- 5 Republican Candidates Remain
With the Republican Party Primary Debate schedule in full swing, Sinners and Saints Radio has chosen to devote an episode to some of the issues that are relevant to the debate. Pastors John Sawtelle, Movses Janbazian, and Adam Kaloostian discuss some of the candidates and the issues, and offer some thoughts on how Christians should think through the issues when it comes time to vote. The hosts have different political views, but there’s some overlap on certain issues. This episode was recorded prior to Huntsman’s withdrawal, so please excuse the mention of six remaining candidates – now it’s 5. As always, the hosts invite you to chime in in the comments section below.
Listen to this episode now:
Sinners and Saints Episode 15
So who the heck are you voting for? Thanks
Ron Paul! Oh, you were asking them? Sorry.
i posted this at the last show also, but i could post it here also:
To be honest, i am really dissapointed with a boring and irrelevant topic like this.(esp for a person from the netherlands for this topic)
I was so happy with the series on the Macarthur sermon, leanred so much. And also happy with the link to URC learning. I’d wish you guys make more shows about the difference between you guys (reformed) and people that represent new calvinism like Piper, Keller and mark driscoll.
Are there still gifts of the Spirit? Can there be a satellite church were people watch the pastor on a screen? How do you guys feel about a concept like ”the elephant room”, how do you feel about a reformed preacher like paul washer, should we stop listening to john macarthur all togehter cuz he made some errors on the baptism topic etc etc….
just some feedback. love the show and how you guys ar full of zeal. keep it up!
David B,
You might be surprised to know that the Reformed have a long history of being interested in politics, in fact, political issues are at the heart of the Reformation, hence the reformers such as Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, etc., were called “”magisterial” reformers. To verify the Reformed commitment to political discussions check out Belgic Confession article 36, Calvin’s Institutes 4.20, and for that matter, examine the whole history behind convening of the great Synod of Dordt in 1618. Beyond that, its worth noting that every 16th and 17th century Reformed and Presbyterian confession has something to say about the magistrate. That should tell you that the discussion of politics is near and dear to Reformed theology. On the other hand, it was the Anabaptists who found politics distasteful and even dirty, and for that matter, the modern day Anabaptists such as Driscoll and MacArthur view it that way too.
Hang in there with us–this show is not about shaping people into mere theology wonks who sit around debating a narrow range of issues; we want to have discussions about how Reformed doctrine intersects with the Christian life as a whole and that means then that we need to weigh in on a range of social, political, and cultural issues.
Thanks for listening and thanks for your comments, much appreciated.
How is Iran, a Muslim country led by a crazy dictator that is on the record for destroying Israel and the US. Not to mention the fact they deal a lot with the North Koreans who right now are testing missiles that can reach the US. Muslim, Islamofacists have as their desire to force the world to capitulate to Islam. I guess the next time when a nuclear weapon is smuggled into a US city then you will think oh maybe we should have taken them out sooner.
You guys are sounding a lot like Ron Paul who is a total isolationist. BTW, I do believe these issues are interesting to talk about but I can see where you will lose some people like David B. who are more interested in laying out distinctives.
Ok after hearing the entire podcast, why don’t you just come out and say that Christians should support Ron Paul. A person who put out all sorts of racist propaganda in his newsletters and is a complete nutter on foreign policy and someone who won’t get elected.
In fact all he can do is hurt the chances of the Republican party and allow the worst president the country has ever known to win reelection. Please get back to theology. Theology matters and I didn’t hear any theology in this podcast. What are the theological basis for your opinions? That’s what I hoped I would hear.
Brother Al,
I appreciate your comments and am happy that you are listening regularly to the podcast. In view of your most recent remarks about episode 15, I might make make the observation that no one on the podcast endorsed Ron Paul as a candidate for president. Furthermore It is hard to see why you think the principles of just war theory are “nutter” as an objective standard for evaluating when as a country it is just for us to take up arms against another country. It was this very ancient Christian foreign policy, which goes back at least to St. Augustine, that we were attempting to apply to a thorny contemporary situation.
On another note, I will remind you that political discussions are common to the Reformed historically, and it is something that contemporary Reformed discussion is lacking in. In the future we plans to have vigorous debates about different political viewpoints —and I hope that you will join with us in wrestling through these very relevant and significant issues.
I wasn’t calling just war theory as nutter, I was calling Ron Paul as nutter. He espouses that we were at fault for 9/11 that Iran getting a nuclear device is as harmless as Canada getting one. I could go on and on. The guy is a neoconfederate who thought Lincoln was horrible and would like to go back to the Articles of Confederation. This is on top of putting out a racist newsletter that made him $M’s.
It did seem like with some of the comments made by the pastors they were agreeing with him on foreign policy at least. That’s what prompted the comment. Not the theory the person of Ron Paul is a nutter. Hope that clears it up. BTW, as an avowed theology wonk, I believe everything is or should be seen through the lens of correct theology.
I will definitely not keep my mouth shut but you of all people know that. Love ya brother!
Well you wont ”lose” me as a listener, il just skip these topics.
