• Help Spread the Fire
  • Click here to read Dr. Brown's latest article
  • A Debate with Prof. Doug Groothius on Whether Christians Can Vote for Romney and Dr. Brown’s Thoughts on “Reach Out and Resist”

    September 19, 2012 | 72 Comments

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

    [Download MP3]

    Denver Seminary Professor Doug Groothius engages with callers who do not believe Christians can vote for a Mormon and then Dr. Brown responds to sensitive emails with his principles of “reach out and resist.”  Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at  (866) 348 7884  with your questions and comments.

     

    Hour 1:

    Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Whether President Obama is re-elected, whether Mitt Romney is elected, we must realize that our great hope is not in the White House, it is in God and the people of God living out our faith.

    Hour 2:

    Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Friends there is a lot of insane moral thinking in the world. People really have lost their bearings. It’s up to us, the people of God, to recover the truth, speak the truth, live the truth, be the salt and light!

     

    SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!

    Israel’s Hope [Music CD] + Israel Shall Be Saved Series[MP3 CD]

    For Only $25 Postage Paid!

    Call 1-800-278-9978 or order online!
    Other Resources:

    “Reach Out and Resist”

    Should Evangelicals and Mormons Work Together?

    Dr. Brown Interviews Prof. Douglas Groothius on Christian Apologetics

    Be Sociable, Share!

    Comments

    72 Responses to “A Debate with Prof. Doug Groothius on Whether Christians Can Vote for Romney and Dr. Brown’s Thoughts on “Reach Out and Resist””

    1. Cosimo
      October 29th, 2012 @ 6:36 pm

      Wow … From loving your neighbour to Karl Marx ..a little bit of a stretch don’t u think.
      That’s the problem with politics.At the end of the day do you really think that there will be less abortions, less violence for whoever wins?I think not !! Religion should stay away from the political arena and do what they do best.Teach the word of god!!As Dr. Brown says.. We live in a broken world.Look around you..

    2. Dan1el
      October 29th, 2012 @ 7:37 pm

      Communism was/is satanic, and destructive: it was “used” NOT because it benefitted society’s “peons”, but it served the rulers’ aforementioned purposes.

    3. Bo
      October 30th, 2012 @ 11:12 am

      Cosimo,

      Loving your neighbor does not include voting that his money be taken by tax law and distributed to someone else. If you would not like it if others voted your money away from you, then do not vote our money away from us. Stealing is stealing no matter what you might want to call it. Karl Marx advocated stealing to the max…as long as you didn’t steal from him. Taxation that redistributes wealth is armed robbery.

      Shalom

    4. Dave
      October 30th, 2012 @ 3:05 pm

      Hey Sheila,

      Sorry, I’m not sure I understand your response. Either way, we can disagree. I feel far too much weight is put into politics in the christian community…that’s just my opinion.

    5. cosimo
      October 30th, 2012 @ 10:31 pm

      Bo,

      All taxation redistributes wealth… whether it goes to health,education,or military or whatever.So I don’t really understand your position.
      The point that I’m trying to make is that Dr. Brown should not be wading into politics,by either endorsing nor refuting any candidate.

    6. Bo
      October 30th, 2012 @ 10:43 pm

      Cosimo,

      No some taxation provides roadways and defense of our population and reimbursement for public servants and elected officials. Anything beyond this is stealing and giving the loot to those that do not provide us with a service. The Bible does not allow for mandatory helping the poor above about 3% of everyone’s farm income. The rest of the help is to come from voluntary donations and giving the poor the opportunity to work for food.

      Shalom

    7. David Roberts
      October 31st, 2012 @ 1:21 am

      @Bo, my solution to the problem of the poor suffering, which the liberals use to justify mandates and high taxes is:
      Instead of taking people’s money to fund government programs, the government demands that everyone gives a certain percentage of their money to the charity/charities of their choice – taxfree.
      Charities give you far more bang for your buck and can run on extremely low overheads. It would mean Christians could give to Christian charities without paying for abortion, etc.

    8. David Roberts
      October 31st, 2012 @ 1:24 am

      I’m aware there’s essentially zero chance of this happening though. But it would guarantee that the poor get taken care of. And if charities didn’t perform well, people could defund them and put money into other charities, you can’t defund the IRS and put your money elsewhere. Competition makes things work well, but there’s no competition for government programs.

    9. Bo
      October 31st, 2012 @ 9:04 am

      David,

      It would still be a mandate instead of being voluntary. It would be a better type of stealing, but still theft. Have you looked into history to see what percentage of the population was poor compared to today? Have the government programs and redistribution helped or harmed the situation? The government can only change who to poor are and reduce the money available to actually help them.

