AUGUST 29, 2016

MEMBERS BIBLE STUDY

• U.S. CAPITOL

Entitlement Programs
Viewed Through the
Lens of Scripture

Bible Study Sponsors
Robert Aderholt, H: AL
Rick Allen, H: GA
Marsha Blackburn, H: TN
Jim Bridenstine, H: OK
Tony Cardenas, H: CA
John Carter, H: TX
Bill Cassidy, S: LA

INSIDE

Michael Conaway, H: TX

PUBLIC SERVANT ENDORSEMENT

Kevin Cramer, H: ND

John Thune .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 2

Rick Crawford, H: AR

U.S. Senator, South Dakota

Steven Daines, S: MT
Jeff Denham, H: CA

VERSE OF THE WEEK

Proverbs 16:25 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 3

John Duncan, Jr., H: TN
Joni Ernst, S: IA

ABOUT

Mary Fallin, G: OK

Capitol Ministries .  .  .  . 12

Blake Farenthold, H: TX

H

ERE IN THE CAPITOL we are all
acutely knowledgeable of the fact that
America is at a financial crossroads.
The charts that project runaway national debt
and national economic insolvency are not only
accurate, but disturbingly and frighteningly
alarming to say the least. And we all know that the
major contributor to the crisis is the sacred cow
of entitlement programs. America’s entitlement
program policies are now hugely coming to roost
on the doorsteps of the U.S. Treasury. Given this
crisis, what wisdom can we glean from God’s Word
that could aid us in solving the problem? May God
use this Bible study in that regard.

John Fleming, H: LA
Bill Flores, H: TX
Randy Forbes, H: VA
Trent Franks, H: AZ
Scott Garrett, H: NJ
Louie Gohmert, H: TX
Tom Graves, H: GA
Tim Griffin, Lt G: AR
Glenn Grothman, H: WI
Gregg Harper, H: MS
George Holding, H: NC
Bill Huizenga, H: MI
Randy Hultgren, H: IL
Bill Johnson, H: OH
Jim Jordan, H: OH
Steve King, H: IA

Ralph Drollinger

John Kline, H: MN
Doug Lamborn, H: CO
James Lankford, S: OK
Cynthia Lummis, H: WY

Continued on last page

Weekly Bible Study During Session

SENATE: 8:00 am Tuesdays, Rotating Offices of Senators. Hot Breakfast Served.
HOUSE:  Capitol H324: Monday or Tuesday Evenings after First Votes Back. Dinner Served.

 Entitlement Programs Viewed Through the Lens of Scripture
★ PUBLIC SERVANT ENDORSEMENT
U.S. Senator

John Thune
South Dakota

T

HE MEMBERS BIBLE STUDY provided
to Congressmen and Senators
in Washington, D.C. is where ‘iron
sharpens iron,’ and where the Truth in
Scriptures is a powerful tool that helps
people change their lives, said U.S.
Senator John Thune, R-South Dakota.
Led by Ralph Drollinger, President of
Capitol Ministries, The Members Bible
Study is presented weekly to federal
Public Servants with a mission of
evangelizing, discipling, and leading
them toward maturity in Christ.
“Ralph and Danielle are there to
instruct, admonish, encourage, exhort,
and inspire elected officials to lead their
lives and conduct themselves in a way
that brings glory to God, to remind us
of what is important, what our priorities
should be, and what we should be
treasuring,” Senator Thune said.
Continued on page 3

I. INTRODUCTION

U

NDOUBTEDLY the motives for building a national
social safety net some decades
ago were both sincere and well-meaning. The astute, wise lawmaker however
must first ask himself if such pragmatism can be justified biblically. Is there
a biblical basis for the Institution of
Government to create such large entitlement programs? What does God’s
Word say in regards to the extent of
governmental responsibility for the
welfare of its citizens?
In 1Timothy 5 and elsewhere in the
NT (cf. Acts 6:1-6; Rom. 15:25-26;
Gal. 2:10; 2Thes. 3:6-12; Ja. 1:27; 1Jn.
3:17) the Bible is explicitly clear about
whose responsibility it is to form a
safety net for members of society:
There is a pecking order, or hierarchy
of responsibility revealed in Scripture.
The responsibility for taking care of
society’s poor and bereft first lies with
the Institution of Marriage. God’s
design is for the husband to provide
for his own household (cf. 1Tim. 5:8).
If for whatever reason he is unable,
the responsibility for provision,
secondarily, falls to the children
and/or grandchildren within the
Institution of the Family. This is clear
also from a close read of 1Timothy
5. The third tier of responsibility for
caring for the poor and bereft lies with
the Institution of the Church, which
is also clear from 1Timothy 5.
Interestingly and importantly nowhere
in Scripture is the Institution of the
State in view as it pertains to societal

