Voting wrong?

[bradofshaw]

Some thoughts I've had while reading this thread:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lunch break over. Gotta go back to work.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Matthew Henry on 2 Sam. 23.3:

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

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

 

[Saiph]

Andrew,

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

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

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

 

[Saiph]

Here is the NET bible:

23:1 These are the final words of David:

"œThe oracle of David son of Jesse,

the oracle of the man raised up as

the ruler chosen by the God of Jacob,1

Israel´s beloved2 singer of songs:

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

his word was on my tongue.

23:3 The God of Israel spoke,

the protector3 of Israel spoke to me.

The one who rules fairly among men,

the one who rules in the fear of God,

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

a morning in which there are no clouds.

He is like the brightness after rain

that produces grass from the earth.

23:5 My dynasty is approved by God,4

for he has made a perpetual covenant with me,

arranged in all its particulars and secured.

He always delivers me,

and brings all I desire to fruition.5

23:6 But evil people are like thorns"”

all of them are tossed away,

for they cannot be held in the hand.

23:7 The one who touches them

must use an iron instrument

or the wooden butt of a spear.

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by bradofshaw
Some thoughts I've had while reading this thread:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lunch break over. Gotta go back to work.

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

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by 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]

Andrew,

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

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

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

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Andrew,

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

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

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

 

[Me Died Blue]

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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

Yes, they do. Article VI of the Constitution:

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

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

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

Free speech does not equal relevant speech, right?

 

[Me Died Blue]

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

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

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

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

 

[Saiph]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 10-21-2005 by Saiph]

 

[Dan....]

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

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Saiph

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 10-21-2005 by Saiph]

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

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

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

II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto;(b) in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth;(c) so for that end, they may lawfully now, under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.(d)

(b) Prov. 8:15, 16; Rom. 13:1, 2, 4.
(c) Ps. 2:10, 11, 12; I Tim. 2:2; Ps. 82:3, 4; II Sam. 23:3; I Pet. 2:13.
(d) Luke 3:14; Rom. 13:4; Matt. 8:9, 10; Acts 10:1, 2; Rev. 17:14, 16.

Matthew Poole:

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

Rev. Paul Michael Raymond, Theonomy: A Christ-centered World and Life View:

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

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

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

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


[Edited on 10-21-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Saiph]

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

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

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

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


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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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

 

[Saiph]

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Saiph
For the sake of the argument just what aspect is the unlawful oath ?

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

 

[Saiph]

I will read it.

 

[Saiph]

Interesting article.

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

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

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

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

 

[Dan....]

Originally posted by Saiph
Interesting article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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

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

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

Free speech does not equal relevant speech, right?

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

 

[Saiph]

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

I cannot speak for anyone else.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
OK. In light of that, under the view you expressed above in saying,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[satz]

Originally posted by Dan....

Originally posted by Saiph
Interesting article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Saiph]

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 10-22-2005 by Saiph]

 

[Arch2k]

Explicitly Christian Voting

 

[Henry from Canada]

Is it wrong for a Christian to vote?

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

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

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

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

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

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