# Voting in the USA and God's Law



## Smeagol (Sep 30, 2018)

Is it sinful for a Christian to abstain from voting altogether (state or federal level)?

I have read articles where a Christian attempts to imply that if a Christian does not exercise his/her right to vote in the USA he/she is then violating the commandment to love our neighbor. I do not belief it is sinful for a Christian to vote or be in politics, however, I do not agree that it is a violation of God's Law to abstain from voting. Your thoughts?

Let's keep this as unpolitical as possible. Please answer Yes or No and why?

Ironically I have a voting poll above.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 30, 2018)

I strongly believe Christians should be involved in politics at the level of voting. However, I cannot say from a biblical standpoint that it is sin for a Christian to abstain from voting. I would just say that they might be too influenced by a more intense Two Kingdom view. In the end, however, as strongly as I feel about the issue, I still view this as a Romans 14 matter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 30, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I strongly believe Christians should be involved in politics at the level of voting. However, I cannot say from a biblical standpoint that it is sin for a Christian to abstain from voting.



It has been discussed before on the PB that in the last century a denomination, Reformed Presbyterian Church, declared it wrong (sinful) to hold office or even vote in the USA as it was then constituted. As I said, this has been discussed before, so I am not linking to the source. Look it up if you are interested. And don't get mad at the messenger. 

Why Reformed Presbyterians Cannot Vote.
BY THE REV. F. M. FOSTER, PH. D.,
Pastor of the Third Reformed Presbyterian Church,
West Twenty-third Street,
New York City.​
“They have set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes, and I knew it not” (Hos. 8:4). In this Scripture, Israel is charged with an attempt to administer civil government without God. We bring down this Scripture to 1908, and insist that we are attempting to administer the government of the United States without God. Reformed Presbyterians refuse to join in this great sin. They will neither vote nor hold office under the government of the United States,—

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 30, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> It has been discussed before on the PB that in the last century a denomination, Reformed Presbyterian Church, declared it wrong (sinful) to hold office or even vote in the USA as it was then constituted. As I said, this has been discussed before, so I am not linking to the source. Look it up if you are interested. And don't get mad at the messenger.
> 
> Why Reformed Presbyterians Cannot Vote.
> BY THE REV. F. M. FOSTER, PH. D.,
> ...


Ed,

That is very interesting. Do you know if they would also consider it sinful to work for the government? For example a state or federal employee? (Post office, inspectors, ....etc.)


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 30, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> That is very interesting. Do you know if they would also consider it sinful to work for the government? For example a state or federal employee? (Post office, inspectors, ....etc.)



I think that that would have been OK at least on some level, but I am not an expert by any means. It was the oath (swearing) of office and voting in particular that they thought it wrong to participate in.

EDIT: Maybe to Poll would have been improved if there were three choices.
Is it a sin NOT to vote?
Is voting or not voting a matter of private conscience?
Is it a sin TO vote?

EDIT2 (brain fade - The above should not have been in form of questions)
It is a sin NOT to vote?
Voting or not voting is a matter of private conscience?
It is a sin TO vote?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 30, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> I think that that would have been OK at least on some level, but I am not an expert by any means. It was the oath (swearing) of office and voting in particular that they thought it wrong to participate in.
> 
> EDIT: Maybe to Poll would have been improved if there were three choices.
> Is it a sin NOT to vote?
> ...


You are welcome to make a new poll. In a poll I think you can only cast 1 vote (I may be wrong as I am still new). I think you pose 3 individual (all valid) questions. My aim was to pose 1 simple question in light of those (even in reformed circles) who would see it as sinful to NOT exercise a right to vote.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Sep 30, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> Ed,
> 
> That is very interesting. Do you know if they would also consider it sinful to work for the government? For example a state or federal employee? (Post office, inspectors, ....etc.)



Many of those offices would not have existed at the time. It was the oath to uphold the Constitution, which they viewed as atheistical, that caused them to abstain from any office which would have required such an oath. They furthermore viewed voting as encouraging the sinful oath of office and thus participating in that sin, just like encouraging the servile labor of others on the Lord's Day would violate the 4th commandment. They, I think rightly, modified their views on that issue a long time ago, though perhaps the Steelites maintain the historical position. The Cameronians had great difficulty in navigating civil life under an uncovenanted government in ways that mainstream confessional Scottish Presbyterians, such as the Seceders and Free Church, did not. Of course it was not an issue for American Presbyterians either, who were, in the main, too willing to embrace secularism and disestablishmentarianism, even if a secularism of a generally Christian character.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 30, 2018)

Our political system/of government is very broken. Especially from the Christian perspective. I now question if it was from the onset.... Please consider the following quotes of early realities and current ones related to our system of government/rule of law...

"Rushdoony taught us that the American Constitution, with its eloquent absence of references to Christian faith, was a secular document only in appearance. In fact, it was deliberately fashioned as a minimalist document by men of genius whose primary purpose was to ensure the vitality of local government."

"In Rushdoony’s view, the Constitution did not need to include a Christian confession because the states were already a Christian establishment or settlement. The First Amendment prohibited laws respecting the establishment of religion because religion was already established at the local level. There were sabbath rules, religious tests for citizenship, laws regarding heterosexual fidelity, blasphemy laws”all of them strongly connected to biblical law. The First Amendment was intended to protect the states from interference by the federal government. "

"Central to just about every one of Rushdoony’s writings is the notion that freedom must be preserved at the local level, so that God’s law can be faithfully obeyed by all people, without interference from higher temporal powers. America held a special place in world history for him because it began as a Christian civic structure. And yet, in our time it desperately needed to regain its original vision. More than anything else, America had to “press the crown rights of Jesus Christ in all spheres of life,”

"he reproached traditional apologetics, represented for example by Thomas Aquinas and Bishop Joseph Butler, for allowing commonly held, neutral standards to become the warrant for the truth of Christian faith rather than the standards revealed by God in the world, in human consciousness, and in Scripture. Rushdoony focused on the same problematic in his own work, although his approach to it was, if anything, more radical. For Rushdoony, the fundamental gulf that separates truth from error can be bridged only by allowing the light of God to penetrate every aspect of our lives. His opposition to secular premises was total."

