# Voting....



## OrangeCalvinist (May 25, 2010)

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this post but well here goes.

I was wondering if anyone could explain to me why reformed presbyterians are not allowed to vote in Northern Ireland? I mean we are under a devolved assembley that was not in existence at the time of the covenants and which has no oaths etc, we have had two first ministers (of two) who accept that Christ is the head of this country... ad so i was wondering why the reformed church would have us believe that it is a sin to vote for Christians......


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt (May 25, 2010)

I don't claim to be an expert, but there is the possibility that they believe that Christians cannot run for public office.

Considering that you said it is a sin to vote for them, it's likely that, in their eyes, the Christians running for public office are sinning.

But again, I could be flat wrong. Just a theory.


----------



## N. Eshelman (May 25, 2010)

It has to do with two things: 

1. A government is to be explicitly Christian for them to support it. 
2. One running for office must have a profession of faith and understand biblical views of the role of the magistrate in order to vote for them.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (May 25, 2010)

I think they see the Sollemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms as still Binding on England, Scotland, and Ireland. And therefore the government can only become legitimate if it reswears this covenant (regardless of what form the government may now take, since there is still a historic line of decent from that which rejected the SL&C.)


----------



## OrangeCalvinist (May 25, 2010)

Yes but surely the covenant cannot still apply to kingdoms that no longer exist? The Queen no longer creates laws in this country and the republic of ireland is a seperate country, We recognise that Christ is head of the country.... most of our politicians are active churchmen and profess Christ... is the reformed churhc simply clutching at straws in order to be different?


----------



## ADKing (May 25, 2010)

Check out these very clear articles by an RP minister in Northern Ireland 
What the Solemn League and Covenant means for today
Honouring Christ with our Vote

As well as the official explanation in the RPC of Ireland's Testimony 
The Church and the State


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 25, 2010)

Question for the RP's...

I know the official position of the RPCNA regarding voting has changed but what is the practice within the denomination?


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (May 25, 2010)

Ulster is still part of the UK. The RP position is that the SL&C of 1643 is still obligatory. This has been ignored by civil authorities since 1660. One may not vote for a magistrate who will then do what I could not do myself, i.e. take an oath of office contrary to the continuing obligations of the SL&C.

Honouring Christ with our Vote

There are many reasons for us to reject the Revolution Settlement but it suffices to say that the present political system and government of these nations is an example of the outworking of it in this nation. We have an atheistic, God-hating governmental system which true reformed-thinking Christians cannot support. Covenanters are not against voting, as such. But we must ask: is there anywhere a candidate who is committed to practical dissent from the Christ-dishonouring aspects of the constitution and a return to the obligations of the Solemn League and Covenant? Has any made even the slightest public assertion of the rights of Jesus Christ over politics as King of nations? We have not heard of any such. This silence means that loyalty to King Jesus requires we vote for no-one. "Now therefore why speak ye not a word of bringing the king back?" (2 Samuel 19:10). Failure to openly acknowledge the crown rights of the Redeemer should not receive our support whatever relative qualities a candidate may have.​


----------



## ADKing (May 25, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Question for the RP's...
> 
> I know the official position of the RPCNA regarding voting has changed but what is the practice within the denomination?


 
Our Testimony reads:

15. The Christian, when such action involves no disloyalty to Christ, ought to be involved in the selection of and to vote for civil rulers who fear God,love truth and justice, hate evil, and are publicly committed to scriptural principles of civil government.
Ex. 18:21; Deut. 16:18; 2 Sam. 23:3; Rom. 13:3.

16. It is sinful for a Christian to take an oath which compromises his supreme allegiance to Jesus Christ. It is also sinful to vote for officials who are required to take an oath which a Christian himself could not take in good conscience. Voting involves the voter in responsibility for any act required of the official as a condition of holding his office.
Deut. 10:20; Isa. 45:22-23; 2 John 1:11; 1 Tim. 5:22.

