> “What would you call a group of persons who all lived in one area, owned no property or possessions among themselves, and shared everything? The people let’s say sold their houses and gave to a common treasury for the common good as needed? What type of persons would do such? Could it work?”
.
It could only work if each and every member of the group were a true believer in Jesus Christ.
The Plymouth colony proved that in spades, when it quickly failed for them, even though the great majority of them were true believers, the handful of tares doomed the effort.
II Thes 3:
[7] For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
[8] Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
[9] Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
[10] For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
[11] For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
The mistake of such can easily be that of creating a model of the perfect church - in which communal living is that primary distinctive, focusing on Acts 2:45-47; 4:32.34-37, and by which they consciously see and contrast themselves as superior to all others - and which model they promote and focus on becoming, more so it seems than focusing on Christ and exalting him, (which i think Rose Creek village tends to do), and preaching the gospel which saves sinners wherever they may be.
And or they follow a Christ-like figure or body which fosters or requires implicit obedience and squash its quashes sincere questioning of its teachings.
But what i think most attempts to replicate the year the church leave out is that the first church was led by apostles whose leadership was manifested by unselfish devotion to Christ, and prayer in the word, (Acts 6:3) with holiness and preaching which conformed to and complemented that which was written, and whose Divine authority was established by powerful supernatural attestation from God.
And that it was not all about holding all things common and living and eating their meals as a body, or simply about prayer and teaching, but about the contrite and reverential hearts of the converted, and positive as well as “negative” miracles done by men whose hearts were the same.
“And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.”
“And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.”
” And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.”
“And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch. And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.” (Acts 2:43; 4:31,33; 5:12,13)
However, the inclusion of the latter does not promote what is typically seen today among those who believe in supernatural gifts, with its emphasis on health and wealth and leaders who live in mansions or five-star hotels.
They were just that and it didn't work actually. Some dissension set in and a bit later came both religious and government persecution. The Disciples tried it. Acts ch 3-5 I think.
The rest is just a general response not at you or anyone personally. People of leadership positions can make very outrageous statements. Here's a real whopper which should have any Christian raising questions and saying this is an outrage. I do not believe in nor follow the creed of the words I am quoting.
I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of d blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.
His religious beliefs were primarily that of a Deist. A person who in effect believes GOD created heavens and earth then abandoned it. Yet his political writings were the words which were written, signed by colony delegates, and handed to the crown, in 1776. Would any Freeper call Thomas Jefferson an enemy of this nation or a religious hieratic for that matter? A person doing so might get banned or at the least get highly flamed for such. Many have quoted him. Few realize that this book he speaks of is the bible of the Unitarian Church. A true corruption of GOD's Word removing the Divinity of Jesus Christ as well as His resurrection. Jefferson is being treated far more kindly by Protestants than a Pope who denies none of The Gospel.
Now I suppose some could make the argument Jefferson was not the leader of a church but a political leader. True enough. But he did pen a document calling it religious text.
Many times church leaders do not make good political leaders and vice versa because the missions and laws of each institution are vastly different in nature. Thomas Jefferson was a great POTUS but would any of you want his as a leader of your church meaning your Priest, Preacher, Sunday School Teacher, or Deacon? Likely not because his theological beliefs are 180 from yours Protestant or Catholic. That is how radical the religious views in this nation changed in 200 years.
Many churches possibly in our lifetime will fall for the deception of the Antichrist as in a charismatic leader a disciple of Satan to come and for a short time rule the world. This person will deceive many in ALL churches including many leaders as well as members maybe even me or you if we aren't careful.
Despite what he is reported to have said he is not of the Antichrist any more than Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell could have been both BTW were DEMs IIRC. Yes they too had their public boo boos.
When you see a Pope call for the abominations {such as openly Gay clergy and church sanctioned same sex marriages etc} now being seen in many Protestant Churches to be allowed and the falling away then get back with me. When you see the Pope calling for removal of prayer from all public functions get back with me. When you see the Pope supporting abortion on demand get back with me. I only wish more protestant church leaders would gather courage and speak their voices in opposition to the wrong doings of government.