# Voting wrong?



## sola_gratia (Oct 15, 2005)

Another Christian is trying to tell me voting is wrong, and that I should stay "neutral" torwards politics and war...how should I respond to this?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 15, 2005)

Sounds like a pacifist.


----------



## Richard King (Oct 15, 2005)

I think there are times when you can vote in a way that might allow good to overcome evil. 

Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.


I cannot think of a way that voting correctly, responsibly and honorably could be wicked or forbidden.
the problem comes when people make government God and when they think God belongs to a political party


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 15, 2005)

People may approach the issue of the lawfulness of voting from different angles, and I don't know what your friend's perspective is, but there is a long heritage in the Covenanter churches (Ireland, Scotland, America, Australia) of political dissent with respect to voting or participating in the electoral franchise when to do so involves the participants in sin. From John Knox to Andrew Melville to Samuel Rutherford to Richard Cameron there are writings and testimonies which speak to the necessity for refusing to compromise the precious witness to Christ's kingship over the nations (Rev. 19.16). 

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland lays out their perspective on this issue here:



> While fully entitled by the civil law to all the rights of membership in the governing society, Christians, because of their primary allegiance to Christ, ought not to avail themselves of the exercise of those rights when they conflict with His supremacy. In particular, Christians should vote only for candidates for political office who recognise the kingship of Jesus Christ by:-
> 
> (a) giving evidence of consistent Christian character;
> 
> ...



It's worth reading their _Testimony_ in context to understand that this position is based simply on the Meditorial Kingship of Christ over the state. Therefore, there is no neutrality in the area of politics, and one may not escape judgment for participation in sin by "choosing the lesser of two evils."

From the 1843 _Testimony_ of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Chap. XXX:



> 2. It is the duty of Christians, for the sake of peace and order, and in humble resignation to God's good providence, to conform to the common regulations of society in things lawful; but to profess allegiance to no constitution of government which is in hostility to the kingdom of Christ, the Head of the Church, and the Prince of the kings of the earth.



In other words, Christians have civic responsibilities, but when participation in the electoral franchise involves a person in sin -- such as by the requirement of voters (in some states) or those candidates receiving votes to swear an unlawful oath, then Christians must forbear this particular aspect of civil involvement. This is not because politics is evil or "worldly" per se, or for pacificist reasons, but because when compelled to choose between God and man, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5.29).

In the case of the United States, our Constitution stands in direct opposition to multiple commandments in the Decalogue and therefore swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution, as is required by some voters and all those elected to public office in the United States, put such persons in the position of swearing to uphold immoral legislation contrary to the commandments of Christ. 

That being the case, Christians in America ought not to avail themselves of the electoral franchise but ought to dissent from voting and testify to their nation what God requires of America, which is to acknowledge the kingship of Christ over the nation and amend both our ways and our constitution to conform to his revealed will. In the meantime, our civic duties are not lessened, but we should avail ourselves of other opportunities to demonstrate publically what we stand for, including letter-writing to our legislators and other magistrates, letter-writing to newspapers, and above all, prayer for our nation, among other things.

This subject has been discussed before, so feel free to check out other threads on Biblical civil magistracy. Reformation in the state is something to be prayed for and worked towards, but not at the expense of compromising the kingship of Christ. Reformation in the state will have its origins in reformation in God's Church. 

Likewise, as is evident I think from the history of the founding of this nation, William Cowper was wise who once said,



> When nations are to perish in their sins,
> tis in the church the leprosy begins.



Further recommended reading: 

Alexander McLeod's _Messiah, Governor of the Nations of the Earth_

William Symington's _Messiah the Prince_

[Edited on 10-16-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 15, 2005)

Since we have been given partial "kingship" in our country through the act of voting, we may exercise our personal yet limited authority and rule in obedience to God's law and cast our vote accordingly.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Oct 15, 2005)

It seems to me that in your context you are likely dealing with an Anabaptist point of view. This will mean that you need to think through the issues and the presuppositions that are behind such a view. It does not mean, however, that it is necessarily a pacifist view thought Anabaptist have been tagged that some in the past. Nevertheless as some of the above posts indicate there is some historical precedent from the Presbyterian side of the issue.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Since we have been given partial "kingship" in our country through the act of voting, we may exercise our personal yet limited authority and rule in obedience to God's law and cast our vote accordingly.



How do you deal with Andrew's (et al) objection that voting will essentially cause someone to make an unlawful oath?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



I've already dealt with the oath issue on another thread specifically about that, so I won't rehash it here. I don't think it a sin to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. I'll leave it at that for now, but you can search for that thread on oaths. But the fact still remains, God has providentially given us an opportunity to rule our nation through voting. We will be held accountable for it. It's up to us to exercise that rule as best we can, however limited a role it may be.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Oct 16, 2005)

The only time I ever voted was in a college election for student gov't and in a church where a Pastor was kicked out, my wife forced me to vote 

Concerning state and federal politics, I never voted because I never had the guts to cast my ballot for either democrats or republicans without torturing my conscience. Its not that I want to be a pacifist nor it isn't that I don't love my country and want to see Godly leadership at its healm, its just that with the choices given I couldn't make an honorable decision according to my values.


----------



## Swampguy (Oct 16, 2005)

Slippery


----------



## Peter (Oct 16, 2005)

Christ conquers with the sword of his mouth not the ballot box.

PSA 118:19

It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes. 



{moderator, sorry, I was trying to edit double posts, and eliminated the wrong thing someplace}

[Edited on 10-17-2005 by Contra_Mundum]

moderator, what you deleted wasn't a double post. It had a valueable link.

[Edited on 10-17-2005 by Peter]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 16, 2005)

The ironic thing is that those people who are opposed to voting in our elections also tend to think that the world is going to get better and more Christian. How, pray tell, will the world get better if the ones who are influenced by "true religion" are never able to vote to sway public policy in a manner more consistent with "true religion?"
Silly.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Christ conquers with the sword of his mouth not the ballot box.
> 
> PSA 118:19
> ...



Ok. That was _real _ good. You obviously have not thought through what it means for Christ to "conquer with the sword of his mouth" or the possibility that Christ does his conquering of the world through his body, the church... (Like converting people: the Holy Spirit does it, yes, but he uses the preaching - done by a person.) Again, as more people become Christians, social institutions will feel the impact of their Christ-centered worldview. Unless you think that you'll wake up one day and _*poof*_ everyone in office will be Christian and all the legislation will just _*poof*_ be Christian. 
I thank God for people who faithfully exert the influence given to them to try to bring this world's institutions into conformity with Christ's will.


----------



## Peter (Oct 16, 2005)

The vision of the white horseman destroying the host of Satan is about Christ subduing his enemies by his holy Spirit through the instrumentality of preaching. This is how Christ will expand his kingdom, not by political activism. That is not to say I believe we should shun involvement in politics or that government shhouldnt be conformed to the word.

WLC Question 45: How does Christ execute the office of a king?

Answer: Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon his elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel. 


"I thank God for people who faithfully exert the influence given to them to try to bring this world's institutions into conformity with Christ's will."

So do I, but I beg God's forgiveness for those who think He requires our sins (homologating athiestic civil govt by voting) to accomplish his purposes.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> The vision of the white horseman destroying the host of Satan is about Christ subduing his enemies by his holy Spirit through the instrumentality of preaching. This is how Christ will expand his kingdom, not by political activism. That is not to say I believe we should shun involvement in politics or that government shhouldnt be conformed to the word.
> 
> WLC Question 45: How does Christ execute the office of a king?
> ...



You don' see it do you?
Do you believe that social/societal institutions will be transformed? Or do you believe that Christians will exist without any influence on their society? If you believe that an increasing presence of Christians in a society will affect the institutions of that society, how does this happen? Especially when, if you had your way, as soon as a person became a Christian he would immediately stop exercising his vote - which is the means we use to exert influence.
Or are you suggesting that Christians should just bide their time and then suddenly have an armed rebellion that in one fell swoop brings about a change in social institutions?
God bless Christians who vote. 

[Edited on 10-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> The ironic thing is that those people who are opposed to voting in our elections also tend to think that the world is going to get better and more Christian. How, pray tell, will the world get better if the ones who are influenced by "true religion" are never able to vote to sway public policy in a manner more consistent with "true religion?"
> Silly.