"Rushdoony decried the American public school system, tracing its ideology back to John Dewey and other secular thinkers who believed in the natural goodness of children and the role that education could play in liberalizing society. "

"Rushdoony’s most extensive and thorough treatment of the law can be found in his_Institutes of Biblical Law _, a massive, two“volume work that includes an exhaustive study of the Ten Commandments followed by detailed treatments of taxation, government, virtue, oaths, penal sanctions, property, and nearly every domain of jurisprudence. "

"Rushdoony and his followers have always considered themselves to be at war with antinomianism in any form. They are convinced that European and North American Christians have been afflicted by a belief in what can only be called cheap grace."

"For the anti nomianism of our world is very much in need of being resisted, even if Rushdoony’s own response to it resulted, in the end, in a severe overcorrection."
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/08/the-passing-of-r-j-rushdoony

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 30, 2018)

A.Joseph said:


> "In Rushdoony’s view, the Constitution did not need to include a Christian confession because the states were already a Christian establishment or settlement. The First Amendment prohibited laws respecting the establishment of religion because religion was already established at the local level. There were sabbath rules, religious tests for citizenship, laws regarding heterosexual fidelity, blasphemy laws”all of them strongly connected to biblical law. The First Amendment was intended to protect the states from interference by the federal government. "



This report of Rushdoony it very accurate. Rush liked the Constitution a lot. The Covenanters did not. Here's the offensive clause in context:

Article VI: Supreme Law

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

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.​
Founding Sins:
How a Group of Antislavery Radicals Fought to Put Christ into the Constitution.​Even if you do not want to buy the book, you might want to read some of the introduction, or some of chapter 5 Rejecting a Christian Nation. (Amazon will let you read it. You can't copy the text.)

Here's some info on the religious requirements in the early days in the USA:
Religion in the Original 13 Colonies
First Paragraph: By the year 1702 all 13 American colonies had some form of state-supported religion. This support varied from tax benefits to religious requirements for voting or serving in the legislature. Below are excerpts from colonial era founding documents citing these religious references.​

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## jw (Sep 30, 2018)

If the array of options for whom a man may vote are all men who openly and unashamedly profess that they will seek to frame mischief by a law, then I do not see how anyone may require a Christian to vote for one, and certainly may not call the refusal to vote for such a sin.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 30, 2018)

Never saw this before. Pretty fascinating...

Reactions: Informative 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 30, 2018)

A.Joseph said:


> Never saw this before. Pretty fascinating...


Interesting yes. I definitely do not consider myself a reconstructionist. I would consider myself a two kingdoms guy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 30, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> Interesting yes. I definitely do not consider myself a reconstructionist. I would consider myself a two kingdoms guy.


The GOP, which is the lesser offense/evil to us Christians, is quietly abandoning the social/moral platform... Reconstruction is the default for a nation whose society does not recognize it's true foundation. It either goes back or will collapse. Eventually we will no longer be able to participate in our own demise. We know better...

So this poll question is no longer so straight forward....as far as the 2 major party system is concerned....

Ultimately I'm more of a 2 kingdoms guy, but how can I participate in something that is increasingly contradicting what I hold dear


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 30, 2018)

A.Joseph said:


> Never saw this before. Pretty fascinating...



Very very good. Once upon a time, I had in my possession all the teaching tapes from which the Institutes were based. They were as formative to my present beliefs as were the Puritans. Rushdoony was a great man. Always has always been–always will be. Perhaps much more so as our God's future unfolds before us.

Thanks.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 30, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> Very very good. Once upon a time, I had in my possession all the teaching tapes from which the Institutes were based. They were as formative to my present beliefs as were the Puritans. Rushdoony was a great man. Always has always been–always will be. Perhaps much more so as our God's future unfolds before us.
> 
> Thanks.


Im late in discovering the late R.J. Rushdoony. He is impressive. I'm wondering if his Resconstructionist tendencies made some in the Reformed Christianity camp uncomfortable which is why he didn't get a little more attention. I feel a similar way about Dr.Peter Jones. Like they are fighting so hard against the culture while most of our attention remains internally focused theologically and other ways. Not that one area is more important than another necessarily. Apologetics, debates / teaching / lectures, and engaging secular culture are all noble pursuits for the glory of God I would assume

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 30, 2018)

"ALL LAW IS A RELIGIOUS MANDATE" -RJ

I love that quote! So well spoken...so insightful.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 30, 2018)

*Moderator Note*:

I edited the poll to eliminate the option allowing a member's ID per their vote to be seen. I rarely think this is necessary or prudent, especially in one of our non-Member's Only forum. It also encourages more to consider voting.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 30, 2018)

So in a nuanced sort of way, America was a Christian nation, in so much that Christian order and morality was understood/taken for granted.... The enlightenment and marxism has helped push America away from its natural foundation. Not that everyone had true Christianity, but our inventions and imaginations were not so deviant, or at least so publically espoused and accepted.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 30, 2018)

The notion that the Great Commission involves the Israelization of the world (which is what Christian Reconstruction is, essentially) is not supported in the New Testament. The content of the required obedience is not the civil law of Israel but the moral law of God (in its third use) as an expression of gratitude for the free grace of God extended to the peoples in all nations in the preaching of the gospel. This third use of the law is consonant with the first and second, the second providing a pattern of righteous conduct for civil states (also contained in the natural law as mentioned in Romans 2: 14-15). 

None of this, however, is the Reconstructionist program set forth by R.J. Rushdoony. His teaching on this amounts to a departure from the historic Reformed position. I know that proponents regard his teaching as insightful progress. I believe it, however, to be regressive and not proper development. The gospel program, if you will, is not one involving the Israelization of the nations, made clear in Acts (including but not limited to the Jerusalem Council) and in the history of the church, including the ancient church. 

The argument here does not go to the meaning of general equity, by the way. It may with other figures, but not RJR, who disagrees that the judicial law expired with the state of Israel. He disagrees with other matters in the Standards making clear that while his view is a variant on historic Presbyterianism it is not continuous with it. I think that this needs to be pointed out to all the dear readers on this Board. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 3 | Amen 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 30, 2018)

Does this have to do with the idea if you don't vote with the SJWs then you are complicit in propping up the white, male, heterosexual oppressors?


