Jordan Kurecki

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.
 

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.
 

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.

2 Thessalonians 3:10............ if any would not work, neither should he eat................

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. 

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.
 

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:
 

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. 

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.

Keep us posted.
 

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 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.