The ones I've known that are opposed to voting or pay the political realm little mind have been quite pessimistic, either Dispensationalists or anabaptist amils. The latter didn't oppose voting and voted himself, but he didn't really see how a Christian could hold high office, for example.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> The ones I've known that are opposed to voting or pay the political realm little mind have been quite pessimistic, either Dispensationalists or anabaptist amils.



Oh, I agree that most that I've encountered are hardcore Dispensationalists. Handsdown. 
When I said "those people who are opposed to voting" in my earlier thread, I was trying to be discreet, but I was simply referring to the people who hold that position on this Board.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Oct 17, 2005)

So if someone chooses not to exercise their right of voting because it may be sin to do so they are shunned? 

So if I voted a person in because he supposedly is going to get rid of abortion and doesnt and on top of that tolerates other gods to the point of calling them co-equal with the Lord of Host's. Then I should vote for this person? 

Has there been one truly christian politician in american history that we should have voted for? Maybe...

But off all the Christian President s and other publicans we have yet to see the type of social change to think that this nation is 'christian' ! 

What if your a christian in a muslim government and given the right to vote should you vote because you can? 

What hath Christ with Belial(sp?) ?

Blade


----------



## Average Joey (Oct 17, 2005)

Here`s good question.What about voting for the lesser evil?For example:

If Rudolph Guiliani is running against Hillary Clinton.Would it be okay to vote for Guiliani although he is Prochoice over Hillary because of him being a republican?They are both prochoice but Guiliani is more towards the same politics as we are.Would it be okay to vote for him?

That is of course if he is the republican running or not.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Oct 17, 2005)

No cause then your just voting for him because he is a republican.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 17, 2005)

No one here is telling you who to vote for. I simply am arguing that we have the political right and responsibility to use it as self-governing little magistrates. Vote for whomever your conscience will allow.


[Edited on 10-17-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> No cause then your just voting for him because he is a republican.


this is the thing that bothers me. Guiliani, while I'm not privy to his personal information, carried on an obvious adulterous affair with another woman, while he and his wife were separated.

Other than that, he was a good mayor of NYC, and he cleaned up the porno graphers on 42nd street, cleaned up the graffiti from the subways and the buses and lowered the crime rate.

On pure accomplishments and governance, he's better than Hilary, but as a Christian, since they are both ProChoice, who would I or should I vote for?


----------



## Average Joey (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> ...



That was exactly my question.Should we even vote at all?Especially,because of his view of abortion.


----------



## Peter (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



Ben, you don't see it. I am all for transforming society, however, not through sinful means, and I see voting as sin. A noble end does not justify sinful means. For instance, do you see indifference in religion as an evil in society which ought to be extirpated? If every christian murdered their nonchurch going neighbor we'd be rid of the problem! O how are we going to remove this problem of indifference without murdering our neighbors!? God curse those those wicked christians who don't kill their neighbors!

To answer the objection that Christians are taking a step backwards in transforming society by dissent, so be it if that is the cost of obedience to God. But I suspect Christians do more harm by voting since most are uninformed about the principles of biblical magistracy and are deceived by republican politicians who by a show of words and lying promises entice them to support an agenda of perversity, murder and secularism. Then they bring a reproach upon the Lord by aggressively promoting political action as the remedy to all of society's ails while the church itself is rife with scandal and heresy.

How do we transform society w/o voting? Well it wouldn't be that hard since voting concerns only one aspect of society - viz government. But how do we transform the govt. I'll offer a couple suggestions (1) petition those in office to remove those hindrances in the existing government which impede our participation in the politcial franchise. This is what covenanters have been doing for years. (2) Wait for dissatisifaction in the current order to grow enough for a new government to be declared. If a great majority of the country dissent and disown the government the govt will have no claim to legitimacy, will not function properly and will collapse.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Ben, you don't see it. I am all for transforming society, however, not through sinful means, and I see voting as sin. A noble end does not justify sinful means. For instance, do you see indifference in religion as an evil in society which ought to be extirpated? If every christian murdered their nonchurch going neighbor we'd be rid of the problem! O how are we going to remove this problem of indifference without murdering our neighbors!? God curse those those wicked christians who don't kill their neighbors!
> 
> To answer the objection that Christians are taking a step backwards in transforming society by dissent, so be it if that is the cost of obedience to God. But I suspect Christians do more harm by voting since most are uninformed about the principles of biblical magistracy and are deceived by republican politicians who by a show of words and lying promises entice them to support an agenda of perversity, murder and secularism. Then they bring a reproach upon the Lord by aggressively promoting political action as the remedy to all of society's ails while the church itself is rife with scandal and heresy.
> ...



Wow. Voting is our way of bringing change. Period. The devil would love us to take your route. God would hate it.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> So if someone chooses not to exercise their right of voting because it may be sin to do so they are shunned?



It is not a sin to vote. If they chose to not vote then they have no legitimate place to gripe about the problems in the nation because they have voluntarily forgone the one legitimate means of effecting the change they so desire. 



> So if I voted a person in because he supposedly is going to get rid of abortion and doesnt and on top of that tolerates other gods to the point of calling them co-equal with the Lord of Host's. Then I should vote for this person?


Someone doesn't have to be a "good Christian" to be voted for. Our job is to either nominate the person we want... or vote for the persons presented to us. We vote for the best one for the office. Again, you don't have to vote... but if you choose not to, then you don't really have any legitimate grounds for complaining.



> Has there been one truly christian politician in american history that we should have voted for? Maybe...



Totally irrelevant. If there hasn't been a "truly christian" politician in American history (though there have been many) then it is because the Christian message has not thoroughly penetrated society. But again, we are to vote for the best candidate we are presented OR we can nominate our own. Even if that candidate is a long shot. The point is, we should participate if we want to honor God. 



> What if your a christian in a muslim government and given the right to vote should you vote because you can?



Of course!!! Christians are not the only ones to whom it has been given to be good leaders... In that case, I'd vote for the leader who best follows the moral law (even if, gasp, he does it imperfectly!) because a good and just leader is better than a tyrant. As more people get converted to Christianity, then we could eventually start nominating Christians to office.



> What hath Christ with Belial(sp?)?



Every good gift is from above. Some men are good leaders... regardless of their faith. A nation does not need a "Christian government" for it to be legitimate. So says Rom 13.

[Edited on 10-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Average Joey_
> 
> 
> That was exactly my question.Should we even vote at all?Especially,because of his view of abortion.


That's the issue. I think we as Christians have been conditioned to believe that the sole determinant in morality when it comes to politics is whether the candidate is Prochoice or not. I think this at times makes us miss the broader picture in that a candidate can be Prolife and be wrong on 99% of the issues and be totally incompetent.

I believe that abortion is an extremely important issue, but it is not the only issue, so if Guiliani and Hilary are contending for the Presidency, I think I would hope that Guiliani wins, but I would in no way vote for either.


----------



## satz (Oct 17, 2005)

Playing devil's advocate of a sorts...

THis question is for those who say it is ok to vote ( i am amongst them btw)

On this thread and others ppl have mentioned Hillary Clinton and her possible political aspirations. Posters have also expressed their disapproval for the idea that a woman should take up the highest office in the land. However, for those who agree with what Ben posted regarding how we are to vote for the 'best' amongst those avaliable candidates, than how is voting for a woman any worst off than voting for an obvious unbeliever? 

Both are not the idea person for the presidency, but should be we selecting the one who will do the most practical good for the country?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Playing devil's advocate of a sorts...
> 
> THis question is for those who say it is ok to vote ( i am amongst them btw)
> ...



I have no principial problem with voting for a woman. I would have voted for Margaret Thatcher in a heartbeat. In fact, I wish that a younger version of herself would run for office in our country!
Women can't rule in the covenant community, but they can lead in the civil government.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Oct 17, 2005)

I want to know the difference between Hilary being elected President, and having women in the Senate, Supreme Court, as well as serving as Secretary of State etc. If women can fullfill the later without much hubub, I don't see why they can't become President if they are "qualified".

I think the point of women in leadership positions is moot when it comes politics, but it is very necessary when it comes to ecclesiastical affairs.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> I have no principial problem with voting for a woman. I would have voted for Margaret Thatcher in a heartbeat. In fact, I wish that a younger version of herself would run for office in our country!
> Women can't rule in the covenant community, but they can lead in the civil government.