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 30, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> The notion that the Great Commission involves the Israelization of the world (which is what Christian Reconstruction is, essentially) is not supported in the New Testament. The content of the required obedience is not the civil law of Israel but the moral law of God (in its third use) as an expression of gratitude for the free grace of God extended to the peoples in all nations in the preaching of the gospel. This third use of the law is consonant with the first and second, the second providing a pattern of righteous conduct for civil states (also contained in the natural law as mentioned in Romans 2: 14-15).
> 
> None of this, however, is the Reconstructionist program set forth by R.J. Rushdoony. His teaching on this amounts to a departure from the historic Reformed position. I know that proponents regard his teaching as insightful progress. I believe it, however, to be regressive and not proper development. The gospel program, if you will, is not one involving the Israelization of the nations, made clear in Acts (including but not limited to the Jerusalem Council) and in the history of the church, including the ancient church.
> 
> ...


So where did RJ stand? He quoted Paul. He's not dispensationist.... How exactly does he err? Isn't he merely endorsing the moral law in civil society? Or is he getting too caught up in punishments and penalty.... I'm trying to find the true divide


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 30, 2018)

arapahoepark said:


> Does this have to do with the idea if you don't vote with the SJWs then you are complicit in propping up the white, male, heterosexual oppressors?


That was not my intent no. I hope this thread does not turn into that either because I have been trying to distance myself from the SJW surge since there has been so much (to much) chatter on it already.


Edit: My intent was more pointed at US (Federal and State) election participation in general.


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 30, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> but the moral law of God (in its third use) as an expression of gratitude for the free grace of God extended to the peoples in all nations in the preaching of the gospel. This third use of the law is consonant with the first and second, the second providing a pattern of righteous conduct for civil states (also contained in the natural law as mentioned in Romans 2: 14-15).
> 
> None of this, however, is the Reconstructionist program set forth by R.J. Rushdoony. ...
> Alan



So that's not what RJ espoused? Specifically the promotion of the 2nd use of the law in civil states. You lost me.... Does he actually take it further, and what exactly is his offense? Are we leaving too much room for the influence and legitimization of pagan thought here? Like the left hand of the Christian doesn't know what the right is doing?


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 30, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> The notion that the Great Commission involves the Israelization of the world (which is what Christian Reconstruction is, essentially) is not supported in the New Testament. The content of the required obedience is not the civil law of Israel but the moral law of God (in its third use) as an expression of gratitude for the free grace of God extended to the peoples in all nations in the preaching of the gospel. This third use of the law is consonant with the first and second, the second providing a pattern of righteous conduct for civil states (also contained in the natural law as mentioned in Romans 2: 14-15).
> 
> None of this, however, is the Reconstructionist program set forth by R.J. Rushdoony. His teaching on this amounts to a departure from the historic Reformed position. I know that proponents regard his teaching as insightful progress. I believe it, however, to be regressive and not proper development. The gospel program, if you will, is not one involving the Israelization of the nations, made clear in Acts (including but not limited to the Jerusalem Council) and in the history of the church, including the ancient church.
> 
> ...


Yes, I would say he provides a cultural- political course/response based on the One True foundation, not specifically a missional one


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 30, 2018)

A.Joseph said:


> So that's not what RJ espoused? Specifically the promotion of the 2nd use of the law in civil states. You lost me....



Brother Joseph:

I don't wish to step on Brother Grant's toes, as it strikes me that perhaps my post ventures off-topic (along with others, to be sure!). Sorry, Grant!

At any rate, you're not responding to my claim that RJR's program does not teach that the civil law expired and in the reconstruction of all society amounts to the Israelization of the world. If you wish to respond to that elsewhere, I may engage (if I have time, though just now am about to leave to preach). 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Sep 30, 2018)

A.Joseph said:


> So in a nuanced sort of way, America was a Christian nation, in so much that Christian order and morality was understood/taken for granted



This is true so far as it goes, but it's also true that Christian order and morality was _intentionally_ left out of the Constitution. America was a successful experiment as a result of the "borrowed capital" of Scriptural principles and a generally Protestant population. Its secularism, however, severed the nation from the Scriptural influence on natural law and therefore from that which purifies and enlivens it. We have since seen the withering away of moral and civil life that has resulted, like a branch cut off from its trunk. What we need is not reconstruction, as if all that is flawed is the ordering of parts, but revival and spiritual reformation through the God-ordained means of grace.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 30, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I don't wish to step on Brother Grant's toes, as it strikes me that perhaps my post ventures off-topic (along with others, to be sure!). Sorry, Grant!


No need to apologize friend. Feel free to answer the concerns. The ideology of a reconstructionist, I believe, is "on-topic" with the OP, in my opinion.


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 30, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Brother Joseph:
> 
> I don't wish to step on Brother Grant's toes, as it strikes me that perhaps my post ventures off-topic (along with others, to be sure!). Sorry, Grant!
> 
> ...


Well, the way you put it, that would be a fools errand. So, when you put it that way, if that's where RJ logically concluded, it would probably be futile


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 30, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> This is true so far as it goes, but it's also true that Christian order and morality was _intentionally_ left out of the Constitution. America was a successful experiment as a result of the "borrowed capital" of Scriptural principles and a generally Protestant population. Its secularism, however, severed the nation from the Scriptural influence on natural law and therefore from that which purifies and enlivens it. We have since seen the withering away of moral and civil life that has resulted, like a branch cut off from its trunk. What we need is not reconstruction, as if all that is flawed is the ordering of parts, but revival and spiritual reformation through the God-ordained means of grace.


Would you say today's Washington is a type of anti-Christ? That today's law making body is the antithesis of Godly virtue and ordinance


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 30, 2018)

10,000 will not vote:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/new-york.pdf

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 30, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> 10,000 will not vote:
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/new-york.pdf


Scott,

This is great thanks for sharing. Very interesting.


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 30, 2018)

A.Joseph said:


> Im late in discovering the late R.J. Rushdoony. He is impressive. I'm wondering if his Resconstructionist tendencies made some in the Reformed Christianity camp uncomfortable which is why he didn't get a little more attention.