My plan is to find a good reformed church in the netherlands, which should not be a problem since we still do it old school, hardcore reformed, there is 1 in each town. and do the cathechism there. I just learned so much from the URC teachings in i tunes and the thing on baptism. And i am really enjoying some sermons and works by mark driscoll and other that repsresent the ”NEW CALVINISM” but sometimes they seem off, and i cant putt my finger on it. i came a long from pentecostal church then evangelical baptist church and now reformed. i am just hungry and i know i should be ”fed” at a local church, and i will, but these last 2 topics are boring for me, no offence!
love in Christ.
@David that’s good. You should also check out a podcast called Fighting for the Faith and The Dividing Line. Fighting for the Faith is a Lutheran guy who does apologetics and The Dividing Line is another apologetics podcast by a Particular Baptist.
Finally check out the Reformed Forum which is theological discussions by OPC people with Westminster east.
A Lutheran and a Particular Baptist? No offense, but those don’t sound very interesting unless you are Lutheran or Baptist. Just joking. I’ll have to check those out. Reformed Forum would be a better choice. I’m a little biased since I’m OPC and I know one of the hosts. They have good discussions on a wide range of issues. Check em out.
David, check out Reformed Cast and Renewing Your Mind along with Reformed Forum.
tnx!
Up front, great subject. I’m looking forward to listening…
Appreciated the comment on Michelle Bachmann’s leaving of WELS. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is certainly more sound in doctrine than her current “fellowship!” Also gratified to hear agreement that the Pope is Antichrist.
Believe it or not, Charles Baker, I agree 100% with you!
My only issue with topic was the discussion about the federal government’s role not including things like defining marriage, etc. This MAY BE true only if your starting point is the US Constitution and not he Bible. If the role of the state is to promote that which is good and suppress that which is evil, then the federal government MUST, according to the Scriptures, defend and promote that which is good. Ron Paul may not agree, but then again, he does not understand the doctrine of the magistrate according to historic confessional understanding.
Looking forward to more episodes!
I was disappointed with the coverage on the issue of marriage and abortion seemed to skipped completely. Historically, governments have always recognized some marriages and not others when it suits their interest. Across cultures and with various religions, marriage laws have been written to attach children to their biological parents. Attaching children to their biological parents creates a healthier society. I think at least part of the problem today is that in the minds of most people, marriage doesn’t have anything to do with children. People think its all about love. If it really is all about love then the government shouldn’t recognize any marriage. Someone can love his dog. It’s only with the idea that children should be attached to their biological parents that government has any reason at all to recognize any marriage. Homosexual marriage can easily be argued against simply by appealing to natural law.
I would have liked to hear more about the different positions that the candidates have taken on abortion and what they have done to fight against it. Romney for instance, seems to have virtually the same position as Obama. He’s personally opposed but does nothing to prevent it and helped provide tax payer funded abortion in his state.
I’m not opposed to voting a non-Christian into office but I think Romney should at least be questioned about how his beliefs will affect his policies. Some Mormons have some pretty bizarre eschatological views involving a Mormon president.
I was glad you guys brought up the subject of just war. Ron Paul seems to be the only one who takes this seriously and that’s why I will probably vote for him in the primaries.
Hi Chuck,
Great questions. I would say that marriage is not a governmental issue at all. Since it is an image of Christ and his church. Only when churches gave up their God given rights to the government by accepting a taxfree existance did marriage come under government perview.
I believe a truly biblical church receives nothing from the government pays whatever taxes it must pay and speaks out and establishes marriage and the sanctity of life as God given and God governed within the scope of what scripture says is the perview of the church.
Alvin, the reformers view of marriage was that it belonged to the state since it was a creation ordinance and not an ecclesiastical one. See the form for the solemnization of marriage in the old Dutch liturgy.
Also, when ministers perform marriages they are acting on behalf of the state, not on behalf of the church. So-called two kingdom theology muddies these waters.
Alvin:
That’s simply not true. The early church understood marriage to belong to the state as did the Reformers. Marriage has existed in various societies that have nothing to do with the Christian church. Do you believe that marriages that take place outside of the Christian church are not valid? If a married couple were to convert to Christianity would you make them have another ceremony?
Under your model, what happens if a man decides to divorce his wife for a younger woman after she’s spent her life working in the home, does the government say, “Sorry, we can’t do anything. That’s just a church thing.”?
Regardless of whether ministers are authorized by the state to perform marriages or they bless marriages that have already been established by the state, the state still has an interest in marriage. The state’s interest are not necessarily the same as the church’s interest but they do overlap. In a pluralist society the government isn’t going to care if a Christian man marries a Buddhist woman but the church will care. However, both church and state should be concerned to attach children to their biological parents for the well-being of the chuch and state and based on natural law.
@Nathan & Chuck, just because some of the reformers held this doesn’t make them correct biblically. I interpret render unto Caesar as rendering things like taxes, fighting wars, etc… to the state. Not God’s law. I am a 2K guy though and understand that the government does not always follow God’s law and at other times is wholeheartedly in rebellion against His law. But the church has no jurisdiction within the law or in scripture for taking over the government and forcing it to obey God’s law. God will judge those in rebellion.
