Reaping The Whirl Wind, IRS Criminal Investigation of 3ABN Options

[jakann]

Would you mind elaborating, please?

Yes, I should have elaborated more. Of course I believe that every person can come boldly before the throne of grace without a priestly mediator other than Jesus Christ. What I had running in the back of my mind was that the "priesthood of all believers" does NOT mean some things that they think it does.

This priesthood does not mean that all are called to be pastors, elders, or deacons
Neither can all serve, even if they want to, in these positions
Neither does this priesthood mean that God authorizes all the power to baptize.
Neither does this priesthood mean that any and all can be supported from the holy tithe.

BTW, the Reformation, while brought about by God, dealt mainly with the false Christian church. The true Church, the church in the wilderness, has always, since apostolic times, had the true nature of "priesthood of all believers" within its midst.

[Johann]

I think that with any investigation there are times when not so much is happening and times when a lot of interesting things are coming to the fore. If there is enough here of interest to both sides to keep the discussion going, then I say talk on. If and when people stop being interested, then the topic will die out by itself.

Obviously it can be a chore for an admin who is tired of the subject to read all the endless bickering but I do appreciate your (for the most part) objectivity and the great job you do here Clay.

You are so right, lurker. That pesky investigation keeps me muzzled too, prevents me from getting more involved - for better or for worse. We are now past that gruelling aletheia-period that taught us a great lesson: How spinning can turn things upside down and make the worst lies appear like truth. So now we´re in a dreadfull lull before the blast. We don't dare say nothin' lest it be turned against us in the final end. Unless some smart guy plays safe by calling it STOP.

Don't feel hurt, anybody! Just trying to stir up some poor - or pure - sprit into action! Get hold of it before it bursts. What's BSDA for anyhow? Just sleepin'?

[jakann]

I'm having trouble figuring out how to select quotes and reply to them. If anyone out there can help, let me know. In the meantime, I put your words in bold with my comments after.

(SoulEspresso @ Dec 4 2007, 12:46 PM
Let me put it another way: can you find in the pages of the New Testament where pastors were paid by tithing? It's not there.

Incorrect. It is there. Here's a good text. "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." 1 Timothy 5:17,18 Paul went around and ordained elders in every city or commanded others to do so. There were no other "pastors" at that time. Elders served pastoral roles. They can and do that today as well. This is yet another example that gospel workers, irrespective of time and place, can be supported by the tithe. We saw it back in the OT even independent of the Levitical system where gospel workers (the school of the prophets) took of the tithe.
2Kings 4:42-44 And there came a man from Baalshalisha, and brought the man of God bread of the firstfruits, twenty loaves of barley, and full ears of corn in the husk thereof. And he said, Give unto the people, that they may eat. And his servitor said, What, should I set this before an hundred men? He said again, Give the people, that they may eat: for thus saith the LORD, They shall eat, and shall leave [thereof]. So he set [it] before them, and they did eat, and left [thereof], according to the word of the LORD.
I'll throw in some SOP, just to complete the thought.
"In like manner a tithe of our income is "holy unto the Lord." The New Testament does not re-enact the law of the tithe, as it does not that of the Sabbath; for the validity of both is assumed, and their deep spiritual import explained. " RH.1882-05-16

(SoulEspresso @ Dec 4 2007, 12:46 PM
The NT churches supported missionaries (aka church planters), but even those often worked to support themselves so that the money could be used for other things.

You contradict yourself. You contest that in the pages of the New Testament there are no examples of pastors being paid by tithing. And then you go to say that NT churches supported missionaries. And how are those missionaries supported? The tithe! I'm sure you are familiar that pastors/missionaries/ministers/bible workers/evangelists are variations on a single role of gospel worker and as such are rightfully supported, either full or in part, by the tithe.

(SoulEspresso @ Dec 4 2007, 12:46 PM
We do plenty that is not New Testament, even on the most basic level. Meeting in church buildings, for example--that's something the emperor Constantine pushed, and it was based on the pagan practice of gathering in temples for false worship (many early churches were built on the sites of razed pagan temples).