To be clear: Rushdoony didn't have "Reconstructionist tendencies;" he was the _founder_ of the Reconstructionist movement. He was a brilliant man, and I've learned a lot from him, but he's dead wrong on certain things, including his view of the law. He taught (contrary to the Reformed confessions) that there is no distinction between moral and judicial law. So, all the judicial laws of Israel are to be built into the law codes of modern nations.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 30, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> 10,000 will not vote:
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/new-york.pdf



The moral situation in the USA is vastly worse than when this article was published. But, it seems to me, that there are many fewer percentages of Christians that are calling for a change in the Constitution. I fear very few even have that goal as even a faint hope. We've come a long way baby.


----------



## jwithnell (Sep 30, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> The notion that the Great Commission involves the Israelization of the world (which is what Christian Reconstruction is, essentially) is not supported in the New Testament. The content of the required obedience is not the civil law of Israel but the moral law of God (in its third use) as an expression of gratitude for the free grace of God extended to the peoples in all nations in the preaching of the gospel. This third use of the law is consonant with the first and second, the second providing a pattern of righteous conduct for civil states (also contained in the natural law as mentioned in Romans 2: 14-15).
> 
> None of this, however, is the Reconstructionist program set forth by R.J. Rushdoony. His teaching on this amounts to a departure from the historic Reformed position. I know that proponents regard his teaching as insightful progress. I believe it, however, to be regressive and not proper development. The gospel program, if you will, is not one involving the Israelization of the nations, made clear in Acts (including but not limited to the Jerusalem Council) and in the history of the church, including the ancient church.
> 
> ...



Rev. Strange, I was trying to refresh my memory regarding RR's having a weak alignment with the church, and was surprised to see he might have been admitted as a pastor to the OPC in 1958 to 1962? Does this align with what you know?

To the OP, I don't know if this can be answered yes or no in good faith. In the last election, 
I honestly respected those believers who refrained from voting, those who voted third party, and those who voted essentially against Clinton. 

In the 1980s, I was in the middle of the reconstructionist wing of the PCA and I seriously wonder now about those who foment discord. Divorce, moving from church to church and place to place, estrangement from colleagues -- does this sound like those who would seek God's honor above all else? I'd never say peace at any cost, but constant turmoil often points to a heart issue.

I've become much less comfortable with Christians trying to claim a nation state as I've come to grasp the enormity of God's people being found among all nations rather than inside a narrow chunk of Middle Eastern land.


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 30, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> To be clear: Rushdoony didn't have "Reconstructionist tendencies;" he was the _founder_ of the Reconstructionist movement. He was a brilliant man, and I've learned a lot from him, but he's dead wrong on certain things, including his view of the law. He taught (contrary to the Reformed confessions) that there is no distinction between moral and judicial law. So, all the judicial laws of Israel are to be built into the law codes of modern nations.


Of course, absolutely. I don't endorse reconstructionist view. I just think we need to realize that our government is a hostile entity that is not for God...RJ got that. The ones who still do not? Well, they are the ones either seduced or willfully breaking bread with the enemy and his benefactors.... 
Anyway, here's an interesting article. Don't necessarily agree, but interesting read nonetheless.... https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/rushdoony-and-the-comprehensive-law-of-god-today


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 30, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> He taught (contrary to the Reformed confessions) that there is no distinction between moral and judicial law. So, all the judicial laws of Israel are to be built into the law codes of modern nations.



I barely know him, if what you say is true it is problematic. Is this truly what he promoted? Is there any overlap between the moral and the civil or judicial? Are their judicial laws that remain relevant today? Are all these distinctions so clear cut. They probably are but just asking for further clarity


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 30, 2018)

A.Joseph said:


> I barely know him, if what you say is true it is problematic. Is this truly what he promoted? Is there any overlap between the moral and the civil or judicial? Are their judicial laws that remain relevant today? Are all these distinctions so clear cut. They probably are but just asking for further clarity


If you “re-read” the article you referred to (https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/voting-in-the-usa-and-gods-law.96405/page-2#post-1178574), Rushdoony clearly saw significant error in the Westminster Standards handling of the law.


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 30, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> If you “re-read” the article you referred to (https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/voting-in-the-usa-and-gods-law.96405/page-2#post-1178574), Rushdoony clearly saw significant error in the Westminster Standards handling of the law.


But I think he misunderstood what the WC is getting at. Of course God's universal moral law should shape civil law for a healthy, ordered society... "Thou shall not kill, steal, etc." I don't think the WC denies such and expects the civil magistrates to uphold these laws... However, with abortion and socialism and marriage, many natural and universal laws are eroding. I see more overlap here...
As far as what is permissible and what is not.... Unless paganism is going to set our standards..... Then I'm not voting....

Does God's word speak to these things? Is communism wrong? Why? Is slavery wrong? Why? Is it all arbitrary? Why is sodomy wrong? Is that a moral law or/ ordinance? From what are laws derived anyway? Have we 'progressed' in such a way that what was once condemnation before God is now a human right? Or entitlement? What about pedophilia? How are these standards set?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 30, 2018)

A.Joseph said:


> But I think he misunderstood what the WC is getting at. Of course God's universal moral law should shape civil law for a healthy, ordered society... "Thou shall not kill, steal, etc." I don't think the WC denies such and expects the civil magistrates to uphold these laws...



I know, I know. I'm missing the point of the post.
I am not accurately answering your post, but I wanted to say, that although I can't lay my hands on the quote at this time, a prominent Westminster Seminary theologian once stated that we could not get rid of reconstruction or theonomy until we revise the proof-texts of the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. You need to look there for support of the validity of the civil Law of Moses.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 30, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> Is it sinful for a Christian to abstain from voting altogether (state or federal level)?


I assume you only want USA citizens to respond and vote in your poll.

You cannot take it for "grant"ed that every member of the Puritanboard is a citizen of the USA


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 30, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I assume you only want USA citizensto respond and vote in your poll.
> 
> You cannot take t for "grant"ed that every member of the Puritanboard is a citizen of the USA


Stephen,

Don’t you know the USA is the new Jerusalem (joking).

