Jump to content
Online Baptist

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/20/2020 in News Comments

  1. Christian Charity given willingly and directly to noble causes is not the same as compulsory giving to the government who then chooses for you where and how money is spent. Jesus asks you to do it directly and willingly. The politician seeks forced payment, forces you to give them your money while promising to only give some of it to the poor and even then to things which are appalling and poorly managed, then many squander what you give them to the point there is never enough for the original cause, so then demands more money which they then take by force from you. NOT. THE. SAME.
    5 points
  2. The government was specifically designated by God "for the punishment of evil doers and the praise of them that do well." We could also extrapolate a responsibility for national security in that. Anything beyond that is out of scope. 1. Christians are told to support the poor and needy. (This is an individual responsibility, and not given to the government.) 2. "If a man does not work, neither shall he eat." (this implies that programs that give money to those who WON'T work, rather than CAN'T work, are in violation of God's principles). I feel like conservative government aid prog
    4 points
  3. Actually, Biblical Liberality, as I have presented above, is the position that EMPHASIZES PERSONAL responsibility, because it emphasizes my own responsibility to take out of my own pocket in order to give from my own heart of my own material possession unto another in need. Indeed, the Biblical command of Biblical Liberality is so PERSONAL that if I do not personally give of my own personal possession to help those in need, I personally commit a sin in the sight of the Lord my God, and will personally be held accountable by Him. Governmental liberalism, however, removes personal responsibili
    4 points
  4. Governmental Liberalism - The government putting its hand in your pocket to forcibly take your wealth for distribution to those whom they deem the worthy "poor" (after pocketing some themselves). Biblical Liberality - You putting your own hand in your pocket to willingly and lovingly take your wealth for distribution to those whom the Holy Spirit directs you as the "poor and needy" (not the lazy and immoral). Our Lord Jesus Christ and God's Holy Word command Biblical Liberality, but do NOT support governmental liberalism. Those who use the commands of Biblical Liberality as a defens
    4 points
  5. 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.
    3 points
  6. Not surprised one bit at all. The local and State governments, almost all Democratic controlled, have discovered that they can use a health scare to bypass the Constitution of the United States, take away our freedoms, shut down our businesses, and close down the churches. When this health issue first arose folks have been trying to warn the churches that the true issue is to control the churches or shut them down.
    3 points
  7. 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."
    2 points
  8. 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: Also consider: 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 r
    2 points
  9. Matthew 25:31-46 -- "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I w
    2 points
  10. You are correct. Nothing in God's Word directly prohibits a government program from engaging in charitable giving unto the poor and needy, neither does anything in God's Word command the employment of such a government program. As such, it would indeed be wrong for me to oppose a government program of charity (depending on how it was administered); just as it would be wrong for you to condemn me if I did not give through that government program of charity. Thus IF governmental liberalism was simply a government program of charity, I would not express direct opposition against it (depending
    2 points
  11. You clearly don’t understand the role of government. If we followed your logic, should the government also preach the Gospel? After all individual believers are commanded to preach the Gospel. Do you think the government should take peoples tax dollars and pay ministers to preach the Gospel? If you say no then your thinking process is contradictory. You don’t seem to understand that God has different commands and requirements for individuals and for different institutions such as the Church, the Home, and Civil Government.
    2 points
  12. Maybe lazy conservatives and Christians will go out and vote in ALL elections now. They took over the State Assembly here in Virginia because Republicans did not show up to vote (some didn't even know elections were going on) while Bloomberg was literally busing Democrat voters to the polls.
    2 points
  13. Quote: “We are Great Commission Baptists.” Right; anything but Independent Baptist! There simply is no biblical justification for The Southern Baptist Convention, or any other form of association. The biblical example for a New testament Church is, Independent, Local, Visible, Autonomous.
    1 point
  14. 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.
    1 point
  15. 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
    1 point
  16. 2 Thessalonians 3:10............ if any would not work, neither should he eat................
    1 point
  17. Now I have to wonder if you have even been paying attention throughout our discussion in this thread, for I have ALREADY defined Biblical liberality in my previous postings. In my first posting within this thread discussion, I included the following: In my second posting within this thread discussion, I included the following: In my third posting within this thread discussion, I included the following:
    1 point
  18. You might want to read again, for I never used the phrase "Biblical liberalism." Rather, I purposefully used the phrase "Biblical liberality." The "ism" at the end of "liberalism" indicates that it is a system and movement of set beliefs. Whereas the word "liberality" simply indicates a particular activity of generous giving.
    1 point
  19. Are you asking what values of governmental liberalism would I support? Or are you asking what values of doctrinal liberalism would I support? Or are you asking what values of Biblical liberality would I support? Or are you asking what values of something "liberal" that I have not listed would I support?
    1 point
  20. I don't remember reading where Jesus taught any of the principles of socialism or those common to liberalism. I do remember the Bibles teaching about if a man does not work he should not eat? and about how murdering children is wrong. I also never see where Jesus calls for censorship of viewpoints one disagrees with. nor do I see Jesus ever advocating forced redistribution of wealth by the government. Socialism is absolutely not what Jesus taught.
    1 point
  21. Yes, but in my opinion only if they have no idea what the Dems of today represent or they have no idea what the bible teaches outside of a few Sermon on the Mount verses. Many people, particularly older folks, still think the Democrat party is the party of FDR or John Kennedy. Those days are long gone.
    1 point
  22. This is Pastor Trieber's update from this morning: Newsom, CA's governor, said this virus was the opportunity to change society (not his exact words, but his meaning). He is proving it, as is our governor and some others.
    1 point
  23. It is strange how people say they accept the teachings of Jesus, but when people want to implement his teachings they are called socialist or liberal. The GOP certainly is not the party it was before Nixon. When Nixon instituted his Southern Polity they became the bigoted, racist party we see today. It is interesting how the parties switched after Johnson's civil rights bill passed. The old "solid South" which was Democratic became the new "solid South," but Republican. My guess is that many on the board are not old enough to remember before Nixon.
    -1 points
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
×
×
  • Create New...