      Shalom

    10. Bo
      November 1st, 2012 @ 10:16 am

      I heard a statistic yesterday by a radio talk show host: An average of about $60,000 is used in helping each welfare recipient. Why is it that it takes more money to help the poor than the average American income? ($46,000)

      According to:
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States) a 6 person family is at the poverty threshold if their total income is $30,970. Most families do not even have 6 members.

      Why does it take almost double that to help them? We could help twice as many if we just sent all the people with the lowest tax returns $30,0000 every year. We wouldn’t have to print up literature or food stamp vouchers or train government workers or pay near as many or, or , or.

      By stealing from the rich and middle class, the effective rate of helping the poor is reduced quite significantly. If government programs work to decrease poverty why is there still the same percentage of poor families as there was 40 years ago? Answer: Government taxation and redistribution does not help to reduce poverty. It is a big waste, a fallacy and stealing…that is all.

      Shalom

    11. Bo
      November 2nd, 2012 @ 12:48 pm

      Cosimo,

      I am wondering what you do with this verse. How does it represent the true Christian stance in your value system?

      2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
      11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
      12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
      13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
      14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

      It should be a shame for people that do not work to take money from others that do work. There is a good reason why YHWH instituted His idea of letting the poor glean in the fields. So that the poor didn’t end up as freeloaders.

      Please do not vote for anyone that will increase welfare and other forms of non-Biblical help for the poor. Please reconsider your form of social justice in light of true scriptural justice that does not allow for stealing and redistribution.

      Shalom

    12. Cosimo
      November 2nd, 2012 @ 6:47 pm

      Bo,
      Even though I’m not a biblical scholar …Do you think that permanently disabled persons in biblical times should not
      be allowed to eat?Considering they were not able to work?Simply put this passage would apply to people that are lazy or people that feel entitled .

    13. Bo
      November 3rd, 2012 @ 9:36 pm

      Cosimo,

      Most of welfare goes to the latter of your categories. Permanently disabled and elderly people need our help if their families are unable to care for them. Those disabled in fighting for their country also “deserve” assistance.

      I appreciate the hearts of liberals/democrats, but they seem to be short sighted or deluded in what really helps people or our society. Taking from others to help someone is stealing. The government, and thus we, are responsible for disabled war veterans, but our social welfare programs only makes men into slaves and cowards.

      Maybe the deadbeat dads would get a clue if we tracked them down and forced them to provide for their children. That would be much better than making the rest of us pay for for their children’s upbringing. Maybe welfare babies would be less common if their mothers knew that they would have to be responsible for their food and clothing, instead of having an easy handout from the redistribution specialists.

      Abortion, and us paying for it, does not produce responsible people either. You spoke of taking responsibility for our actions, but your philosophy produces irresponsibility. We need to allow people to learn the lesson the hard way if they will not listen to wisdom. Bailouts almost never fix the problem nor do they allow economic and moral lessons to be learned.

      We do not owe the poor an easy or even an easier life. We owe YHWH to be His instruments in bringing physical and spiritual assistance to those that are disadvantaged. This is not produced by stealing and redistribution. Much better is the personal touch that is accompanied by real love that brings the gospel and the physical help. When we divorce the spiritual help from the physical we keep many in darkness.

      Government mandate has muzzled us from proclaiming the truth in a way that only personal alms can do.

      Shalom

    14. Bo
      November 3rd, 2012 @ 10:52 pm

      “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
      -George Bernard Shaw

      “The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
      -Margaret Thatcher

      “A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. ”
      -Dwight Eisenhower

      “Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved.”
      -Hellen Keller

      “Knowing what’s right doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”
      -Theodore Roosevelt

      None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
      -Goethe

      “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”
      -Theodore Roosevelt

      Shalom

    15. Bo
      November 3rd, 2012 @ 11:00 pm

      Cosimo,

      Try this on for size:
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20168393

      Shalom

    16. Cosimo
      November 4th, 2012 @ 1:48 pm

      Bo,
      You make some excellent points and I guess you feel that America is on the path of socialism.I do not agree.If you do not agree with redistribution of wealth as i do,then you should not agree with the 3 billion dollars we give to Israel every year!And if Obama did not bailout the auto sector.. how many jobs were saved… Another Republican president= more defense,more fat cats on Wall Street and more strife for the middle class.

    17. Dan1el
      November 4th, 2012 @ 2:06 pm

      Cosimo,
      “Bail out”!?
      1. “Bail outs” wouldn’t have ever even been NECESSITATED without the so-called “Federal Bank”‘s hand. “The Fed”‘s system is what created the market crash. The only time the United States EVER balanced its books was under President Andrew Jackson who (in his generation) vetoed the bank. President Andrew Jackson distributed a surplus in his day (the only surplus we’ve ever had).
      No “central bank” = no problem.
      Fed/central bank = problem.

