. Am I off on some strange tangent. ( so unlike me :D)

Thinking again... If at the stoning of stephen the people hadn't rejected his message don't you think the Lord would have come back to set up his Kingdom. I mean stephen ( before he died) said he saw the LORD standing at the right hand of the Father... why was he standing? Could it be he was ready to come back he wanted the nation of Israel to accept stephen's message? Later we see in Hebrews ( I think it is hebrews) he is sitting at the right hand. Don't you think it means something that he was standing and now sitting. I do. What say you? Actually I need to read the passages again. I'm going to take a second look at Stephen's stoning and make sure I have the standing and sitting correctly. But I think that is what I remember.

Well ok again thinking outloud. when Peter preached and 3000 were saved...what did he preach? wasn't it repent and be baptized. He had no knowledge of Ephesians...where we are placed, the gift of righteousness....living not under the law but by faith. Am i right or am I right? Where do you think this story belongs. Is it under grace. Am i off on some strange tangent. ( so unlike me :D)

thinking again....If at the stoning of stephen the people hadn't rejected his message don't you think the Lord would have come back to set up his Kingdom. I mean stephen ( before he died) said he saw the LORD standing at the right hand of the Father...why was he standing? Could it be he was ready to come back he wanted the nation of Israel to accept stephen's message? Later we see in Hebrews ( i think it is hebrews) he is sitting at the right hand. Don't you think it means something that he was standing and now sitting. I do. What say you? Actually I need to read the passages again. I'm going to take a second look at Stephen's stoning and make sure I have the standing and sitting correctly. But I think that is what I remember.

You're right about the standing/sitting thing, don't worry. The way I've always heard it, he was standing to welcome Stephen as the first Christian martyr. That works for me, but other ideas are probably equally valid.

Getting back to the original question, I gave my thoughts on it - a fairly harsh illustration to the blossoming church that this isn't a game where you can play around hedging the rules, seeing what you can get away with and lying about it, the way their previous religious system had been monkeying with the Law. Give or don't give, just be straight about it. We're told that as a result, "great fear" came upon the rest of the church, and it would appear that nobody else ever tried such a stunt. Point made.

That's my take on it, but again, I won't go to the lions' den for it. From your theological starting point I think your idea makes sense in a way, so your view has as much chance of being right as mine does. That's about as much as I can add that isn't just basic fluff and chit-chat. Not that I don't enjoy doing those things with you, too ;)

Dave,

Well your view is exactly what I was brought up on. Just doesn't fit into grace... I don't care how you slice it. But I understand.

Ok.. here is some chit chat. Oh please on the welcoming Stephen the martyr... like he needs our blood. His is the only blood needed. But I too have heard that... I like my thoughts better... it fits better into my ideaRRRS about grace and the Lord setting up his kingdom. According to the bible the death of the saints are all precious to the Lord Jesus. And yeah.. I'm picking a fight withja. Even if you aren't ready to head to the Lions den for it. I'm bored Dave... what can I say?

Dave,

well your view is exactly what I was brought up on. Just doesn't fit into grace...i don't care how you slice it. But I understand.

Ok..here is some chit chat. Oh please on the welcoming Stephen the martyr...like he needs our blood. His is the only blood needed. but I too have heard that...i like my thoughts better...it fits better into my ideaRRRS about grace and the Lord setting up his kingdom. According to the bible the death of the saints are all precious to the Lord Jesus. and yeah..i'm picking a fight withja. Even if you aren't ready to head to the Lions den for it. I'm bored Dave...what can i say?

I'm equally bored, so let's have some fun!

I don't mean that Jesus "needed" Stephen's blood in any way, or anything like that. What I've heard, and what I tentatively can accept, is that Stephen was the first one to lose his life for the gospel. Jesus standing to meet him as he crossed the threshold was an act of respect, not something Jesus needed. Who knows? Maybe he honors all martyrs this way.

I think we're at an impasse with the A&N question, so I'm fine if you want to run with this a bit :)

no where in scripture does it say that these two are burning in hell. Know this ,there is a sin which is unto death 1 john 4:16-17 Simply put,when a born again Christian lives in a manner that is utterly sinful,God has the wisdom and grace to end the fleshly life of those who seriously injure the cause of Christ and the gospel. These two,attempting to lie to God,and shame the church at such an early age in church history may well have posed such a threat. God is not mocked. So then, realize the holiness of a righteous God. He is so perfect and Holy,even his anger and hatred is more perfect, righteous and holy than our filthy ragged righteousness. Therefor,be wary,our sin will find us out,for God's word is not broken. Let us not be pretentious.

Belovedgift,

I have been taught that all my life but I've been studying grace and now I'm not so sure about that. I don't think that God comes in and takes our lives if we aren't doing right.

The writer of Hebrews is writing concerning discipline and how the Father disciplines those he loves. Check out what he says in Hebrews:

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected , and we gave [them] reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and [U]LIVE?


It sounds more to me that discipline is so that we may LIVE. I don't know? I could be wrong. But Grace is unmerited and undeserved favor. If God can then take someone who didn't deserve his forgiveness in the first place, who did nothing to earn it, then where is the grace? That sounds more like law to me.

The bible never says that A&S were saved. Maybe that really is the answer. I have a hard time believing it just because of how much a Jew was persecuted for owning the name of Jesus. But... maybe.

It is written that:

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

This is referring to the Second Coming of Christ. Why then was ananias and sapphira condemned without GRACE or Mercy?

BECAUSE:

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Matthew 12:31-32)


As Peter puts it:

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? (Acts 5:3)

And these happened:

Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. (1 Corinthians 10:11)

Praise the Lord!

I have been taught that all my life but I've been studying grace and now I'm not so sure about that. I don't think that God comes in and takes our lives if we aren't doing right.
Do not be deceived,God is not mocked . Whatsoever a man sows,that shall he also reap. Galatians 6:7

I have been taught that all my life but I've been studying grace and now i'm not so sure about that. I don't think that God comes in and takes our lives if we aren't doing right.
do not be deceived,God is not mocked . whatsoever a man sows,that shall he also reap. Galatians 6:7

Simply throwing Bible verses around doesn't answer the question or further the discussion.

I have been taught that all my life but I've been studying grace and now i'm not so sure about that. I don't think that God comes in and takes our lives if we aren't doing right.
do not be deceived,God is not mocked . whatsoever a man sows,that shall he also reap. Galatians 6:7


I'm not sure that verse you quoted is in context. If we are living under do good get good... do bad get bad... then where is the grace? Where is the unmerited, underserved favor? How can I be punished for sin when God already punished the Lord Jesus and I accepted him?