But seriously you are free to vote/weigh in, as there was no qualifier in my original post to say “only American citizens can vote”.
I simply posed my question within the USA context because some Christians in the US would see me obstaining from all ballots as a violation of the command of Christ to love my neighbor. Also the US culture/context is the only one I am familiar with. I have been very comforted by the results of the poll on PB.


----------



## jw (Sep 30, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> I can't lay my hands on the quote at this time, a prominent Westminster Seminary theologian once stated that we could not get rid of reconstruction or theonomy until we revise the proof-texts of the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Sep 30, 2018)

A.Joseph said:


> Would you say today's Washington is a type of anti-Christ? That today's law making body is the antithesis of Godly virtue and ordinance



No. An anti-Christ would be wholly and completely corrupted and undeserving of the faintest of lip service. Our government is legitimate, even if leavened with amoral and anti-Christian principles and persons, and therefore still deserving of our respect, submission (where not inconsistent with our Christian profession) and in which we can participate and seek to reform in many ways with a free conscience.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 30, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> No. An anti-Christ would be wholly and completely corrupted and undeserving of the faintest of lip service. Our government is legitimate, even if leavened with amoral and anti-Christian principles and persons, and therefore still deserving of our respect, submission (where not inconsistent with our Christian profession) and in which we can participate and seek to reform in many ways with a free conscience.


Ok thanks...
Maybe I'm looking too closely ...
But I tend to get too cynical on these matters.
On a related note, some good original intent noted here http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=2556


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 30, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> Don’t you know the USA is the new Jerusalem (joking).


Ha ha 
Did you know:
1. Lord of the Rings fans know that New Zealand is middle earth
2. We are the only nation on earth to have the All Blacks (they cause Australia and Wales much sorrow  )
3. We seriously obey 1 Pet 2:17 to honour the Queen 

You see I did use 3 arguments. This is significant as Eccles 4:12 tells us a threefold cord is not easily broken. 


Grant Jones said:


> I simply posed my question within the USA context


It is helpful to clarify as there are people from many nations on the Puritanboard.

And yes I vote in my country.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 30, 2018)

A.Joseph said:


> I barely know him, if what you say is true it is problematic. Is this truly what he promoted? Is there any overlap between the moral and the civil or judicial? Are their judicial laws that remain relevant today? Are all these distinctions so clear cut. They probably are but just asking for further clarity


Yes; he taught that the OT judicial laws were a system of case laws that ought to form the basis of the laws of every nation on earth.

The Westminster standards teach that the judicial laws expired with Israel; that being said, they also teach that many of those laws are founded on universal principles of justice. This is known as _general equity_. The Westminster standards explicitly note that the general equity of certain judicial laws still applies.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 30, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Yes; he taught that the OT judicial laws were a system of case laws that ought to form the basis of the laws of every nation on earth.
> 
> The Westminster standards teach that the judicial laws expired with Israel.


Interesting, curious of some examples he cited... But I won't burden you with searching that out. Just wondering how applicable that would be...


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 30, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> I simply posed my question within the USA context because some Christians in the US would see me obstaining from all ballots as a violation of the command of Christ to love my neighbor.



I'm still trying to understand the context of this issue. How does voting or not voting relate to love for a neighbor?

I have a cousin who used to be a school principal. We lived in a smallish district and you could see the names of everyone who voted in an election.

She was supporting a bond levy for her school. I forgot to vote that time, so she called me up to shame me for my lack of civic participation.

I answered with, "how do you know I would have voted yes on your bond issue?"

It took a few months before she'd talk to me.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 1, 2018)

VictorBravo said:


> I'm still trying to understand the context of this issue. How does voting or not voting relate to love for a neighbor?
> 
> I have a cousin who used to be a school principal. We lived in a smallish district and you could see the names of everyone who voted in an election.
> 
> ...



It is hard for me to agree with the connection as well.

So in your example some might say (not I) that the passing of the bond levy would really benefit the school and the children, so missing the chance to support those kids and the community is a failure to take advantage of an opportunity to love your neighbor by passing a law that would help them. Of course they assume you would vote their way.

I have been pressured from time to time be more politically active, but really I try to use my time (outside of my job) for private devotion, family worship, serving my Church (and their ministries), and looking for ways to reach the community the Lord has placed my family in to to reach out to the un-churched. My striving to maintain those priories really does not leave me with much concern, energy, or time for swimming in the political pool.

The argument also usually says that since God has placed us in a form of government where we have a voice in government (voting), that failure to use that voice is wasteful. Again, I do not agree with this.

P.s. Someone did finally vote “yes” in the poll, so you can see the belief is out there, even on PB.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 1, 2018)

Philosophical observation: while we normally decry utilitarian reasoning, it does seem inevitable. I voted for Brother Trump because 1) he promised to kill and expose the Deep State, and 2) Supreme Court Justices. 

I could be wrong and deep in sin for that, but that's probably how most people reasoned. I'm not saying it's right, but it can form a larger package.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 1, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Philosophical observation: while we normally decry utilitarian reasoning, it does seem inevitable. I voted for Brother Trump because 1) he promised to kill and expose the Deep State, and 2) Supreme Court Justices.
> 
> I could be wrong and deep in sin for that, but that's probably how most people reasoned. I'm not saying it's right, but it can form a larger package.


Jacob, I understand what you are saying and see no fault in your decision.

P.S. I hope the thread will not turn into "trump or Hillary and why", but rather keep the focus on the broader idea of voting in general.


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 1, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> So in your example some might say (not I) that the passing of the bond levy would really benefit the school and the children, so missing the chance to support those kids and the community is a failure to take advantage of an opportunity to love your neighbor by passing a law that would help them



If that is the argument, it falls pretty flat. The flip side argument could be that I loved my literal, fixed-income, neighbors so much that I didn't want them to see more financial hardship to pay for new LGBT training programs in a public school.

