TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Why would I vote for evil?
5 Commands of God which the Pro-life movement currently violated
- Thread starter Jmsbentley
- Start date
- Status
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
Agreed. The problem for the abortion debate is that we are not in a position to destroy them in one day. So we ban as many of them as we can until we ban them all, rather than just sitting around waiting for an opportunity to ban them all in one fell swoop.
My beef is that the abolitionist would roundly criticize the smash-mouth incrementalist for passing legislation that banned a million more abortions spread out nationwide, even if that was the most that politically could be banned at that time. Whereas the same abolitionist would see nothing wrong with banning all abortions, amounting to 900,000, in a single state. It strikes me as nitpicking and destructive division when both sides (not talking about the pro-life side here) have exactly the same end goal, being a 100% ban everywhere.
[automerge]1758156632[/automerge]
Because Jesus is never on the ballot?
erickinho1bra
Puritan Board Freshman
The goal would not be to promote or vote for evil but to seek what is best and that is a call one needs to make with wisdom. Every fallen person will commit evil and sin against God but that doesn’t mean we should stay out of the voting booth. The goal in voting for the lesser of two evils is seeking to do as much good as possible. To look for perfection would be to never vote at all. You can take that approach but it doesn’t seem biblically demanded.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
First, I am not looking for perfection. No one here is looking for perfection.
I'm tired of useless political parties acting like they want the Christian vote when they promote anti Christian acts like the murdering of babies and sodomy. When "lesser" evil stops promoting evil, I'll think abiut voting for them.
erickinho1bra
Puritan Board Freshman
so you’re saying you wouldn’t vote for a heartbeat abortion ban that cuts off the possibility to have an abortion past the 6-week mark? It’s either full abortion ban or you would rather leave the box empty on the ballot?
Nothing short of a full abortion ban would get your vote? Even a nearly full ban but with a rape and incest exception (which we all agree should also be banned) that will save about 990K babies per year?
John Nyberg
Puritan Board Sophomore
You are right! Christians should be in the voting booth. I hope to vote again once I feel I can do so in good conscience. But I do not share your optimism that voting for the lesser of two evils can ever create better results. The minute Roe fell, the abortion issue became a liability for Republicans on a national and state level. This is why you have Trumps pro-choice statement as the official party platform. It is to mitigate the political liability of Roe’s fall. We can do much better. In fact, the constitution party has a pretty great statement on abortion, one I think I could get behind: https://constitutionparty.com/sanctity-of-life/
I see 6 week abortion restrictions as abortion regulation. In many conservative states, complete abortion bans are too unpopular to ever pass, so some kind of compromise is reached with 6 weeks, 12 weeks, or whatever. Trying to sneak abortion legislation past conservative voters who can’t stomach outlawing abortion completely seems dishonest to me. It would be better to make and advertise an abolitionist stance and let that be a witness to others.
erickinho1bra
Puritan Board Freshman
Abortion is legal and in some states is legal up to birth. Why would lowering the amount of abortions that occur every year by putting restrictions on it be seen as evil? The evil law is already in place; to restrict abortion is not to approve of it. Why don’t you think the statement “non-incest and non-rape abortions are illegal” is a good thing? Surely you agree with that statement. You would rather let 99k babies die every year because you want to save the all 100k? Would it be evil to save one truck full of soldiers in a battle field if that meant you couldn’t save one that was in the other direction?I see 6 week abortion restrictions as abortion regulation. In many conservative states, complete abortion bans are too unpopular to ever pass, so some kind of compromise is reached with 6 weeks, 12 weeks, or whatever. Trying to sneak abortion legislation past conservative voters who can’t stomach outlawing abortion completely seems dishonest to me. It would be better to make and advertise an abolitionist stance and let that be a witness to others.
The pro-life statement is about saving lives at whatever reasonable cost. Babies are being killed everyday in the thousands and I would rather that number be 0 but if I can’t have 0 right now, I’ll take any less than what it is now.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
???
[automerge]1758166745[/automerge]
"Save babies". Just the kind of rhetoric fear mongering that compromising Republicans like to use to try to get Christians to vote for their soft stance on child sacrifices. If they want to save babies, abolish abortion. People have already proven that "pro lifers" have shut down abolitionist bills. Doing that then gaslighting that abolitionists are the problem is why I will never vote Republicans again.