[

2

]

responsibility for the needs of the less
fortunate; nowhere to be found in the
NT is an explicit command for the Institution of the State to assume such
a function. States one of America’s
leading conservative systematic theologians, Wayne Grudem, in his survey
of all of the biblical passages pertinent
to this subject (in Politics According to
the Bible [Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2010] p. 283): “I am surprised to discover that few people seem to realize
that these verses say nothing about civil government overcoming individual
citizens’ poverty!” Summarily, herein
then is God’s biblically-revealed pattern
for the most effective and efficient, sustainable safety net for society. I should
quickly and in all objectivity add that
Scripture does not prohibit Government from directly aiding the poor, but
to the degree any of God’s five ordained
institutions wanders from its scripturally explicit responsibilities is the degree the institution will become inefficient and increasingly unable to fulfill
its God-explicit responsibilities.
At the conclusion of this study I will
list five biblically-based ways that civil government (apart from direct entitlement programs) should aggressively aid its people (albeit indirectly)
to overcome poverty. Read on.
HOPEFULLY, IN LIGHT OF
THE FACT THAT AMERICA
IS IN THE MIDST OF A
TSUNAMI OF NATIONAL
DEBT, WE WILL FIND
OURSELVES TEACHABLE:
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE
SAY ABOUT ENTITLEMENT
PROGRAMS?

 MEMBERS BIBLE STUDY • U.S. CAPITOL
Make no mistake. Do not be
theologically
naïve!
America’s
bankrupting entitlement policies
stem from previous, pervasive
bad theology: The bad theology
of Theological Liberalism. Few
people today it seems tend to make
the connection between political
thought and its underlying historical,
theological influence! How one views
God tends to determine one’s world
view. Accordingly, the ideological war
within American culture today cannot
be completely understood without
first comprehending the theology
underlying it.
As it pertains to the entitlement
mindset today of many liberal
political leaders, the foundational
theological influence is that of the
Social Gospel. The Social Gospel or
“Liberal Christianity” or “Theological
Liberalism” became rooted in
American culture more than a century
ago as an outcome of the ModernistFundamentalist controversy, an epic
theological battle in the American
Protestant Church (of which more
will be said later). American liberal
political ideology is rooted in this
Modernist theology mindset more
so than it is borrowed from another
similar political ideology, i.e. Socialism
or Communism. That is to say political
liberalism was home-grown in our
own Sunday school classrooms more
so than it is imported from abroad.
WHAT HAPPENED BACK
THEN THEOLOGICALLY,
CONTINUES TO HAVE A
TREMENDOUS AFFECT
TODAY POLITICALLY

There is a definite, ongoing connection
between the two! This 100 year-old
theological battle forever shaped the
differences between the two major
camps of American political thought.
At the risk of sounding partisan, it is
to say this: On the Hill today the vast
majority of political conservatives
who name the name of Christ are not
affected by Social Gospel theology
whereas the vast majority of political
liberals who name the name of Christ
today, are influenced by Liberal
Protestant Theology, aka the Social
Gospel Movement. Amongst the 535
Members of Congress and the Senate, I
can count the exceptions to this axiom
on one hand. The Social Gospel and
what it has historically stood for is the
seed bed of the liberal political agenda
today — and the basis of entitlement
programs historically fostered by and
in American Government.
Since this is such an important
ongoing influence, it stands to reason
that it is critically important for
Public Servants to possess a working
knowledge on the Social Gospel
and understand why it is such bad
theology. By using the word “bad” I
mean it is a perversion, or a corruption
of what the Bible actually teaches. The
Social Gospel is in no way biblically
based, nor justifiable.
The Social Gospel movement,
which infiltrated and captured many
mainline Protestant denomination
seminaries
and
subsequently
their pulpits, resulted from the
confluence of five aberrant theologies.
“Cashing in” on this convergence
were four notable individuals.
For past studies or additional copies go to www.capmin.org

♥ VERSE OF THE WEEK

Proverbs 16:25
There is a way which seems
right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.

Whenever an individual or society veers
from the owner’s handbook, the way
therein always proves detrimental.

