# Sinners and Saints Radio



## N. Eshelman (Nov 2, 2011)

I am wondering if anyone here listens to Sinners and Saints Radio? SSR is hosted by a couple of United Reformed guys here in SoCal. Personally, I have enjoyed the edgy polemics, but I see how people could tired of hearing about John MacArthur and his unbiblical views concerning baptism (5 shows dedicated to this so far). 

Anyhow, I am enjoying listening to it, and wonder if any one here listens and what you all think.... 

Sinners And Saints Radio | Theological Talk Show With An Edge


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Nov 2, 2011)

I used to listen. From what I remember the shows I heard were very good. Especially the ones on Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel.


----------



## Ne Oublie (Nov 2, 2011)

Interesting radio show!

I find it interesting that everyone and their Aunt Margaret had some blog, warring against Mr. MacArthur, about his board scratching millennial view being truly "reformed" all the while everyone thinks everything else the man says is gold!?!

I still can't believe that Steve Lawson calls MacArthur the John Calvin of our time..

I am glad these guys are taken him to task, no else is, and, yah, I know, it gets old. I wonder if they will take on the R2k folks? ha!


----------



## Jeffriesw (Nov 2, 2011)

I am listening by podcast, enjoying it so far.


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 2, 2011)

Anyone who bashes Mac has to be off limits for me.


----------



## Frosty (Nov 2, 2011)

Ne Oublie said:


> I still can't believe that Steve Lawson calls MacArthur the John Calvin of our time..




I see him more of a poor-man's Martin Luther. Seeking to bring people back to the Word of God (through emphasis on expositional preaching), but lacking in a few areas. All in all I praise God for his ministry.


----------



## jennywigg (Nov 2, 2011)

I've just started listening and have been enjoying the show.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 3, 2011)

It feels a little too much like it delights in criticizing. Criticism of fellow believers, though often necessary, should be be undertaken with a note of sadness. There may be a place for this program, but its tone generally doesn't help my heart.


----------



## Ne Oublie (Nov 3, 2011)

Jack K said:


> It feels a little too much like it delights in criticizing. Criticism of fellow believers, though often necessary, should be be undertaken with a note of sadness. There may be a place for this program, but its tone generally doesn't help my heart.



John MacArthur has no problems criticizing the Paedobaptist doctrine, and wether he delights in it or is saddened by it I do not know, but he is quite polemic, as these gentlemen are. I am not sure how they are or are not showing that it saddens them, is it that they are verbose and zealous? Could you give an example of what you mean when it comes to "tone" and "sadness"?


----------



## N. Eshelman (Nov 3, 2011)

Jack K said:


> It feels a little too much like it delights in criticizing. Criticism of fellow believers, though often necessary, should be be undertaken with a note of sadness. There may be a place for this program, but its tone generally doesn't help my heart.



Johnny Mac called infant baptism "satanic." They are replying to the charges that HE made against the historic reformed faith.


----------



## NB3K (Nov 3, 2011)

N. Eshelman said:


> I am wondering if anyone here listens to Sinners and Saints Radio? SSR is hosted by a couple of United Reformed guys here in SoCal. Personally, I have enjoyed the edgy polemics, but I see how people could tired of hearing about John MacArthur and his unbiblical views concerning baptism (5 shows dedicated to this so far).
> 
> Anyhow, I am enjoying listening to it, and wonder if any one here listens and what you all think....
> 
> Sinners And Saints Radio | Theological Talk Show With An Edge



Thank you for leading me to this Reformed Talk Show! Very good meat!


----------



## N. Eshelman (Nov 3, 2011)

SolaSaint said:


> Anyone who bashes Mac has to be off limits for me.



So can one at least "bash" him for being a Dispensationalist and non-confessional? Or is that off limits?


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 3, 2011)

Looking forward to listening with an open mind.


----------



## NB3K (Nov 3, 2011)

N. Eshelman said:


> SolaSaint said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who bashes Mac has to be off limits for me.
> ...