I don't think that they are even allowed head civil government,(As shown clearly in the Epistles of Paul) but only because of society being rebellious that these things are allowed.

That being said, I have no problem submitting to a female leader. The only way I would have a problem is if she commands me to do something against my conscience.

[Edited on 10-17-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## Peter (Oct 17, 2005)

> Every good gift is from above. Some men are good leaders... regardless of their faith. A nation does not need a "Christian government" for it to be legitimate. So says Rom 13.



Quite the contrary, infidel governments receive their power from Satan not God, the ordainer of legitimate government. Rev 13:4



> I have no principial problem with voting for a woman. I would have voted for Margaret Thatcher in a heartbeat. In fact, I wish that a younger version of herself would run for office in our country!
> Women can't rule in the covenant community, but they can lead in the civil government.



why can't they rule in the covenant community? Isn't that sexist!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > Every good gift is from above. Some men are good leaders... regardless of their faith. A nation does not need a "Christian government" for it to be legitimate. So says Rom 13.
> ...


[/quote]

Wow. You even deny Rom 13 and James 1. Romans 13 does not refer to Christian government. Wow. 
And your use of Rev 13:4? 
I am really glad that your views represent such a ridiculously small fringe minority that - thankfully - it poses no real threat. Let the world see how you deny Scripture!



> > I have no principial problem with voting for a woman. I would have voted for Margaret Thatcher in a heartbeat. In fact, I wish that a younger version of herself would run for office in our country!
> > Women can't rule in the covenant community, but they can lead in the civil government.
> 
> 
> ...


Huh? The NT strictly forbids women from having authority specifically within the context of the church. So you also deny 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim2??? 



[Edited on 10-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Peter (Oct 17, 2005)

> Wow. You even deny Rom 13 and James 1. Romans 13 does not refer to Christian government. Wow.
> And your use of Rev 13:4?
> I am really glad that your views represent such a ridiculously small fringe minority that - thankfully - it poses no real threat. Let the world see how you deny Scripture!



I'm not going to interact with this kind of rancorous, insulting language.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > Wow. You even deny Rom 13 and James 1. Romans 13 does not refer to Christian government. Wow.
> ...



Wow. You don't even try to deny your denial of Rom 13 and James 1! You just call me mean for rejoicing about your very limited influence. 

[Edited on 10-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Peter (Oct 17, 2005)

> Huh? The NT strictly forbids women from having authority specifically within the context of the church. So you also deny 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim2???
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 10-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]



I was asking you a question. Again, your invective tone and attitude are hurtful.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > Huh? The NT strictly forbids women from having authority specifically within the context of the church. So you also deny 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim2???
> ...



No you weren't. You were accusing me of being sexist. The use of your exclamation point after "Isn't that sexist" shows that you were not asking a question, but rather making an emphatic statement. 
If you are offended be my calling you out for your denial of Scripture, well... 



[Edited on 10-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Peter (Oct 17, 2005)

Ben, I have debated this subject with others on the PB extensively in a civil and respectful manner. I refuse to interact with you as long as you continue to behave this way. If you are interested in actual learning instead of insulting me personally I ask you to please follow this link:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=10529


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> If you are interested in actual learning instead of insulting me personally I ask you to please follow this link:



Actually, and with all sincerity, I do not believe you have one thing you could teach me. At least not concerning this subject. Your use of Scripture leaves much to be desired. And I really, truly, am deeply joyed that your position is no where close to being adopted by even a sizable minority of us good, God-honoring Christian folk.

Let the world see _THIS _ thread and the insufficiency of your use of the Bible, the impractical and self-defeating nature of your "vision" for Christian social change, and how, like liberals, you just cry "I'm being picked on" when you have been backed into a corner!

[Edited on 10-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 17, 2005)

Keep it clean gentleman or I will close this thread.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 17, 2005)

Scott, I'm done on this thread. 

[Edited on 10-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Richard King (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sola_gratia_
> Another Christian is trying to tell me voting is wrong, and that I should stay "neutral" torwards politics and war...how should I respond to this?



I hear that soon we will vote as a state here in Texas regarding whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
Ask your advisors if a believer should vote in that case.


----------



## gwine (Oct 21, 2005)

Peter said, and I quote:


> How do we transform society w/o voting? Well it wouldn't be that hard since voting concerns only one aspect of society - viz government. But how do we transform the govt. I'll offer a couple suggestions (1) petition those in office to remove those hindrances in the existing government which impede our participation in the politcial franchise. This is what covenanters have been doing for years. (2) Wait for dissatisifaction in the current order to grow enough for a new government to be declared. If a great majority of the country dissent and disown the government the govt will have no claim to legitimacy, will not function properly and will collapse.



Gonna take two weeks, gonna have a fine vacation
Gonna take my problem to the United Nations

Well, I went to my congressman, he said, quote:
"I'd like to help you, son, but you're too young to vote"

(Â©2001 Blackheart Records)

Its hard for me to believe that petitioning your congressman, especially as a non-voter, is going to be influential. Just as one can be a dues-paying non-member of a union, one can be a tax-paying non-voting citizen. Will the union represent you? Yes. Will they do it well? Maybe yes, maybe no, considering they know you aren't a member.

So I wonder whether you could in good conscience petition your congressman without telling him that you did not/could not support him, since he (or she) would not know if you were a voter. Would that not violate the 9th commandment?

Nor can I imagine the collapse of our government because people failed to vote. Seems to me that would more tend to let the activists have their way. Maybe I am too naive, but I will continue to vote.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> Peter said, and I quote:
> 
> 
> ...



Gerry,

Given the nature of our government (a representative democracy) or even its founding (a representative republic) I would think it would almost be incumbent upon a representative to ignore those who refuse to vote - i.e. reject representation altogether.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

> Given the nature of our government (a representative democracy) or even its founding (a representative republic) I would think it would almost be incumbent upon a representative to ignore those who refuse to vote - i.e. reject representation altogether.


----------



## gwine (Oct 21, 2005)

Quite true, Fred. Just as non-members of a church have no say in what goes on (although they can express their opinions), non-voters by their choice should expect little support from their leaders.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 21, 2005)

By this logic, if there are two candidates for an office, both of whom are pro-abortion, pro-legalized sodomy, socialist women, and a Christian man refuses in good conscience to vote for either of them, then because he abstains from voting he should not petition the elected representative for reformation because he has forfeited his right to be heard.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> By this logic, if there are two candidates for an office, both of whom are pro-abortion, pro-legalized sodomy, socialist women, and a Christian man refuses in good conscience to vote for either of them, then because he abstains from voting he should not petition the elected representative for reformation because he has forfeited his right to be heard.



You still must vote for the greater good, so that you CAN petition.

Every human candidate that will ever run a human government will oppose God's law in some way.

If God, changed Nebuchadnezzars heart, he can also change Hilary's, or whoever.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> By this logic, if there are two candidates for an office, both of whom are pro-abortion, pro-legalized sodomy, socialist women, and a Christian man refuses in good conscience to vote for either of them, then because he abstains from voting he should not petition the elected representative for reformation because he has forfeited his right to be heard.



No. There is a substantive difference between saying "I will not vote for one of the two candidates in question" and "I will not ever vote because to vote would be sinful.

There are a plethora of other options available in almost every election: a "write in" vote; a vote for another parties candidate (most elections have dozens of small party candidates); a vote for "none of the above." 

All send a statement. The core of a representative democracy/republic is not that representatives only are behold to those who vote _for them_ - in fact the _opposite_ is true. They represent all who are in their district (state, etc).

My point is that by taking oneself out of the process, and declaring that the process itself is sinful, one has no right to be heard by the process.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



From the example I gave there is no "greater good." The candidates are equally evil.

The last time I checked, there was no provision in the Constitution that says elected representatives only represent the people who voted, or the people who voted for him/her. They represent everybody. That what federal representation means. I didn't have a part in Adam's original sin, but he federally represents me anyway. 

Voting for an evil candidate is evil. Shall we do evil that good may result? God forbid.



> Every human candidate that will ever run a human government will oppose God's law in some way.