Senator Thune, continued from page 2

In a profession which relies so heavily
on gaining the approval of men, it’s
important for elected officials to be
reminded that ultimately, they must
answer to God for their actions and the
decisions they make, he said.
“Ralph is committed to going deep in
his Bible studies to help elected officials
understand the Scriptures and how the
Word of God applies to what we do
here,” Senator Thune said. “This is a
unique environment and one in which
we need to have people of faith applying
that faith in a real way.” cm

[

3

]

 Entitlement Programs Viewed Through the Lens of Scripture
Benjamin Franklin

But first:
IT IS IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSCORE THAT WHEN
PUT TO THE TEST OF
SCRIPTURE THE SOCIAL
GOSPEL IS NOT BIBLICAL
CHRISTIANITY

“ I am for doing good to the poor, but I
differ in opinion of the means. I think the
best way of doing good to the poor, is not
making them easy in poverty, but leading
or driving them out of it. In my youth I
traveled much, and I observed in different
countries, that the more public provisions
were made for the poor, the less they
provided for themselves, and of course
became poorer. And, on the contrary, the
less was done for them, the more they did
for themselves, and became richer.”
— 
Benjamin Franklin, signer of the Declaration
of Independence; diplomat; printer; scientist;
signer of the Constitution; Governor of Pennsylvania.
B
  enjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and
Management of the Poor, November 1766

Social Gospellers are the ones who
have departed from the pervasive
theology that stemmed from the
Reformation. And, it was historical
Protestant Reformation Theology
which was foundational to American
cultural formation.
Before moving on in this study,
it is important to identify terms
and how they were used in the
theological history of America:
Prior to the invasion and onslaught
of Liberal Protestantism, American
Protestantism
was
commonly
and synonymously referred to as
American Fundamentalism. That was
the only brand, the singular brand of
Protestantism; there was no competing
form of Protestantism. With that in
mind, notice the following quote from
a leading liberal theologian during the
time of the introduction of his brand;
it is quite revealing and damaging to
his theological revisionist cause:
It is a mistake, often made by
educated persons who happen
to have but little knowledge of
historical theology, to suppose
that Fundamentalism is a new
and strange form of thought.
It is nothing of the kind; it is
the . . . survival of a theology
which was once universally

[

4

]

held by all Christians . . . The
Fundamentalist may be wrong; I
think that he is. But it is we who
have departed from the tradition,
not he, and I am sorry for the
fate of anyone who tries to argue
with a Fundamentalist on the
basis of authority. The Bible and
the corpus theologicum of the
Church is on the Fundamentalist
side. (The Religion of Yesterday
and Tomorrow, p. 61-62; Kirsopp
Lake).
If Kirsopp Lake is right in his analysis,
and I believe that he is, then it follows
that if liberal political ideology does
indeed stem from Liberal Protestant
theology, then liberal political
ideology too (specifically entitlement
programs) is lacking in a basis — i.e.
any basis of biblical authority.
II. T
  HE FORMATIVE
CONFLUENCES OF
SOCIAL GOSPEL
THEOLOGY
What follows are sound bites (for the
sake of the brevity — this study is already lengthy) explaining what laid
the groundwork for the Social Gospel
movement. Keep in mind that it was
acceding politicians to Social Gospel
thinking who birthed the national entitlement programs. Again, the Modernism movement (a synonym for Theological Liberalism) captured many
Fundamentalist seminaries, denominations and churches, congregants and
politicians. And it was the Modernist
politicians who enacted the entitlement programs that now threaten our
nation’s future financial solvency.

 MEMBERS BIBLE STUDY • U.S. CAPITOL
I should add here that even though
liberal theology is alive and well here
on the Hill — it is dying in the local
community. Why? In that its theology
deems evangelism unnecessary, few
are the new adherents in the pews.
Many liberal churches are merging,
selling-off properties to survive as
congregations shrink to extinction.
There are very few up and coming
young Liberal Protestants in America
today.
In summary, as it relates to Treasurycrippling entitlement programs, it is
really bad theology that has informed
this really bad policy.
The following five heretical influences
drastically weakened the bark of the
American Church. The Social Gospel
bore its way in, hatched lethal eggs,
which today have infected and threaten to destroy a once towering giant.
A. R
  EASON AND
RATIONALISM
Harvard Divinity School was once
a bastion of conservative, reformed
theology. When Henry Ware was
elected its president in 1805 he soon
thereafter denied the biblical doctrine
of the Trinity and became a Unitarian. Around the same time a pastor
of national influence, William Ellery
Channing, who ministered at Federal
Street Church in Boston, also abandoned the Puritan Trinitarian orthodox understanding of the atonement
opting for Unitarianism. (Unitarians
not only reject the Trinity but stand
for broad freedom and tolerance in
religious beliefs). Interestingly, these

