Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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

---

Hi Wondergirl,

Perhaps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

They do tend to believe in the Grace of God and no longer under the law.

---

*poof* There goes your argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

*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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

We were talking about 'tendency' here.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

How did philosophy enter into this thread?

---

Hi Wondergirl,

Originally through Saint Thomas Aquinas- I think.


Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Wondergirl,

Originally through Saint Thomas Aquinas- I think.


Tut

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moparbyfar

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moparbyfar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

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/em...misc/misc1.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Dave,

Naah, Paul understood grace better than anyone.

---

Agreed. Except for the "naah" part :p

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?