Wow, I just started looking up the meanings of their names. I don't know if I am on the right track... but it appears that ananias means God is GRACious... and Sapphira... comes from the jewel saphire. Did you know that the jews believe the tablets of stone that the 10 commandments were made of were blue like sapphire.

Is this a stretch? When you mix Grace and Law together ends in death. Am I reading too much here! I'm sort of excited... don't you think that is interesting?

Did you know that the jews believe the tablets of stone that the 10 commandments were made of were blue like sapphire. Is this a stretch? When you mix Grace and Law together ends in death. Am I reading too much here!? I'm sort of excited...don't you think that is interesting?
You might be on to something. I found this (Were the 10 Commandment Tablets Blue? The Happy Surprise (http://kbonikowsky.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/were-the-10-commandment-tablets-blue/)) --

According to traditional teachings of Judaism in the Talmud, they [the tablets] were made of blue sapphire stone as a symbolic reminder of the sky, the heavens, and ultimately of God’s throne; many Torah scholars, however, have opined that the Biblical “sapir” was, in fact, the lapis lazuli. (Wikipedia)

and later on the page --

God directed Israelite men to wear blue tassels on their garment. Why?
The blue thread was to remind them of God’s Law, the blue commandments.

WG,

Thanks for the link.. this can't be a coincidence. There is something more to this story of A&S, it must fit in with grace and I have never ( even as a little girl) thought it did. It has bugged me. It is still bugging me.

That shows to go you that the Bible is still full of mysteries and parallels of which we know naught.

A Bible group could do a whole study on this, methinks.

Well here's what I get out of this account.

A & S were members of the Christian congregation of Jerusalem and we know this because after Pentecost 33 CE, other Christians in Jerusalem were selling off goods/land and voluntarily giving the profits toward a fund set up for visitors that had travelled from distant lands to Jerusalem for the Festival, in order to provide for their physical needs and among them were A & S, who sold off one of their fields. (Acts 5:1)

In Acts 5:3 their sin was to "play false to the holy spirit" by trying to deceive their fellow Christians into thinking that they were being generous when in fact they kept part of the profit for themselves. (Acts 5:2)

The lesson from this is that God strongly dislikes liars and deceivers, especially toward the holy spirit.

Although he doesn't strike us dead if we do lie today, he will hold us accountable for our actions. (Rom 14:12; Heb 4:13)

Regarding the 1000 year reign of Christ, at the end of his rulership Satan is to be let loose for a short while to mislead people one last time and surprisingly, the number of those who follow Satan will be "as the sand of the sea." (Rev 20:7) So I don't see any real connection of A & S account to the 1000 years. Just my thoughts. :)

Well here's what I get out of this account.

A & S were members of the Christian congregation of Jerusalem and we know this because after Pentecost 33 CE, other Christians in Jerusalem were selling off goods/land and voluntarily giving the profits toward a fund set up for visitors that had travelled from distant lands to Jerusalem for the Festival, in order to provide for their physical needs and among them were A & S, who sold off one of their fields. (Acts 5:1)

In Acts 5:3 their sin was to "play false to the holy spirit" by trying to deceive their fellow Christians into thinking that they were being generous when in fact they kept part of the profit for themselves. (Acts 5:2)

The lesson from this is that God strongly dislikes liars and deceivers, especially toward the holy spirit.

Although he doesn't strike us dead if we do lie today, he will hold us accountable for our actions. (Rom 14:12; Heb 4:13)

Regarding the 1000 year reign of Christ, at the end of his rulership Satan is to be let loose for a short while to mislead people one last time and suprisingly, the number of those who follow Satan will be "as the sand of the sea." (Rev 20:7) So I don't see any real connection of A & S account to the 1000 years. Just my thoughts. :)

I tend to agree on all points *shudder* :p While I understand what ClassyT is saying about grace, it's only one of God's many attributes. It's way too easy to get overbalanced in the direction of one attribute or another and lose sight of the fact that, while he's definitely a gracious God, he's also just and righteous, as well as all-powerful and has the right to do whatever advances his plan for his creation. In this case, despite being a God of grace, I think he chose to give the budding church a rather severe object lesson, and I don't really see it being incompatible with his grace.

I also don't see any connection between this episode and any millennial reign, though I do see how she came up with that.

Dave,

Me? Not in balance? Surely you jest. Grace isn't just an attribute... it is the NEW COVENANT! We are a new creation in Christ. The problem with Christianity is we are out of balance with that little fact. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mista :)

Check it out... after God gave the law to Moses and he came down from the mountain 3000 men died. After Jesus rose from the dead and Peter preached 3000 men were saved. There is a difference. A big difference! And there is more to the A&S story. It doesn't fit in with grace. Either they were not saved or it is a picture of how things will run during the 1,000 year reign. I don't know but I'm doing my best to study and find out. There is not ONE other incident like it AFTER the Lord rose from the dead. It means something...

Mo-

I'm not talking about the rebellion that Satan will head up, I'm talking about how things will be run during those 1000 years. Men will not be able to sin openly and live. That is to say, they won't be stealing, dealing drugs, killing and straight out lying the Lord Jesus.

Dave,

Me? not in balance? surely you jest. Grace isn't just an attribute...it is the NEW COVENANT! We are a new creation in Christ. The problem with Christianity is we are out of balance with that little fact. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mista :)

Check it out...after God gave the law to Moses and he came down from the mountain 3000 men died. After Jesus rose from the dead and Peter preached 3000 men were saved. There is a difference. A big difference! And there is more to the A&S story. It doesn't fit in with grace.

Hi Tess,

I agree with you. Well, at least as far as I have selectively edited your quote. Yes, there is a 'balance' problem. We can look at it in terms deontological ethics versus consequential ethics. Sounds confusing but it isn't. Sorry, but I see most things in terms of ethics.

Deontological ethics is based on the intrinsic nature of acts, usually expressed in terms of moral rules. The Old Testament or 'Law' is a good example of this. The moral character of a person is determined by how well he/she conforms to 'the rules'. The important point is that it is irrelevant as to the outcome of conforming to commands, rules and laws. So long as you a conform or obey then you are a virtuous person.

Opposed to this view is what as know as consequentialist ethics. Consequentialism says that what is important when it comes to morality is the consequences of our actions. An action can be deemed good if it produces good outcomes for people and bad if it produces the opposite. Having said this there are naturally problems with consequentialist ethics. This is not unusual as every ethical theory, including Divine Command Theory (Law) has it problems. You obviously realize this otherwise you wouldn't have posed the question in the first place.