      2. The taxpayers were footed with the bill.

      3. If I’m not mistaken, trillions of dollars are “missing” (unaccounted for) in these bailouts — this means that someone got very very very rich off of the “bailouts”.

    18. Cosimo
      November 4th, 2012 @ 6:48 pm

      Daniel,
      Ok under Bush banking system was collapsing.. No bailout
      meant no economy ..and under bush housing market collapsed..no bailout meant no mortgages .. Under bush auto sector collapsed … No bailout millions of jobs would have been lost!!There’s a big difference between stimulus spending and bailouts .. The government made there money back with the bailouts .As well an audit provided to congress only showed a small percentage of waste with the stimulus.We have a very short memory!!

    19. Dan1el
      November 4th, 2012 @ 7:16 pm

      Cosimo,
      The Bank IS the government!

      “Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.” M.A. Rothschild

      “BBC Interview: “Goldman Sachs rules the world””
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9ucTmcPZQE

      Thanks for the opportunity for me to share the truth, though knowing that you are probably not going to be swayed by these facts.

    20. Dan1el
      November 4th, 2012 @ 7:34 pm

      Guess who was among the largest contributors to Obama.
      Answer: Goldman Sachs

      “Top Obama Contributors 2008”
      https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

      Guess who is the top contributor of Romney.
      Answer: Goldman Sachs

      “Top Contributors To Mitt Romney in 2012”
      http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286

      Obama/Romney Contributor Article
      Top contributors in 2012 US presidential poll campaign
      http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/04-Nov-2012/top-contributors-in-2012-us-presidential-poll-campaign

      Former Goldman Sachs employees ruling Italy and Greece.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHwF_vbYLuI

      I guess Goldman Sachs IS one of the “rulers of the world” (they rule the governments of the world), in a sense, huh?

      The maxim has proven true:
      “Give me control of a nations’ money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.”

      Why doesn’t the banker (Rothschild) care? Because he means that he will control the laws (himself) by controlling the men who make the laws (by controlling the money, they have “sway” over the politicians).

    21. Bo
      November 4th, 2012 @ 7:37 pm

      Cosimo,

      I do not pretend to be knowledgeable enough to know how much money we should use to help Israel in securing the Middle East. It is a matter of national and world security. I do know that the Bible, of which you say you are not a scholar, definitely says that YHWH will bless whoever blesses Israel and curse whoever curses Israel.

      I also know that the Bible forbids being accomplices to murder and theft, even if that murder and theft is called helping women and the poor. Voting for candidates that support the above actions is joining a crowd to do evil.

      Ex 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:

      We do not know what would have happened to the auto sector without a bailout. When companies loose their ability to compete in an open market, they are usually sold and reorganized into a competitive business. Yes some jobs are lost for the short term, but market efficiency is gained and taxpayers do not have their money stolen and redistributed. The new company is funded voluntarily by private investors instead of us being made to invest. Private enterprise is almost always extremely more efficient than government management. In the final analysis, the economy, the taxpayers, and the workers end up in a better predicament.

      Did you ever wonder Why Obama gave so many hundreds of billions to the big bankers instead of to the poor people that owed mortgage payments to the big banks. Obama has helped the rich more than any president in history. Of course he could have helped the entire economy if he would have just given each person in America their small potion of the bailout. The banks would have still gotten their money and the poor would owe less on their homes. What we ended up with is the poor still owing the same amount and the big bankers pocketing huge profits. All this being said, it is still stealing for him to take our money and give it to someone else. It doesn’t matter if he gives it to the poor or to the big wigs that financed his campaign, it is still wrong. It is just more outrageous for him to bailout the rich…especially since he is so animate about his plan not doing this and accuses the Republicans of doing it.

      Providing incentive for us (especially the more well to do) to invest our money into our declining economy will always work better than taking our money and filtering it through many bureaucracies that take their undue share and invest it for us.

      Every time the government touches our money it looses efficiency. How many government hands does it go through? Too many. Is it any wonder that social security taxes are such a huge amount more than they were originally? (They were 1% for employee and employer originally and now are over 6% for each.) And the payouts do not even keep up with inflation. We pay more and the retirees get less. Where does the rest go? To the bureaucracies and to inefficiency. Cased closed.

      “We can guarantee cash benefits as far out and at whatever size you like, but we cannot guarantee their purchasing power.” – Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve US Central Bank), appearing before the Senate Banking Committee on February 15, 2005, in response to Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island on the topic of funding Social Security.

      Shalom

    22. Dan1el
      November 4th, 2012 @ 7:58 pm

      Interestingly enough, Iceland refused to bail out their banks are doing just fine — this means that the “bank failure” was a ruse to steal peoples’ money! NOTHING bad would occur from allowing these banks to fail!

      http://www.infowars.com/top-economists-iceland-did-it-right-and-everyone-else-is-doing-it-wrong/

    Leave a Reply