Many reformers but again not all also held that if you didn’t attend church, the state was supposed to go round you up. Some were for forced church membership and others for the burning at the stake for heresy. I’m assuming you don’t believe the state should be doing any of these things are you? Because back then the state also appointed pastors and in some cases elders. You can’t have it both ways. Once churches allow the state to overreach thier jurisdiction by overreaching our own then we have no control over our church.
Again I belive the church in this country got into bed with the state by accepting tax exempt status. Paul didn’t say render unto Caesar unless you are a 501c.
As for the hypotheticals raised by Chuck, marriage outside the church, presummably between two non-believers should not be recognized as neither are holy because neither are Christian. If one or both should accept Christ and be baptized then the marriage is legitamite in the eyes of the church. As long as neither believe it is not marriage because both are in rebellion and thus cannot mirror Christ and His bride.
As far as a divorce for non-biblical means (I’m going to assume that the person divorcing their spouse is a Christian) is concerned it is a sin and since that person chose another is an excummunicable sin that unless total repentance and reconcilliation should cause excummunication. BTW, the state does basically throw their hands up. Ever hear of a divorce judge saying well unless your wife committed adultery or left you being a unbeliever then you can’t be divorced.
I totally agree with your last thought except for “natural law” as I don’t know what that is really. The only law is God’s not made by man, so all law is supernatural. If you are claiming there is a seprate law for the church and the state then I wholeheartedly disagree. The state and church must follow God’s law or be judged as breaking it but God in his revelation has given the church and the state influence over different spheres.
marriage outside the church, presummably between two non-believers should not be recognized as neither are holy because neither are Christian. If one or both should accept Christ and be baptized then the marriage is legitamite in the eyes of the church.
so then an unbelieving married couple engage in adultery everytime they have sexual relations? so then divorce between an unbelieving couple is not really divorce in gods eye since they werent married in the first place?
Any act by an unbeliever is a sin so yes they are committing adultery.
Alvin,
I think you would agree that marriage was established in creation. Therefore it is for all people, believer or unbeliever, to participate in and enjoy. I would have to agree with some of the other comments. I would say that marriage is both a state and ecclesiastical issue. Both institutions need to recognize either through natural/general revelation or Scripture (or both) that marriage is only legitimate if it is between one man and one woman and is a lifelong bond/covenant. All marriages should be recognized as such.
This whole issue can get very complex and each situation needs to be delt with individually depending on the specifics of each situation. For Christians this is done at the local church level under the oversight of elders.
In the civil sphere it can get tricky. I’m not sure a federal marriage amendment would be the right action. Maybe it is? Leaving this foundational issue to each individual state would bring division and confusion to our nation. Not addressing it at all would not be promoting the common good.
As far as the church’s tax free status, we should not be opposed to it. We should be greatful for a government that does not put excessive financial burdens on the church. If we can get the government to promote an atmosphere where the church can perform its God given commision of gospel proclemation with greater ease then we should. But if the state threatens to take away these benefits unless we change our message or prevents the church from speaking against evils in the public sphere, then we must obey God rather than men.
In regards to presidential candidates (or any governmental position), in my opinion it would be preferable if the person was a Christian, but it is not necessary. It should be based on the persons stance on individual issues. Whoever would promote and enforce the greater common good and promote an environment where the Chrurch can fufill her misson would be my pick. So whether the candidate is a Democrat, Republican, or independant should not be the starting point. As believers, if we choose to participate and excersize our rights to vote, we need to be thoughtful and understand the issue the best we can before we vote.
How is it that the unbiblical view of God in Roman Catholicism, and the unbiblical view of God in much of Evangelicalism is better than the unbiblical view of God in Mormanism? I am under the impression that God doesn’t grade on the curve.
i dont know, only politics i see in the Bible is daniel, and even that is God providance for the tribe of israel. also Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world.
we cant change people by rules, they need God to make them a new creation by the Holy Spirit and change them from inside out.
but i guess you should vote for the best, or should i sa ythe less worse…..
What is your opinion on women running for and holding offices in the government?
Why shouldn’t they? They are not leading or teaching men in the gospel. Margret Thatcher and Golda Meir were both good leaders in my opinion. You could ask the same question for the CEO or President of a company.
“Why shouldn’t they?”
Alvin, if it’s unlawful for a woman to be the head of one family, why wouldn’t it be unlawful for her to be the head of many families?
Hi Steve,
I don’t view the government to be head of a family. What family? the family of Americans? or Los Angelino’s? for example. No they are Caesar and all we are called to do is obey the government as long as they are not contrary to God’s law.
BTW, what do we do with one parent families? not recognize the woman who runs the family?
hi, did’t get a reply when i contacted this site via the contact button, so i’l be bold and ask it here
. can you make a radioshow on the elephant room round 2? from the previews i have seen on you tube, they have ”reformed” people there, they talk about predestination and what not. and like i said before would be nice if you guys talked more about people like piper and mark driscoll who seem calvinist but are not really reformed.
you touched on it in episode 13 a bit, and i really identified with the person who said he also went from a evangelical church to th reformed and also went trhough the motions i am going through now.
anyway, i would love for you guys to comment on a concept like the elephant room.