Voting in the USA and God's Law

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 4.9%
  • No

    Votes: 39 95.1%

  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Grant

Puritan Board Graduate
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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,—
 
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,—
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.)
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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?
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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 hisInstitutes 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
 
Last edited:
"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.

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.​
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Last edited:
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
Yes, I would say he provides a cultural- political course/response based on the One True foundation, not specifically a missional one
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
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
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top