The standard for Biblical magistracy is not perfection, but God does require that men who rule over others should be just and rule in the fear of God. (2 Sam. 23.3)



> If God, changed Nebuchadnezzars heart, he can also change Hilary's, or whoever.



Precisely why Christians should pray for and testify against wicked rulers whether they voted or not.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

> From the example I gave there is no "greater good." The candidates are equally evil.
> 
> The last time I checked, there was no provision in the Constitution that says elected representatives only represent the people who voted, or the people who voted for him/her. They represent everybody. That what federal representation means. I didn't have a part in Adam's original sin, but he federally represents me anyway.
> 
> Voting for an evil candidate is evil. Shall we do evil that good may result? God forbid.



Logically, if two candidates are equally evil, then they are the same candidate. :bigsmile: Just kidding around a bit.

I think Christian liberty gives you the freedom to not Vote, and so does the Constitution. But I also agree with Fred, it would be better to "write in" perhaps than not vote at all.

I also think a Christian, in faith, could vote for a president that supports abortion, or homosexuality, under the necessary circumstances.


----------



## Average Joey (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



While I do agree with you about there is no greater good.I would say it is still best to vote for the person that is least likely to be the most wicked one.I gave an example of Guiliani earlier in the thread.He is pro abortion so is the people he runs against.But,he is tough on crime(helped fight the mafia and cleaned up New York).It is tough but I would rather vote for him besides any other liberal he runs against.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

> While I do agree with you about there is no greater good. I would say it is still best to vote for the person that is least likely to be the most wicked one.



The lesser of two evils is the _negativa_ way of saying the "greater good".


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > While I do agree with you about there is no greater good. I would say it is still best to vote for the person that is least likely to be the most wicked one.
> ...



And evil is still evil.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



Is there any pagan who is not evil? Any Christian who is not good?

I am speaking in an ultimate sense, not relative sense, since that is what you appear to be doing above.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Your statement in bold is one that I agree with. Hence, elected representatives are accountable to represent the views of all who are in their district, including non-voters.

But, in ecclesiastical terms, that last sentence sounds like a principle that would completely undermine the Protestant Reformation. I suppose the Roman Catholic Church was excused from receiving the Protests of Martin Luther and John Calvin and the millions of others who withdrew from the process of Reformation inside the Church because to participate from within would go against their conscience. 

On the contrary, one may lawfully protest a wicked system of government (civil or ecclesiastical) even if one chooses not to participate in (and thereby sin) that wicked system. And, if the protest is based on God's law, that government (civil or ecclesiastical) is obligated to reform accordingly, whether or not the petition for reform comes from within the system or without. This is true when the Protestants witnessed against the RCC from outside and it is true when private citizens protest against tyrannical governments that they have no part in creating or sustaining.

Those who refuse to pay taxes or renounce their citizenship may reasonably expect that their elected officials will ignore them. But, again, there is no obligation per se on the part of elected representatives to ignore a petition from a disenfranchised (voluntarily or not) segment of the population that he represents. He or she may choose to do so for pragmatic reasons, but again, if the protest is just and it comes from one who chooses to abstain from voting rather than sin, the obligation to heed the protest comes from the king of kings and lord of lords, who is "Governor of the nations of the earth" regardless of the source of the petition. To sum up, the obligation to heed a call to reform is not completely dependent upon the source of the petition coming from within the system. If that were the case, no one could ever critique or call to account anyone outside of their jurisdiction (civil or ecclesiastical). God's moral law, however, is not confined to jurisdictional boundaries, and it certainly does not require someone to sin by voting in order to make their call to reformation heard.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

Andrew, I am not calling evil good and good evil. I think I need to define the categories better. Government, Aquinas taught, is the result of sin and is necessary to mitigate its consequences. Political organization is natural to fallen man and necessary for his development. Even though the church is superior to the state, and the greater purpose of man is eternal life, the temporal world is important, and peace and order, leading to temporal happiness, can be preserved through the state. We should vote for the candidate that is the closest to the law of God, but lets face it, we do not usually have Christian candidates to work with.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



I am speaking to the evil of the voter in voting for a known wicked candidate, which is contrary to God's law. In the example I gave there were two equally wicked candidates. However, granting that in most normal situations one person may be slightly better qualified from a moral point of view, if both have announced their intent to promote murder (abortion) and other national sins, for example, then anyone who votes for either one is complicit in the sin of the tyrant who gets elected. Rather than sin by voting for a wicked tyrant, abstention, I believe, is a just and necessary duty on the part of the Christian citizen who is otherwise eligible to vote.


[Edited on 10-21-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Andrew, I am not calling evil good and good evil. I think I need to define the categories better. Government, Aquinas taught, is the result of sin and is necessary to mitigate its consequences. Political organization is natural to fallen man and necessary for his development. Even though the church is superior to the state, and the greater purpose of man is eternal life, the temporal world is important, and peace and order, leading to temporal happiness, can be preserved through the state. We should vote for the candidate that is the closest to the law of God, but lets face it, we do not usually have Christian candidates to work with.



I agree that government is necessary in a fallen world. God instituted it in Gen. 9 for the purpose of restraining evil and upholding the good, notably his church (cf. Isa. 49.23; Rom. 13). I also recognize that perfection is not the standard by which men are qualified to participate in government. But that does not mean that there are no Biblical qualifications for government service whatsoever. God's word requires that only just men ruling the fear of God be appointed to govern (2 Sam. 23.3). To intentionally seek to appoint an ungodly person to govern society (even if the stated reason is that this candidate is better than another) is sinful. It may be true that one is voting for the lesser of two evils, but one is still voting for evil, that good may result, which I think is wrong. And further, if a person votes for a pro-abortion candidate, for example, then I don't think they have any cause to complain about pro-abortion policies (gander for the goose).

[Edited on 10-21-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

God's word requires just men ruling governments ? ?


1 Divine saying of David the son of Jesse,
Divine saying of the man, the highly exalted,
Of the anointed of the God of Jacob,
And of the lovely one in the songs of praise of Israel.
2 The Spirit of Jehovah speaks through me,
And His word is upon my tongue.
3 The God of Israel saith,
The Rock of Israel speaketh to me:
A Ruler over men, just,
A Ruler in the fear of God.
4 And as light of the morning, when the sun rises,
As morning without clouds:
From shining out of rain (springeth) green out of the earth.
5 For is not my house thus with God?
For He hath made me an everlasting covenant,
Provided with all, and attested;
For all my salvation and all good pleasure,
Should He then not cause it to grow? 
6 But the worthless, as rejected thorns are they all;
For men do not take them in the hand.
7 And the man who touches them
Provides himself with iron and spear-shaft,
And they are utterly burned with fire where they dwell.


How you can take a prophetic passage about Christ and make it general for all governments of the world is unknown to me.


----------



## bradofshaw (Oct 21, 2005)

Some thoughts I've had while reading this thread:


1. The issue must not be that voting itself is sinful, just that voting for a less than Christian candidate is evil. 

2. Why has God ordained governments from the beginning of time that are evil? (How many Christian governments in the history of the world can you count?)

3. Asside from the mass conversion of all government officials and the sudden reversal of all of the "evils" in the constitution, I don't see any concrete way that Christians could be salt and light in the government other than some sort of revolution.

4. This sparks a second heated debate, is it ever right for Christians to rebell against the government? We are urged in scripture to submit to governing authorities, render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's. 

5. Let's not downplay the power of God to convert every last member of the civil government. But let's also be wise and look at the paterns in God's word and throughout history.

6. Was Samuel sinning when he ordained Saul to be the king of Israel. While he couldn't see Saul's heart, ultimately Saul turned out to be rather evil (I realize some debate this). 

7. Were Daniel or Joseph sinning by serving in prominent positions in pagan governments? The Bible clearly states that God blessed them by doing this. I can't see a good way around this one.

8. The idea that any act that leads to a sinful event somewhere down the line is prohibited, if lived consistently, will provent Christians from being in any way involved in the world. It is just not possible. You can not contribute to the economy in America without supporting some grave injustice, a company that promotes homosexuality, a pharmecuetical firm that uses stem-cell research, etc. You can not buy a ticket for The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, since Disney is behind it. For that matter, you better not buy cable, watch TV, buy a GM car, or use the telephone, since all of those providers are heavily involved in the p0rnography industry. Boggles the mind when you think about all the secondary causes of our primary actions. Christians have to be wise in what they are supporting, but to an extent they cannot win every battle by refusal to participate in a sinful society. 