If we accept that one of Jesus' attributes was that he was fully human then we come to realize that he was between a rock and a hard place when it comes to ethics and The New Covenant.I am not suggesting that Jesus was promoting consequentialist ethics, but I think it is hard to deny that Grace doesn't have a element of consequentialism attached to it. If this is true then we have a real problem of trying to dovetail Law and Grace. I am not suggesting that it is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, but it did present challenges back then and it still presents challenges today. Jesus being fully human and fully God did the best he could.

Just my thoughts

Regards
Tut

Tut,

I have read this and re read this. I can't respond because you are WAAY over my head. Sad but true.

Tut,

I have read this and re read this. I can't respond because you are WAAY over my head. Sad but true.

Hi Tess,

I think the problem is my poor explanation. I will have another go at it.

I follow THE LAW when it comes to road rules. This is regardless of the circumstances and consequences. If the road sign says 110 k.p.h. then this is exactly what I do. The fact that I do this in very heavy rain is irrelevant from my point of the view. The sign says 110 k.p.h so this is exactly what I do. Going fast in heavy rain is obviously dangerous (it could have bad consequences for myself and others)

I am not worried about the consequences of my actions because I have a duty or obligation to follow the rules. This makes me a virtuous person.

Consequentialism on the other hand says all that matters when it comes to ethics is the outcome of a persons actions regardless of what rules they happen to be following at the time. If a persons actions have positive results for people in general then this should be the basis of any judgment regarding goodness or badness.

When it comes to the A & S example, one thing appears to be evident in this particular case. God is not a consequentialist. Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. God choose not to extend grace to A&S even though history is full of people who have done a lot worse.

Grace takes on different meanings when it comes to different denominations. I am not saying Grace is an example consequentialism. However, I do feel it has an element of consequentialism attached to it and this is what makes your original question so interesting.

Your questions are always food for thought.

Regards

Tut

If the road sign says 110 k.p.h. then this is exactly what I do.
This is not a "road rule." This is the speed LIMIT, not requirement. The driver is to go no faster than 110, but he certainly can use his good sense and go slower if there is a dangerous weather or travel situation.


I am not worried about the consequences of my actions because I have a duty or obligation to follow the rules. This makes me a virtuous person.
That's not true at all. There is no duty or obligation to drive at 110 kph. It has nothing to do with virtue.

Using a speed limit as a comparison, one has to remember that the law as a whole, while there are speed limits, they are the max speed, the complete law normally on many roads also has a min speed, such as US interstates, where max speed may be 70 but they set a min speed of 40, so you have a spread to choose from

But even then you also have additional laws, one is that you can not drive "too fast for conditions" which means under certain times you are not allowed to go the max speed even if it is a law and max limit

Or take lesser roads, they may have a max of 45, but there are many other laws, such stop signs, or yield signs that require you to change those speeds, school areas that require a change.

So even in speed laws, there are many things to effect it

This is not a "road rule." This is the speed LIMIT, not requirement. The driver is to go no faster than 110, but he certainly can use his good sense and go slower if there is a dangerous weather or travel situation.


That's not true at all. There is no duty or obligation to drive at 110 kph. It has nothing to do with virtue.

Hi Wondergirl,


I am struggling to come with an analogy to explain the difference between virtue ethics and consequentialism. It was the only thing I could think of at the time.

Basically virtue ethics focuses on the character of the moral agent rather than rules and consequences of a persons actions. Consequentialism is the opposite. It holds that the basis of right and wrong action is determined by the outcomes.

Interesting you should say," The driver is to go no faster than 110 , but he certainly use his good sense if there is a dangerous weather or travel situation" I realize that some people are of the opinion that God's Commandments are eternal. It is his law. However, there are other people who think that God's Commandments are a guide to action (using good sense to interpret the situation at hand). Hence the Law , Grace and consequentialist debate at the moment.

Regards

Tut

Hi Wondergirl,


I am struggling to come with an analogy to explain the difference between virtue ethics and consequentialism. It was the only thing I could think of at the time.
Methinks you are struggling to create a problem where none exists.

I realize that some people are of the opinion that God's Commandments are eternal.
I don't know what you mean by this. Which people?

Methinks you are struggling to create a problem where none exists.

Hi Wondergirl,

Perhaps.

I don't know what you mean by this. Which people?


Some fundamentalist groups would say we need to stick strictly to Old Testament laws.

Some fundamentalist groups would say we need to stick strictly to Old Testament laws.
Which groups? All the laws or cherry-picked ones? And those that say that, what do they say about grace? In other words, why do they say "we need to stick strictly to OT laws"?

Actually most fundalmental groups I know are just the other way, they believe in the grace of God where we are no longer under the Law.

There are many legalistic groups but I seldom thing of them as fundalmentalists

Which groups? All the laws or cherry-picked ones? And those that say that, what do they say about grace? In other words, why do they say "we need to stick strictly to OT laws"?

Hi again Wondergirl,

You do ask the hard questions, don't you?

I don't have access to the 3,000 or so different Christian denominations. Having said that Father Chuck is right. They do tend to believe in the Grace of God and no longer under the law.

However,is it likely there is a fundamentalist group somewhere in the world that believes in all of the Old testament Laws at the expense of Grace? Probably. Are there fundamentalist groups cherry-picking the type of laws that will be followed? Probably. Are there fundamentalist groups who fail to realize there may be an inherent contradiction in how they apply Law and Grace in their theology? Probably.

They do tend to believe in the Grace of God and no longer under the law.
*poof* There goes your argument.

*poof* There goes your argument.


Hi again,

I wouldn't think so. We were talking about 'tendency' here.Father Chuck quite rightly used the words," most fundamentalist groups......."
He didn't say, 'all'.

It would be very difficult to claim ALL fundamentalist groups believe in Grace while at the same time believing we are no longer under the Law.

To turn up one counter example of, "All fundamentalists believe in Grace while at the same time believing we are not under the law" is enough to prove this statement false.

We were talking about 'tendency' here.
You were talking about what is virtue ethics and pulled this out of your hat --

Some fundamentalist groups would say we need to stick strictly to Old Testament laws.
Now you're sidetracked and off-topic with this --

To turn up one counter example of, "All fundamentalists believe in Grace while at the same time believing we are not under the law" is enough to prove this statement false.

I'm still trying to understand your argument using the terms "value ethics" and "consequentialism."

