Jump to content
Online Baptist
E Morales
E Morales

Can a Christian be a Liberal Voter?


Published:

I believed, that all christians that do vote, we're all voting conservative. For there is no more in the middle, when it comes to voting. My question is, do christians really know what it is to be a liberal voter, and what it stands for, or supports? 

 

 

 



User Feedback

Recommended Comments



35 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

No, I meant liberal. I often find that Independent Fundamentalists use what I consider a liberal interpretation when defending a far out point and when proof-texting. 

Ah, I see. Then I must contend that you are falsely accusing me. A "liberal" interpretation" would be one wherein the Scriptures can be handled "fluidly," allowing for the redefining of terminology and for an allegorical understanding of passages.  In Webster's New World College Dictionary 4th edition, the #4 definition for "liberal" is as follows -- "not restricted to the literal meaning; not strict [a "liberal" interpretation of the Bible]."  (Politically, such is the manner with which liberals are handling the Constitution of the United States.) 

Whereas, a "literal" interpretation would be one wherein the Scriptures are taken with grammatical and contextual precision, such that the precise wording of Scripture is honored as that which God the Holy Spirit precisely intended.

Now, the PRECISE wording that the Holy Spirit inspired in Matthew 25:40 is as follows -- "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."  Again, the PRECISE wording that the Holy Spirit inspired in Matthew 25:45 is as follows -- "Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."

 The precise wording that the Holy Spirit inspired includes the phrase "of these MY BRETHREN" in Matthew 25:40 and the phrase "of these" (a demonstrative pronoun pointing back to the previous group mentioned) in Matthew 25:45.  I did not add those phrases.  The HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD precisely inspired those phrases.  It is only for me to literally and precisely take the Holy Spirit at His word on the matter.  Such is "rightly dividing the word of truth."  Even so, the passage and the judgement about which is prophecies concerns how we treat the Lord's BRETHREN (not any one else).

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Ah, I see. Then I must contend that you are falsely accusing me. A "liberal" interpretation" would be one wherein the Scriptures can be handled "fluidly," allowing for the redefining of terminology and for an allegorical understanding of passages.  In Webster's New World College Dictionary 4th edition, the #4 definition for "liberal" is as follows -- "not restricted to the literal meaning; not strict [a "liberal" interpretation of the Bible]."  (Politically, such is the manner with which liberals are handling the Constitution of the United States.) 

Whereas, a "literal" interpretation would be one wherein the Scriptures are taken with grammatical and contextual precision, such that the precise wording of Scripture is honored as that which God the Holy Spirit precisely intended.

Now, the PRECISE wording that the Holy Spirit inspired in Matthew 25:40 is as follows -- "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."  Again, the PRECISE wording that the Holy Spirit inspired in Matthew 25:45 is as follows -- "Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."

 The precise wording that the Holy Spirit inspired includes the phrase "of these MY BRETHREN" in Matthew 25:40 and the phrase "of these" (a demonstrative pronoun pointing back to the previous group mentioned) in Matthew 25:45.  I did not add those phrases.  The HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD precisely inspired those phrases.  It is only for me to literally and precisely take the Holy Spirit at His word on the matter.  Such is "rightly dividing the word of truth."  Even so, the passage and the judgement about which is prophecies concerns how we treat the Lord's BRETHREN (not any one else).

I was thinking more of your take on the passage in 2 Thessalonians 3:10. To pull that out of context as a proof text is to take a liberal interpretation or at least imply one. 

Edited by Bouncing Bill

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words are vehicles to convey thought; never more important than when we deal with Scripture. Regarding the last post that Bro. Scott made; the Scripture  says what it says; nothing more and certainly nothing less.

Any disagreement with what it says must be taken up with the author of the Scripture.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

No, I meant liberal. I often find that Independent Fundamentalists use what I consider a liberal interpretation when defending a far out point and when proof-texting. 

 

Could you demonstrate where in his interpretation that he used a “liberal” interpretation, you seem to be the one using loose and “liberal” interpretations of scripture.

Scott has actually exegeted the biblical texts you have attempted to proof text and rather than actually giving any kind of substantial interaction with the text or his exegesis of it you just dismiss it as being a “liberal” interpretation. That is true classic proof texting.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I was thinking more of your take on the passage in 2 Thessalonians 3:10. To pull that out of context as a proof text is to take a liberal interpretation or at least imply one. 