9. Can not God work through sinful men to bring about good?

10. The issue of the oath seems the most troublesome. Should Christians say the pledge of allegience? Should they testify in court? Furthermore, is the nature of the oath to the constitution one that binds the conscience to not amend it? I don't think that is the intention of the oath, since the constitution has certainly not been preserved from its original form. 

Lunch break over. Gotta go back to work.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 21, 2005)

Matthew Henry on 2 Sam. 23.3:



> Here is a must for the king: He must be just, ruling in the fear of God; and so must all inferior magistrates in their places. Let rulers remember that they rule over men--not over beasts which they may enslave and abuse at pleasure, but over reasonable creatures and of the same rank with themselves. They rule over men that have their follies and infirmities, and therefore must be borne with. They rule over men, but under God, and for him; and therefore, 1. They must be just, both to those over whom they rule, in allowing them their rights and properties, and between those over whom they rule, using their power to right the injured against the injurious; see Deut. i. 16, 17. It is not enough that they do no wrong, but they must not suffer wrong to be done. 2. They must rule in the fear of God, that is, they must themselves be possessed with a fear of God, by which they will be effectually restrained from all acts of injustice and oppression. Nehemiah was so (Neh. v. 15, So did not I, because of the fear of God), and Joseph, Gen. xliii. 18. They must also endeavor to promote the fear of God (that is, the practice of religion) among those over whom they rule. The magistrate is to be the keeper of both tables, and to protect both godliness and honesty.



See also William Einweichter's Biblical Standards for Choosing Civil Magistrates.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

Andrew,

As much as I love Matthew Henry, he is taking this out of context. Check out Young's translation:

2Sa 23:1 And these are the last words of David: --`The affirmation of David son of Jesse--And the affirmation of the man raised up--Concerning the Anointed of the God of Jacob, And the Sweetness of the Songs of Israel: 
2Sa 23:2 The Spirit of Jehovah hath spoken by me, And His word is on my tongue. 
2Sa 23:3 He said--the God of Israel--to me, He spake--the Rock of Israel: He who is ruling over man is righteous, He is ruling in the fear of God. 
2Sa 23:4 And as the light of morning he riseth, A morning sun--no clouds! By the shining, by the rain, Tender grass of the earth! 
2Sa 23:5 For--not so is my house with God; For--a covenant age-during He made with me, Arranged in all things, and kept; For--all my salvation, and all desire, For--He hath not caused it to spring up. 
2Sa 23:6 As to the worthless--As a thorn driven away are all of them, For--not by hand are they taken; 
2Sa 23:7 And the man who cometh against them Is filled with iron and the staff of a spear, And with fire they are utterly burnt In the cessation.'

David is saying, "œDoes not my house stand in such a relation to God, that the righteous ruler will spring from it?" because "œfor He hath made an everlasting covenant with me." David calls the promise in 2Sa_7:12., that God would establish his kingdom to his seed for ever, a covenant, because it involved a reciprocal relation-namely, that Jehovah would first of all found for David a permanent house, and then that the seed of David was to build the house of the Lord.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

Here is the NET bible:

23:1 These are the final words of David: 

"œThe oracle of David son of Jesse, 

the oracle of the man raised up as 

the ruler chosen by the God of Jacob,1 

Israel´s beloved2 singer of songs: 

23:2 The Lord´s spirit spoke through me; 

his word was on my tongue. 

23:3 The God of Israel spoke, 

the protector3 of Israel spoke to me. 

The one who rules fairly among men, 

the one who rules in the fear of God, 

23:4 is like the light of morning when the sun comes up, 

a morning in which there are no clouds. 

He is like the brightness after rain 

that produces grass from the earth. 

23:5 My dynasty is approved by God,4 

for he has made a perpetual covenant with me, 

arranged in all its particulars and secured. 

He always delivers me, 

and brings all I desire to fruition.5 

23:6 But evil people are like thorns"” 

all of them are tossed away, 

for they cannot be held in the hand. 

23:7 The one who touches them 

must use an iron instrument 

or the wooden butt of a spear. 

They are completely burned up right where they lie!"6


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by bradofshaw_
> Some thoughts I've had while reading this thread:
> 
> 
> 1. The issue must not be that voting itself is sinful, just that voting for a less than Christian candidate is evil.



No. As I said in the beginning of this thread, it is sinful to vote in the US electoral process because to do so requires the elected candidate to swear an unlawful oath to support an ungodly constitution, which is contrary to God's law. The debate changed when it was alleged that magistrates ought not to heed the petitions of those who choose not to vote, and so I am seeking to show that this is an unjust claim. 



> 2. Why has God ordained governments from the beginning of time that are evil? (How many Christian governments in the history of the world can you count?)



God providentially ordains all that comes to pass. God does not approve of all governments that come into being. Governments are accountable to the one who instituted magistracy for good, not evil.



> 3. Asside from the mass conversion of all government officials and the sudden reversal of all of the "evils" in the constitution, I don't see any concrete way that Christians could be salt and light in the government other than some sort of revolution.



If you read my earlier comments, you will see that Christians have many various opportunities to be salt and light in society without the necessity of revolution. And sometimes good men -- like the Puritans and Covenanters and Huguenots -- have revolted against tyrannical government to institute godly government. However, any revolution to be just must be lead by a lesser civil magistrate acting to stop the tyranny of a greater civil magistrate. Hence, it only takes one conversion of a magistrate and a mass conversion of citizens to bring about a lawful revolution. And whether or not there is a change in government from bad to good, Christians may just be called to suffer. There is no duty upon Christians, though, to sin by using unlawful means to bring about better government. 



> 4. This sparks a second heated debate, is it ever right for Christians to rebell against the government? We are urged in scripture to submit to governing authorities, render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's.



There are a lot of threads on this issue. I would suggest searching for the word "tyranny." John Calvin's _Institutes_ and Junius Brutus' _A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants_ are two good places to start reading as well.

There is no statute that says I have to vote, so I am not advocating that anyone break any laws on the franchise issue. I am simply advocating that we protest tyranny by not participating in it. 



> 5. Let's not downplay the power of God to convert every last member of the civil government. But let's also be wise and look at the paterns in God's word and throughout history.



Agreed.



> 6. Was Samuel sinning when he ordained Saul to be the king of Israel. While he couldn't see Saul's heart, ultimately Saul turned out to be rather evil (I realize some debate this).



No, I am not aware of any sin on Samuel's part when he ordained Saul to be king, although I recall that the people did wickedly in seeking a king to rule them. 



> 7. Were Daniel or Joseph sinning by serving in prominent positions in pagan governments? The Bible clearly states that God blessed them by doing this. I can't see a good way around this one.



As I have mentioned in previous threads, it is not a sin to serve in a wicked government per se. It matters, though, if you sin in order to gain a position in a wicked government, which Daniel and Joseph did not. 



> 8. The idea that any act that leads to a sinful event somewhere down the line is prohibited, if lived consistently, will provent Christians from being in any way involved in the world. It is just not possible. You can not contribute to the economy in America without supporting some grave injustice, a company that promotes homosexuality, a pharmecuetical firm that uses stem-cell research, etc. You can not buy a ticket for The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, since Disney is behind it. For that matter, you better not buy cable, watch TV, buy a GM car, or use the telephone, since all of those providers are heavily involved in the p0rnography industry. Boggles the mind when you think about all the secondary causes of our primary actions. Christians have to be wise in what they are supporting, but to an extent they cannot win every battle by refusal to participate in a sinful society.



I agree that sin permeates the very fabric of our society. I agree that not every interaction with unbelievers makes Christians culpable. But approving, condoning or enabling men to institute or perpetuate policies that promote murder, for example, do yoke the Christian voter who knowingly casts a ballot for a tyrant to the crimes that the tyrant commits. Are there no standards for interaction with unbelievers or for Biblical magistracy? If there are standards, what is the basis for those standards? I say, God's word, his law, is the standard, and to actively seek to contravene that is sinful.