Is this why MacArthur's commentary on Romans 9 so unlike Calvin's & Luther's and even RC Sproul's??? I think MacArthur's Dispensationalism blinds him to the deep truth's of Scripture. What I am saying is John Piper and RC Sproul's expostion of Romans is totally different than MacArthur's.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 3, 2011)

Ne Oublie said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > It feels a little too much like it delights in criticizing. Criticism of fellow believers, though often necessary, should be be undertaken with a note of sadness. There may be a place for this program, but its tone generally doesn't help my heart.
> ...





N. Eshelman said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > It feels a little too much like it delights in criticizing. Criticism of fellow believers, though often necessary, should be be undertaken with a note of sadness. There may be a place for this program, but its tone generally doesn't help my heart.
> ...



I didn't mean to say anything about MacArthur or whether or not he deserves criticism. My feeling about the tone of the program probably has as much to do with the old programs as anything. Back then I sensed a tone that just wasn't helpful to me. Listening tended to make me riled up about something and fed my critical spirit. And when I sampled a new show recently, I got the same vibe. Like I say, l there's probably a place for it. But I need to not live there very often.

---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ----------

In fact, given that they're now on the topic of baptism, which I'm interested in, I may have to give the program another try.


----------



## StrictBaptist (Nov 3, 2011)

I I like edgy radio shows, so I will check it out I like Macarthur, but I prefer to listen to Piper myself


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 3, 2011)

In all honesty, I've been listening to these guys for awhile and I find them refreshing.


----------



## eqdj (Nov 4, 2011)

Andrew P.C. said:


> In all honesty, I've been listening to these guys for awhile and I find them refreshing.


----------



## moral necessity (Nov 4, 2011)

Jack K said:


> Back then I sensed a tone that just wasn't helpful to me. Listening tended to make me riled up about something and fed my critical spirit. And when I sampled a new show recently, I got the same vibe. Like I say, l there's probably a place for it. But I need to not live there very often.



I find God's work in you to be very refreshing. It's neat how he has made you sensitive towards your tendencies and has turned your heart in wisdom and humility to avoid them.

Blessings and fellowship!


----------



## LeeD (Nov 4, 2011)

Is this article in response to this radio program?

Reformed, Reforming: Who is "Truly Reformed"? Part I


----------



## sastark (Nov 4, 2011)

LeeD said:


> Is this article in response to this radio program?
> 
> Reformed, Reforming: Who is "Truly Reformed"? Part I



Lee: Yes, it appears it is in part in response to the radio show, as well as to some of the comments that were made on the Sinner and Saints web site.


----------



## LeeD (Nov 4, 2011)

Okay, makes sense. It sounded all to familiar and then I remembered having read this thread on PB.  I did enjoy Dr. White's post and look forward to Part II.


----------



## Weston Stoler (Nov 4, 2011)

I can't listen to people like Macarthur and Washer anymore. I started out in a cage stage and my anger flourished under their teaching. After graduating and able to leave the IFB church, I left the cage stage behind. I think they feed so many cage stagers, while trying to speak against it as well.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Nov 4, 2011)

It will be interesting to see if Dr. White will say something simple like "No, paedobaptism is not satanic. MacAurther should not have said so and caused yet another flap" and move on.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 4, 2011)

N. Eshelman said:


> Johnny Mac called infant baptism "satanic." They are replying to the charges that HE made against the historic reformed faith.



Well all false doctrine is in some sense from the devil. Don't you believe that denying the covenant sign to infants of the children is essentially spiritual child neglect?


----------



## Herald (Nov 4, 2011)

Weston Stoler said:


> I can't listen to people like Macarthur and Washer anymore. I started out in a cage stage and my anger flourished under their teaching. After graduating and able to leave the IFB church, I left the cage stage behind. I think they feed so many cage stagers, while trying to speak against it as well.



One thing I appreciate about Johnny Mac is that he's not afraid to fly his colors up the mast. His position on the DoG and Lordship Salvation had a profound effect on the Baptist community. Like anyone else who possesses a large audience he can put his foot in his mouth at times; but I wouldn't ask him to change. 