So political questions often have plausible ethical positions on both sides. If one decides not to choose either side, how is that failing to love my neighbor?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## hammondjones (Oct 1, 2018)

Are we talking about Tim Keller's OpEd?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/opinion/sunday/christians-politics-belief.html



> In the Good Samaritan parable told in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus points us to a man risking his life to give material help to someone of a different race and religion. Jesus forbids us to withhold help from our neighbors, and this will inevitably require that we participate in political processes.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 1, 2018)

hammondjones said:


> Are we talking about Tim Keller's OpEd?
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/opinion/sunday/christians-politics-belief.html



That is a part of it yes indeed.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 1, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Philosophical observation: while we normally decry utilitarian reasoning, it does seem inevitable. I voted for Brother Trump because 1) he promised to kill and expose the Deep State, and 2) Supreme Court Justices.
> 
> I could be wrong and deep in sin for that, but that's probably how most people reasoned. I'm not saying it's right, but it can form a larger package.



Brother Jacob in saying "Brother Trump" you are quite charitable in that I did not vote for him because I was not as charitable as you.  Of course this may be the only issue I agree with "Brother" Obama.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 1, 2018)

It is not sinful to abstain from voting when it would violate one's conscience.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 1, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Brother Jacob in saying "Brother Trump" you are quite charitable in that I did not vote for him because I was not as charitable as you.  Of course this may be the only issue I agree with "Brother" Obama.


That's fair, but if we dominate the court and Roe is severely curtailed, no one will be able to thank a Never-Trumper for that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Oct 1, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's fair, but if we dominate the court and Roe is severely curtailed, no one will be able to thank a Never-Trumper for that.



I can live with that. Our Lord is of course is allowed to use sinful actions of men to push through His will.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 1, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> It is not sinful to abstain from voting when it would violate one's conscience.



Certainly. I didn't vote for McCain because I thought he was demon-possessed and would start WWIII with Russia. I didn't vote for Romney because he is a member of a New Age cult that believes Lucifer and Jesus are blood-brothers and that Jesus is having cosmic sex.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 1, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Certainly. I didn't vote for McCain because I thought he was demon-possessed and would start WWIII with Russia. I didn't vote for Romney because he is a member of a New Age cult that believes Lucifer and Jesus are blood-brothers and that Jesus is having cosmic sex.


Stop being coy and just tell us what you really think, brother.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 1, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Stop being coy and just tell us what you really think, brother.



Admittedly, I can't prove the possession charge. But Romney's religious affiliations are out in the open.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 1, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Admittedly, I can't prove the possession charge. But Romney's religious affiliations are out in the open.



No doubt Romney is possessed by his father.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 1, 2018)

It is fatuous beyond belief to suggest that the second table of the law requires that Christians vote. It is the same as trying to guilt-trip one into giving to this or that charity in the guise of loving neighbor ("how can you say you love your neighbor if you don't contribute to Voice of the Martyrs, or Habitat for Humanity, or Grace to You, or whatever other money-gathering scheme is out there?!!!). God never requires political involvement--His kingdom is not of this world. That being said, while voting _per se _is not wrong, I think there's a lot more danger in political involvement than in not. Is party affiliation an unequal yoke? I can't in good conscience formally join any party. Am I complicit in the iniquities of a person I voted for?
The Christian is free to vote if his conscience and God's law allow it, but to say that God requires voting is, again, simply absurd.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 2, 2018)

hammondjones said:


> Are we talking about Tim Keller's OpEd?
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/opinion/sunday/christians-politics-belief.html


What are your thoughts on the article (to anyone who has read it)?


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 2, 2018)

hammondjones said:


> Are we talking about Tim Keller's OpEd?
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/opinion/sunday/christians-politics-belief.html



Yeesh. That started out OK, but went a bit off pretty quickly.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 2, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Yeesh. That started out OK, but went a bit off pretty quickly.


Tom,

I agree. Of course I was on guard from the beginning because it was released by the NY-Times.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 2, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Yeesh. That started out OK, but went a bit off pretty quickly.


It came across as incoherent.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 2, 2018)

arapahoepark said:


> It came across as incoherent.



And often painfully misinformed. The bit where he describes helping the poor as a left-wing trait stuck out as especially bad.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## hammondjones (Oct 2, 2018)

> they should not identify the Christian church or faith with a political party as the only Christian one


Inasmuch as it is a warning to the church not to align itself with Egypt to save itself from Assyria, I think it is ok.

I'll grant that some Christians don't fit into this two-party system.

Personally, I'd go father and say that ultimately Christians qua Christians really don't fit in any democracy (or republic, for you sticklers).

I've voted and not voted, depending on the year and my conscience. I even voted for blue dog democrats, back when such a thing existed. A principled abstention is not the same as apathy. If my non-vote causes the least-evil party to lose, but retool its platform, maybe one step backward is worth three steps forward.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 2, 2018)

I found Ron Paul the most principled and constitutionally consistent in his don't let government and it's corporate influence be your god ... Too bad I found him too late, but he could never break through the uni-party system. Trump and his brand of populism is an interesting phenomenon... I don't see any state solution for what ails society but at least he's a bit of a break from the normal business of Washington. Steve Bannon makes some interesting points in his recent interview with Bill Maher....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 2, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Brother Joseph:
> 
> I don't wish to step on Brother Grant's toes, as it strikes me that perhaps my post ventures off-topic (along with others, to be sure!). Sorry, Grant!
> 
> ...


I ultimately believe RJ's agenda would be a distraction to the church as a whole. I prefer you fine men continue to fight the good fight of keeping political agendas out of the church (and preserving biblical truth), especially when it conflicts with the preservation of truth and mission of the gospel including the whole counsel of God. Thank You!


----------



## Taylor (Oct 2, 2018)

A.Joseph said:


> I ultimately believe RJ's agenda would be a distraction to the church as a whole.



How? His very thesis—as well as Bahnsen’s and North’s and all of Chalcedon’s—is that Reconstruction starts in the _home_, not in the government, and then works it way out into broader society. However, the family is first and most important in this “agenda.” How would running the home according to God’s Law be a “distraction”?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

For the record, Bahnsen got a lot of recons angry because he voted for George HW Bush. And his son today is a militant Establishment republican for National review.


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 2, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> How? His very thesis—as well as Bahnsen’s and North’s and all of Chalcedon’s—is that Reconstruction starts in the _home_, not in the government, and then works it way out into broader society. However, the family is first and most important in this “agenda.” How would running the home according to God’s Law be a “distraction”?