theological departures within Fundamental Evangelicalism generally paralleled the growth of Transcendentalism
(def: The belief that knowledge of reality is derived from intuitive sources
rather than from objective propositional truth) in the secular world.
Transcendentalism was fueled in part
by the beliefs of Ralph Waldo Emerson. By the 1830s what was resulting
was a palpably heightened view of the
preeminence of man’s reasoning (over
and above the objective source of truth
being garnered from God’s Word) in
both the church and the secular world.
In both arenas man’s reason was now
trumping God’s revelation. (Dr. “Wellithink” over and above “Thus saith
the Lord.”) The take-away point here
is this: Human reason, rather than
Scripture, was becoming the authority
for all of faith and practice, including
political thought.
B. UNIVERSALISM
“If it is God’s will for all to be saved,
then all will be saved” summarizes
this belief system. Such a faulty
presupposition,
in
opposition
to Scripture, has tremendous
implications. Originating in London
around 1779, the Universalists in
America held their first convention
in Philadelphia in 1790. This helped
pave the way for Nathaniel Taylor’s
New Haven Theology which denied
the imputation of Adamic sin, with a
governmental view of the atonement
(the belief that God could simply
forgive everyone’s sin because He is
omnipotent). In short, Universalism’s
“gospel” denied any need for
repentance from sin and instead
For past studies or additional copies go to www.capmin.org

John Adams

“ Each individual of the society has a right
to be protected by it in the enjoyment
of his life, liberty, and property,
according to standing laws. He is
obliged, consequently, to contribute his
share to the expense of this protection;
and to give his personal service, or an
equivalent, when necessary. But no
part of the property of any individual
can, with justice, be taken from him, or
applied to public uses, without his own
consent, or that of the representative
body of the people. In fine, the people of
this commonwealth are not controllable
by any other laws than those to which
their constitutional representative body
have given their consent.”
— 
John Adams, second President of the
United States; signer of the Declaration of
Independence; judge; diplomat; one of two
signers of the Bill of Rights.
 John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776.

[

5

]

 Entitlement Programs Viewed Through the Lens of Scripture
James Madison

“ As a man is said to have a right to his
property, he may be equally said to have
a property in his rights. Where an excess
of power prevails, property of no sort
is duly respected. No man is safe in his
opinions, his person, his faculties, or his
possessions.”
— 
James Madison, signer of the Constitution,
author of The Federalist Papers; framer of the
Bill of Rights; Secretary of State; fourth President
of the United States.
 James Madison, National Gazette Essay, March
27, 1792

emphasized that “personal redemption
for mankind” is achieved via the
reformation of man’s environment. The
confluence of Universalism was being
birthed in American thought. Such
represented a drastic pendulum swing
away from the Gospel of Scripture,
which repeatedly emphasized (and
emphasizes) the necessity of personal
repentance from sin and belief by faith
in Christ and His redemptive work on
the cross. In a nutshell, Universalism
teaches that man is basically good. The
tremendous implication is this: If one’s
theology dictates that man is inherently
good, then his failings are to be explained
by his surrounding environment and
social injustices. Therein is what needs
fixing! Obviously this resulting world
view permeates much political ideology
today: Historically speaking, here is
where such thinking is derived.
C. P
  ROGRESSIVE
ORTHODOXY
Horace Bushnell went a step further
than New Haven and Universalism
Theology. He believed in the moral
influence theory of atonement (that is
to say an incomplete understanding of
Christ’s atonement). Bushnell defined
atonement this way: Christ death was
not propitiatory (the satisfaction of
each individual’s violation of God’s
standard and attribute of perfection),
only exemplary, i.e. God indicating to
mankind how much He loves us and
therefore how much we should love
others. In this “christianity” Jesus is no
longer salvific. He is what theological
liberals today call “the historical
Jesus” i.e. exclusively a good-behavior
role model. The take-away point is

[

6

]

this: Herein is the human formation
of “another Jesus” which Paul sternly
warned against in Galatians 1:8-9:
But even if we, or an angel from
heaven should preach to you a gospel
contrary to what we have preached to
you he is to be accursed! As we have
said before, so I say again now, if
any man is preaching to you a gospel
contrary to what you received, he is to
be accursed!
The Social Gospel then, is another
religion!
D. NEO-ORTHODOXY
Kant and Schleiermacher add yet
another aberrant confluence of
sweeping theological error: NeoOrthodoxy. This “new” orthodoxy
in essence represents full-blown
subjectivism — truth is “what it means
to me.” Gone was the propositional
authority of the revealed truth of
Scripture. Neo-Orthodoxy promoted
(and today promotes) pietistic awe:
true religion is based on one’s inner,
subjective experience. Perhaps a
good illustration of the prevalence of
present day Neo-Orthodoxy is this:
“Bible studies” where individuals state,
“This is what this passage means to
me” in the place of an objective study
of authorial intent. Accordingly, the
Bible gets its authority from my faith,
versus the other way around. The
applicable take-away point? Truth is
derived from how I feel about things:
my feelings are my authority, not God’s
Word.
E. HIGHER CRITICISM