None of their bills saves babies. What do they do with the mail order pills? Nothing. If "pro life" politicians think that abortion is murder, then act like it. The recent republican platform compared to the older one they had has only shown that the Republican party is going the route of Democrats. If they want the Christian vote, then stop sitting on the fence about murdering babies.
Last edited:
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Funny how they have a way better statement on this issue than Republicans do thinking they are different than Democrats
John Nyberg
Puritan Board Sophomore
It really is a shame.
John Nyberg
Puritan Board Sophomore
I understand the sentiment. We are both in agreement that abortion is evil and we both rejoice when any baby is saved. However, a bill that allows abortion in earlier gestational periods still codifies a right to murder.
From the outset, I have expressed appreciation for the results that the prolife movement has had in the last several years. I applaud the fall of Roe due to Trumps judicial picks. I am excited that 7 (mostly) southern states have ended the practice of abortion completely. We live in truly heartening times!
However, I fear that these successes will be momentary if we do not stand on perfect principle and demand an abolitionist position in the GOP. If the GOP is truly, unashamedly pro life than we have every right to demand this position. The penalty for the GOPs moderate pro choice position should be a loss of evangelical votes. In this way, the Church may act as a true prophet in our age.
I hope that this conversation does more to unite than divide. I appreciate your comments.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
The historic Covenanter position has addressed this. They have detailed the Biblical reasons for morally abandoning the legislative franchise in a nation in rebellion against God.. It has largely fallen out of favour in place of the pragmatic compromise you are presenting. The question is whether or not your position has been successful. Have the nations in which professing Christians have voted decade after decade for the lesser of two evils become more or less evil?
There doesn't have to be a "perfect" party or candidate to not be evil.
Playing the emotional numbers game is deceptive, and two can play that game: Say you pass some laws limiting the murder and "only" 100,000 are murdered annually and that law (like Roe v. Wade) stands for 50 years. Or a million are murdered annually until a total abolition law is passed 10 years later. Which approach saved more lives?
John Nyberg
Puritan Board Sophomore
I don’t believe our brothers are being deceptive at all. In fact this thread has so far been quite honest and passionate and respectful.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Ah, the old "voting = pragmatic compromise" argument. Sad.
With zero consideration from older threads about the idea of voting in prayer and communication with national leaders preaching the Gospel in context of the issues of the day. None whatsoever.
One party will let us have freedom of worship, while the other polices speech "morally" and will - in a heartbeat - work to police it in our pulpits if they can get back in power.
If I lived in the OT days of the split kingdom, I would vote by moving my family from the northern kingdom and their golden calves to the southern kingdom because in the latter nation, I am free to worship the LORD God in spirit and truth (even if sullied by high places about), and in the North, I would be under the rule of a line of kings who wants to (and even does at one point) outlaw traveling to Jerusalem for God-ordained true worship.
Is that pragmatism on my part?
I fully understand those who do not vote and believe the system is broken and cannot be redeemed. I even believe you are right. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. But I will never understand their absolutist position of how they interpret the personal act of voting by anyone anywhere - even among us here - as immoral and sinful. No case of conscience seems allowed here; voting in this day and age is itself essentially the sin of "compromise".
With zero consideration from older threads about the idea of voting in prayer and communication with national leaders preaching the Gospel in context of the issues of the day. None whatsoever.
One party will let us have freedom of worship, while the other polices speech "morally" and will - in a heartbeat - work to police it in our pulpits if they can get back in power.
If I lived in the OT days of the split kingdom, I would vote by moving my family from the northern kingdom and their golden calves to the southern kingdom because in the latter nation, I am free to worship the LORD God in spirit and truth (even if sullied by high places about), and in the North, I would be under the rule of a line of kings who wants to (and even does at one point) outlaw traveling to Jerusalem for God-ordained true worship.
Is that pragmatism on my part?
I fully understand those who do not vote and believe the system is broken and cannot be redeemed. I even believe you are right. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. But I will never understand their absolutist position of how they interpret the personal act of voting by anyone anywhere - even among us here - as immoral and sinful. No case of conscience seems allowed here; voting in this day and age is itself essentially the sin of "compromise".