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.


----------



## caoclan (Nov 4, 2011)

I really like the show. Some of the comments on the website blog are a bit too harsh for me. They addressed questions by "The Baptist" and Dr. White, more confrontationally than was necessary, in my opinion.


----------



## Logan Almy (Nov 4, 2011)

I think the show is outstanding. I am glad they are responding to MacArthur's Anabaptist Chaos.


----------



## Craig.Scott (Nov 5, 2011)

I only came across the podcast a couple of months ago. I find it very interesting to be honest. I do not like the 'edge' part of the intro with the worldly rock soundtrack. The content is decent, hitting important topis with the pastors expressing their thoughbts.

I understand why they have put so much time into the John MaCarthur debate. The sign of the covenant of Grace is extrememly important, in fact so important that to neglect the baptism of covenant children is a sin. So to dispute Pastor MaCarthur, one needs to analyse the arguments and comment in a coherant manner.

Overall very enjoyable, but drop the guitars please.








In Christ


----------



## Herald (Nov 5, 2011)

Logan Almy said:


> I think the show is outstanding. I am glad they are responding to MacArthur's Anabaptist Chaos.



MacArthur is not an Anabaptist, unless you're one of those Presbyterians who thinks that every Baptist is an Anabaptist.


----------



## baron (Nov 5, 2011)

N. Eshelman said:


> I am wondering if anyone here listens to Sinners and Saints Radio?



I never heard of this radio program before. Started to listen to it. I stoped listening to John MacArthur after reading Sam Waldron book MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto.

Thanks for sharing the link.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 5, 2011)

Just finished the first episode. I find them to be rude, ignorant, impolite, and uncharitable. I will not be listening further. I just cannot believe an URC Classis would let 2 guys be ordained as ministers who are clearly still stuck in their ''cage phase'' in Calvinism.


----------



## Rufus (Nov 5, 2011)

jogri17 said:


> Just finished the first episode. I find them to be rude, ignorant, impolite, and uncharitable. I will not be listening further. I just cannot believe an URC Classis would let 2 guys be ordained as ministers who are clearly still stuck in their ''cage phase'' in Calvinism.



I listened to two episodes and liked it but also felt a little uneasy at the level of speaking, I don't need to hear a rant about Baptists for that long. I want to see Baptists and Presbyterians as well as Methodists, Episcopalians (those that haven't been taken over by liberalism), Congregationalists, and others striving against the world, moralistic thereputic deism, and other false gospels.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 6, 2011)

Rufus said:


> I listened to two episodes and liked it but also felt a little uneasy at the level of speaking, I don't need to hear a rant about Baptists for that long. I want to see Baptists and Presbyterians as well as Methodists, Episcopalians (those that haven't been taken over by liberalism), Congregationalists, and others striving against the world, moralistic thereputic deism, and other false gospels.


 Well we'll have to agree to disagree. If these were a bunch of 19 year olds, i'd cut them some slack, but these are ministers of Gospel in a denomination. And they reflect badly on it. They are ironically doing what they preach against and not thinking very churchly and corporately rather just as individuals with friendships who happen to all share a denomination (and possibly seminary experience). The URC and the Can Ref church are looking in to merging officially, and this kind of smack talk against baptists is all fine from their perspective, but in their response against James White they sort of looked down upon presbyterians for having mixed confessional subscriptional standards (one for officers, one for laity) and the can refers are close to the OPC which also advocates that posistion. 

Also, it is my greatest frustration, but why is political correctness a bad thing amoung conservatives? I think next week I'm going to post my arugment for political correctness from a Biblical stand point. I am politically correct and proud of it. All it means is that you agree that in a civil society we agree that language is important and that some languge hurt people for whatever reason, so we will change words so that people will not have to feel hurt for no good reason. If people are to be offended, it should be for our beliefs, not tone or language choice. sorry rant there.