I would love to see you actually exegete 2 Th 3:10 here. 
 

Heres a comment on it by Albert Barnes.

“That if any would not work, neither should he eat - That is, at the public expense. They should not be supported by the church. This was a maxim among the Jews (see Wetstein, in loc.), and the same sentiment may be found in Homer, Demosthenes, and Pythagoras; see Grotius, in loc. The maxim is founded in obvious justice, and is in accordance with the great law under which our Creator has placed us; Gen 3:19. That law, in the circumstances, was benevolent, and it should be our aim to carry it out in reference to ourselves and to others. The law here laid down by the apostle extends to all who are able to work for a living, and who will not do it, and binds us not to contribute to their support if they will not labor for it. It should be regarded as extending:

(1) To the members of a church - who, though poor, should not be supported by their brethren, unless they are willing to work in any way they can for their own maintenance.

(2) To those who beg from door to door, who should never be assisted unless they are willing to do all they can do for their own support. No one can be justified in assisting a lazy man. In no possible circumstances are we to contribute to foster indolence. A man might as properly help to maintain open vice.”

Edited by Jordan Kurecki

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

 

Could you demonstrate where in his interpretation that he used a “liberal” interpretation, you seem to be the one using loose and “liberal” interpretations of scripture.

Scott has actually exegeted the biblical texts you have attempted to proof text and rather than actually giving any kind of substantial interaction with the text or his exegesis of it you just dismiss it as being a “liberal” interpretation. That is true classic proof texting.

Yes, he takes the verse out of context and to me implies that this is a universal statement saying that anyone who "will not" or "cannot work" should not be given food. Proof-texting is dangerous. We can prove anything by taking verses out of their contest. Also, by taking this one verse out of context multiple passages in the Bible are ignored at best or implied to be meaningless at worst. I am neither impressed nor pleased with proof-texting. [All this very gently said.] 

I could show the logical conclusion this out-of-context verse leads to but I do not want to infuriate some on the board. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Yes, he takes the verse out of context and to me implies that this is a universal statement saying that anyone who "will not" or "cannot work" should not be given food. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

 

This statement is a misrepresentation of my position, and as such is a false accusation.  I have indeed indicated that those who WILL NOT work (that is -- the "unworthy lazy") "should not be given food."  However, I have also indicated that welfare is "supposed to be FOR those who CANNOT work."  Consider the following:

On 9/1/2020 at 11:03 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, I believe that governmental "welfare" help is supposed to be for those who CANNOT, not for those who WILL NOT. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On 9/2/2020 at 10:17 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Biblically, there is a distinction between those who are poor because they CANNOT from those who are lazy and WILL NOT.  In order to be strictly Biblical, we must develop an understanding and behavior that includes both sides of the distinction. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On 9/3/2020 at 9:51 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Actually, it is best to seek obedience unto God's Holy Word in ALL matters, both in helping the genuine needy, as well as in confronting the unworthy lazy.  The precepts and principles of God's Holy Word are not to be compromised either on the right hand or on the left.  When God's Word states -- "If any WOULD NOT work, NEITHER SHOULD he eat," God's Word is providing a clear instruction concerning our behavior toward the unworthy lazy.  Any individual, group, or program that does not seek a legitimate application of this Biblical principle in its giving policies toward the poor and need is not following God's own standard in the matter.  Obedience to God's Word matters!!

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Also, by taking this one verse out of context multiple passages in the Bible are ignored at best or implied to be meaningless at worst.

This also is a misrepresentation of my position, for my position presents the need to balance ALL of God's teaching on the matter.  Consider the following:

On 9/2/2020 at 10:17 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Biblically, there is a distinction between those who are poor because they CANNOT from those who are lazy and WILL NOT.  In order to be strictly Biblical, we must develop an understanding and behavior that includes both sides of the distinction.

Also consider:

On 9/4/2020 at 8:51 AM, Bouncing Bill said:

Just curious, who determines how much or little work meet the criteria for no food?