Interesting discussion, it is sad our political system is so deeply corrupted. I am disgusted with our continued funding of the Zionist state (which has a higher standard of living than the US) and so many other issues. It seems there are relatively few politicians truly committed to eliminating this plague of infanticide.
However, as I have come to understand the Westminster view of Establishment, why do so few Christians show zero concern for government allowing proselytizing of religion which, if followed, guarantee one an eternity in torment? Of course the 6C must be upheld, but our lack of concern for both the Glory of God and the eternal wellbeing of man (first table issues) seems to me a shocking blind spot for most Christians.
Hopefully this is not viewed as too controversial of a first post! Long time lurker, I never joined until I felt well convinced in confessional truth. As you may discern, despite >20 years in the PCA, I found myself quickly move past the American confession & "crossed the ocean to Scotland" (rather than the "Tiber to Rome" ). When I first came to believe the Bible was truly the Word of God >30 years ago, I immediately recognized abortion was murder. The "soul murder" encouraged by religious tolerance was my final step in 100% acceptance of the 1647 Confession.
However, as I have come to understand the Westminster view of Establishment, why do so few Christians show zero concern for government allowing proselytizing of religion which, if followed, guarantee one an eternity in torment? Of course the 6C must be upheld, but our lack of concern for both the Glory of God and the eternal wellbeing of man (first table issues) seems to me a shocking blind spot for most Christians.
Hopefully this is not viewed as too controversial of a first post! Long time lurker, I never joined until I felt well convinced in confessional truth. As you may discern, despite >20 years in the PCA, I found myself quickly move past the American confession & "crossed the ocean to Scotland" (rather than the "Tiber to Rome" ). When I first came to believe the Bible was truly the Word of God >30 years ago, I immediately recognized abortion was murder. The "soul murder" encouraged by religious tolerance was my final step in 100% acceptance of the 1647 Confession.
Corey Powell
Puritan Board Freshman
Out of curiosity then, if you believe its possible to have a voting situation without a lesser evil, who in American history would you have been comfortable voting for? Bush? Regan? Washington?
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I don't think they were being deceptive on purpose - I agree the discussion has been both passionate and collegial. The numbers game is by nature deceptive because it is using made up numbers which either side can arbitrarily set to "prove" their position.
I still maintain the historic Covenanter position and their Biblical reasons for morally abandoning the legislative franchise in a nation in rebellion against God. So none of them.
...the historic Covenanter position on political dissent.
Here is a modern summary: https://www.logcollegepress.com/blog/2020/10/1/political-dissent-by-early-american-covenanters
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Even as a Particular Baptist, I very very much like this
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
I do too. But even as some disengage from the system for very good reasons does not mean it is a fact that any and all others who vote = pragmatic compromise.
No one ever answers that in these kinds of threads.
Historically here it always just been a dogmatic repetition of the reasons why Covenanters do not vote and acts as if no one can possibly have a Biblical reason to do so or actually vote-in-prayer-and gospel-ministry undermining the evil inherent within the system itself.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Off topic, why are the signatures not showing under everyone's profile in discussion boards like this one? I remember they used to.
Corey Powell
Puritan Board Freshman
I get the conviction behind the position - but if we are saying that Christians should not participate in political life for these reasons, and we convinced the majority of this - how would this not be de facto handing the country over to the godless, ushering in a state worse and more evil than the first? This position is one that only seems tenable to me when the majority don't hold it (like anti-vaxxers 
)
[automerge]1758217836[/automerge]
)[automerge]1758217836[/automerge]
are you on a mobile device? they dont show on mobile.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Really? I think it used to show for mobile as well, or maybe I'm remembering wrong
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Did you look at the link? Though it became known as the Covenanter position, it was once accepted much more widely. Note the first quote on the link - it is not an RP but a rather famous RB:
“John Ploughman says, Of two evils choose neither. Don't choose the least, but let all evils alone.” — Charles Spurgeon, The Salt-Cellars: Being a Collection of Proverbs, Together with Homely Notes Thereon (1889), p. 297
It is not saying that Christians should not participate in political life. The Covenanters were one of the most active (slavery) abolitionist factions in the U.S.