You are way, way off here dear friend. In many places the early church met in synagogues, until persecution pushed them out. Constantine can do whatever he wants but God has said that we are to have church buildings---in every city!
I saw jets of light shining from cities and villages, and
from the high places and the low places of the earth. God’s
word was obeyed, and as a result there were memorials
for Him in every city and village. His truth was proclaimed
throughout the world. (9T 28, 29)
The people who bear His sign are to establish
churches and institutions as memorials to Him. These
memorials, however humble in appearance, will constantly
bear witness against the false sabbath instituted by Satan,
and in favor of the Sabbath instituted by the Lord in Eden,
when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of
God shouted for joy. (7T 105)

[Clay]

In many places the early church met in synagogues, until persecution pushed them out. Constantine can do whatever he wants but God has said that we are to have church buildings---in every city!

ummm God did not say that, and perhaps a review of church history might be in order... the new christians did not meet in synagogues..... the Jews did that.... the jewish christians met in home churches....

[SoulEspresso]

Incorrect. It is there. Here's a good text. "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." 1 Timothy 5:17,18 Paul went around and ordained elders in every city or commanded others to do so. There were no other "pastors" at that time. Elders served pastoral roles. They can and do that today as well. This is yet another example that gospel workers, irrespective of time and place, can be supported by the tithe.

You are used to seeing things in the text that aren't there because of your presuppositions. Everybody has them, and it takes a long time to change a person's presuppositions.

It's not "yet another" text. It's a debatable one at best. This text does not mention a tenth of one's income, and whether it even mentions money is debatable. The word "honour" in the KJV can mean something like "price" but the weight of the definition is just that--honour or respect. Not necessarily or even likely wages. As for the following verse, Paul is applying OT passages to the idea of double honour, but it's a stretch to go from there to say that the early church had a tithing system. They didn't.

We saw it back in the OT even independent of the Levitical system where gospel workers (the school of the prophets) took of the tithe.
2Kings 4:42-44 And there came a man from Baalshalisha, and brought the man of God bread of the firstfruits, twenty loaves of barley, and full ears of corn in the husk thereof. And he said, Give unto the people, that they may eat. And his servitor said, What, should I set this before an hundred men? He said again, Give the people, that they may eat: for thus saith the LORD, They shall eat, and shall leave [thereof]. So he set [it] before them, and they did eat, and left [thereof], according to the word of the LORD.

I don't have a problem with this. There was not a system of tithing in the New Testament that supported local pastors.

I'll throw in some SOP, just to complete the thought.
"In like manner a tithe of our income is "holy unto the Lord." The New Testament does not re-enact the law of the tithe, as it does not that of the Sabbath; for the validity of both is assumed, and their deep spiritual import explained. " RH.1882-05-16

All respect to EGW, but she missed Acts 2:44. The early church held all things in common, so tithing as a systematic 10% wasn't necessary. They went way beyond that in caring for each other. A local pastor would be part of that, but to say that they passed the hat for a tithe to pay their leader just is not there.

You contradict yourself. You contest that in the pages of the New Testament there are no examples of pastors being paid by tithing. And then you go to say that NT churches supported missionaries. And how are those missionaries supported? The tithe! I'm sure you are familiar that pastors/missionaries/ministers/bible workers/evangelists are variations on a single role of gospel worker and as such are rightfully supported, either full or in part, by the tithe.

Tithing is mentioned four times in the New Testament--Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42, Luke 18:12, and Hebrews 7. Not once is it applied to local church workers. There is no indication from the text of the Bible that the New Testament church practiced tithing per se--we just know that they gave a lot. They were known to pay missionaries. I've said that from the beginning. Missionaries, aka church planters, are not the same thing as pastors ... not in general practice in the Adventist church, although thankfully that is changing.

