Ananias and his wife....aren't we all like that.....

When a person makes a vow to do something it depends on whether they make that vow to people or to God.
It is better to not vow than vow and not pay it.
But they vowed unto God to give all the money to the Church but kept some of the money so it became a sin unto them and they lost their life because of it.
But I do not believe God causes people to collapse and die today if they vow and do not keep it but it is still a sin that needs to be repented of.
But Ananias and his wife knew for sure they would get money for their land and it was a sure deal but they vowed to God and kept some of the money so they sinned.

It is obvious that they vowed to God and did not keep that vow.

In which verse did Ananias and Sapphira make the vow?

are we so different than early christians....is it part of God's plan..? Am I wrong about the Scriptures? Correct me. Thanks.

Act 5:3 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?
Act 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

It seems like Ananias would of vowed to God because he lied to God which had to be about giving the money to the Church because he kept some of the money for himself.

If he lied to God it can only mean he vowed to God to give the money for the land but he kept some of the money.

When a person makes a vow to do something it depends on whether they make that vow to people or to God.

Deu 23:21 When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee.
Deu 23:22 But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.

If a person vows to God to do something then they should do it for if not then it is a sin.

But if you do not vow it then it is not sin which it is obvious that this is an option for the person.

Which means God did not require it of them until they made the vow.

So if you vow to God to donate so much to the Church and you do not do it then it is sin.

But I believe Ananias and his wife were an example for the early Church and God does not punish a person by death today but it is still a sin that they need to repent of.

It is probably better not to vow to God that you will do anything so then if you do not own up to it you will not have sinned.

Ecc 5:4 When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.
Ecc 5:5 Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.

It is better to not vow than vow and not pay it.

Act 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
Act 5:2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Act 5:3 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?
Act 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Peter said the land was their own and in their own power to do what they want with the land which means Ananias and his wife could of sold the land and kept all the money for themselves because God did not require the money of them.

But they vowed unto God to give all the money to the Church but kept some of the money so it became a sin unto them and they lost their life because of it.

If they had vowed to the apostles they would do it and did not vow unto God they could of kept some of the money and it would of been alright for they would of lied to people and not to God.

But I do not believe God causes people to collapse and die today if they vow and do not keep it but it is still a sin that needs to be repented of.

If a person vows to God and does not keep it then then they lied to God but He understands that some people might of been hasty and did not think it through or maybe it was out of their control and they thought they could do it but could not but actually tried to come through on the vow.

But Ananias and his wife knew for sure they would get money for their land and it was a sure deal but they vowed to God and kept some of the money so they sinned.

It is obvious that they vowed to God and did not keep that vow and that they said they would give all the money to the Church for if they vowed to the disciples and kept some of the money they would not of died.

And they could of sold the land and kept all the money and not died if they did not vow to God for He did not require that they give it to the Church but it was their own land and in their own power to do whatever they wanted to do with that land whether not sell it or sell it and keep all the money.

The actions of the early Jerusalem Church indicate a level of focus, and sold-out dedication to the things of God (getting rid of your stuff, and having everything common) that the comtemporary church is 1000 miles away from, for the most part. None of it, however is a surprise to God, who's plan for the age in ON SCHEDULE, and in Budget till the end of the age. He can bring it all together through the Holy Spirit very rapidly - when it's time. WE had a small taste of that in the '70s.

I mean who among us has sold a property and paid the whole amount of it to a church...? Yes I think that the problem was that they lied about keeping the money to themselves. Is that all that was about...? Was it about us selling our property and giving that much amount of money to a church. This is one difference I feel our churches today have....we are not having one single bank ...and I believe the early believers sold everything and had only one money bank for all who had need. but all of us are different. we go have jobs , we have not left it to be in the church all the time...we may give 1/10th of our money perhaps but not all of our money and have a single bank for all christians distributing to everyone as needed. what changed..? y are we so different than early christians....is it part of God's plan..? Am I wrong about the Scriptures? Correct me. Thanks.

Generally I agree with your posts, but you're going way outside of Scripture here. There is no requirement to tithe for Christians, PERIOD. Your implication is clear, that Christians ARE expected to tithe, and will suffer if they disobey.

Kindly make the clear distinction between voluntary offerings, which are strongly encouraged and even expected under the new covenant, and tithing, which is required under the OLD covenant but a non-issue under the new.

You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord?

eh? "in the 70s?"

kindly elucidate ... I'm just afraid I missed something ...

It was called the "Charismatic outpouring", and for a brief time, "Denominational differences" became irrelevant, and we were "just Christians" - until the outpouring ended in the late '70s, and we went back to our separate little boxes again.

I mean who among us has sold a property and paid the whole amount of it to a church...? Yes I think that the problem was that they lied about keeping the money to themselves. Is that all that was about...? Was it about us selling our property and giving that much amount of money to a church. This is one difference I feel our churches today have....we are not having one single bank ...and I believe the early believers sold everything and had only one money bank for all who had need. but all of us are different. we go have jobs , we have not left it to be in the church all the time...we may give 1/10th of our money perhaps but not all of our money and have a single bank for all christians distributing to everyone as needed. what changed..? y are we so different than early christians....is it part of God's plan..? Am I wrong about the Scriptures? Correct me. Thanks.

Oh right, yes I was part of all that, I always plumped for the Pentecostals mesself because they had a little discipline in their doctrines but folks were getting saved and baptised in the Holy Ghost sure enough.

But the charismatic church has itself become a distinct entity ... some good stuff going on.

I don't care too much about denomination. I think what has happened is a preparation ...

Oddly, the "Charismatic movement HASN'T generated "Denominational groups" in the same way that the Pentecostal revival did back in 1910 - 1920. The AG was launched in 1914, and they tossed McAlister's "Jesus Only" lunatic fringe in 1916 with their proclamation of the trinity.




Agree.

I've been Assembly of God for most of the last 59 years since about 1964 or so, and the AG BEFORE the Charismatic outpouring was a VERY legalistic, "Clothesline holy", "One strike and you're OUT", "our way or the highway" bunch.

The "Assemblies of God" were dead set AGAINST the Charismatic outpouring (not Clothesline Holy enough for 'em. There were women cutting their hair, and wearing PANTS!! Folks were having alcohol, and there were Spirit filled Presbyterians, and Lutherans, and Episcopalians, and even Spirit filled Catholics involved in it - ( Horrors!!! )

AFTER the "outpouring", when Charismatics started flowing back into their old churches, the AG picked up MANY former charismatics, which had the effect of "Un-legalizing" the denomination, and making it more liberal than it was. SO I agree that "Preparation" (demonstrating to us the relative unimportance of our "Denominational fences") was a major effect.

I think that the problem was that they lied