From a moral standpoint, is the state of the U.S. getting better or worse? If the latter, do you really think it is due to a tiny remnant of Covenanters in the U.S. (5000 at most?) dissenting from elections? Or could it be that constantly voting for the lesser of 2 evils is slowly causing the State to become a more and more evil one? Consider how moral sins once considered evil by the majority of Republicans are now viewed by the majority as acceptable - take, for example (Gallup and Pew polls), same sex "marriage":
Corey Powell
Puritan Board Freshman
This is the opposite of my point. As bad as things are, its a non-sequitur to assume that it would be better is all Christians instead abstained from voting. My point is, it would be worse than it is. Christians voting is not why our country is at this point.
Say the majority of evangelicals took your position. Very quickly, the majority of representatives in America would switch to being democrats instead of republicans. The likelihood that your lobbying for abolition will be affective with a R rep. may not be great, but with a D rep it is 0%.
If we all abstain from voting, there is no one who can or would change the laws to abolish abortion. That's how representation works, no? At least now some republicans are moving in that direction.
My critique is that your position is not scalable, it only works because there are only 5000 of you. And 5000 votes can make a difference between someone who could be persuaded and someone who enjoys murdering babies.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
You seem to be unaware that Spurgeon's quote does not address my point.
Is voting inherently a pragmatic compromise? No. Is voting for the lesser of two evils specifically a pragmatic compromise? Yes, by definition. Now, that says nothing of whether or not it is right (not all pragmatism is wrong, nor is all compromise) and that’s where the discussion is to occur.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I don't follow - how is it not scalable and yet able to influence an election?
We can't prove it would be worse (or better) - that's an unprovable speculation. All we are left with is looking to Scripture to guide and teach us. The Covenanters have demonstrated Biblical reasoning for when to depart, separate, and unyoke. What is the Biblical reasoning for a Christian voting for a non-Christian who is slightly less evil than another non-Christian in a secular humanist State that does not even mention God in its constituting documents?
Look at the graphs I posted - both parties are increasingly accepting same-sex "marriage" at the same rate. Is there really much difference between the 2 parties anymore?
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
I don't hold to the historical covenanter view on voting in a non confessional state such as ours, but I'll definitely stick up for the conscientious objectors here. Voting is ONE political right. It's an important one, but not the only one and definitely was not set up as even close to the most important one in the Constitution.
It was an absolute given that women and children also had 1st Amendment rights to speech, petition, religion, assembly, and press, along with non-property owning male voters. The Covenanters historically objected to voting or being office holders in the US, but they punched far, far above their weight by using all of the above rights and more.
By Wilcox and Copeland's estimate, virtually every RPCNA congregation was a station for the Underground Railroad, and post-Fugitive Slave Act, that was a time where the sheriff was entitled to enlist any person to assist in capturing fugitive slaves, at the penalty of a year in jail or $1,000.00, which at minimum was at least $42,000 on the low end.
My point is that they took the energy from not participating in ONE part of the political process and redirected it fruitfully in multiple other avenues, including publications, actual support to slaves, financing abolitionism, and so on. The same principle applies for abortion in a situation like this.
The franchise is important, arguably the most for statewide offices, President in some states, and essentially meaningless in most house and state legislative elections now, whether your district is painted blue or red. Primaries and caucuses can be different situations where more or less influence is possible.
Last edited:
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Well since one cannot vote except between two non-biblical evils then you are saying it is a pragmatic compromise by definition just like @Northern Crofter did.
However unlike him, you are saying that that may or may not be wrong or immoral or sinful which at least is more aware of other thought systems in the Church than just the RPCNA position when it comes to voting. I - of course - would still push back on your definition of pragmatic compromise when it comes to "voting-in-prayer-and-communication-with-the-party-on-Biblical-principles" vs. "voting the lesser of two evils".
One is a pragmatic compromise and one is using a secular enfranchisement as a Gospel tool. I actually recall talking with RPCNA folks on why I am voting and posted my long message to Trump's team that had the gospel and a call to Biblical principles that I posted on social media sites and sent by letter. I recall shaking my head in amazement at the irony of being told that I am just a guy and it's just one voice among hundreds or thousands he will actually ever hear (if mine is even seen by him at all!).
Very true, I had to admit, but now which one is being pragmatic? And why?
Last edited:
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
Murder is already codified. While taking down the high places is preferred, God also commended King Asa who at least got rid of the male cult prostitutes even though he did not remove the high places.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