You were talking about what is virtue ethics and pulled this out of your hat --

Now you're sidetracked and off-topic with this --


I'm still trying to understand your argument using the terms "value ethics" and "consequentialism."


Yes, it is off topic. I'll let a different source do the explaining. No doubt much better than I can.

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

"The difference between these three approaches to morality [value ethics, consequentialism, and deontology] tends to lie more in the way moral dilemmas are approached than in the moral conclusions reached."

The Bible is not a book espousing our looking at Law and Gospel as philosophy, i.e. how moral dilemmas are approached and moral conclusions reached.

How did philosophy enter into this thread?

How did philosophy enter into this thread?

Hi Wondergirl,

Originally through Saint Thomas Aquinas- I think.


Tut

Hi Wondergirl,

Originally through Saint Thomas Aquinas- I think.


TutNo, he wasn't mentioned. I just went back through the thread and see where you brought up a "balance" problem and questions about ethics.

Actually, ClassyT was on the trail of something quite exciting regarding the A&S story, and then the thread got waylaid.

No, he wasn't mentioned. I just went back through the thread and see where you brought up a "balance" problem and questions about ethics.

Actually, ClassyT was on the trail of something quite exciting regarding the A&S story, and then the thread got waylaid.


Sorry, I was talking generally. Philosophy came into it when the faith of the time was challenged by the re-discovery of Aristotle. The choice was to ignore Aristotle and risk faith being taken of by reason, or incorporate Aristotle into the religious tradition of the time. St Thomas attempted to reconcile these opposites (faith and reason). Didn't do a bad job when it comes down to it.

Regards

Tut

We were taking about A&S and what happened to them, and, in light of that, God's grace vs. His justice.

Sorry, I was talking generally. Philosophy came into it when the faith of the time was challenged by the re-discovery of Aristotle. The choice was to ignore Aristotle and risk faith being taken of by reason, or incorporate Aristotle into the religious tradition of the time. St Thomas attempted to reconcile these opposites (faith and reason). Didn't do a bad job when it comes down to it.

Regards

Tut

In other words, getting off topic.

I'd be interested to see where this thread goes with A n S as we can see that God's perfect justice prevailed in this account and that we experience his undeserved kindness every day we are alive. :)

In other words, getting off topic.

I'd be interested to see where this thread goes with A n S as we can see that God's perfect justice prevailed in this account and that we experience his undeserved kindness every day we are alive. :)


Ok. I shall give my unabridged version of events that lead to,'going off topic'

My response to Wondergirl in terms of consequentialism and virtue ethics was not actually off topic even through I was prepared to agree with her. In fact it is very much on the topic.

Wondergirl's other response was that the Bible is not a book of philosophy. In fact it is.

Some people are Bible only theorists. Others are of the opinion they don't want to be weighed down by a single source. The significant other source for these people are historical figures such as Saint Anselm and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Naturally there are others in this scholastic tradition. Still others would be prepared to trawl even wider and draw on people such as Descartes and Berkeley; listings being almost endless.

Philosophy did enter into it in medieval times. Anselm and Aquinas were as much philosophers as theologians. This is the tradition they started and is still very much alive for some people.

Bible only people would claim that the answer to the A & S problem can be ultimately explained within the Bible. I disagree. I want to claim we need to look further afield for the answer. I want to pick my sources for evidence. I am not alone here, everyone seems to be in the habit of being selective.

I hope this clears things up.

Regards

Tut

I hope this clears things up.

As clear as mud mate. :D

And to clear it up, stay on topic or we shall close the thread.
Fr Chuck, chapter 1 verse 1

I want to revisit what classyT was talking about back on Feb. 7th --

"wow, I just started looking up the meanings of their names. i don't know if I am on the right track...but it appears that ananias means God is GRACious....and Sapphira...comes from the jewel saphire. Did you know that the jews believe the tablets of stone that the 10 commandments were made of were blue like sapphire.

Is this a stretch? When you mix Grace and Law together ends in death. Am I reading too much here!? I'm sort of excited...don't you think that is interesting?"

I like the Grace and Law connection with their names, but am not sure what to do with it. Where else can we take this?

Yes Wondergirl, I think you are reading far too much into this. The only lesson we need to take out of this account is that God strongly disapproves of deceit and theft, especially from a fellow Christian. It is not only through God's grace that we get saved, but it is by putting faith in and showing appreciation for what his son did for us on earth. A n S did not show appreciation nor did they prove themselves faithful.

MO,

totally disagree with you. God doesn't just willy nilly deal with people. He is bound by his covenant with man. IF A n S were in fact saved there simply has to be another explanation. Otherwise we are all sunk. I've done FAR worse than these guys and I am still alive and Kicking. Paul said where sin abounds grace does much MORE abound. A n S were not given grace. The punishment for their actions were swift and final. So there is something FAR deeper here we are missing.

The meaning of their name is not just happenstance... AND I am still not sure that this isn't somehow related to what it would be like when Christ rules and reigns for 1000 years. ( I need to find the verses in the OT)... but there will be judgement every morining for those who sin openly during his reign. They will die. This is one of the reason there will be a rebellion after those 1000 years... Satan will be let loose and he will have no trouble finding people to come against the Lord. Some of them only obey because of HIS awesome power.

I think we are all dismising this story. It must fit in. It doesn't under grace. It DOES under law. Remember Achan?

[QUOTE=TUT317;2720244

Philosophy did enter into it in medieval times. Anselm and Aquinas were as much philosophers as theologians. This is the tradition they started and is still very much alive for some people.

Bible only people would claim that the answer to the A & S problem can be ultimately explained within the Bible. I disagree. I want to claim we need to look further afield for the answer. I want to pick and choose my sources for evidence. I am not alone here, everyone seems to be in the habit of being selective.

I hope this clears things up.

Regards

Tut[/QUOTE]

Tut,

I believe the bible is absolute truth. And I guess I'd be a "bible only people" There IS an answer to A&S. I believe this story is there for a reason. In fact every single thing in the Bible has a significant meaning and reason for being there. And God won't go outside of his Word for anything or anyone. Not even to fix the sin problem. This is one many reasons I don't believe Mary was deity... if God did that for her than his son died in vain, he could have done it for everyone and could have fixed the fall of man immediately. Ok... now I'm off topic but you understand my point...

