Pastor Scott Markle

6 minutes ago, PastorMatt said:

Would not make sense to me to refer to the verses you were quoting, where I quoted you? In all sincerity, do you know what verses you are copying and pasting? 

4 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I would appreciate it if you would answer my questions instead of finding new rabbit tracks to misdirect the discussion. 

Interesting complaint.  Bouncing Bill in one of your previous postings above, approximately an hour ago, you stated the following:

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I do not see that Matt. 25 has any bearing on this topic. Enlighten me. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

As an outside reader, it appears to me that Brother Matt has been attempting to "enlighten you" ever since, just as you yourself requested.  Yet now you complain that his very attempt to "enlighten you" (as per your own request) is somehow not answering your questions, but pursuing misdirecting "rabbit tracks."

Here then is the primary flow of thought in the most immediate discussion above:

Your statement -

On 7/19/2021 at 4:05 PM, Bouncing Bill said:

If you look at the Final Judgment you see that what is advocated are those ideas which conservatives oppose as liberal. So, if the Final Judgment is liberal, then count me in with Christ. 

Brother Matt's request (which actually means that this most immediate discussion is supposed to be about you, Bouncing Bill, answering HIS request) -

12 hours ago, PastorMatt said:

Please expound

The opening Biblical quotation in your response to Brother Matt, which is a quotation from Matthew 25:35-36 (although NOT from the King James translation), and which does indeed reference the "Final Judgment" as per your reference above (although it is NOT actually the FINAL judgment) -

4 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

 ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶ I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’

 

To which quotation Brother Matt asked another question (which means that once again you, Bouncing Bill, are supposed to be answering HIS question) -

2 hours ago, PastorMatt said:

@Bouncing BillWho is Jesus talking to in Matt 25?

Yet you then responded with the following -

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I do not see that Matt. 25 has any bearing on this topic. Enlighten me.

Thus Brother Matt has been expressing his confusion.  You, Bouncing Bill, presented Matthew 25:35-36 as Biblical evidence for your position, but then state that you do not see how Matthew 25 has any bearing on the topic.  Then why did you quote Matthew 25:35-36 as evidence for your position?  That is now Brother Matt's confusion and request. -

1 hour ago, PastorMatt said:

With all due respect, sometimes I wonder if all you do is google answers then copy and paste. Are your reply's you or someone else on the internet? You are telling me that Matt 25 has nothing to do with this topic when you are the one who quoted from Matt 25. 

When I asked for you to expound on your statement, you then quoted Matthew 25:35-36. Then I ask you who Matthew 25 is referring to, and your reply was you don't see that Matt 25 has any bearing with this topic?

I'm curious, are you aware what you are copying and pasting?  I'm asking in all honesty and sincerity as it will help me in the future to understand your replies.

I was going to get into that after he answers why he said that the Bible verse he quoted has no bearing in this topic.  I'm very confused.

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."

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.

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!!

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).

3 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I see you take a liberal interpretation of this. I respectfully disagree. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

At this point, I am guessing that your use of the word "liberal" above is a mistype, and that you actually meant to use the word "literal."

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 was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.  Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?  When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?  Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?  And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye [personally] have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren [note that the specific recipients here are not just any poor and needy, but are specifically the Lord's own BRETHREN], ye have done it unto me.  Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.  Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?  Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these [the word "these" is a demonstrative pronoun grammatically indicated the same ones mentioned earlier], ye did it not to me.  And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."  

Helping any poor and needy is NOT the relevant factor in this judgment.  Rather, helping the poor and needy OF THE LORD'S BRETHREN is the relevant factor in this judgment.  (Now, the question does remain whether in this context the Lord was speaking concerning His Jewish brethren, or His Christian brethren.  In either case, whether one does or does not help unsaved, non-Jewish poor and needy, it has NO bearing on THIS particular judgment.)  

16 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

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

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.

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!!

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.

25 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Are there any social government programs in force at the moment you support, such as food stamps, WIC?

Although I believe that such programs have administrative problems (bureaucratic inefficiency, fraud, etc.), I do NOT stand directly against such programs.  When I was a child, my family was a recipient of WIC.  As an adult, I have purposefully refused to take the benefits of such programs (even though my yearly income would have made us eligible).  I believe that it is my responsibility first and foremost to support my family through diligent work and careful financial management.  Furthermore, I believe that if my family can live comfortably thereby, then it is simply wrong for me to take "welfare" help from the government.  Indeed, I believe that governmental "welfare" help is supposed to be for those who CANNOT, not for those who WILL NOT.

5 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I would rather my tax dollars go to help people than to kill them. 