You are way, way off here dear friend. In many places the early church met in synagogues, until persecution pushed them out. Constantine can do whatever he wants but God has said that we are to have church buildings---in every city!
I saw jets of light shining from cities and villages, and
from the high places and the low places of the earth. God’s
word was obeyed, and as a result there were memorials
for Him in every city and village. His truth was proclaimed
throughout the world. (9T 28, 29)
The people who bear His sign are to establish
churches and institutions as memorials to Him. These
memorials, however humble in appearance, will constantly
bear witness against the false sabbath instituted by Satan,
and in favor of the Sabbath instituted by the Lord in Eden,
when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of
God shouted for joy. (7T 105)

Just because EGW endorsed them doesn't mean that church buildings were not a Constantinian innovation.

What do you think about places where people will cross the street to avoid walking by a church? If church buildings get in the way of the life Jesus came to offer, shouldn't we discard them? Would you consider the possibility that church sanctuaries are a stumbling block to many people in the West? Doesn't the Bible say that God doesn't dwell in houses made by hands?

I've observed for years how much energy local congregations waste on their buildings. If they took that time and money to invest in connecting people to Jesus, He probably would have come back already.

Monuments they may be, but most of the time they turn into idols.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Dec 4 2007, 04:36 PM

[jakann]

ummm God did not say that, and perhaps a review of church history might be in order... the new christians did not meet in synagogues..... the Jews did that.... the jewish christians met in home churches....

I stand corrected. God did not say that churches should be in every city.
But again, He did say this:
I saw jets of light shining from cities and villages, and
from the high places and the low places of the earth. God’s
word was obeyed, and as a result there were memorials
for Him in every city and village. His truth was proclaimed
throughout the world. (9T 28, 29)
The people who bear His sign are to establish
churches and institutions as memorials to Him. These
memorials, however humble in appearance, will constantly
bear witness against the false sabbath instituted by Satan,
and in favor of the Sabbath instituted by the Lord in Eden,
when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of
God shouted for joy. (7T 105)

Many new Christians did meet in synagogues. Later, after they were terribly hounded out of them they began to meet more and more in home churches and other places.

Acts 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed. (What do we call people who believe on Jesus Christ? Christians! No matter if they were Jews or Greeks.)
Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Acts 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
Acts 19:8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.
Acts 22:19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: (Here Paul acknowledges that true believers were meeting in the synagogues. He himself had persecuted them.

The Bible is clear that many of the first believers met, worshiped and were taught in synagogues until as such time they were cast out.

[jakann]

You are used to seeing things in the text that aren't there because of your presuppositions. Everybody has them, and it takes a long time to change a person's presuppositions.

It's not "yet another" text. It's a debatable one at best. This text does not mention a tenth of one's income, and whether it even mentions money is debatable. The word "honour" in the KJV can mean something like "price" but the weight of the definition is just that--honour or respect. Not necessarily or even likely wages. As for the following verse, Paul is applying OT passages to the idea of double honour, but it's a stretch to go from there to say that the early church had a tithing system. They didn't.
I don't have a problem with this. There was not a system of tithing in the New Testament that supported local pastors.
All respect to EGW, but she missed Acts 2:44. The early church held all things in common, so tithing as a systematic 10% wasn't necessary. They went way beyond that in caring for each other. A local pastor would be part of that, but to say that they passed the hat for a tithe to pay their leader just is not there.
Tithing is mentioned four times in the New Testament--Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42, Luke 18:12, and Hebrews 7. Not once is it applied to local church workers. There is no indication from the text of the Bible that the New Testament church practiced tithing per se--we just know that they gave a lot. They were known to pay missionaries. I've said that from the beginning. Missionaries, aka church planters, are not the same thing as pastors ... not in general practice in the Adventist church, although thankfully that is changing.
Just because EGW endorsed them doesn't mean that church buildings were not a Constantinian innovation.

What do you think about places where people will cross the street to avoid walking by a church? If church buildings get in the way of the life Jesus came to offer, shouldn't we discard them? Would you consider the possibility that church sanctuaries are a stumbling block to many people in the West? Doesn't the Bible say that God doesn't dwell in houses made by hands?

I've observed for years how much energy local congregations waste on their buildings. If they took that time and money to invest in connecting people to Jesus, He probably would have come back already.