> 9. Can not God work through sinful men to bring about good?



Yes, Gen. 50.20, Ps. 17.14, etc., but that does not mean that God condones what evil men do. 



> 10. The issue of the oath seems the most troublesome. Should Christians say the pledge of allegience? Should they testify in court? Furthermore, is the nature of the oath to the constitution one that binds the conscience to not amend it? I don't think that is the intention of the oath, since the constitution has certainly not been preserved from its original form.
> 
> Lunch break over. Gotta go back to work.



The pledge of allegiance is a slightly different issue than the oath of loyalty to the constitution, however, no, I would not recite the pledge of allegiance for a variety of reasons which I think have been stated on a different thread. 

Oaths per se are not bad. A civil magistrate who calls someone to lawfully testify in court should be lawfully obeyed. 

The oath to the constitution is sinful for the reasons I stated at the beginning of this thread and in a number of other threads. It has specific provisions which one who swears to uphold the constitution must obey which are sinful. Yes, it can be amended, which is good and bad. I want to see it amended to reflect a Christian Preamble which has been proposed in Congress before but so far not (unsurprisingly) accepted.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Andrew,

I understand the point about not simply choosing the lesser evil blindly. After all, we would not want to support Nero over Domitian simply because he will kill less Christians.

But here is the crux of the matter for me, as you frame the issue. Please answer this for me:

There are two men running for President of the US. One is Howard Dean. One, Mr. X, is a professing Christian. Mr X has promised to immediately seek a Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortion. He publicly and freely professes Jesus Christ as his Savior, and is a member in good standing of a sound Doctrines of Grace Baptist/Presbyterian Church (assume that your view of the civil magistrate is not in play here). Mr X has made several trips to China and India, and has decried the persecution of Christians. His oldest son is a missionary to Japan. His middle son is a candidate for the ministry. His youngest son works full time for a Christian inner city mission. His daughter is married with three adopted children, and is a national spokeswoman for adoption instead abortion.
Howard Dean is publicly pro-gay, pro-abortion, and anti-Christianity.

Now here is the question: is it a sin to vote for Mr X ?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 21, 2005)

> Andrew,
> 
> I understand the point about not simply choosing the lesser evil blindly. After all, we would not want to support Nero over Domitian simply because he will kill less Christians.
> 
> ...



My earlier hypothetical scenario was meant to show the logical absurdity of saying that a citizen has no claim to be heard if he chooses not to vote when the only candidates are equally wicked. I don't think anyone has really taken up that challenge, except to say that voting for a wicked person can be a good thing.

However, I will answer your hypothetical situation directly. Yet, I am not clear on what you mean by asking me to set aside my view of the civil magistrate. I can only answer according to my view of the civil magistrate. As I have said from the beginning of this thread and in many other threads, I believe it is sinful to swear an unlawful oath to a constitution that violates God's law. If a voter or an elected official has to swear such an oath, I believe it is sinful to participate in that electoral process. I would certainly rather see Mr. X be elected than Howard Dean (probably, there are a lot of issues that were not covered in that brief sketch), but if Mr. X has to sin to take office then I believe it is better to abstain from sinning.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_Yet, I am not clear on what you mean by asking me to set aside my view of the civil magistrate. I can only answer according to my view of the civil magistrate.



Sorry I wasn't clear, but you understood me anyway. That is good - it saves us both another post! By "setting aside" I meant answer in such a way that does not require Mr X to have the same view of the civil magistrate - that is why I was deliberately vague about his ecclesiastical affiliation, to allow for that.



> I believe it is sinful to participate in that electoral process.



Thank you for this direct answer. I believed it was your position, and simply wanted that to be clear - we have been getting far afield. The point about two evil men running then has no bearing. The _sina qua non_ for you is an entire change of our electoral process. Barring that, it is a sin to vote for any man, whether he be Hitler, BB Warfield, Jimmy Carter or the Apostle Peter.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 21, 2005)

This is a question I should already know the answer to, but don't: In addition to the President, do candidates elected to the House and Senate have to swear to the Constitution as well?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> This is a question I should already know the answer to, but don't: In addition to the President, do candidates elected to the House and Senate have to swear to the Constitution as well?



Yes, they do. Article VI of the Constitution:



> Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_Yet, I am not clear on what you mean by asking me to set aside my view of the civil magistrate. I can only answer according to my view of the civil magistrate.
> ...



Right. That's the position I hold. But it should be clear that I am referring to the US electoral system only as it currently stands. I don't think voting is sinful per se for all Christians in all circumstances, just in the current American context. That's why I cited the Testimony of the RP Church of Ireland earlier in the thread to make clear what principles I hold to. 

However, my earlier hypothetical was designed to press the point made that no one has a right to expect to be heard if one does not vote but setting up a scenario that excludes any Christian candidates to see if the position still holds that an abstainer forfeits his right to be heard even in that context. Because I think that is a common situation for American Christians. I recall a number of people on the PB (who don't hold to my position on political dissent) last year saying that they could not in good conscience support Bush or Kerry. The really, really Christian candidate is extremely rare, if unheard of. But while we are often presented with the choice of choosing the so-called lesser of two evils, I don't think we are bound to vote for a wicked person or else forfeit our right to be heard.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Right. That's the position I hold. But it should be clear that I am referring to the US electoral system only as it currently stands. I don't think voting is sinful per se for all Christians in all circumstances, just in the current American context. That's why I cited the Testimony of the RP Church of Ireland earlier in the thread to make clear what principles I hold to.



I understand. But just to be clear - it is not the _current_ US electoral system, but the US electoral system as it has always existed, right? In other words, to have voted for George Washington was sinful, to have voted for a Senator in Virginia in 1840 was sinful.



> However, my earlier hypothetical was designed to press the point made that no one has a right to expect to be heard if one does not vote but setting up a scenario that excludes any Christian candidates to see if the position still holds that an abstainer forfeits his right to be heard even in that context. Because I think that is a common situation for American Christians. I recall a number of people on the PB (who don't hold to my position on political dissent) last year saying that they could not in good conscience support Bush or Kerry. The really, really Christian candidate is extremely rare, if unheard of. But while we are often presented with the choice of choosing the so-called lesser of two evils, I don't think we are bound to vote for a wicked person or else forfeit our right to be heard.



I understand here as well. Perhaps I was not clear, or there are several arguments being made (or both), but my point was that a person who opts completely out of the system: i.e. says that the system itself is evil and sinful, not merely the (common) choices - after all, we also had a plethora of threads about other candidates that one could vote for besides Kerry or Bush, and one could "write in" basically anyone - that person is in a different position. He has not just chose "not to vote," but has made him an enemy of representative government as it has (always had in the US) its existence. He wants to see the current representative system destroyed and replaced (not merely reformed). I would not understand why it would be incumbent on a representative to listen to such a person, any more than a country should listen to the advocates of those who seek its defeat in a war.

Free speech does not equal relevant speech, right?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 21, 2005)

OK. In light of that, under the view you expressed above in saying,



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> As I have said from the beginning of this thread and in many other threads, I believe it is sinful to swear an unlawful oath to a constitution that violates God's law. If a voter or an elected official has to swear such an oath, I believe it is sinful to participate in that electoral process. I would certainly rather see Mr. X be elected than Howard Dean (probably, there are a lot of issues that were not covered in that brief sketch), but if Mr. X has to sin to take office then I believe it is better to abstain from sinning.



an interesting question comes up: If all Christians were to consistently act according to that view, how could our government _ever_ turn around for the better, even if one takes a Postmillennial view? For before any Christian would see it lawful to vote, either the Constitution would need to be changed to comply with God's law, or else the requirement for government officials to fully affirm that Constitution would have to be abolished. But with only non-Christians in the government (since I am speaking as if all Christians held to your view), they would never propose or pass such changes. Thus, even if the majority of the population was Christian, there would presumably never be an opportunity to change the Constitution to fit with God's law until many Christians were elected to the government - but with your view, that could never happen until the Constitution was already changed to fit with God's law!

I don't want to debate your view right now, and I am not even necessarily sayng that the ends justify the means; I do, however, find this implication interesting, and wonder what your thoughts on it would be.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

> No. As I said in the beginning of this thread, it is sinful to vote in the US electoral process because to do so requires the elected candidate to swear an unlawful oath to support an ungodly constitution, which is contrary to God's law. The debate changed when it was alleged that magistrates ought not to heed the petitions of those who choose not to vote, and so I am seeking to show that this is an unjust claim.