As for myself, I am quite happy for my tax dollars to go to help people (if they a Biblically appropriate for that help) AND to kill people (if they are Biblically worthy to be killed).

Let us consider what God's Own Word states concerning the divinely established purpose of human government.

Romans 13:3-4 -- "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: 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."

We notice herein that God has ordained human government for two basic purposes:

1.  To be a minister of God for good and praise unto those who do good.
2.  To be a minister of God for vengeance and wrath unto those who do evil.

Killing those who are Biblically worthy of death IS one of God's own purposes for human government.  If we do that which is evil, we SHOULD be afraid of the government.  The Lord our God intends that the government should NOT bear the sword in vain.  Indeed, the Lord our God has divinely ordained government to be "a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."  As for myself, I desire that the government of my country faithfully fulfill both sides of the role that the Lord our God has given it.  Furthermore, I desire for my tax dollars to be used for that very purpose (both sides).

5 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Thanks for the reply. I agree and I believe part of that liberality is being willing to pool our money, through tithes to the church and taxes to the government to support programs that help the those who are ill, hungry, ill clothed, in prison, etc.

And in relation to the idea of "pooling" our material wealth through a government program of charity, I have previously stated the following:

23 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Thus IF governmental liberalism was simply a government program of charity, I would not express direct opposition against it (depending on how and to whom it was administered), any more than I express direct opposition against other charitable organizations.  Indeed, IF governmental liberalism was a government program to which we might WILLINGLY give of our material wealth, such that the government agency, having a larger distribution scope, would then distribute that freely given help unto those in genuine need, I would not oppose it so firmly and fiercely.  In fact, such a government program of charity would be structured upon the two foundational points of Biblical Liberality:

1.  The individual gives willingly out of a personal heart of compassion for the poor and needy.
2.  The individual gives liberally out of their own material possession to help the poor and needy.

Yet this is NOT the character of governmental liberalism, even as I have previously presented:

23 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

HOWEVER, governmental liberalism is NOT structured simply as a government program of charity.  Governmental liberalism is structured as a FORCED system wherein the government FORCIBLY TAKES an individual's material wealth away through taxes, and then gives unto the "poor" that FORCIBLY TAKEN wealth, which is not actually the government's own material wealth, but was actually someone else's material wealth.  Even so, governmental liberalism does NOT fulfill either of the two foundational points of Biblical Liberality.  First, it is NOT structured for the individual to give willingly out of his or her personal heart of compassion, since it FORCIBLY TAKES through governmental mandate.  Furthermore, it is NOT structured for the individual to give out of his or her OWN wealth, since the government (the individual persons that make up the government) is not giving out of its own wealth, but is giving wealth that it has taken from others.

Even worse, as I have also indicated previously, the present movement of governmental liberalism in our country is very much anti-God and anti-Biblical morality.  Indeed, throughout the historical record we find that governmental liberalism in its various forms is quite usually anti-God and anti-Biblical morality.  Such is NOT a governmental movement that is worthy of support from the godly.

2 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

ok, what is Biblical liberality?

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:

On 8/30/2020 at 7:31 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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).

In my second posting within this thread discussion, I included the following:

On 8/30/2020 at 1:41 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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.  

In my third posting within this thread discussion, I included the following:

11 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

. . . the two foundational points of Biblical Liberality:

1.  The individual gives willingly out of a personal heart of compassion for the poor and needy.
2.  The individual gives liberally out of their own material possession to help the poor and needy.

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

What is your definition of Biblical liberalism?

You might want to read again, for I never used the phrase "Biblical liberalism."  Rather, I purposefully used the phrase "Biblical liberality." 

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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?

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

There is probably not very much among the values of governmental liberalism that I would support.  However, probably if someone provided an exhaustive list of their values, I might find a small number with which I could agree.  (Note: I am not talking about the values that they promote only with their "words," but about the values that they actually drive with their agenda.)

There is probably even less among the values of doctrinal liberalism that I would support.  However again, probably if someone provided an exhaustive list of their values, I might find a small number with which I could agree.  (Note: Since I would stand against the majority of the values among both governmental liberalism and doctrinal liberalism, I would not support or join with either of them as whole movements.  Rather, I would stand in public opposition against those movements.)

I would stand in total agreement with the values of Biblically defined liberality, although I may not always walk in perfect obedience to those values.  (Note: I am talking about that which is truly defined from Biblical truth, not that which claims to be Biblical truth, but is actually the distortion of Biblical teaching.)

