Voting wrong?

[Anton Bruckner]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura


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

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

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

[Edited on 10-17-2005 by Slippery]

 

[Peter]

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

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

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

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

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by Peter

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

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

[/quote]

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

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

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

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



[Edited on 10-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]

 

[Peter]

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

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

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by Peter

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

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

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

[Edited on 10-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]

 

[Peter]

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



[Edited on 10-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]

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

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by Peter

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



[Edited on 10-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]

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

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



[Edited on 10-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]

 

[Peter]

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

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

 

[SolaScriptura]

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

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

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

[Edited on 10-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Keep it clean gentleman or I will close this thread.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Scott, I'm done on this thread.

[Edited on 10-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]

 

[Richard King]

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

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

 

[gwine]

Peter said, and I quote:

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

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

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

(©2001 Blackheart Records)

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

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by gwine
Peter said, and I quote:

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

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

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

(©2001 Blackheart Records)

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

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

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

Gerry,

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

 

[Saiph]

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

 

[gwine]

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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

 

[Saiph]

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

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

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Saiph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Saiph]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Average Joey]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Saiph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Saiph]

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

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Saiph

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

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

And evil is still evil.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Saiph

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

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

And evil is still evil.

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

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Saiph]

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Saiph

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

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

And evil is still evil.

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

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

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


[Edited on 10-21-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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

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

[Edited on 10-21-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Saiph]

God's word requires just men ruling governments ? ?


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


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