Classy, everything in the bible is there for us to learn from. Achan and A n S teach us that there is no secret sin. Only God can read hearts and motives and only God can deal with these ones justly. Achan was motivated by greed. The belongings he hid were in effect Gods, so he was stealing from God, not to mention the fact that he directly disobeyed God's orders which in the end cost him and his whole family their lives. So I guess the other lesson we can take from this is that our actions can affect others around us.
These accounts serve as strong reminders for us today that God is not one to be mocked. (Gal 6:7)

Think about this. A parent tells his children they are not allowed to do something. They are then given an explanation of the consequences. Then one of the children disobeys, so he gives them the consequences and says to the others, "see now if you do the same thing, eventually you'll get the same consequence."
That's what God has in effect done with Achan and A n S. They were told, they didn't listen, so they got severe punishment. Now we the "other children" look at them as an example and say "oh, not a good idea because God means it and we'll eventually get the same punishment if we make the same mistakes!"

Many believe that "once saved, always saved" but this can't be true otherwise we wouldn't find the words in Jude 21 "keep yourselves in God's love while YOU are waiting for the mercy of our lord Jesus Christ with everlasting life in view". Did you notice the word keep? This tells us that it is definitely possible to fall out of God's love even after we've been saved. This is backed up by Jesus words in John 15:10.

Of course he wants us to do what is right and hopes we do, but eternal death is promised to those who are ignorant of his laws. (Rev 21:8)

There are many different accounts that we could look at over and over and assume there could be much more to them than meets the eye, but Satan is very good at straying our minds from what is more important.

Classy, everything in the bible is there for us to learn from. Achan and A n S teach us that there is no secret sin. Only God can read hearts and motives and only God can deal with these ones justly. Achan was motivated by greed. The belongings he hid were in effect Gods, so he was stealing from God, not to mention the fact that he directly disobeyed God's orders which in the end cost him and his whole family their lives. So I guess the other lesson we can take from this is that our actions can affect others around us.
These accounts serve as strong reminders for us today that God is not one to be mocked. (Gal 6:7)

Think about this. A parent tells his children they are not allowed to do something. They are then given an explanation of the consequences. Then one of the children disobeys, so he gives them the consequences and says to the others, "see now if you do the same thing, eventually you'll get the same consequence."
That's what God has in effect done with Achan and A n S. They were told, they didn't listen, so they got severe punishment. Now we the "other children" look at them as an example and say "oh, not a good idea because God means it and we'll eventually get the same punishment if we make the same mistakes!"

Many believe that "once saved, always saved" but this can't be true otherwise we wouldn't find the words in Jude 21 "keep yourselves in God's love while YOU are waiting for the mercy of our lord Jesus Christ with everlasting life in view". Did you notice the word keep? This tells us that it is definitely possible to fall out of God's love even after we've been saved. This is backed up by Jesus words in John 15:10.

Of course he wants us to do what is right and hopes we do, but eternal death is promised to those who are ignorant of his laws. (Rev 21:8)

There are many different accounts that we could look at over and over and assume there could be much more to them than meets the eye, but Satan is very good at straying our minds from what is more important.

I don't necessarily see this as a refutation of eternal security, but I do agree that God has the freedom to deal with people as harshly as he did with A & S, and it doesn't contradict the idea of grace. The example of children and consequences is a good one, but in this case I don't think the consequence necessarily included eternal death. I see it more in the context of 1 Corinthians 5:4-5, where the flesh is destroyed but the spirit is saved. (I know the NIV says "sinful nature" and it's one of the worst mistranslations in that entire version.)

Dave,

1 Corinthians is GREAT example! It defends MY position. That guy living in sin was given over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh . In other words.. he was going to have consequences for his sin if he didn't repent ( but he ended up repenting anyways) however he didn't get PUNISHED for his sin. His life wasn't taken from him.

How is A&S in any WAY an example of GRACE or the Father's discipline? I don't get it. If they WERE saved, were they given the gift of righteousness? Did Christ finish the work, did he pay for their sins? Paul said where sin abounds grace much MORE abounds? I cannot find that in the story of A&S. These two were given what they deserved... what we ALL deserve. It isn't a picture of God dealing with his children in grace and love. What of their names? Just an accident? The more I consider this incident, the more convinced I am that these two were not part of the Church. Perhaps they were just one of the many that sit in the pews today without a relationship with Jesus working for their salvation. The Bible doesn't say they were saved. WHY is that?

We can't mix law with grace... law is the ministry of death. Check it out .After Moses returned with the 10 comandments and and the people were bragging they could do all that God required of them 3000 people died in one day. Peter preached after Christ paid for our sins and 3000 are saved. Law brings death... grace brings life. Come on! You all really can't see that?

You can't lump A&S as just a couple that God chose to deal harshly with. God is bound by his word. He can't forgive anyone outside of the finished work of Christ and he can't punish anyone who has accepted Christ as their savior.

MO,
I do believe if you are truly saved you are always saved. That verse in Jude doesn't mean we have to KEEP our salvation. We are sealed with the Holy Spirit. I DO need to renew my mind.. I DO need to keep myself in the Love of God.. Jude doesn't say to Keep yourself in the family. We can't put ourselves in the family and we can't keep oursellves in the family. We just accept Christ who is the AUTHOR and FINISHER or our faith.

I know, I know... I keep repeating myself. But I'm surprised that WG and I are the only ones that think their names could be a clue to this story.

MO,

Hebrew 4:13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

so I don't see A&S as just a story of secret sin. The bible is full of stories of people hiding sin (David, Achan) and the Lord revealing it.

One last thing...

I can't understand Christians who have been partakers of God's wonderful grace lumping this story in as God dealing with the sin of his people. We of all people should understand what grace is and what we don't deserve it.

Isn't this more a picture of God dealing with the enemy not believers. The first big bruhaa the enmey starts in the church and God deals with is promptly and perfectly. Anyone?

Dave,

1 Corinthians is GREAT example! It defends MY position. That guy living in sin was given over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh . In other words..he was going to have consequences for his sin if he didn't repent ( but he ended up repenting anyways) however he didn't get PUNISHED for his sin. His life wasn't taken from him.

We don't actually know that. The person mentioned in 2 Corinthians may or may not be the same person. In any case, as we read through Acts we also see a definite progression in terms of how the church develops and how it works. In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, we have the apostles dealing with them directly and at once. To me it looks like a "nip this in the bud" action, serving as an object lesson to anybody else who wants to try and lie to God. In the case of 1 Cor 5, Paul isn't there to exercise direct apostolic authority, so the process takes time and he has to delegate that authority to the church to deal with this guy. But Paul's instruction does seem to say "this guy needs to die and I authorize you to hand him over to Satan for that purpose." So whether the sentence was actually carried out, the intent by the apostle to the Gentiles was there and carried his authority.