Monuments they may be, but most of the time they turn into idols.

If people are crossing the street to not walk by a church then I guess that, in part, the church is doing its job. It stands as a source of refuge before them but it also will be a testimony against them should they not choose to walk in the truth. BTW, just because a building has the word "church" on the front doesn't mean that it is a house of Godly worship. Most "churches" are from the synagogue of Satan. I'd cross the street before going next to some of them as well!

So, we're in agreement then that as many SDA churches as possible should be erected as memorials to Christ?

Also, you continue to argue in circles by saying that the NT church didn't tithe but yet gave money to missionaries. Methinks you are of the ilk that considers tithing to be one of the ceremonial laws that was nailed to the cross. Is this true?

[Shepherdswife]

Yes, I should have elaborated more. Of course I believe that every person can come boldly before the throne of grace without a priestly mediator other than Jesus Christ. What I had running in the back of my mind was that the "priesthood of all believers" does NOT mean some things that they think it does.

This priesthood does not mean that all are called to be pastors, elders, or deacons
Neither can all serve, even if they want to, in these positions
Neither does this priesthood mean that God authorizes all the power to baptize.
Neither does this priesthood mean that any and all can be supported from the holy tithe.

BTW, the Reformation, while brought about by God, dealt mainly with the false Christian church. The true Church, the church in the wilderness, has always, since apostolic times, had the true nature of "priesthood of all believers" within its midst.

Interesting....

I am not sure that I have ever met anyone who believes that the "priesthood of all believers" means those things, so I am glad you explained. Thanks.

[Clay]

I stand corrected. God did not say that churches should be in every city.
But again, He did say this:
I saw jets of light shining from cities and villages, and
from the high places and the low places of the earth. God’s
word was obeyed, and as a result there were memorials
for Him in every city and village. His truth was proclaimed
throughout the world. (9T 28, 29)

Ummm no, God did not say that.... you are quoting egw sharing a vision she had.... there is a difference...

[Pickle]

Speaking of the work in the South, and of the people there, "They live among us, and again and again, through the testimonies of His Spirit, God has called our attention to them, telling us that here are human beings neglected" (8T 205).

If Adventists had much earlier taken the position that the "testimonies of His Spirit" meant a revelation of the will of the Sovereign of the universe, "God calling our attention," perhaps the South would have gotten greater attention much earlier than it did. But they took the testimonies to be just Ellen White's opinions, or maybe divine counsel that was optional, and decades of opportunities were lost in consequence.

I don't know, but I've wondered if more had been done earlier if perhaps the racial issues would have turned out differently. It seems like the long delay allowed Southern prejudice to arise again and become violent, and then the work became more challenging. That's my impression, but I could be wrong.

[AzA]

Neither does this priesthood mean that God authorizes all the power to baptize.

Sounds like you're saying that Jesus' commission in Matt 28, which includes "going," "teaching," and "baptizing" is only the mission of a few.

[PeacefulBe]

You are used to seeing things in the text that aren't there because of your presuppositions. Everybody has them, and it takes a long time to change a person's presuppositions.

It's not "yet another" text. It's a debatable one at best. This text does not mention a tenth of one's income, and whether it even mentions money is debatable. The word "honour" in the KJV can mean something like "price" but the weight of the definition is just that--honour or respect. Not necessarily or even likely wages. As for the following verse, Paul is applying OT passages to the idea of double honour, but it's a stretch to go from there to say that the early church had a tithing system. They didn't.
I don't have a problem with this. There was not a system of tithing in the New Testament that supported local pastors.
All respect to EGW, but she missed Acts 2:44. The early church held all things in common, so tithing as a systematic 10% wasn't necessary. They went way beyond that in caring for each other. A local pastor would be part of that, but to say that they passed the hat for a tithe to pay their leader just is not there.
Tithing is mentioned four times in the New Testament--Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42, Luke 18:12, and Hebrews 7. Not once is it applied to local church workers. There is no indication from the text of the Bible that the New Testament church practiced tithing per se--we just know that they gave a lot. They were known to pay missionaries. I've said that from the beginning. Missionaries, aka church planters, are not the same thing as pastors ... not in general practice in the Adventist church, although thankfully that is changing.
Just because EGW endorsed them doesn't mean that church buildings were not a Constantinian innovation.

