Jordan Kurecki

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.”

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.

13 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

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

Just curious, do you think God would put in his word that “if a man he would not work that he should not eat” if It could not be determined who falls into the category?

8 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Our country is rich enough that no one should go to sleep hungry cold.

The bible says if a man is not willing to work he shall not eat. So no its not true that “no on should go to sleep hungry”.

6 minutes 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?

Read the verses in King James or any other translation, they still support what people consider liberal or socialist in political philosophy.

KJV

Matthew 21:19 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Proverbs 22:16 He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want.

Matthew 

³² 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:

³³ And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

³⁴ 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:

³⁵ 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:

³⁶ Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Read the others in KJ. They support the ideas. 

 

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 hours ago, 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. 

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.

6 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

I remember when Jordan was asking about a good school to attend. Seems like just yesterday. I'll pray for your ministry Jordan.

Thank you. 

15 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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" 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.)  

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.