----------



## jennywigg (Nov 6, 2011)

Hmmmm...very interesting how differently people are responding to this show. I really like it and don't find them to be arrogant, etc., at all. I do find, for example, the Pyromaniacs and their blog arrogant and rude. Not these guys, though.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 7, 2011)

jennywigg said:


> I do find, for example, the Pyromaniacs and their blog arrogant and rude. Not these guys, though.



Opposite here. I like TeamPyro, though Frank Turk does annoy me with his open letters.... I really don't like that. But Phil Johnson is very good writer and makes his points quite well and concisely.


----------



## Rook (Nov 7, 2011)

Listen to Dr. MacArthur's sermons on infant baptism and then on immersion-only believers baptism. In those sermons, J-Mac makes some pretty bold claims, as he often does, and makes Reformed people look like morons drinking some Millerite kool-aid. Basically, if you believe in infant-baptism you don't take the Bible seriously, and if you don't baptize by immersion you're stupid. 

That sort of language deserves a response from the Confessionally Reformed folks, especially minister's of the Word. Also, it deserves a response because of J-Mac's wide influence.

Also, I have had conversations with many people in Reformed churches who have NO IDEA why they are baptizing their infants. We should not only be defending infant baptism, but we should be excited about the practice. Shows like this help people. It helped me. Sometimes showing some confidence in what you believe may actually instill that confidence in somebody else. I am confident that infant-baptism is biblical. If we really think infant baptism is biblical then we shouldn't always be playing defense on our heels. If something is the truth then go on offense and put a little pressure back on the other side. 

Many people (inside the Christian community) think we are crazy for believing infant baptism. I attend The Master's College and after J-Mac preaches like that we are viewed as incompetent people . If only we believed the Bible. 

The show was responding to the above attitude. They were simply wanting to show confidence and give people who are weak sheep a confidence in the practice of infant baptism. You leave the show with confidence to proclaim the Reformed faith to others, including infant baptism.


----------



## Rufus (Nov 7, 2011)

jogri17 said:


> Well we'll have to agree to disagree. If these were a bunch of 19 year olds, i'd cut them some slack, but these are ministers of Gospel in a denomination. And they reflect badly on it. They are ironically doing what they preach against and not thinking very churchly and corporately rather just as individuals with friendships who happen to all share a denomination (and possibly seminary experience). The URC and the Can Ref church are looking in to merging officially, and this kind of smack talk against baptists is all fine from their perspective, but in their response against James White they sort of looked down upon presbyterians for having mixed confessional subscriptional standards (one for officers, one for laity) and the can refers are close to the OPC which also advocates that posistion.
> 
> Also, it is my greatest frustration, but why is political correctness a bad thing amoung conservatives? I think next week I'm going to post my arugment for political correctness from a Biblical stand point. I am politically correct and proud of it. All it means is that you agree that in a civil society we agree that language is important and that some languge hurt people for whatever reason, so we will change words so that people will not have to feel hurt for no good reason. If people are to be offended, it should be for our beliefs, not tone or language choice. sorry rant there.



Maybe you misread me, if that's the case I'm sorry, if It isn't I'm sorry for misreading you. I do believe it was wrong for them to attack John MacArthur as an individual. Unless I'm wrong in Gods eyes for believing that its wrong and than I ask for His forgiveness and the teaching of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 7, 2011)

I tend toward being too critical, so too much exposure to shows like this really isn't healthy for me. However, I do agree that whatever errors MacArthur stated should be addressed. I am a baptist, but I do not believe poor characterizations are warranted to defend or propound what I believe is true regarding baptism. In fact, if infant baptism is indeed false, I would agree that it is "satanic." Isn't all false teaching? The opposite would be true if believers-only baptist were false. Ultimately though, my hope is that I never become so confident in my theological persuasions to dare call either position satanic when there are good and godly men who are convinced from Scripture that they are correct in their views.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 8, 2011)

jogri17 said:


> Rufus said:
> 
> 
> > I listened to two episodes and liked it but also felt a little uneasy at the level of speaking, I don't need to hear a rant about Baptists for that long. I want to see Baptists and Presbyterians as well as Methodists, Episcopalians (those that haven't been taken over by liberalism), Congregationalists, and others striving against the world, moralistic thereputic deism, and other false gospels.
> ...