Does that make sense? It's a little early in the morning and I haven't had quite enough coffee yet. In any case, obviously you have a different take on the situation, and I have no problem with that. :)

Dave,

Wow! I have never heard that before. You think that Paul implied the guy deserved to die by saying hand him over to Satan? I think you have had a little more to drink than coffee this morning morning and you should lay off it... lol :D

Seriously though, I never ever got that from Paul's instructions. Did Paul say that concerning anyone else? For some reason I have it in my head he did. I need to go back and read that again.

Dave,

wow! I have never heard that before. You think that Paul implied the guy deserved to die by saying hand him over to Satan? I think you have had a little more to drink than coffee this morning morning and you should lay off of it...lol :D

Seriously though, I never ever got that from Paul's instructions. Did Paul say that concerning anyone else? for some reason I have it in my head he did. I need to go back and read that again.

As far as I know, that's the consensus of what "destruction of the flesh so the spirit can be saved" means. I'm not sure what else it could mean in context.

And while we're at it, quit blaspheming. COFFEE IS LIFE!! http://i.imdb.com/Photos/CMSIcons/emoticons/misc/misc1.gif

I know, I know.... I keep repeating myself. But I'm surprised that WG and I are the only ones that think their names could be a clue to this story.
I'm not a "once saved, always saved" person, but then I don't believe A&S were saved from the get-go. I think they were attracted to this up-and-coming church thing that was getting lots of attention and had lots of cozy little meet-in-the-home groups where they could get Christian warmth, some new friends, and a yummy new recipe for baklava or spiced pecan halves (btw, it's a pinch of nutmeg that makes all the difference).

A&S found these Christians to be soooooo nice and soooooooooooo generous simply because they realized that everything they had was from God -- not for their own exclusive use, but to be shared with fellow believers, especially believers who were in need for some reason. The believers sacrificed their own comforts and conveniences for the good of all, and it gave A&S the opportunity to keep score of what the others gave. ("Did you see all that fine stuff Dorcas laid on the altar last night? Who would have guessed she owned baubles like that? I'll bet she snatched them all out of her grandmother's house" or "Jedidah's gift of embroidered tea cozies just didn't do justice to his skill as a craftsman. He should have made more of those thick, striped saddle blankets. We'd get more money selling them.")

It also gave A&S the opportunity to flaunt their wealth ("Oh, Ananias, all those barefoot children will be so excited to get new sandals from the thousands of shekels you've donated" or "Oh, my Sapphira, I can't believe you've parted with the beautiful jewel-encrusted necklaces your mother left you when she died.")

A&S were arrogant, sneaky, greedy people whose confidence was in their bank account, not in the Lord. They could not bear to do what the other Christians were doing, giving all of what they had to God and trusting totally in His faithfulness to meet their needs. A&S were flash-givers and wanted to have their cake and eat it -- not only have the praise but also the material goods. How could they get the applause they craved from other Christians without giving away everything they held dear? They finally came up with a solution. Fake it!

And it cost them their lives.

So back to their names. Sapphira's name means “beautiful” and is the same name given to the precious stone of deep purple-blue, the sapphire, the stone on which the Law had been given. Ananias means “Jehovah is gracious,” and God certainly had been gracious (gave Grace) to him by bestowing on him the wealth of a beautiful wife, material possessions, and had led him and his wife into the Christian community.

In light of the meanings of their names and the story's arc and punchline, I'm thinking Mark Twain or Jonathan Swift wrote this episode, the story of A&S -- it's acerbic, satirical, shocking, and just a little bit funny in a cockeyed way.

Dave,

Naah, Paul understood grace better than anyone. I really don't believe that is what he was saying but you've got me interested... I'm going to study that out. I know you are on the edge of your seat at what I find out. ;) AND I would like to say ( not that you disagree with this) that this guy supports my beliefs of once saved always saved... just saying ( WG and MO :D )

I'm thinking WG is right about A&S. Honestly, when I first posted this question I really thought they were saved. That is why this story always bothered me... it didn't fit. It does fit if they are unbelievers looking to profit.

I'm thinking WG is right about A&S. Honestly, when I first posted this question i really thought they were saved. That is why this story always bothered me...it didn't fit. It does fit if they are unbelievers looking to profit.
The more I think about it, the more righter I think I am.

The author of Acts must have had a field day -- two new church members have these really cool names with deep, pious meanings but turn out to be the jokes of the early church. It's a morality tale for the ages. Aesop couldn't have written it any better!

Dave,

Naah, Paul understood grace better than anyone.

Agreed. Except for the "naah" part :p


I really don't believe that is what he was saying but you've got me interested... I'm going to study that out. I know you are on the edge of your seat at what I find out. ;)

Actually, I'm very interested to see what you come up with. I can't see any other way to read it, but I'm willing to hear other viewpoints.


AND I would like to say ( not that you disagree with this) that this guy supports my beliefs of once saved always saved... just saying ( WG and MO :D )

Yep, we definitely agree on that.


I'm thinking WG is right about A&S. Honestly, when I first posted this question I really thought they were saved. That is why this story always bothered me... it didn't fit. It does fit if they are unbelievers looking to profit.

I'm not sure it matters, but I can see why it's an issue for you. I await your next installment, because I really am interested in your view.

Totally excited about what I have found out. Heard my favorite preacher Joseph Prince on TV today. He said something that amazed me. He does NOT believe that A&S were ever saved in the first place. Which goes with my thoughts because Grace is grace is grace. God already punished the Lord on the cross. What? We are going to step out of line and get zapped? Please I'm not buying it.

INDYways.. guess what he found when reading the book of Acts. Every time the writer (Luke) was speaking about a believer he would say a "certain disciple". When he spoke about an unbeliever he would say a "certain man or woman". When he is speaking about Ananias... he uses the phrase "a certain man".

Now, there are TWO exceptions in Acts. One the word "man" was added in italics when speaking of a believer. AND the other exception is when a Roman guard was talking about Paul and the guy used the phrase a "certain man named Paul"... but that was an unbeliever describing Paul.

I think this is a great big DEAL. I'm excited. I think Grace is so much more than we have been taught. Those two were NEVER even part of the church. What do you all think?

There two were NEVER even part of the church. what do you all think?
I believe A&S were members in name only, but that story doesn't support "once saved, always saved."

Sure it does. They were NEVER saved. They were never real believers.

I think I'm finding some peace with this story. It makes sense to me now.

Sure it does. They were NEVER saved. They were never real believers.