In the fourth case above, since I did not list it, I am not presently aware of it or considering it.  If you have something that might fit in this question, then you would need to specify it in order that I might place my consideration upon it.

 

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 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

All of the above. 

There is probably not very much among the values of governmental liberalism that I would support.  However, probably if someone provided an exhaustive list of their values, I might find a small number with which I could agree.  (Note: I am not talking about the values that they promote only with their "words," but about the values that they actually drive with their agenda.)

There is probably even less among the values of doctrinal liberalism that I would support.  However again, probably if someone provided an exhaustive list of their values, I might find a small number with which I could agree.  (Note: Since I would stand against the majority of the values among both governmental liberalism and doctrinal liberalism, I would not support or join with either of them as whole movements.  Rather, I would stand in public opposition against those movements.)

I would stand in total agreement with the values of Biblically defined liberality, although I may not always walk in perfect obedience to those values.  (Note: I am talking about that which is truly defined from Biblical truth, not that which claims to be Biblical truth, but is actually the distortion of Biblical teaching.)

In the fourth case above, since I did not list it, I am not presently aware of it or considering it.  If you have something that might fit in this question, then you would need to specify it in order that I might place my consideration upon it.

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

What 'liberal' values would you support? 

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?

4 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

As a traditional Baptist I do not accept anyone having any authority to stand between me and God. I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say in your last sentence. Please enlighten me. Thanks. 

I was saying that I do not acknowledge or accept your "authority" to reprove Brother 1Timothy115 in the following manner:

1 hour ago, 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. 

Brother 1Timothy115 did not change the subject since his statement was within the scope of this thread's original question.  Brother 1Timothy115 did not change the subject since his statement was within the scope of your own original posting in this thread discussion.  Brother 1Timothy115 did not change the subject since his statement served as a direct response toward your own statement about "divorcing God" from the lives of those in governmental roles.  Thus I do not acknowledge or accept your "authority" to instruct him not to "go down blind, illogical rabbit tracks."

________________________________________

By the way --

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

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?

I myself would indeed support Biblical values in governmental liberalism IF they actually existed in governmental liberalism.  However, as a whole governmental system, governmental liberalism is anti-God and anti-Biblical morality.  Indeed, taking up the scope of this thread's original question -- I most certainly would not and will not vote for the movement of governmental liberalism in this country.  When I vote, I begin with the principles of Biblical morality in order to discern the direction of my voting options.  The movement of governmental liberalism in this country does NOT find a place therein.

18 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

No ones divorcing God we're divorcing a group of socialist-Marxist God hating politicians.

58 minutes ago, 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. 

Hmmm. I believe that Brother 1Timothy115's comment is indeed within the scope of this thread discussion's original question as posted by Brother Morales -- "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?"

Furthermore, I believe that Brother 1Timothy115's comment is indeed within the scope of your (Bouncing Bill's) OWN first posting in this thread discussion, as per the following: 

On 8/29/2020 at 3:50 PM, Bouncing Bill said:

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. 

Bouncing Bill, your own original posting in this thread discussion included, not only the matter of Biblical liberality and charitable giving, but also the matter of ungodly racism in government.  If you yourself can deliver such broad political comments in the discussion, then I see no reason why others should be restricted from doing so also.  As for myself, I will not acknowledge or accept your "authority" to deliver such restrictions.

20 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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.  

20 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Governmental liberalism, however, removes personal responsibility by forcibly removing an individual's material possession through taxes (so that the individual does not need to have any personal heart of compassion whatsoever at all), and by governmentally redistributing that material possession unto those whom the government deemed "worthy" (so that the individual does not have personal say in those to whom it is given, or any personal connection with those to whom it is given).

20 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

There is nothing in the Bible saying that help through the government should not be done. To say the Bible does not say it is all right to do so is not a valid argument as it does not say it is not all right either.

To oppose helping others through our own efforts or through the efforts of the government are both un-Biblical IMHO. Of course Jesus was speaking about individuals as the last judgement is about the judgement of individuals. That can not logically be said that this negates government programs. 

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 on how and to whom it was administered), any more than I express direct opposition against other charitable organizations.  Indeed, IF governmental liberalism was a government program to which we might WILLINGLY give of our material wealth, such that the government agency, having a larger distribution scope, would then distribute that freely given help unto those in genuine need, I would not oppose it so firmly and fiercely.  In fact, such a government program of charity would be structured upon the two foundational points of Biblical Liberality:

1.  The individual gives willingly out of a personal heart of compassion for the poor and needy.
2.  The individual gives liberally out of their own material possession to help the poor and needy.