 MEMBERS BIBLE STUDY • U.S. CAPITOL
The last major aberrant theological
wave to encroach upon the
American Church prior to the Social
Gospellers coming on the scene was a
theologically intellectual movement
that cast doubt on the authenticity
of the source documents which
comprise the Scriptures themselves.
Baur, Strauss and Wellhausen were the
major proponents of this assault. Baur,
in his intellectual pride, asserted that
neither Paul, Peter, nor John wrote the
NT books attributed to their names.
Strauss proposed that the Gospel
accounts were a myth. Wellhausen
chose to discount the miracles of
the Bible. All three popularized a
critical approach to Scripture, casting
doubt in the minds of believers. The
result: Man became the overt judge of
Scripture, versus Scripture being the
judge of man.
The summation of these four
confluences gave rise to the formation
and distillation of Social Gospel
ideology. What follows are soundbite descriptors of the men who
significantly contributed to the
codification of the Social Gospel
movement in American culture:
III. F
  OUR PURVEYORS OF
THE SOCIAL GOSPEL
Simultaneous to these widening
cracks in historic reformed theology,
which was the pervasive theology
of our Founding Fathers and the
germinating basis of American culture,
was the Industrial Revolution and the
stratification of societal classes. The
capitalist system itself was soon viewed
by the following influential individuals

and others as the embodiment of
sin. As a result, here needed to be
social, versus individual application
of “Christianity” to American life.
By contrast, what propels Reformed,
Fundamental, Evangelical Christianity
both then and now is the atonement
of sin in the life of the individual.
NOTE THE DIFFERENT
TARGET HERE: IT IS THE
SIN OF THE SYSTEM THAT
EFFECTUATES AND PROPELS
THE SOCIAL GOSPEL
MOVEMENT
In Social Gospel thinking it then
follows that the primary mission of
the Church should be the deliverance
of the bereft: All those individuals
who were being oppressed by the free
market. Accordingly, this is where the
name “Social Gospel” stems from: it is
an attempt to refocus Christianity on
the economic deliverance and equality
of the individual, versus the conversion
of his or her soul. This is no less than a
theological and missional redirect of
historic Christianity! It is therefore
not Christianity whatsoever! It is
another religion! The leaders of the
Social Gospel movement in American
Christianity were as follows:

Benjamin Franklin

“ The ordaining of laws in favor of one
part of the nation, to the prejudice and
oppression of another, is certainly the
most erroneous and mistaken policy. An
equal dispensation of protection, rights,
privileges, and advantages, is what every
part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy.”
— 
Benjamin Franklin, signer of the Declaration
of Independence; diplomat; printer; scientist;
signer of the Constitution; Governor of Pennsylvania.
B
  enjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations, Circa 1774.

A. RITSCHL
The Kingdom of God from the
perspective of this European influence
was defined to mean an ethical
kingdom. “Christianity” said Ritschl
was all about ethics and morals. With
a low view of the effects of sin on the
judicial standing of man before his
Creator, he viewed Christ in a way
For past studies or additional copies go to www.capmin.org

[

7

]

 Entitlement Programs Viewed Through the Lens of Scripture
Thomas Jefferson

less than revealed in the Gospels, a
good person who provided a role
model for all to follow in loving one
another with tolerance. This is in place
of a redemptive Christ who saves man
from his sin (again, cf. Gal. 1:8-9).
B. GLADDEN

“ To take from one, because it is thought
his own industry and that of his fathers
has acquired too much, in order to spare
to others, who, or whose fathers, have
not exercised equal industry and skill, is
to violate arbitrarily the first principle of
association, the guarantee to everyone
the free exercise of his industry and the
fruits acquired by it.”
— 
Thomas Jefferson, third President of the
United States; signer of the Declaration of
Independence; diplomat; Governor of Virginia; Secretary of State.
T  homas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan,
April 6, 1816.

Historically, Gladden is considered
the founder of the Social Gospel
movement. “The fatherhood of God
and the brotherhood of man” is a term
stemming from his pen and codifying
his beliefs and actions. Gladden
too rejected the judicial aspects of
salvation in Christ. In his adaptation
of Christianity to a social/ethical
emphasis, he viewed Capitalism
as unchristian when penning his
books, Working People and Their
Employees, as well as Social Salvation.
He emphasized the sin of society,
believing in shared ownership, versus
the sin of the individual soul.
C. SHELDON
Coining the phrase, “What Would
Jesus Do?” he meant something
quite different than its modern day
counterpart (Promise Keepers: What
Would Jesus Do Now?) Conversely,
Jesus was only a role model to emulate.
Sheldon marketed the Social Gospel
into a national movement of social
reform throughout America. He was
influential in popularizing its message.
D. RAUSCHENBUSCH
A liberal pastor of a poor church,
he became horrified by the living
conditions of the socially oppressed.