I think I'm finding some peace with this story. It makes sense to me now.
And if Dave is right that God allowed their gluttony, need for applause, and ill will to bring about their deaths, then there goes the "once saved, always saved." I can lean that way too, with Dave, and agree that they had accepted Jesus and had become a vital part of the church, but their own desires outranked being a church member.

Honestly, when I first posted this question i really thought they were saved. That is why this story always bothered me...it didn't fit. It does fit if they are unbelievers looking to profit.

I lied... I said before that I was off-thread but when I read your post, I couldn't help myself.

I agree with what you said above. If your starting assumption was that A&S were believers, I wholeheartedly agree that for them to die for their sin would go against much of the body of evidence that is in support of God being merciful and longsuffering towards his people... because we do sin.

In my earlier post, I did broach this possibility. I didn't argue strongly in favor of A&S being unbelievers but it is a valid possibility. It should be considered in light of the mercy of God. But to not force my position as a foregone conclusion, I assumed that the text wasn't clear as to whether they were believers or not.

I would add that I don't think they were looking to profit. Remember, they didn't even have to sell their land to make money off it. Or they could have sold their land and not told a soul about it because it was theirs to sell and were under no obligation to sell it. But their offense was they wanted to bask in the glory of appearing sacrificial without feeling the pain of the loss of their wealth. That was their offense... just wanted to be clear about that.

And if Dave is right that God allowed their gluttony, need for applause, and ill will to bring about their deaths, then there goes the "once saved, always saved." I can lean that way too, with Dave, and agree that they had accepted Jesus and had become a vital part of the church, but their own desires outranked being a church member.

WG,

Well you know where I stand, either Jesus paid for our sins or he didn't. Either his work was complete and it satisfied the Father or it didn't. Either he became sin for us and we received his full gift of righteousness or we didn't and we still need to work for it our unmerited favor. Which is so sillly. We didn't deserve it anyway.. how can we work for it or lose it.. if it is all unmerited.

If A&S were indeed saved, we will see them one day and asked them what the heck were they thinking because they will be in heaven. But the Bible doesn't say they were believers. We assume. But like what Pastor Prince said. In every case Luke would refer to a believer as a certain disciple. And in every case of a non believer he would say a certain man. Well that is how Luke described Ananias... a "certain man". Remember ever word used or NOT used is meaningful.

Jake,

Glad you came back. :) I need to go back and read the passages again. But if I recall correctly, the disciples at this point do not know anything at all about grace or the fact that Gentiles were going to be part of the body. They were waiting for our Lord Jesus to return to set up his earthly Kingdom which they thought would happen pretty quick. They didn't know ANYTHING at all about the church period. So I DO think some of the motive for A&S could have been for profit. Maybe they wanted in. I think the disciples were doing pretty good financially at this point. It was also that A&S wanted to look like they had done something generous and wanted kudos for their gift. But just like Judas, they were not real. They wanted money and position without one shred of faith.

Anyway, that is my thoughts. I am still a big time believer that once someone is saved.. they are ALWAYS saved... forever. When My Jesus does something.. he does it right. Man blows everything...

WG,

Well you know where I stand, either Jesus paid for our sins or he didn't. Either his work was complete and it satisfied the Father or it didn't.
This has nothing to do with Jesus paying for sins. Of course, He did, and no matter how one interprets the A&S story, that fact still stands. The story, no matter how it's understood, doesn't refute Jesus' work that was complete and totally satisfied the Father.

The A&S story is about A&S, not about if Jesus paid for their (and our) sins.

And if Dave is right that God allowed their gluttony, need for applause, and ill will to bring about their deaths, then there goes the "once saved, always saved." I can lean that way too, with Dave, and agree that they had accepted Jesus and had become a vital part of the church, but their own desires outranked being a church member.

I'm not sure how you get a refutation of eternal security out of that. I don't think God allowing their physical deaths has anything to do with their eternal destiny. I think in many cases God uses such events to serve as examples/warnings for other believers. And since every breath belongs to him, he has the right to do whatever he wants and discontinue said breaths at his discretion. If, as I suspect, that's a separate issue from their salvation, there is no contradiction between God doing that and the principle of being saved and kept by grace.

I'm not sure how you get a refutation of eternal security out of that.
I don't.

I don't think God allowing their physical deaths has anything to do with their eternal destiny.
I don't either.

I think in many cases God uses such events to serve as examples/warnings for other believers. And since every breath belongs to him, he has the right to do whatever he wants and discontinue said breaths at his discretion. If, as I suspect, that's a separate issue from their salvation, there is no contradiction between God doing that and the principle of being saved and kept by grace.
I agree all around.

WG,

I agree. But you were the one that said it it didn't support" once saved always saved". I don't think they WERE ever saved. That is why I said what I did.

If I am wrong and they were actual believers, then they are with the Lord today.

WG,

I agree. But you were the one that said it it didn't support" once saved always saved".
I don't think it has anything to do with "once saved, always saved." That is beyond the scope of the A&S story, doesn't prove one way or the other that there is such an animal.

I don't think it has anything to do with "once saved, always saved." That is beyond the scope of the A&S story, doesn't prove one way or the other that there is such an animal.

Agreed, but it sounded as though you were saying that the deaths of A&S means "once saved, always saved" can't be correct. I think I missed something?

I get what you're saying, and I'm inclined to agree. At the same time, we have passages like this one.

For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Cor 5:3-5)

(The NIV reads "sinful nature" instead of "flesh" which is one of my biggest gripes, and why I went with the KJV here, just so' you know.)

And this:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (1 Cor 11:29-30)

So even Paul seems to allow for the Lord to practice a little corporal punishment when He deems it necessary. I really don't know a definitive answer to your question, that's just my take on it, and I sure won't go to the stake for it!

Dave,

I don't know. We discussed this in another thread. I don't have all the answers but this much I do know.. not a one of us is worthy to partake in and of ourselves and I don't care how much I think of to confess before I take it, I never get it all. I screw up and pretty much on a daily basis. I don't think these guys in cornith knew what they were doing. I don't think they were even doing it with the intent to sin. They just didn't take it to heart they didn't discern. It wasn't so much that the Lord was punishing them as it was they didn't believe in the finished work of Christ and they didn't understand that there was healing in his finished work. They were perishing for lack of knowledge.

I lied...I said before that I was off-thread but when I read your post, I couldn't help myself.

I agree with what you said above. If your starting assumption was that A&S were believers, I wholeheartedly agree that for them to die for their sin would go against much of the body of evidence that is in support of God being merciful and longsuffering towards his people...because we do sin.