Joseph, greetings,

First, I don't think you really read through the entire thread of their response to James White. Rev Adam Kaloostian answered James' question but he didn't like the answer.

Secondly, the URC is not a denomination but rather a federation which gives each consistory freedom from direct synodical authority. (Church Order Art. 21)


> Article 21
> 
> In each congregation there shall be a Consistory composed of the minister(s) of the Word and the elders, which shall ordinarily meet at least once a month. The Consistory is the only assembly in the church(es) whose decisions possess direct authority within the congregation, since the Consistory receives its authority directly from Christ, and thereby is directly accountable to Christ.



Thirdly, I'm not sure what this whole "politically correct" thing came from, but I know that ministers have been silenced by the Canadian government for speaking against homosexual behavior(Here, here). Is telling someone that "homosexuals.... will not inherit the kingdom of God" considered being politically incorrect?


----------



## Andres (Nov 8, 2011)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Thirdly, I'm not sure what this whole "politically correct" thing came from, but I know that ministers have been silenced by the Canadian government for speaking against homosexual behavior(Here, here). Is telling someone that "homosexuals.... will not inherit the kingdom of God" considered being politically incorrect?



I obviously don't speak for Joseph, but I agreed with his point about being politically correct. This issue isn't about telling homosexuals they will not inherit the kingdom of God; that's scripture plain and simple and as Christians, we can't shy away from that. The issue for me is that I've known reformed Christians who use the word [email protected] or queer when referencing homosexuals. I don't consider that politically correct and I don't see anything gained by using those types of slurs.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 8, 2011)

N. Eshelman said:


> Johnny Mac called infant baptism "satanic." They are replying to the charges that HE made against the historic reformed faith.



Er, ah, so? How could he not call the works of darkness "Satanic"? 

Actually, while Bill is right that Johnny Mac is a refreshingly frank counter to political correctness, yikes! I *would* ask Dr. M to change. There is NO basis for demonizing fellow believers who share a Calvinistic soteriology and passion for the Word of God. Such a polemic against infant baptism is unbecoming a minister of the Gospel. I have not heard the guys yet, Nate, but will do so on your recommendation alone. 

However, this is one baptist who has little patience for intra-mural trash talking by either paedos or credos. Maybe I'm just showing my increasing affinity for the logic of the paedo position, but I would prefer that we would reserve our big guns for the real enemies of the Gospel and those who would relativize the authority of the Word of God, NOT for each other. In the infinite wisdom (ahem) of the founders of this PB, both the Westminster Standards and the LBCF were laid down as acceptable for membership. Those of us on the baptist side should have no patience with Johnny Mac's rhetoric on this point.

Thanks, Nate, for the tip about the site.


----------



## Herald (Nov 8, 2011)

DMcFadden said:


> Actually, while Bill is right that Johnny Mac is a refreshingly frank counter to political correctness, yikes! I *would* ask Dr. M to change. There is NO basis for demonizing fellow believers who share a Calvinistic soteriology and passion for the Word of God. Such a polemic against infant baptism is unbecoming a minister of the Gospel. I have not heard the guys yet, Nate, but will do so on your recommendation alone.



Dennis, point well taken. While I don't want Johnny Mac to stop calling 'em the way he sees 'em, it's not good to start hurling near-anathemas at others who hold to the DoG. That doesn't mean he can't speak out strongly against paedobaptism or any other doctrine he is convinced is error; but a bit more charity in his speech couldn't hurt.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 8, 2011)

Herald said:


> Logan Almy said:
> 
> 
> > I think the show is outstanding. I am glad they are responding to MacArthur's Anabaptist Chaos.
> ...



Just a thought, Bill -- how much do dispensationalist-type Baptists (as opposed to Reformed/Particular Baptists) owe to the Anabaptist tradition?


----------