[

8

]

His book titles reflect this: Christianity
and the Social Order; Christianizing
the Social Order; A Theology of the
Social Gospel. All of these influences
and influencers reveal a radical change
underway in the meaning of historic
Reformation Christianity in America.
The summary point: Government
could, should and would aid in the
manifestation of this new religion’s way
of thinking.
IV.  T WO COMPETITING
THEOLOGIES AND
TWO POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHIES
As the true-to-its-history Christian
church fought back against the Social
Gospellers in the early 1900s, efforts for
the most part proved inalterable. The
bug had penetrated the bark; now into
the meat of the tree, rapid reproduction
was occurring in all strata of society.
Many denominations, seminaries,
mission agencies and publishers
had been devastatingly impacted.
Denominations like the Northern
Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists,
and Lutherans had been infected
and forever affected. (Granted today
there are non-Social Gospel aspects
of each which survived or were
reformed under respective banners.)
As the battle for theological purity
waged on the competition became
fierce: the Modernist-Fundamentalist
Controversy was a huge theological
war. And as the Modernists repeatedly
won out, taking control of much of the
aforementioned, the Fundamentalists
looked to rebirth and rebuild
institutions that embodied a biblically-

 MEMBERS BIBLE STUDY • U.S. CAPITOL
accurate, personally-salvific faith
characteristic of historic reformation
Christianity.
In the world of political parties, the
theological liberals were both causal
and reflected in political liberalism,
and the theological conservatives were
both causal and reflected in political
conservatism. To this day, both of the
contrasting theologies dominantly
shape the policies of their respective
party. So to a large degree the Liberal
vs. Conservative theological competition of the past continues on to this
day through the out-workings and
manifestations of respective political
parties. The war rages on: No longer
so much in the Seminary (as those
battles have long been decided) but in
the Capitol.
V.  THE ONE RESULT:
POSSIBLE CONFUSION IN
THE CAPITOL
Both theological adherents continue
to hold the title “Christian” which is
confusing because Modernism has a
different understanding of Jesus which
therefore classifies it as a different
religion. But in a theologicallyignorant Capitol, most people lack
the discernment to ascertain the
difference.
Seminary professor J. Gresham
Machen is helpful on this point.
Princeton Theological Seminary was
an outstanding Presbyterian seminary
possessing a high view of Scripture
until the denomination went liberal.
It was only a matter of time until
the great orthodox professors of the

institution would be forced to depart,
Machen being one. They founded
Westminster Seminary in response.
In reflection of the competition,
Machen would state that these were
two altogether different religions and
that the clash was as profound and
as grim as comparatively speaking,
“Christianity and Confucianism.” The
liberal Christian Century magazine
editor Charles Clayton Morrison
would say, “Two worlds have clashed . . .
the world of Tradition and the world
of Modernism.” “One is scholastic,
static, authoritarian, individualistic;
the other is vital, dynamic, free and
social.” This is a pretty good soundbite capsulation of the competing
theologies.
I BELIEVE THE BIGGEST
DECEPTION ON THE
HILL TODAY IS THIS: THE
RELIGION OF THE SOCIAL
GOSPEL PROFFERS ITSELF AS
BEING “CHRISTIAN” WHEN
IT IS ISN’T EVEN CLOSE
TO BEING BIBLICAL
On a personal note, one must trust
in the salvific Lord Jesus Christ
to be saved and call himself a true
Christian. If one believes Jesus is only
an exemplary figure then one is not
a genuine believer. When someone
states, “my pastor taught me the Social
Gospel” what should that tell you?
Don’t be confused or theologically
ignorant!

James Wilson

Declared that American government was
created “to acquire a new security for the
possession or the recovery of those rights
to . . . which we were previously entitled
by the immediate gift or by the unerring
law of our all-wise and all-beneficent
Creator,” including the right of property,
and that “every government which has
not this in view as its principal object is
not a government of the legitimate kind.”
— 
James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of
Independence; twice elected to the Continental
Congress; a major force in drafting the United
States Constitution; a leading legal theorist;
founder of the first organized legal training
in America; one of the six original justices
appointed by George Washington to the
Supreme Court of the United States.
James Wilson, The Works of the Honorable James
Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Bronson
and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. II, pp. 454, 466, “Of The
Natural Rights Of Individuals.”

