The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Charismatics and Government Vaccine Mandates

There is nothing scientific about what I am about to say.
It is just an observation, that makes me curious if others are finding the same thing.


I was thinking about my own life and family, friends and acquaintances, I know who take the same
position I do against government overreach.

What I have noticed is every single family member that is Charismatc takes the very same position I do against vaccine mandates and government overreach.
Contrast that to many of my own friends and family who are Reformed and I find it quite shocking. Even my former Reformed Baptist Church, is opposed to my position on Romans 13 grounds; causing a Church split. I was shocked that my old pastor takes the position he does on the subject.

Among the people who left my old Church is a good friend, who was in training to become and elder there. For a while he went against his conscience and submitted to the other elders. Yet after his wife was rebuked by an elder for hugging someone, that became the straw that broke the camels back.
He started speaking his mind and was disciplined for it. He stopped his elder ship training first and after a while, he repented and left the Church, because he felt like a hypocrite.
He recently shared with me a pre-Covid sermon one of the elders preached on Romans chapter 13, that shows they did an about face on their understanding of the chapter.

A common example is , many Reformed people and pastors I know believe that regardless of whether or not the government has made mistakes through all this, we can not know for sure if they are acting on everybody’s best interest or not. Therefore we must obey them; because that is loving your neighbour.

That seems to be the majority position among most Churches, Reformed or otherwise.

Tom

1. Unfortunately, your 'conclusions' are based upon your personal observation of a miniscule part of society and the visible church. It is virtually impossible to conclude anything from them. Now, they certainly appear to have grabbed hold of your emotions and you try to make sense of all this and to that you must deal with personally.

2. With all the links you have provided on what is happening in Canada and the angst that is going on in your own family and church(es) around you, one thing is for sure in regard to any and all churches... Do NOT... EVER... register to be a non-profit organization with the government. Too many churches do this on the elusive possibility of financial gain and tax benefits. Once you register with the government, whether local, state or federal, you are under their 'yoke' and are subject to their whimsical edits. Christ is LORD of His church and the Spirit is more than capable of making provisions for the Church without the government's HELP. Is there even a hint anywhere in the entire Bible that any of God's children joined the government in power in order to obtain some 'benefit'? Contrariwise, I read especially in the NT that the Church prayed constantly to GOD for help and not infrequently to be delivered from the government. Where are the churches today who boldly proclaim the SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD, yet fail to show even a flicker of reliance upon GOD's authority, power and love for His own?

Pilgrim

If these things effected my emotions; I can assure you that I am not aware of it. It was just an observation and that is why I mentioned it was not scientific. If anything, when I think about this, when I consider the Dispensationalism that seems to permeate the Charismatic movement, it might explain some of this.

Concerning registered Churches as non-profit. Up until recently I would have disagreed with you; mainly because it makes sense to claim offerings on your tax reports. If you get back money back from that, you can end up giving even more. However now, with so much government overreach, it does subject the government to these things.

Tom

If a church files for a 501 C3 then it opens the door to the government to dictate what the church can say or teach, e.g., homosexuality, transgenderism, gender identity, abortion, etc. If a church doesn't comply with a 'gag' order, then the government can cancel the tax exemption and file to collect all past money the church didn't have to pay in taxes. IF people give larger 'tithes' to a church mainly because they can get a tax right off, what does that say about the giver? The overwhelming working population pays taxes. Why should a pastor/elder be exempt from paying taxes or get a substantial deduction in taxes? Do you really think that the gov't gives tax exempt status to a church because the gov't really likes what a conservative church teaches its members?

Pilgrim said:
Of course, nobody should give larger taxes just to get a larger tax right off; I would agree it does not say much about the giver.
However, that is not what I am talking about.

You give because God wants you to and out of joy to support His Church. However, it makes a lot of sense to claim what you give on your taxes. I see it as good stewardship. unless of course it is at the expense of giving the government the right to tell the Church what it can and can not do.

Of course concerning the later point, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is supposed to take care of that; but it is being trampled on.

Tom

Now, young man... how does one 'claim what you give on your taxes', in this case an offering/tithe to a church, if that church is not a 501 C3 non-profit organization, approved by the gov't? Secondly, good stewardship as taught in Scripture is the giving of your possessions which God has ordained you should have. And part of the giving of your beneficence is that it should not be broadcast but rather it is a matter that should be known only between you and God (Matt 6:3,4). Thirdly, if one claims the offering/tithe and receives a deduction in tax for it, then does it not mean that the whole of the gift is in part reduced from the actual amount? Is this not akin to "holding back" a part of what appeared to be the actual gift? For example if you gave $100 to the church knowing that you would receive a $20 reduction in taxes from the gov't, the actual amount you gave would then be $80, correct? There seems to be some ingenuous giving in that case, IMO. Just a few thoughts for you to ponder.