In my earlier post, I did broach this possibility. I didn't argue strongly in favor of A&S being unbelievers but it is a valid possibility. It should be considered in light of the mercy of God. But to not force my position as a foregone conclusion, I assumed that the text wasn't clear as to whether they were believers or not.

I would add that I don't think they were looking to profit. Remember, they didn't even have to sell their land to make money off of it. Or they could have sold their land and not told a soul about it because it was theirs to sell and were under no obligation to sell it. But their offense was they wanted to bask in the glory of appearing sacrificial without feeling the pain of the loss of their wealth. That was their offense...just wanted to be clear about that.

Jake

I'm just hard on you I decided. You are so smart and thoughtful in your answers and I like it better when you agree with me. I don't think we disagree on this topic. It is just that I want this to fit into my new radical grace revelation.. and if they WERE believers it doesn't fit under what I am understanding grace to be. I don't want to be out of balance though... that's ugly plus NOT classy! ;)

ALL:
I was on another thread and I saw where someone said to go to the Christian board and see how much we don't see eye to eye on things. They concluded that you could interpret verses to mean whatever you like. That bothered me a lot. I hope I am not trying to twist scripture to make my thoughts on grace fit. If anyone thinks I am ever doing that, please feel free to let me know. I think for the most part we Christians agree on the most important things concerning the salvation and grace.

Agreed, but it sounded as though you were saying that the deaths of A&S means "once saved, always saved" can't be correct. I think I missed something?
Their deaths have nothing to do with "once saved, always saved."

Jake

I'm just hard on you i decided. You are so smart and thoughtful in your answers and I like it better when you agree with me. I don't think we disagree on this topic. It is just that I want this to fit into my new radical grace revelation..and if they WERE believers it doesn't fit under what I am understanding grace to be. I don't want to be out of balance though...that's ugly plus NOT classy! ;)

ALL:
I was on another thread and I saw where someone said to go to the Christian board and see how much we don't see eye to eye on things. They concluded that you could interpret verses to mean whatever you like. That bothered me a lot. I hope I am not trying to twist scripture to make my thoughts on grace fit. if anyone thinks I am ever doing that, please feel free to let me know. I think for the most part we Christians agree on the most important things concerning the salvation and grace.

Tess - yes, I think we are in complete agreement here. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by radical grace revelation. I do think that if grace is really grace, it is radical in that it doesn't fit with how logically we'd expect God to deal with rebellious sinners... the fact that he shows mercy to us is outrageous on the one hand but on the other hand, it does fit God's character that he be merciful... it's just that he is not obligated to grant mercy. That's pretty radical if we are thinking about it correctly.

I think that once before when I read that passage I believed there to be something non-authentic about A&S, because just like you it seemed awfully troubling to think that God would kill them because they lied. Why didn't God kill Moses when he struck the rock instead of speaking to it? Why didn't God kill David when he slept with Bathsheba and had her husband put to death?

So, I'm very sympathetic to your view of grace and I really do think that A&S were unbelievers but again, the apostles don't say. It would be great if the text said something to this effect:

"'And take heed to yourselves this day whether you have an unbelieving spirit or not. Know that the Spirit of God will not be mocked; when you come to bring alms or gifts to your brothers, do it from faith, not to be seen of men.' For it became evident to all who were witnesses, that Ananias and Sapphira were struck down by the Lord because of their unbelief."

Since we don't have that explicit answer to our question (were they believers or not?) we are left to put the pieces together with the clues we have and the theology given to us by Old Testament, Jesus, and the Apostles.

So again, Tess, I agree with you... I just can't make the text say more than it does so that's why I hesitate to say unequivocally that it was so. Does that make sense?

Dave,

I don't know. we discussed this in another thread. I don't have all the answers but this much i do know..not a one of us is worthy to partake in and of ourselves and I don't care how much I think of to confess before I take it, i never get it all. I screw up and pretty much on a daily basis. I don't think these guys in cornith knew what they were doing. I don't think they were even doing it with the intent to sin. They just didn't take it to heart they didn't discern. It wasn't so much that the Lord was punishing them as it was they didn't believe in the finished work of Christ and they didn't understand that there was healing in his finished work. They were perishing for lack of knowledge.

That's as good an answer as any as far as I'm concerned. I know I don't "get it all" when I'm examining my heart, either; in that context I believe that God honors the effort and the intent. As far as the Corinthian people, Paul's description makes it sound as though they were a) using it as an excuse to drink too much, and 2) showing blatant favoritism to the wealthy and prominent and treating the "lesser" people like dirt. When he says they were "not discerning" the Lord's body it looks to me like they were missing the whole point of the love feast as a celebration of Jesus' death and resurrection. Whether it was a deliberate thing, or if they just got caught up in something and forgot what it was all about, I couldn't say.

And of course, whether those incidents have any relation to the Ananias and Sapphira episode is anybody's guess.

Hey guys,

Love reading some of these posts. I just wanted to say one thing, there is no such thing as punishment for sin once you become a believer. Once you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, believed He died on the cross for you, rose from the dead and now sit at the right hand of God, there is no more punishment for sin. Of course you are going to have to carry the consequences of your actions if you move outside the will of God but He does not punish you EVER again. The reason I'm saying this is that the day that Jesus said "it is finished" ALL our (believers) sin was paid for. That is the gift of righteousness we have received. And yes, you can argue that this would, to some, seem like a license to sin but once you grasp the sacrifice that was made for you by the Son of God, would you really go out and go against the conviction of the Holy Spirit and sin without worrying about it? I don't think so. And the sin you do commit is already paid for. Jesus Christ was the FINAL sacrifice for our sin. If we were still going to be punished for sin we commit today then that would mean that atonement still needed to be made for that sin... hence the punishment from God??

With regards to A&S... merely my opinion, I have not studied it or anything but I think at that stage, with the establishment of the church people were freely giving what they had. The money that A&S had, by the selling of their land/property, was theirs and they could do with it what they wanted and yet they "gave it all" thinking that the Holy Spirit could be deceived. They wanted the status and thanks going to them for "offering up" all they had. If at a later stage it came to light to the other believers that A&S had lied, and thus deceived the Holy Spirit, what message would that send. Yet the Holy Spirit immediately notified them that dishonesty was in play. I don't know, just an opinion.

Just a correction to my earlier mail. I said that all our (believers) sin was paid for. That believers should not be there as ALL our sins were paid for. It's just about the acceptance of that gift that makes the difference between heaven and hell.

Sorry about that.