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

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

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

I've voted and not voted, depending on the year and my conscience. I even voted for blue dog democrats, back when such a thing existed. A principled abstention is not the same as apathy. If my non-vote causes the least-evil party to lose, but retool its platform, maybe one step backward is worth three steps forward.
 
I found Ron Paul the most principled and constitutionally consistent in his don't let government and it's corporate influence be your god ... Too bad I found him too late, but he could never break through the uni-party system. Trump and his brand of populism is an interesting phenomenon... I don't see any state solution for what ails society but at least he's a bit of a break from the normal business of Washington. Steve Bannon makes some interesting points in his recent interview with Bill Maher....

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

How? His very thesis—as well as Bahnsen’s and North’s and all of Chalcedon’s—is that Reconstruction starts in the home, not in the government, and then works it way out into broader society. However, the family is first and most important in this “agenda.” How would running the home according to God’s Law be a “distraction”?
 
For the record, Bahnsen got a lot of recons angry because he voted for George HW Bush. And his son today is a militant Establishment republican for National review.
 
How? His very thesis—as well as Bahnsen’s and North’s and all of Chalcedon’s—is that Reconstruction starts in the home, not in the government, and then works it way out into broader society. However, the family is first and most important in this “agenda.” How would running the home according to God’s Law be a “distraction”?
I agree with what you say here. But that is not the objections pastors and theologians have of him. They would agree with what you say here as do I. However Machen was essentially libertarian (not libertine) so OPC pastors cringe at a guy like RJ as he conveys (at least this is the perception) a belief in the church transforming the government, while the church needs to guard against the world transforming the church, which is happening via our seminaries, liberal ideologies and global-political infiltrators/benefactors.... Its too late to put the genie back in the bottle I fear....
Short of another awakening the 'culture war' may be futile. The powers-that-be controls the schools, the media, the sciences, etc.... We have to keep the churches and the seminaries insulated and pure.... But we are failing in these areas as well
 
Last edited:
I know, I know. I'm missing the point of the post.
I am not accurately answering your post, but I wanted to say, that although I can't lay my hands on the quote at this time, a prominent Westminster Seminary theologian once stated that we could not get rid of reconstruction or theonomy until we revise the proof-texts of the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. You need to look there for support of the validity of the civil Law of Moses.

Ed, I think that you are referring to Meredith Kline's Westminster Theological Journal review article of Theonomy in Christian Ethics, which was entitled, "Comments on an Old-New Error." While I am not a Reconstructionist myself, appealing to Reformed history against theonomy creates more problems for theonomy's critics than it solves.
 
I'm not against Recon in theory and principle but with the amount of mainstream resistance it would be hard to navigate without taking our eye off the true prize.... Our public square has been hijacked, probably not as bad as the perception, but inroads and allies may come at too steep a price.... Who knows? I'm game for a counter culture Great Awakening of our time....
How? His very thesis—as well as Bahnsen’s and North’s and all of Chalcedon’s—is that Reconstruction starts in the home, not in the government, and then works it way out into broader society. However, the family is first and most important in this “agenda.” How would running the home according to God’s Law be a “distraction”?
 
Last edited:
Ed, I think that you are referring to Meredith Kline's Westminster Theological Journal review article of Theonomy in Christian Ethics, which was entitled, "Comments on an Old-New Error.

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

Thanks for the lead.
 
Ed, I think that you are referring to Meredith Kline's Westminster Theological Journal review article of Theonomy in Christian Ethics, which was entitled, "Comments on an Old-New Error."

I search high and low for the quote but could not find it. Now I am wondering if the quote was by someone responding to Kline's article.
Thanks for the lead.
 
I'm not against Recon in theory and principle but with the amount of mainstream resistance it would be hard to navigate without taking our eye off the true prize.... Our public square has been hijacked, probably not as bad as the perception, but inroads and allies may come at too steep a price.... Who knows? I'm game for a counter culture Great Awakening of our time....

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, we do not influence society through "taking our eyes off the prize," but through precisely keeping our eyes on it! I remember in a lecture I was listening to from Dr. Bahnsen, someone objected to Theonomic ethics and Reconstruction with the same line of argument presented here: it is impossible because secular society has overwhelmed us! Bahnsen replied thusly: "Exactly. Therefore, let Christians have more and more babies!" That was his answer. Again, it is not through revolution that these things take place, but through regeneration.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, which is why we need to continously snuff out Peter Enns types, PCA churches that sponsor Revoice, and social justice warriors in our midst.... What Reconstructionists propose are that we continue to let our light shine and take our values and worldview to every public sphere...including our vocation. That is not new or unique to this movement obviously.... That is Reformed 101.
Are you sure you are not simplifying what RJ taught.... ?
The few high profile examples leave me more concerned than inspired by mans ability to endure the heat rather than get incinerated

Texas ruling elder Andrew White obviously did not get the memo....And here's my concern. The pastors and denominations are dropping the ball on their end. How could RJ's vision bear fruit when churches and their members are comfortably going apostate? Where's the discipline?
https://christiannews.net/2018/02/0...r-texas-governor-says-he-supports-roe-v-wade/
At this point one may need to consider creating another thread... as the light of the original OP is growing strangely dim.
 
Are you sure you are not simplifying what RJ taught.... ?

I am speaking in general terms about Theonomy, not so much explicitly about what Rushdoony taught. I don't think anyone here denies that Rushdoony had issues confessionally. I am speaking more of the broader Theonomic thesis.
 
I search high and low for the quote but could not find it. Now I am wondering if the quote was by someone responding to Kline's article.
Thanks for the lead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you fear the Lord, you won't be a racist, period... If you are a racist, you don't fear the Lord. This isn't that hard....
What are your thoughts on the article (to anyone who has read it)?
 
Last edited:
If you fear the Lord, you won't be a racist, period... If you are a racist, you don't fear the Lord. This isn't that hard....

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

Moderation:

let's get back on track to the topic of voting and not have this thread devolve into a race discussion or social justice discussion. Open new threads for those.
 
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding."
Really? Is it that easy to figure out who the true Christians are?

Moderation:

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