VI. T
  HREE CONCLUSIVE
DETERMINATIONS
A.  SOCIAL GOSPEL
For past studies or additional copies go to www.capmin.org

[

9

]

 Entitlement Programs Viewed Through the Lens of Scripture
Adam Smith

Adam Smith, famous economist of the
Founding Era, foresaw the tendencies
of governments to impinge the rights of
private property, forewarning:
“As soon as the land of any country
has all become private property, the
landlords [e.g., the governments], like all
other men, love to reap where they never
sowed, and demand a rent even for its
natural produce”
—  Adam Smith, Scottish economist whose work
laid the foundation for classical free market
economic theory; friend to Benjamin Franklin,
Smith’s work influenced the thinking of many
Founding Fathers. His book, The Wealth
of Nations was a precursor to the modern
academic discipline of economics. In this and
other works, he expounded upon how rational
self-interest and competition can lead to
economic prosperity.
Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes
of the Wealth of Nations: Vol. I, Chapter 6.

THEOLOGY IS AT
THE HEART OF OUR
NATION’S FINANCIAL
WOES
As a man thinketh in his heart so he
is states the Bible. It follows that the
way a legislator understands God via
his or her theology, or lack thereof,
will determine his ideology in both
personal and policy formation. To
reason this another way, “Right
actions begin with right thinking, and
right thinking begins with thinking
right about God” (Radmacher).
If the Social Gospel is unfounded in
Scripture, such thinking and ideology
should be soundly rejected. Why?
Whenever an individual or society
veers from the owner’s handbook, the
way therein always proves detrimental.
There is a way which seems right
to a man, But its end is the way of
death, states Proverbs 16:25; the fiscal
Tsunami that is about to hit and topple
the Treasury can be aptly understood in
this way.
Again, this is not to suggest that
Government not care for or help
the poor, but it is to suggest how
Government best cares for and helps
the poor. God’s Word is clear on how a
nation and its political leaders should
construct a social safety net for society.
That follows here:
B. H
  OW GOVERNMENT
BEST HELPS THE POOR
1. Via Individuals
Biblically speaking, the Institution of
Government need provide individual,

[

10

]

accessible private property rights
to all citizens (Gen. 1:26; cf. Exo.
20:15, 17). The compelling studies
of Hernando de Soto Polar relative to
overcoming poverty in Peru serve to
profoundly underscore this truth. For
one to possess accessible rights to own
personal property is a determinative
factor in breaking the poverty cycle
of individuals and nations. America
should not change its rich heritage
in this area of policy; property rights
curb poverty.
2. V
  ia the Institution of
Marriage
In 1978 Diana Pearce published The
Feminization of Poverty wherein
she postulated that “female-headed
households in particular formed a
larger and larger percentage of the
poor in America.” Insightfully this
trend is attributable to and parallels
the sweeping changes that occurred
nationwide relative to Family Law,
specifically no-fault divorce. Nofault divorce laws, unlike business or
criminal law, possess no penalty for
the one responsible for the failure of
the marriage contract. What results
are mothers with children dependant
on entitlement programs. Why? Our
divorce laws are not based in the
biblical precepts of justice (cf. 1Pe.
2:13-14) rather, pragmatism. Such
changes will curb poverty.
3. V
  ia the Institution of
the Family
Akin to foster care programs,
Government could incentivize and
reward families who open their
doors to the poor: Some families in
our church have done this with no

 MEMBERS BIBLE STUDY • U.S. CAPITOL
governmental incentives. Such will
curb poverty.
4. V
  ia the Institution of
Commerce
Government needs to incentivize the
Institution of Commerce in order
to create jobs. When businesses are
growing and prospering they demand,
train and hire employees. It is only
the Institution of Commerce in a free
market society that can economize a
culture and it is up to the Government
to stimulate enterprise in all ways
possible. Such will curb poverty.
5. V
  ia the Institution of
the Church
Government needs to continue to
provide religious freedom so that
churches can flourish and multiply
thereby creating church members
who become the salt and light of
society (Matt. 5:13-15), citizens
who live in obedience to 1Timothy
5 (see page 1, column 1), men and
women who take the initiative to
provide for the poor and bereft both
by themselves and through their
initiation of not-for-profit ministries
such as the Union Rescue Mission. It
is the Institution of the Church that
best cares for and rehabilitates people
because of the compassion and power
of the transforming Gospel of the
truly salvific Jesus. Many poor people
are poor because they have not been
liberated from various besetting sins
and addictions: Something the power
of the cross of Christ can accomplish!
Such will curb poverty.
THESE ARE THE FIVE
INDIRECT MEANS BY WHICH

GOVERNMENT IS TO PLAY
ITS MAIN ROLE RELATIVE TO
HELPING THE POOR.
SUSTAIN AND ENACT THESE
BIBLICALLY-BASED POLICIES
AND POVERTY WILL
DECREASE.

