the Doctrine of Incorporation.

Hello Nathan,


Teaching such a doctrine flies in the face of scriptures such as

1 Peter 2:13-17
13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king


Romans 13: 1-7

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

The doctrine you presented tells the church to repond in a different manner than these scriptures. True, he does quote scriptures citing that we cannot serve two gods, and that is truth, but the text that is cited, is for "man", the Greek meaning "no one" or "nothing", but instead, he has taken a liberal translation of "man" to mean "church"... which is not the literal tranlation of the Bible.

In other words, he translated the text to fit the need to support the doctrine.


Not recommended reading.


~malaka~

Those verses really don't apply here because Churches are not required to incorporate in the US. They may incorporate for tax reasons, but it is not law.

That said, I think the argument that that guy set up was very weak. First He said "The church is incorporated." (true)
Then he said that churches become 501-c whatever incorporations. (true)

Where his argument breaks down is when he tries to say that churches are somehow serving somebody other than God if they are 501-c whatever corporations. All he did was manage to use the same word in both situations. I don't think he did a very good job of showing how this splits loyalty to God.

I am moving this to a more appropriate forum.

Didn't Christ Himself address this:

Matthew 22:17-21 (RSVA)
17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, "Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the money for the tax." And they brought him a coin. 20 And Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" 21 They said, "Caesar's." Then he said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

I don't understand this.
What would be the state's motive for allowing churches to incorporate?
What would be the state's motive for allowing other churches to not incorporate?
What would be a church's motive for wanting to incorporate?
What would be another church's motive for not wanting to incorporate?

Also...
Is the idea of incorporation so that churches can own property (building, busses, etc.)?
Do unincorporated churches basically have to meet in a privately owned building (eg. a home church)? And what about money being exchanged among members (eg. giving to missionaries) - does that have to be taxed?

Nate, I agree with the article.

Incorporation is the issue that Romans used to justify persecuting Christians. Why else would Ceasar leave unmolested all the other religions that did not acknowlege his divinity?
The main reason for selling our free exercise of religion for the privilege of not paying taxes we don't constitutionally owe, is because in return we recieve "limited liability". In other words, the incorporated church can be sued(say for bad advice or misconduct), but the the personal assests of its members get legally protected.
Of course that never gets a mention, it's always "so we can get tax deductions".
In return for that protection & money, the incorporated church must agree not to speak against "Public" (read Gov.) Policy.
Can you imagine the Puritans buying into any of that?
Obviuosly, Ceasar has subordinated Jesus as head of incorporated churches.

It certainly wouldn't be for the Lord's sake if you were to submit yourself to an ordinance of man that is ungodly. Daniel, Meshak, Shadrack, & Abednego didn't do it in the OT, niether did the Apostles submit to the ordinance against their preaching & healing in the NT.

I hang out on that site's forum.
I recommend it.

To anyone who might still be tracking this thread, check out www.hushmoney.org .

marc said:

To anyone who might still be tracking this thread, check out www.hushmoney.org.

Click to expand...

That is a very interesting link...