I don't have time at the moment to answer you. However, I would like to thank you for calling me a .
I know I am younger than you, perhaps 8-9 years?; but it has been a long time since I have been called a young man.

Thanks

Tom

Maybe more..

Take a guess how old I am?

Pilgrim


Indeed it did make me ponder.

When trying to answer a question like that, one would need to understand the tax system.

You mentioned: I just looked at this up and I see it is something from the USA, not B.C. Canada. Yet I get your point.



The Church still has $100. My cash flow would only be a net $80, I gave them $100, the government gave me a tax break of $20 and I can now use that $20 however I believe lead. Meaning I can give that $20 back to the Church if I want.

Motivation is another matter; I would never give $100 just to get more for tax purposes. Yet, seeing the Church I attend is a registered charity, up until now I saw nothing wrong with claiming what I give. In fact, I have never belonged to a Church, Reformed or otherwise that was not a registered charity.
Only with government overreach, do I see wisdom in not becoming a registered charity.
I do not see declaring what you give as disingenuous, or necessarily disingenuous.
I may have missed it; but I have never in my 42 years as a believer, been have never been told it is wrong to declare what I give.


This is actually why my friend’s new Church plant has chosen not to become a registered charity.

1. I would think you are in your 60s.

2. Regardless of how your country/province has setup the 'charity/non-profit/whatever' status in order to allow tax reductions, the fact is registration with the gov't is required. This puts the registered organization/business/charity under the control of the gov't. For example, sportsman associations (aka: gun clubs) and I think all organizations in the U.S. who are 501 C3 designated are not allowed to be "political". This means, if a conservative individual is running for the office of county sheriff, that organization is forbidden to use any verbiage or campaign material that shows support for that individual. With the "privilege" of getting a tax break there is a loss of freedom. This principle has been learned for 1000s of years now. Any association with the gov't always means you lose something which you would otherwise have.

3. The liberties/freedoms which are allegedly guaranteed in your Charter of Rights or our U.S. Constitution/Declaration of Independence are not always observed by the gov't. And, the founding fathers of this country knew this well when they wrote those documents. In a 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith, the son-in-law of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Governments, regardless of where they are notoriously are based not upon for the good of the people, but on control and self-benefit. Why would a church voluntarily choose to make a pact with gov't which is run by evil men?

4. Motives are indeed at the heart of the matter (pun intended). Very few give with pure motives. Scripture is replete with examples of the intentions of men which are not pure to remind believers that they are not automatically exempt from being guilty of this too.

I would love if more churches refused the 501c3 "tax exemption." The children of the King are already exempt from tribute under all of Biblical, Constitutional, Natural, Common, and Statute law, though for different reasons. Bible-believing churches rarely have net income to tax, and getting a tax exemption on one's giving is hardly a reason to tear control of Christ's Church away from Christ, and to give it to Caesar instead.

I would also love if more of us understood the wicked nature of our current "governments" and all that implies, including, amongst other things, the duty to resist on any point where we cannot both obey God and man (Acts 5:29). If we do not, then much of the blood of the aborted, and of those murdered by COVID "vaccines" as well as COVID itself, and of other innocents, remains fully on our own hands.

And I would love if more people understood that we are commanded to love God with all our being, and hence to love our neighbor as ourselves, and hence not attempt to violate his or her God-given rights under color of law, whether by voting for demonic far-left thugs who openly campaign on a platform of robbing, enslaving and murdering other human beings and loving everything God hates and hating everything He loves, or by any other means.

That understanding is lacking among many.

Of course it is of existential importance that we resist left-wing Marxist thugs, Demoncrats (if I didn't just repeat myself), Arminians/Pelagians, and, in general, those who would vote based on their passions rather than experience. Which is among many of the reasons why both I and the framers for the most part strongly opposed demonocracy in general.

Nonetheless, being conservative, Republican, Reformed, or having been around the block a few times, does not guarantee that one will think or act biblically on these issues.

Only a deep familiarity with the Word, and more importantly, its Author, will do that.