On 9/4/2020 at 9:10 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

In relation to my own God-given responsibility of stewardship over the material wealth that the Lord our God has entrusted to me, I must determine the answer to that matter for each case through the entire body of principles in God's Word concerning work ethic versus laziness, as well as through prayerful submission to the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Now, the "entire body of principles in God's Word" on this matter would include the following studies:

1.  The responsibility to give in support of church leadership and the Lord's work.
2.  The responsibility to help fellow believers in material need.
3.  The responsibility to help the Lord's Jewish brethren in material need.
4.  The responsibility to help the general poor and needy.
5.  The restriction from helping the unworthy lazy.
6.  The requirement for Spirit-filled administrators of collected funds.
7.  The reward promised for those who are generous in giving.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

This statement is a misrepresentation of my position, and as such is a false accusation.  I have indeed indicated that those who WILL NOT work (that is -- the "unworthy lazy") "should not be given food."  However, I have also indicated that welfare is "supposed to be FOR those who CANNOT work."  Consider the following:

 

When Paul made the statement about being given food, who was he directly speaking to?

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

When Paul made the statement about being given food, who was he directly speaking to?

The apostle was speaking under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit TO - the believers at Thessalonica.
The apostle was speaking under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit ABOUT - "ANY" who "would not work."

2 Thessalonians 3:10 -- "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if ANY would not work, neither should he eat."

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2020 at 10:20 AM, Bouncing Bill said:

You are changing the subject. How can a Christian who says they believe in Christ's teachings on how we should treat people not support those same values in government?

Please don't go down blind, illogical rabbit tracks. Thanks. 

Bill, I honestly answered you. I could never associate with politicians who have divorced God from their party platform and move toward a Godless America. Communism is a Godless form of government. This forum for discussion would not be here if the socialist-communist preference of the liberal-progressive agenda were to come to fruition.  Bill, I hope you're not in their camp, I'm not. Psalms 34:21 + Psalms 7:16 + Romans 1:28 (these verses are meant for those who espouse the liberal-progressive-socialist-communist agenda NOT you, I pray).

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Bill, I honestly answered you. I could never associate with politicians who have divorced God from their party platform and move toward a Godless America. Communism is a Godless form of government. This forum for discussion would not be here if the socialist-communist preference of the liberal-progressive agenda were to come to fruition.  Bill, I hope you're not in their camp, I'm not. Psalms 34:21 + Psalms 7:16 + Romans 1:28 (these verses are meant for those who espouse the liberal-progressive-socialist-communist agenda NOT you, I pray).

I respectfully disagree with most of your reply. Yes, Communism is philosophically a Godless philosophy and most, but not all members are godless in their belief ... or lack there of. I met a young woman in China in 1995. She was a party member, but had accepted Christ while studying in Germany. She was in a quandary about what to do. Her job depended on being a party member and her mother and father were party members. We had a long talk over several days. My final advice to her was that is was possible that she was exactly where God wanted her to be. In that job she would be able to influence positions and policy in ways that would be impossible if she was in another job. I told her to wait, continue to do her job with her Christian beliefs leading how she worked. In other words, to wait until God told her to move on. This seemed satisfactory to her. She returned to her home. Several years later she did move on to another job, one not dependent on her being a party member. 

I assume you do know there is a difference between Socialism and Communism. Socialism, unlike Communism, is not a godless philosophy.  The two philosophies are not one and the same, though there are some tenets that are the same. I do not see either the right or the left pushing for Socialism. Neither are saying the government should determine prices or production levels. 

The central tenets of Communism are;

  • Central banking system.
  • Government controlled education.
  • Government controlled labor.
  • Government ownership of transportation and communication vehicles.
  • Government ownership of agricultural means and factories.
  • Total abolition of private property.

I do not see the right or the left pushing for these policies. Thus I reject the right-wings statement as you stated above. Please do not buy into either the propaganda of the far-right or the far-left.

All that aside, thought I think this is an interesting topic I fear it is a fruitless one to discuss. The waters have been so muddies and people have bought into the extreme ideas that a rational discussion is almost impossible. I have been saddened as our society has lost the art of conversation. I hope we can rediscover that ability. I remember a time when it was possible. Below it is expressed fairly well.

Image may contain: 2 people, text that says 'When real Democrats and Republicans were running our country; we didn't hate each other. We didn't vote for parties. We voted for ideas that came form both parties that made us better as country. We didn't label ideas or parties as racist, sexist or un-American. We did what we thought was best for "WE THE PEOPLE" And accepted the winner as a united country!!!'

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites



Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...