HOWEVER, governmental liberalism is NOT structured simply as a government program of charity.  Governmental liberalism is structured as a FORCED system wherein the government FORCIBLY TAKES an individual's material wealth away through taxes, and then gives unto the "poor" that FORCIBLY TAKEN wealth, which is not actually the government's own material wealth, but was actually someone else's material wealth.  Even so, governmental liberalism does NOT fulfill either of the two foundational points of Biblical Liberality.  First, it is NOT structured for the individual to give willingly out of his or her personal heart of compassion, since it FORCIBLY TAKES through governmental mandate.  Furthermore, it is NOT structured for the individual to give out of his or her OWN wealth, since the government (the individual persons that make up the government) is not giving out of its own wealth, but is giving wealth that it has taken from others.

Thus I repeat yet again:

On 8/30/2020 at 7:31 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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 defense for governmental liberalism demonstrate their Biblical and spiritual ignorance.

 _____________________________________________

20 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Of course Jesus was speaking about individuals as the last judgement is about the judgement of individuals. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle) That can not logically be said that this negates government programs. 

If churches and individuals were doing what they should there would be no need for government programs. 

You do know, I am sure, that the world 'you' or 'ye' can be either singular or plural. Jesus was speaking to an entire group when he said 'ye' and that is plural. Jesus praised those who gave and condemned those who gave little or gave for the wrong reason.

Actually, I am aware that in the King James translation specifically, whenever the 2nd person pronouns "you" and "ye" are found, they are ALWAYS plural.  Even so, our Lord Jesus Christ was indeed speaking to a plural group of people in the judgment of Matthew 25:31-46.  However, as you yourself have recognized above, when our Lord Jesus Christ judges at the last judgment, He judges them personally according to their individual and personal behavior.  Thus the commendation and condemnation of Matthew 25:31-46 contextually retains its PERSONAL emphasis.  Furthermore, within this context in Matthew 25:40 our Lord Jesus Christ specifically defined the recipients of this giving as HIS OWN BRETHREN (which would either mean His Jewish brethren or His Christian brethren).  (Note: I myself believe that in this context we should view this as His Jewish brethren.)

________________________________________________

20 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

People make up governments and institutions. How can they divorce God from part of their life?

Indeed, individual people DO make up governments and institutions; and they most certainly should NOT "divorce God" from ANY part of their lives (although the great majority have done just that, for "there is no fear of God before their eyes").  (Note: Actually, in many ways the governmental liberalism of America is trying to governmentally compel and force genuine believers to "divorce God" from much of their public lives.)  However, when the people that make up the government give away wealth that is not their own, but is that which they have forcibly taken from others, they are NOT actually following God's Word, will, or way.  IF they were following God's Word, will, and way, they would be taking of their OWN wealth to give unto the poor; and they would be distributing the wealth of others that those others had willingly and freely entrusted to their administration.

(Note: Throughout the historical record the pursuits of governmental socialism in its various forms has been ANTI-GOD, ANTI-CHRIST, and ANTI-Biblical morality.)

3 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

That is the 'easy' out people always take forgetting that people make up the government. So, what Jesus told people to do is directly related to what government does. The is simply a way of attempting to avoid personal responsibility IMHO. And, are these not commands the church should follow?

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 responsibility by forcibly removing an individual's material possession through taxes (so that the individual does not need to have any personal heart of compassion whatsoever at all), and by governmentally redistributing that material possession unto those whom the government deemed "worthy" (so that the individual does not have personal say in those to whom it is given, or any personal connection with those to whom it is given).

In fact, in every passage or context that you have presented, the PERSONAL aspect of giving is precisely what is emphasized; whereas the governmental and its authority is completely absent.

Matthew 19:21 -- "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell [personally] that thou hast, and give [personally] to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." (Note: There is NO reference whatsoever at all unto governmental authority or programs in this command.)

Proverbs 22:16 -- "He [personally] that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he [personally] that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want."  (Note: Again there is NO reference whatsoever at all unto governmental authority or programs in this warning.  On the other hand, if you feel that governmental authority or programs is implied within this warning, do you also feel that if the government takes your material wealth through taxes and gives it to the rich, that you yourself with then "come to want"?  You do realize that many liberal politicians in DC are rich, right?  Making a goodly bit more than my own $30,000 per year.)

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 [personally] gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye [personally] gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye [personally] took me in: naked, and ye [personally] clothed me: I was sick, and ye [personally] visited me: I was in prison, and ye [personally] came unto me.  Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?  When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?  Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?  And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye [personally] have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren [note that the specific recipients here are not just any poor and needy, but are specifically the Lord's own BRETHREN], ye have done it unto me.  Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.  Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?  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.  And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."  (Note: Yet again there is NO reference whatsoever at all unto governmental authority or programs in this account.)