Is this idea solely based on the II Sam. 23 passage you are taking out of context ?

Why did Paul appeal to his Roman citizenship then ? Wasn't Rome evil ?

Any constitution would oppose God's law in some way, unless that constitution were in fact God's law.

So why don't you move to a communist country with no vote ?
Then you can complain about the government all you want and never have the responsibility to do something about it.

Here in the U.S. we have that responsibility as Christians and Citizens.

[Edited on 10-21-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Dan.... (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> This is a question I should already know the answer to, but don't: In addition to the President, do candidates elected to the House and Senate have to swear to the Constitution as well?



Not only is it required of every Federal Government office, but also some state officials (This is certainly true in Illinois), per their state Constitution, must also oath to defend the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > No. As I said in the beginning of this thread, it is sinful to vote in the US electoral process because to do so requires the elected candidate to swear an unlawful oath to support an ungodly constitution, which is contrary to God's law. The debate changed when it was alleged that magistrates ought not to heed the petitions of those who choose not to vote, and so I am seeking to show that this is an unjust claim.
> ...



Just to clarify something, if I may ask, are you a theonomist? Just wondering. 

Is it your view that there are no Biblical standards for civil magistracy? 

My view, articulated by Matthew Henry already, is the standard historic Reformed Presbyterian view of civil government. It is articulated in the Westminster Confession, Chap. 23:



> II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto;(b) *in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth;(c)* so for that end, they may lawfully now, under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.(d)
> 
> (b) Prov. 8:15, 16; Rom. 13:1, 2, 4.
> *(c) Ps. 2:10, 11, 12; I Tim. 2:2; Ps. 82:3, 4; II Sam. 23:3; I Pet. 2:13.*
> (d) Luke 3:14; Rom. 13:4; Matt. 8:9, 10; Acts 10:1, 2; Rev. 17:14, 16.



Matthew Poole:



> He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God: thus it is a precept or declaration of the duty of kings, and particularly of Solomon his son, (to whom as a dying man he gives this advice,) and of his successors the kings of God's Israel, for whose instruction he gives this rule. And so here are the two principal parts of a king's duty, answerable to the two tables of God's law, justice towards men, and piety towards God, both which he is to maintain and promote among his people; to which if you add benignity and clemency, whereby a king renders his government not frightful and burdensome, but acceptable and amiable to his people, which possibly may be meant by the following similitudes, here is a complete character of an excellent prince or governor. Others make it a prophecy of Christ; and then the words are or may be thus rendered, There shall be a Ruler over men, (or rather, among men, as the Hebrew word properly signifies, to wit, the Messias, who, though he be the eternal and invisible God, yet shall visibly appear and rule among men,) a just or righteous one, (a title oft given to Christ, as Isa 53:11; Jer 23:5-6; Jer 33:15; Zech 9:9) ruling in the fear of the Lord, making it his great business to advance the service, and worship, and glory of the Lord; or, as it is in the Hebrew, ruling the fear of the Lord, i.e. governing and ordering the worship of God, which is oft called the fear of God.



Rev. Paul Michael Raymond, _Theonomy: A Christ-centered World and Life View_:



> The Bible distinctly teaches that the civil magistrate receives his authority from God and that he is to function as God's minister (servant). That this is the case is seen by direct scriptural statements (Rom. 13:4, 6; Isa. 43:28); by the fact that God is the one who places him into authority (Dan. 4:25, 32, 34-37; Jn. 19:11; Rom. 13:1; 1 Pe. 2:14); *by the fact that all those who rule over men are commanded to rule in the fear of God (2 Sam. 23:3; 2 Chron. 19:6-7)*; by the fact that all the kings and judges of the earth are commanded to serve the Lord and pay homage to His Son (Ps. 2:10-12); and by the fact that Jesus Christ, the risen and ascended Lord, is now King of kings and Lord of lords with sovereign authority over all the nations (Ps. 2:1-12; 110:1-7; Phil. 2:9-11; Rev. 1:5; 17:14; 19:16).




Besides 2 Sam., there are numerous other passages which reiterate the same principle that there is a universal moral standard for civil magistrates, an ordinance of God, which he did not create so that the ungodly could rule with divine approbation over men. Those passages, at least some, are cited in the article I already provided. 

Paul was a citizen of Rome. He availed himself of the rights, liberties and privileges accorded to Roman citizens. But no where did he sin in so doing. Likewise, I believe American citizens should avail themselves of the same, but not if they are required to sin in so doing. I pay taxes, I petition my legislators, and I am very involved in social activities. I love America and want to see reformation and justice here in both church and state. I work (in the legal profession) and pray towards that end. Sarcastic remarks about how I should move to a communist country are not appreciated. 

You don't believe that a constitution can exist that doesn't violate God's law? Well, no constitution is perfect, but the Puritans, Pilgrims and others have certainly made good efforts to reform government according to Biblical standards. We have models from the past and principles from God's Word. We do have responsibilities as Christians and as citizens. We ought to be contributing to the nation in which we live according to our place and station. But when God's law and man's law intersect and conflict as they do in the case of the Constitutional oath/electoral franchise, we are commanded to obey God's law, not man's.


[Edited on 10-21-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

> You don't believe that a constitution can exist that doesn't violate God's law? Well, no constitution is perfect, but the Puritans, Pilgrims and others have certainly made good efforts to reform government according to Biblical standards. We have models from the past and principles from God's Word. We do have responsibilities as Christians and as citizens. We ought to be contributing to the nation in which we live according to our place and station. But when God's law and man's law intersect and conflict as they do in the case of the Constitutional oath/electoral franchise, we are commanded to obey God's law, not man's.



God's civil laws are the only perfect constitution. But until those are established, we must vote towards that end.



> Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!!! -- William Wallace (Braveheart)



Your signature is so patriotic I find it hard to understand why you will hold out for a more Puritan form of constitution. How do we obey Christ and "love our neighbor as ourself" if we do not vote for their good and ours. Like Fred said, you have the freedom to "write in" a candidate that agrees with your conscience. But to abstain and not let your voice be heard betrays the spirit of Wallace in your signature.


Am I a Theonomist ? It would make no difference to the discussion if I am.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 21, 2005)

Submitting a write-in candidate does not solve the problem of elected officials taking an unlawful oath. Until that issue is resolved, I cannot in good conscience participate in the electoral process. I am a patriot and love my country. No one should think otherwise.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

For the sake of the argument just what aspect is the unlawful oath ?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> For the sake of the argument just what aspect is the unlawful oath ?



I already cited this article early on in the thread which articulates my problems with the Constitution and therefore why I think an oath to uphold it is sinful. If you read it, or the other threads where I have extensively outlined my arguments against the lawfulness of the oath, then hopefully you will understand what my objections are. Bottom line: by taking the oath, one is swearing to uphold laws and principles which are contrary to God's law. I can elaborate more if need be, but for now I must bid adieu to the thread, at least temporarily.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

I will read it.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

Interesting article.

The first thing that came to mind in support of a government that violates God's law and requires me to outwardly support it was rendering to Caesar what is Caesars, and this little episodein II Kings:

2Ki 5:18 In this matter may the LORD pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, leaning on my arm, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon your servant in this matter." 
2Ki 5:19 He (Elisha) said to him, "Go in peace."

Namaan basically says even though I support the civil magistrate in his idolatry externally, my heart is undivided towards Jehovah. Elishah gives him a benediction to depart in peace.

Any theologians, hebrew scholars here want to adress that incident ? ? ?


----------



## Dan.... (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Interesting article.
> 
> The first thing that came to mind in support of a government that violates God's law and requires me to outwardly support it was rendering to Caesar what is Caesars, and this little episodein II Kings:
> ...