What do you think about places where people will cross the street to avoid walking by a church? If church buildings get in the way of the life Jesus came to offer, shouldn't we discard them? Would you consider the possibility that church sanctuaries are a stumbling block to many people in the West? Doesn't the Bible say that God doesn't dwell in houses made by hands?

I've observed for years how much energy local congregations waste on their buildings. If they took that time and money to invest in connecting people to Jesus, He probably would have come back already.

Monuments they may be, but most of the time they turn into idols.

SE, I join others in welcoming you back. You have been missed!

IMO, church buildings can be either waste of funds or a conduit to greater service. It really is up to the local congregation to decide which it will be. If the building is a manifestation of pride, meant primarily to be pleasing to the eye, an adornment such as an Armani suit or a Gucci handbag, it is a superficial abomination that shows the spirit of those meeting within its walls. If it is a sturdy, comfortable and functional building of appropriate size for its location, that can be used freely, not only for Sabbath services, but also community outreach such as emergency housing in times of disaster, educational programs that can change lives, special events of both a social and religious nature, then it becomes an appropriate use of funds and a tool for spreading the good news and edifying the body of Christ.

PB

[SoulEspresso]

If people are crossing the street to not walk by a church then I guess that, in part, the church is doing its job.

That, or the people have misrepresented Christ so badly that they give others nightmares.

There are two kinds of offense that people take at Christians (and Adventists). There's offense that they take because they don't want to deal with conviction and the possibility that someone else is right ... and there's the offense that they take because Christians are judgmental and offensive in how they present what they believe.

For some of us, we get confused; we think that people are offended at the truth, when in reality it's because we've been tactless and boorish. (A certain paperback promoted heavily on a certain Adventist satellite channel, circulated around the first weekend in May comes to mind. We lost two or three evangelistic contacts in our town because of that book.)

Put another way, most people in North America these days don't have the education or prior understandings to even understand what we're talking about, but they're good fruit inspectors. If they are convinced that we care about them as persons, they might listen ... after awhile. But if they think we're proselytizing out of a sense of guilt or paranoia or obligation--or if they think we care more about our doctrines than we do our neighbors--they don't give two cents for "The Truth."

"People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." Cliche but true.

The church's job is to love sinners, first. My observation has been that if we meet people's needs, the Holy Spirit convicts of sin and convinces of truth without our help. Every time.

It stands as a source of refuge before them but it also will be a testimony against them should they not choose to walk in the truth. BTW, just because a building has the word "church" on the front doesn't mean that it is a house of Godly worship. Most "churches" are from the synagogue of Satan. I'd cross the street before going next to some of them as well!

Be careful whom you accuse. EGW makes very clear that most of God's people are in other denominations (see The Great Controversy, page 390). We don't know other people's standing with God, but "by their fruits you will recognize them."

So, we're in agreement then that as many SDA churches as possible should be erected as memorials to Christ?

I want as many people as possible to know the God that I know, and to be blessed with the information about reality that He has given me that traveled to me through my church. Call them "living stones" built on the chief cornerstone, if that helps. I like those kinds of monuments.

But physical buildings? Buildings are an enormous waste of resources and time.

Also, you continue to argue in circles by saying that the NT church didn't tithe but yet gave money to missionaries. Methinks you are of the ilk that considers tithing to be one of the ceremonial laws that was nailed to the cross. Is this true?

Please don't use words like "ilk." You don't know me or my views. I disagree with you on how the early church arranged its finances, but I haven't called you the "ilk" of anything.

Tithing as practiced by the Seventh-day Adventist church presently goes like this. The member pays tithe. The local church treasurer sends that to the conference, and it goes up the denominational ladder. The conference pays the pastor and denominational workers. Pastors oversee local congregations and provide "pastoral" care. They do evangelism as Bible studies here and there, and an occasional outreach series, every year at the very best.