I agree with what you say here. But that is not the objections pastors and theologians have of him. They would agree with what you say here as do I. However Machen was essentially libertarian (not libertine) so OPC pastors cringe at a guy like RJ as he conveys (at least this is the perception) a belief in the church transforming the government, while the church needs to guard against the world transforming the church, which is happening via our seminaries, liberal ideologies and global-political infiltrators/benefactors.... Its too late to put the genie back in the bottle I fear....
Short of another awakening the 'culture war' may be futile. The powers-that-be controls the schools, the media, the sciences, etc.... We have to keep the churches and the seminaries insulated and pure.... But we are failing in these areas as well


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 2, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> I know, I know. I'm missing the point of the post.
> I am not accurately answering your post, but I wanted to say, that although I can't lay my hands on the quote at this time, a prominent Westminster Seminary theologian once stated that we could not get rid of reconstruction or theonomy until we revise the proof-texts of the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. You need to look there for support of the validity of the civil Law of Moses.



Ed, I think that you are referring to Meredith Kline's _Westminster Theological Journal_ review article of Theonomy in Christian Ethics, which was entitled, "Comments on an Old-New Error." While I am not a Reconstructionist myself, appealing to Reformed history against theonomy creates more problems for theonomy's critics than it solves.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 2, 2018)

I'm not against Recon in theory and principle but with the amount of mainstream resistance it would be hard to navigate without taking our eye off the true prize.... Our public square has been hijacked, probably not as bad as the perception, but inroads and allies may come at too steep a price.... Who knows? I'm game for a counter culture Great Awakening of our time.... 


Taylor Sexton said:


> How? His very thesis—as well as Bahnsen’s and North’s and all of Chalcedon’s—is that Reconstruction starts in the _home_, not in the government, and then works it way out into broader society. However, the family is first and most important in this “agenda.” How would running the home according to God’s Law be a “distraction”?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Oct 2, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Ed, I think that you are referring to Meredith Kline's _Westminster Theological Journal_ review article of Theonomy in Christian Ethics, which was entitled, "Comments on an Old-New Error.



I found the article and read here and there to get the drift. I used Acrobat's Embedded Index function to make a concordance of key search terms. E.g., proof text, standards, catechism, plus a half dozen more. Though Kline is definitely on the subject, I could not find the quote I had in mind. Now I am wondering if the quote might have been by someone in response to this article. 

Thanks for the lead.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Oct 2, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Ed, I think that you are referring to Meredith Kline's _Westminster Theological Journal_ review article of Theonomy in Christian Ethics, which was entitled, "Comments on an Old-New Error."



I search high and low for the quote but could not find it. Now I am wondering if the quote was by someone responding to Kline's article.
Thanks for the lead.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 2, 2018)

A.Joseph said:


> I'm not against Recon in theory and principle but with the amount of mainstream resistance it would be hard to navigate without taking our eye off the true prize.... Our public square has been hijacked, probably not as bad as the perception, but inroads and allies may come at too steep a price.... Who knows? I'm game for a counter culture Great Awakening of our time....



I think you may be misunderstanding Reconstruction/Theonomy, brother. Reconstruction is not about taking over the government and ramming Christian laws into place by fiat. No, it is about starting with the_ family_—teaching the spouse and children the Law-Word of the Lord. And,_ through the family_, changing communities, then towns, then counties, then states, then entire countries. You might think the task is "futile" because you are not thinking in this scheme. If it all depended upon_ revolution_, then yes, it may be futile. However, as the Theonomists have always said, it is "regeneration,_ not_ revolution."

In other words, we do not influence society through "taking our eyes off the prize," but through precisely keeping our eyes on it! I remember in a lecture I was listening to from Dr. Bahnsen, someone objected to Theonomic ethics and Reconstruction with the same line of argument presented here: it is impossible because secular society has overwhelmed us! Bahnsen replied thusly: "Exactly. Therefore, let Christians have more and more babies!" That was his answer. Again, it is not through revolution that these things take place, but through regeneration.


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 2, 2018)

Exactly, which is why we need to continuously snuff out Peter Enns types, PCA churches that sponsor Revoice, and undercover social justice warriors in our midst.... 

From what you are saying, Reconstructionists propose that we continue to let our light shine and take our values and worldview to every public sphere...including our vocation. That is not new or unique to this movement obviously.... That is Reformed 101.
Are you sure you are not simplifying what RJ taught.... ?

The few high profile examples leave me more concerned than inspired by mans ability to endure the heat rather than get incinerated...
Texas ruling elder Andrew White obviously did not get the memo....thus, my greater concern for the Church
https://christiannews.net/2018/02/0...r-texas-governor-says-he-supports-roe-v-wade/
"White’s remarks have drawn concern among Christians, especially in light of his position as an elder at a PCA church. On Monday, Todd Pruitt, the lead pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Harrisonburg, Virginia published an open letter to White to outline his dismay over White’s approach of separating his faith from his politics.
“How is it desirable for a Christian to believe that his or her faith convictions have no place in the public square? And how is it even possible? If you are indeed a Christian, how is it possible for you to govern a state as though you were not?” Pruitt asked.
“I was deeply troubled to hear of your position on abortion. You have pledged to give full support to abortion. Indeed your position on abortion seems to be one of celebration,” he lamented.
Pruitt posed a series of questions for White, appealing both to Scripture and Christian history to show the contrast between biblical Christianity and what White had stated during the interview.
“My question is: On what basis do you personally oppose abortion?” he asked. “The only reason to oppose abortion is if it is indeed the taking of an innocent human life. And since abortion is indeed the taking of an innocent human life (the only reason for your personal opposition) then how can you support its continued legality? That sort of position collapses under the weight of its own moral contradictions.”
“Perhaps you have read about the Christian practice in the first few centuries of the church of rescuing babies left abandoned to die under the cruelty of the elements. So common were these rescues that they captured the attention of the upper echelons of Roman government,” Pruitt outlined. “This practice of rescuing the weak and vulnerable was based on those Christian’s biblical convictions. They learned from God’s word that they must try to rescue those who were being led away to destruction.”
He also pointed to the notorious Nuremberg Laws in Germany, which dehumanized Jews and considered them to be lesser persons—just like abortion laws do to the unborn today.
“In light of all this, how do you justify your current position on the slaughter of the unborn? How is it that you join in celebrating the anniversary of Roe V. Wade?” Pruitt asked. “How can you promise to use all your powers as governor to uphold and defend the practice of abortion?”
The Presbyterian pastor said that he prays that White will repent, and that if he does not, he believes that White should be removed from his position as elder.
“I am praying for you Mr. White,” he wrote. “I am praying that the Lord will open your eyes and grant you repentance from you current views. I am praying that, should you harden your heart and maintain your current position, your church and presbytery will do the right thing and exercise proper discipline in your life. It is not too late. So long as you have breath there is time to repudiate your current views. I pray you do.”