John Jay

C. H
  OW GOVERNMENT
LEAST HELPS THE
POOR
Again, nowhere in Scripture does God
assign the specific responsibility to
Government to provide entitlements
for its citizenry, whereas Scripture
does assign specific entitlement
responsibilities to various individuals
and other institutions (as previously
seen in this study). Again, one could
argue that since Scripture does not
prohibit Government from directly
aiding the poor that such is biblically
permissible. But to the degree any
institution engages in responsibilities
outside of its biblically-explicit Godordained role(s) is the same degree
to which it becomes inefficient and
wasteful. 1Peter 2: 13-14 states the
specific role of Government is this:
For the punishment of evildoers and
the praise of those who do right.

“It is the undoubted right and unalienable
privilege of a [citizen] not to be divested
or interrupted in the innocent use of . . .
property. . . . This is the Cornerstone of every
free Constitution”
—  John Jay, President of Congress; diplomat;
author of The Federalist Papers; original
Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court;
Governor of New York.
John Jay, John Jay The Making of a Revolutionary,
Unpublished Papers, 1745-1780, Richard
B. Morris, editor (New York: Harper & Row
Publishers, 1980), Vol. I, p. 462, “A Freeholder: A
Hint to the Legislature of the State of New York,”
Winter 1778.

The misunderstandings and supposed
scriptural justifications for enormous
government-based entitlement programs stem not from Christianity but
from another misguided religion that
markets itself using the same name.
Outside the explicit ordinances of the
Scriptures, it follows that direct governmental provisions of entitlements lead
not to self-sufficiency but rather the
ruin of both the individual recipient
For past studies or additional copies go to www.capmin.org

[

11

]

 Entitlement Programs Viewed Through the Lens of Scripture
and the nation’s treasury. Government entitlement programs have no basis in Scripture.

Bible Study Sponsors
Continued from page 1
Mark Meadows, H: NC

May God grant you, our nation’s leaders great wisdom to
transition our policies to biblically-informed positions
relative to best helping the poor and bereft — people
whom you and I love and people whom God loves.
VII.  ONE IMPORTANT FINAL THOUGHT
Unfortunately there is another deleterious result that
continues to this day in America in regards to the
incursive Social Gospel movement that took root
over 100 years ago. In order for the Social Gospel
movement to effectuate change in American culture it
was mandatory to infiltrate Government leadership and
influence policy. This study attributes the germination
of Government entitlement programs as evidence of
this very thing: The Social Gospel was and remains the
seedbed of political liberalism; they remain intrinsically
intertwined today.

Making Disciples of Jesus Christ
in the Political Arena
Throughout the World
Capitol Ministries is a ministry
organization that provides Bible studies,
evangelism and discipleship to political
leaders. Capitol Ministries was founded
in 1996 and has started ministries in
40 state Capitols and dozens of foreign
federal Capitols. cm

@capmin

/capitolministries

Capitol Ministries

Mail Processing Center
Post Office 30994 , Phoenix, AZ 85046

Rather than remaining in the political arena like they
had been since the country’s foundation where they
could fight against Theological Liberalism and for the
hearts and souls of political leaders through gospelling
and discipling, unfortunately Fundamentalists and
Evangelicals retreated from the political arena for
fear they would be perceived as theological liberals
themselves! Nothing could have been more deleterious
to the future of America!

12

]

Randy Neugebauer, H: TX
Gary Palmer, H: AL
Steve Pearce, H: NM
Mike Pence, G: IN
David Perdue, S: GA
Robert Pittenger, H: NC
Mike Pompeo, H: KS
Bill Posey, H: FL
Tom Price, H: GA
Reid Ribble, H: WI
Cathy McMorris Rogers, H: WA
Cliff Rosenberger, H: OH
Mike Rounds, S: SD
Austin Scott, H: GA
Tim Scott, S: SC
Jeff Sessionss, S: AL
Lamar Smith, H: TX
Marlin Stutzman, H: IN
Glenn Thompson, H: PA
John Thune, S: SD
Scott Tipton, H: CO
Tim Walberg, H: MI
Jackie Walorski, H: IN
Randy Weber, H: TX
Daniel Webster, H: FL

Rather than stand their ground and continue to win and
disciple public servants for Christ, imparting to them a
Christian world view on such things as God’s means of
creating a social safety net, they abandoned this critically
important sphere of influence — this vitally important
missional affinity group! As a result theological and
political liberalism blossomed. It follows that the biblical
remedy, the best way to change America’s downward
spiral is for Evangelicals to once again make disciples in
the political arena. cm

661.288.2622 www.capmin.org

[

Jeff Miller, H: FL

For past studies or additional copies go to www.capmin.org

Lynn Westmorland, H: GA
Roger Williams, H: TX
Joe Wilson, H: SC
Rob Wittman, H: VA
Steve Womack, H: AR
Rob Woodall, H: GA
Ted Yoho, H: FL
The views expressed in each
Bible study are those of the
author, and do not necessarily
reflect the position of any
individual Bible Study Sponsor.