In the New Testament, what appeared to happen, based on the text of the Bible, was that the church didn't have the same concept of possessions that we do. They held everything in common, so every person in the community had what he or she needed. Out of that pool, sometimes they'd provide money for a teacher from their community to travel to the next city and set up a new community of believers--a new church--by preaching in synagogues (if there was one) because the Jews would have the Scriptural background, and in the marketplace, or wherever was most effective.

Once this new church was planted, the teacher/missionary would put the most capable people in charge--the pastor--and move on. This pastor was a member of the local church and was not paid. This new church would then finance the missionary to go to the next town.

Sometimes the missionary used the money to meet needs in the new city rather than pay himself, and instead worked a job to pay the bills. I assume from this that the job would give him contact in the local community, and if he did good work, people would know that the message he was so enthusiastic about was a credible message and that they should listen to it.

Apparently Paul did it both ways, depending on circumstances.

What it was NOT, was a system of giving a tenth of everything. The early chapters of Acts support not a lesser manner of giving, but a greater one. Put it another way: the early church expected a lot more than 10 percent. We don't give like they do. Rather than tithing, I'd like to see a church where people cared so much about each other and so much about Jesus that they'd use their money on themselves only for basic needs, and use the rest to care for the poor and to spread the gospel.

The concept of tithe is based on low expectations. We ought to be trying to out give each other. Do I do this myself? Not yet. But I'd like to.

[SoulEspresso]

SE, I join others in welcoming you back. You have been missed!

Hello PB!

Missed being here. Busy fall.

IMO, church buildings can be either waste of funds or a conduit to greater service. It really is up to the local congregation to decide which it will be. If the building is a manifestation of pride, meant primarily to be pleasing to the eye, an adornment such as an Armani suit or a Gucci handbag, it is a superficial abomination that shows the spirit of those meeting within its walls. If it is a sturdy, comfortable and functional building of appropriate size for its location, that can be used freely, not only for Sabbath services, but also community outreach such as emergency housing in times of disaster, educational programs that can change lives, special events of both a social and religious nature, then it becomes an appropriate use of funds and a tool for spreading the good news and edifying the body of Christ.

Your second scenario is really the best possible use of a church building. I strongly believe that house church is the way of the future, yet I do see the other side. Corporate worship is easier in the sanctuary; a central gathering point is nice. If you're going to have a sanctuary, it might as well be aesthetically beautiful; we worship a beautiful God.

But God's beauty is better reflected in changed lives. You hear a lot about reverence in a sanctuary, and the people who bleat about it the loudest are also those who are the rudest to other. The Bible says God does not dwell in houses made by hands; it also says Christ does dwell in our hearts by faith, so if we're going to be reverent, we need to be reverent in the presence of others whether or not they're in the sanctuary.

We began a building project at our church recently. I supported and encouraged it, and I will support it with offering. But I cringe inside every time I think about the proportion of money we're spending on the building to the funds reserved for evangelism. Hence my statements on waste.

To Jakann ... I'm really idealistic on these threads. In live conversation, depending on who I'm talking to, I'm more down-to-earth. In the real-life context, it was way easier to fix the roof than to take the years of changing people's minds about what a congregation can and should be.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Dec 4 2007, 10:40 PM

[Shepherdswife]

So, we're in agreement then that as many SDA churches as possible should be erected as memorials to Christ?

It seems to me that the NT uses the word church to describe the people, the body, not the building---(Rom 16:5--Greet the church that is in their house...)
(Acts 11:22--News of this reached the ears of the church...) and having memorials in every town and village can be as simple as a small group meeting and sharing.

We did a building project once. . .and I am not sure I would ever want to do it again...I'd rather spend my hours building people...

I was thinking of that EGW quote as we built, of the times when you could pull everyone together and build a building in a day or three. No codes, no inspections, no indoor plumbing. I wonder if she would say the same thing today?