17. The Christian must profess publicly and the Church must witness, that Christ is the Ruler of every nation. Whatever the official action of the civil government of a nation may be, the Christian in his civil actions must always exhibit his loyalty to Christ. The
Christian must relinquish every right or privilege of citizenship which involves him in silence about, or denial of the supreme authority of Jesus Christ. Matt. 5:13-14; Prov. 3:5-6; Ps. 37:7; Matt. 22:21; John 17:14-15; Mark 13:9.

25. The only submission which a Christian may promise to any civil government is due submission in the Lord. Any promise of submission or oath of allegiance beyond this is sinful. If and when the civil government of a nation requires, as a condition
of civil service or of holding office, an oath which implies that civil allegiance transcends the swearer’s convictions
of conscience and obedience to God, it is the Christian’s duty to refuse such an oath. It is within the corporate power of the Church, acting through its courts, to declare that facts or circumstances which may exist in a specific situation render the taking
of a civil oath sinful.Gen. 25:33; Matt. 22:21; Eph. 6:12;Matt. 4:10; Deut. 10:20.

26. It is the duty of the Christian to ascertain whether any prescribed oath of allegiance to the civil authority involves acceptance of unchristian principles stated or implied in its constitution of government. If the oath of allegiance to civil authority explicitly or
by clear implication requires support of anti-Christian, atheistic, or secular principles, then the Christian must refuse on these grounds to take the oath of allegiance.Acts 5:29; Acts 4:18-20.

According to our Covenant of 1871 which is still constitutionally binding:

3. Persuaded that God is the source of all legitimate power; that He has instituted civil government for His own glory and the good of man; that He has appointed His Son, the Mediator, to headship over the nations; and that the Bible is the supreme law and rule in national as in all other things, we will maintain the responsibility of nations to God, the rightful dominion of Jesus Christ over the commonwealth, and the obligation of nations to legislate in conformity with the written Word. We take ourselves sacredly bound to regulate all our civil relations, attachments, professions and deportment, by our allegiance and loyalty to the Lord, our King, Lawgiver and Judge; and by this, our oath, we are pledged to promote the interests of public order and justice, to support cheerfully whatever is for the good of the commonwealth in which we dwell, and to pursue this object in all things not forbidden by the law of God, or inconsistent with public dissent from an unscriptural and immoral civil power. 

We will pray and labor for the peace and welfare of our country, and for its reformation by a constitutional recognition of God as the source of all power, of Jesus Christ as the Ruler of Nations, of the Holy Scriptures as the supreme rule, and of the true Christian religion; and we will continue to refuse to incorporate by any act, with the political body, until this blessed reformation has been secured.

Although some RPs do feel at liberty to vote, and to my knowledge it is not a sin which is disciplined in the church anymore (?) it is impossible for me to see how our standards could be interpreted in any other way than insisting on continued political dissent.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (May 25, 2010)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> This silence means that loyalty to King Jesus requires we vote for no-one. "Now therefore why speak ye not a word of bringing the king back?" (2 Samuel 19:10). Failure to openly acknowledge the crown rights of the Redeemer should not receive our support whatever relative qualities a candidate may have.[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]



Do they have "write-in?" Why don't they just all vote for Richard Cameron?


----------



## OrangeCalvinist (May 25, 2010)

> is there anywhere a candidate who is committed to practical dissent from the Christ-dishonouring aspects of the constitution and a return to the obligations of the Solemn League and Covenant? Has any made even the slightest public assertion of the rights of Jesus Christ over politics as King of nations? We have not heard of any such



Ok but... why doesn't the reformed put up it's own candidates then? surely they could vote then and could actually do something to change the current system?


----------



## N. Eshelman (May 26, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Question for the RP's...
> 
> I know the official position of the RPCNA regarding voting has changed but what is the practice within the denomination?


 
Ben, 

I think that the practice varies. 

There are the garden variety "Yeah! Republicans!" 
There are those who claim to be independent and do vote according to their conscience. 
There are those who dissent from all elections.
There are those who only vote for issues (like me). 
And there are variations on all four...


----------

