While the early converts in and around Jerusalem were obviously and admirably generous, as Acts 2-5 chronicle, we need to consider another financial principle that is just as much a part of God's Word as the Jerusalem example. Several years later, some brethren in Thessalonica quit their jobs, expecting others to keep them afloat. Not usefully employed and with time on their hands, these people began causing trouble in the congregation. Paul calls them "disorderly" (II Thessalonians 3:6-7, 11), indicating they were out of their proper places and undisciplined, like soldiers who break rank. Other translations call their conduct "walking in idleness," "leading an unruly life," "idle and disruptive," "slack in the performance of duty," "liv[ing] an undisciplined life," and "liv[ing] irresponsibly."

Scripture strongly warns against idleness. Any system that promotes idleness contradicts God's intent because it erodes character. When a nation turns to socialism, the motivation to work—and work hard—is blunted because society provides an easier way to be taken care of. Paul writes, "If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat" (II Thessalonians 3:10), and he even advises church members to withdraw from brethren who do this (verse 6). His deliberate example was to labor industriously with his own hands rather than depend on the brethren for his living, even though it was well within his right to "live from the gospel" (II Thessalonians 3:8-9; I Corinthians 9:14).

Jesus Christ Himself warns against a socialist approach, telling His disciples, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors'" (Luke 22:25). His description of these kings' style of government is far closer to what we call socialism than anything depicted in the book of Acts. He states that these Gentile kings—those who do not know God—exercise lordship yet are called "benefactors," those who do good or benefit others.

Similarly, the essence of socialism is using state authority to take from people under the guise of "doing good" for all. Those doing so exercise dominion and claim it is for the benefit of society—the common good. Conversely, Jesus says in the following two verses that those with authority are to serve, not to be served.

Even so, filleting the sacred cow of socialism does not mean God automatically favors predatory or oppressive capitalism instead. That is a false dichotomy. Through Amos, God condemns unjust business practices, things like selling the poor for a pair of sandals and toasting legal victories over weaker competitors (Amos 2:6, 8; 8:6). He also portrays debt as a last resort, not as a common practice to acquire things before one can afford them. He warns of national calamity because of national debt (see Habakkuk 2:6-8).

God is adamantly against greed, covetousness, and oppression regardless of where it is found, whether in a government, a business, an individual, or even a religious organization. He is looking for individual responsibility in tending to the gifts He has given, providing for one's own to the best of one's ability, and being generous toward those who are legitimately unable to provide for themselves.

The so-called socialist proof-texts in the book of Acts instead show exemplary generosity amid a cultural and religious sea-change in the lives of thousands of Jerusalem converts due to their new conviction and priorities. These verses do not provide evidence of socialism or communism—these economic and political systems did not exist at the time in any real sense—but an altruistic generosity and a child-like trust that their Father would provide. Nobody was forcing, requiring, or even pressuring the people in Jerusalem to give.

The rest of Scripture shows that the "all things in common" situation was local to Jerusalem and had a limited duration. The apostles did not preach a message of "all things in common" as a basic operating principle, and their epistles provide no support for collectivism. Instead, they advocate for personal industriousness to be able to help others—peer-to-peer, we might say, not through a central authority.

Their epistles show church members owning property and do not disparage it. The New Testament speaks of congregations of both rich and poor people, yet the church did not attempt to equalize wealth. God's gifting in the ability to get wealth is not uniform, as the Parable of the Talents indicates (Matthew 25:14-30). Instead, the epistles relate the examples of people giving what they could, whether small or great—yet always having the unpressured choice to do so, unlike in socialism, communism, or authoritarian religious groups. While their writings certainly contain admonitions to be generous, the apostles always left the choice to the individual.

In short, the early church modeled generosity, not collectivism.