Matthew Henry's position was that Naaman was wrong in bowing in the house of Rimmon. Matthew Henry on 2 Kings 5:18,19:



> In another instance he under-did it, that he reserved to himself a liberty to bow in the house of Rimmon, in complaisance to the king his master, and according to the duty of his place at court (v. 18), in this thing he must be excused. He owns he ought not to do it, but that he cannot otherwise not do it, but that he cannot otherwise keep his place,"”protests that his bowing is not, nor ever shall be, as it had been, in honour to the idol, but only in honour to the king,"”and therefore he hopes God will forgive him. Perhaps, all things considered, this might admit of some apology, though *it was not justifiable.* But, as to us, I am sure, (1.) If, in covenanting with God, we make a reservation for any known sin, which we will continue to indulge ourselves in, that reservation is a defeasance of his covenant. We must cast away all our transgressions and not except any house of Rimmon. (2.) Though we are encouraged to pray for the remission of the sins we have committed, yet, if we ask for a dispensation to go on in any sin for the future, we mock God, and deceive ourselves. (3.) Those that know not how to quit a place at court when they cannot keep it without sinning against God, and wronging their consciences, do not rightly value the divine favour. (4.) Those that truly hate evil will make conscience of abstaining from all appearances of evil. Though Naaman´s dissembling his religion cannot be approved, yet because his promise to offer no sacrifice to any god but the God of Israel only was a great point gained with a Syrian, and because, by asking pardon in this matter, he showed such a degree of conviction and ingenuousness as gave hopes of improvement, the prophet took fair leave of him, and bade him Go in peace, v. 19. Young converts must be tenderly dealt with.




[Edited on 10-22-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I understand. But just to be clear - it is not the _current_ US electoral system, but the US electoral system as it has always existed, right? In other words, to have voted for George Washington was sinful, to have voted for a Senator in Virginia in 1840 was sinful.



The US electoral franchise since 1789 or thereabouts has involved a sinful requirement for voters and/or elected officials based on the oath to the Constitution.



> I understand here as well. Perhaps I was not clear, or there are several arguments being made (or both), but my point was that a person who opts completely out of the system: i.e. says that the system itself is evil and sinful, not merely the (common) choices - after all, we also had a plethora of threads about other candidates that one could vote for besides Kerry or Bush, and one could "write in" basically anyone - that person is in a different position. He has not just chose "not to vote," but has made him an enemy of representative government as it has (always had in the US) its existence. He wants to see the current representative system destroyed and replaced (not merely reformed). I would not understand why it would be incumbent on a representative to listen to such a person, any more than a country should listen to the advocates of those who seek its defeat in a war.
> 
> Free speech does not equal relevant speech, right?



A testimony really and truly based on the word of God is something to be heeded by civil magistrates no matter what the source. It could be a child, an invalid, a foreign diplomat, a citizen non-voter, it doesn't matter. Someone who pays taxes and yet is a "conscientious objector" to the electoral system does not forfeit his right to be heard when speaking the truth in love for his country. The obligation to take heed does not soley rely upon a condition of participation in the franchise; representatives represent everybody under their authority, not just those who vote. And their duty is to honor the king of king and lord of lords as magistrates subject to Him. Those who testify to that duty ought to be regarded if not for being law-abiding tax-paying citizens, then at lest for the sake of Him who governs the nations of the earth.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 22, 2005)

So, Levi, I say vote, if you love your neighbor, and you want the common good for him and yourself, and make any attempt with the freedom you still have to thwart further tyranny. Even write in a candidate if you do not feel you can support those most likely to win in good conscience. But to not vote, is silence, and pacifism. The government of America gives you a voice, so use it. Huge gates and doors turn on very small hinges.

I cannot speak for anyone else.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> OK. In light of that, under the view you expressed above in saying,
> 
> 
> ...



I believe I have spoken to this issue often on the PB. I am postmillennial, and I do believe that reformation will come to America. I don't see how sinning by electing ungodly men who perpetuate ungodly policies promotes Reformation. Voting for Republicans is not bringing about Reformation. Our Constitution stands contrary to the Biblical requirements for civil magistracy. Affirming the Constitution necessarily contradicts the crown rights of King Jesus. The system we have in place is not going to advance this nation morally or spiritually. 

I have often put forth the historical example of the Reformation in Germany and Scotland. At that time, the magistrates and the church (Holy Roman Emperor, kings, Popes) stood against the possibility of Reform. Yet, somehow, Reformation happened anyway. God poured out his Spirit. Men and women prayed that God would open the eyes of magistrates and in some cases he did. Calvin's strategy was to write letters to princes and potentates to persuade and encourage them. The witness of the church to men (and women) in power had a powerful effect in some countries. That's why in part it's called the Magisterial Reformation. And it all happened without any voting. What lead to the Reformation in Scotland in particular? John Knox preached to the Queen. And a woman named Jenny threw a stool at a bishop in church. In between, God worked in the hearts of multitudes of people, Puritans preached, familes prayed, Biblical teachings were printed and promulgated. How did the Berlin Wall fall? It wasn't through voting. All of a sudden the dead weight of Communism just collapsed. Likewise, the Roman Church became so corrupt that the time was right in God's providence to start a Reformation by pouring out his spirit, providing pastors, teachers, printers, and pray-ers. What would be most instrumental in our day, besides all of the above, would be for the church to have a united testimony to the nation that calls America to repentance in every area, including magistracy. Keeping the system going as it is will not promote Reformation. Exposing the evil of magistrates who trample the crown rights of King Jesus and calling them to repentance, with the blessing of God, will bring about another Reformation. It will come. God has promised it. When the grass roots revival reaches a critical mass -- as it has in the historical examples that I have given -- perhaps a Constitutional Convention will change our form of government for the better. It is necessary though for God's people to be faithful and not compromise their witness by electing wicked men to office for pragmatic and temporary gain.


----------



## satz (Oct 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



I have always wondered about this incident. I have read Matthew Henry on this before, and with respect his view doens't seem to gel. Whilst i understand how it would seem that Naaman was wrong to do what he did, yet the prophet told him to 'Go in peace'. I can't imagine a prophet or apostle telling a new convert who had just made clear an intention to pursue a sinful course to 'go in peace'. Even given the principle that we should be tender with new converts, we might expect Elishah not to rebuke him harshly, to say nothing at all, to tell him to consider the matter further, but surely not to go in peace, after he had just declared he was going to go on sinning ( assuming that to bow in the house to r would be sin.)


----------



## Saiph (Oct 22, 2005)

> I have always wondered about this incident. I have read Matthew Henry on this before, and with respect his view doens't seem to gel. Whilst i understand how it would seem that Naaman was wrong to do what he did, yet the prophet told him to 'Go in peace'. I can't imagine a prophet or apostle telling a new convert who had just made clear an intention to pursue a sinful course to 'go in peace'. Even given the principle that we should be tender with new converts, we might expect Elishah not to rebuke him harshly, to say nothing at all, to tell him to consider the matter further, but surely not to go in peace, after he had just declared he was going to go on sinning ( assuming that to bow in the house to r would be sin.)



I agree. I think it reveals something about honoring Civil Magistrates.
That as long as they are not asking us to give alleigance or participate in their idolarous practices, we need to honor their authority, and do what they ask. Daniel was asked to worship the statue. Naaman, is seemingly asked to help the king walk or bow or something. So, while our hearts are devoted to God, sometimes we must render to Caesar service that we do not like, but does not directly disobey one of God's commands.

Bowing to kings was a sign of respect. So Naaman could be showing honor to his king, and not his kings idol, by bowing with his king before the idol.

Again, I'm no scholar, but Matthew Henry's explanation leaves me wanting as well.

[Edited on 10-22-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 2, 2005)

Explicitly Christian Voting


----------



## Henry from Canada (Nov 2, 2005)

Is it wrong for a Christian to vote?

Excellent arguments can be used to defend the yea or nay position, however, it my humble opinion, I suspect that God looks at each individual's heart.

If a Christian votes because he/she looks at voting as a civic - and Godly, responsibility - then I think voting is Good. Godly voters can institute Godly change.

If a Christian doesn't vote because he/she thinks that God is the one who raises leaders - evenly unGodly leaders like the Pharoah - then I also think NOT voting is Good. I suspect God defeated communism, not voters.

This is just my opinion. There are so many issues like this that can be debated forever that I think may come down to the heart's intention.

I suspect not voting due to laziness is wrong, and voting for an evil leader that a person thinks will promote his/her own favorite evils is wrong also.

I realize that this doesn't resolve the theological debate for many.


----------