Taylor Sexton said:


> I think you may be misunderstanding Reconstruction/Theonomy, brother. Reconstruction is not about taking over the government and ramming Christian laws into place by fiat. No, it is about starting with the_ family_—teaching the spouse and children the Law-Word of the Lord. And,_ through the family_, changing communities, then towns, then counties, then states, then entire countries. You might think the task is "futile" because you are not thinking in this scheme. If it all depended upon_ revolution_, then yes, it may be futile. However, as the Theonomists have always said, it is "regeneration,_ not_ revolution."
> 
> In other words, we do not influence society through "taking our eyes off the prize," but through precisely keeping our eyes on it! I remember in a lecture I was listening to from Dr. Bahnsen, someone objected to Theonomic ethics and Reconstruction with the same line of argument presented here: it is impossible because secular society has overwhelmed us! Bahnsen replied thusly: "Exactly. Therefore, let Christians have more and more babies!" That was his answer. Again, it is not through revolution that these things take place, but through regeneration.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 2, 2018)

A.Joseph said:


> Exactly, which is why we need to continously snuff out Peter Enns types, PCA churches that sponsor Revoice, and social justice warriors in our midst.... What Reconstructionists propose are that we continue to let our light shine and take our values and worldview to every public sphere...including our vocation. That is not new or unique to this movement obviously.... That is Reformed 101.
> Are you sure you are not simplifying what RJ taught.... ?
> The few high profile examples leave me more concerned than inspired by mans ability to endure the heat rather than get incinerated
> 
> ...


At this point one may need to consider creating another thread... as the light of the original OP is growing strangely dim.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 2, 2018)

A.Joseph said:


> Are you sure you are not simplifying what RJ taught.... ?



I am speaking in general terms about Theonomy, not so much explicitly about what Rushdoony taught. I don't think anyone here denies that Rushdoony had issues confessionally. I am speaking more of the broader Theonomic thesis.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 2, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> At this point one may need to consider creating another thread... as the light of the original OP is growing strangely dim.


Sorry, I think I'm done...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 2, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I am speaking in general terms about Theonomy, not so much explicitly about what Rushdoony taught. I don't think anyone here denies that Rushdoony had issues confessionally. I am speaking more of the broader Theonomic thesis.


 gotcha

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 2, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> I search high and low for the quote but could not find it. Now I am wondering if the quote was by someone responding to Kline's article.
> Thanks for the lead.



Possibly Ken Gentry's contribution to the Greg Bahnsen festschrift, _Standard Bearer_?


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 2, 2018)

A.Joseph said:


> Sorry, I think I'm done...


Brother, no need to apolgize.... I was just really struggling to connect the direction to the main subject.

I still have appreciated your contributions thus far!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Quest (Oct 2, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> I search high and low for the quote but could not find it. Now I am wondering if the quote was by someone responding to Kline's article.
> Thanks for the lead.



Ed, are you looking for the citation of the article? See below.

Kline, Meredith. “Comments on an Old-New Error” in Westminster Theological Journal. 41 (1978–79): 172–89.

I have this review article written by Meredith G. Kline of the book:

Greg L. Bahnsen: Theonomy in Christian Ethics. Nutley: The Craig Press, 1977. xvii, 619. Paper. $14.95.

Regards, Scott


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 2, 2018)

What's Keller's deal? What exactly is his agenda? Who is he speaking to and for? The Democrat Party has wholly disqualified itself in so many ways to the point that they rigged their own Presidential Primary. The GOP has also failed us in many ways, but maintains a handful of reasonably just and honest men that keeps me from bailing on the political system entirely. The Democratic Party left the Bible believing Christian a while ago. The GOP is hanging on by a thread. And Tim Keller, like too many pastors (for legitimate reasons, they are busy men caring for their flocks) when it comes to politics are in the dark....

If Peter Jones wrote the op-ed I would pay attention. He would put first things first, and begin with the fear of the Lord. Not taking care of the poor, which we already do in this country....

If you fear the Lord, you won't be a racist, period... If you are a racist, you don't fear the Lord. This isn't that hard....


Grant Jones said:


> What are your thoughts on the article (to anyone who has read it)?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 2, 2018)

A.Joseph said:


> If you fear the Lord, you won't be a racist, period... If you are a racist, you don't fear the Lord. This isn't that hard....



Really? Is it that easy to figure out who the true Christians are?

Moderation:

let's get back on track to the topic of voting and not have this thread devolve into a race discussion or social justice discussion. Open new threads for those.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 2, 2018)

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding."


VictorBravo said:


> Really? Is it that easy to figure out who the true Christians are?
> 
> Moderation:
> 
> let's get back on track to the topic of voting and not have this thread devolve into a race discussion or social justice discussion. Open new threads for those.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 3, 2018)

The Moderators are welcome to close this thread. I really appreciate everyone’s responses. Feel free to leave it open if you think someone will share a different perspective on the OP..as the replies have all been one sided thus far (to my own edification and hopefully to others as well).


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 10, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> I found the article and read here and there to get the drift. I used Acrobat's Embedded Index function to make a concordance of key search terms. E.g., proof text, standards, catechism, plus a half dozen more. Though Kline is definitely on the subject, I could not find the quote I had in mind. Now I am wondering if the quote might have been by someone in response to this article.
> 
> Thanks for the lead.


Perhaps this will shed some light:

http://www.upper-register.com/papers/1788_theonomy.pdf


----------

