Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

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 [us], and we gave [them] reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.
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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

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) --

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moparbyfar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

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.