Thus I repeat:

6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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 defense for governmental liberalism demonstrate their Biblical and spiritual ignorance.

6 minutes ago, AdamL said:

I was trying to share something from my personal experience that may effect Millennials specifically as opposed to everyone.

Understood and appreciated. In fact, I agree that much in the Independent Baptist movement has become more about supporting the movement, than about holding forth the true doctrine of God's Word.  I myself have expressed my burden various times on the forum that there is so little sound Bible study within the movement.

7 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

I am of the opinion that it is a combination of both positions that is the truth. 

I think there is a lot of shallowness and hardness in IFB that is driving people away, but I also acknowledge that there is a lot of worldly temptations that is also drawing them away. 

I do not think we have an either or situation here, but rather a "these are both problems" scenario. 

I can agree with that.

47 minutes ago, AdamL said:

I have thought about if/how I should respond to this post. I have decided that I will.

I have to respectfully disagree with what you have said here Pastor Markle. While what you say is true it is not exclusive to the Millennial generation. Christian's of all ages groups act this way, senior citizens to children.

Although I hate to admit it but depending on what source you consult I am often found belonging to the Millennial generation. I was born in 1984. My answer is my opinion so you can take it or leave it but this is what I believe...

This generation is one of the first generations to have access to almost unlimited information at the drop of a hat. Any question they have or any issue they want to research can be done so at anytime. With that being said when they ask a question a canned, surface level response often times will not suffice for them. When they press the issue and try to get a more thorough response they are accused of questioning authority. So they get shut down, mad, and offended. What often times began as sincere questioning turns into anger and frustration and a belief that their elders and church leadership don't know what they are talking about.

I believe easy believism has played a big role in this because many of our churches are full of these types of people that don't have a real relationship with Jesus Christ, they are followers of men. Followers of men can't answer spiritual questions. Those people don't study the Scriptures and don't know how to study the Scriptures and sadly many of our churches don't teach people how to study the Scriptures. Many sermons preached are a verse or a part of a verse taken out of context and then 3-5 ideas the preacher came up with to support their removed from context launching point. That is shallow amateurism at best and fraudulent and deceptive at worst. 

I have heard this type of thing defended and justified many times. When the goal of the door to door "soulwinner" is the same as a Kirby vaccum salesman we have a serious problem. They only thing they are after is getting someone to repeat the sinner's prayer. Then declare the person saved to the church. If it is then questioned why that person never comes to church and doesn't want follow up visits the normal response is "well they were just after fire insurance". There is no such thing as fire insurance. When a person is born again they receive the gift of eternal life by grace through faith, the indwelling of the Spirit of God, and a new heart, all of which results in a drastically changed life. When these things don't happen and repeated excuses are made to down play it people will take note and question it, then the cycle from above repeats.

To sum it all up I believe many Millennials want to see genuine people and be able to ask genuine questions and get genuine answers. I believe that often times we fail to be able to do that. It is easy to point the finger at Millennials and say they are the problem and all they are interested in is deifying themselves. It is much harder to look in the mirror and say I have failed to share the message of Christ in a genuine way and make myself available to those that need Christ and need to grow in His grace. The deification of man has been happening for thousands of years, it is not something new...

Brother AdamL,

I am glad that you chose to present your response.  It is well presented; however, it appears to have one underlying assumption that is wrong in relation to my own response above.  I myself would NOT limit my response above just unto the present generation.  I would have given the same answer for any generation.  In fact, I believe that it is the same problem that is reported throughout Scripture for multiple different generations of Israel in the Old Testament and for various believers in the New Testament.  (Note: If you will take notice, you will find in my above response various allusions to the very teaching of God's Holy Word on the matter.)

On the other hand, I would agree that the scenario which you present above represents a way of falsehood within the Independent Baptist movement.  Certainly this way of falsehood should be rejected.  I myself have rejected it and find it spiritually offensive.  However, in my own ministry experience the "Millenials" (and, for that matter, older generations as well) that have fallen away from faithfulness have done so because they are instead pursuing video games, social media, money accumulation, personal recreation, and other things of the world, not because they could not acquire Biblical answers to their questions.  (Note: Since you do not know me personally, I really cannot prove whether I am a "shallow" or a sound teacher and leader.  I can only refer you to that which I have posted here on Online Baptist.  I suppose that is the only evidence that I can provide to you for whether I am able to give genuine Biblical answers to genuine questions.)