Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

HOW SHOULD WE VOTE?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Perhaps this short article could help start a discussion of just how we, as good Christians, should vote.

 

HOW SHOULD WE VOTE?

By Jake MacAulay
March 16, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

What should we do now that the elections are approaching? How should we act? What should we know? What should we ask? What are we looking for? And finally, knowing what we know (and don’t know), how should we then vote?

Whether we’re talking about Dog Catcher, city or County Council, State House, or our national government, it seems to me that, just like the Marines, we are looking for a “few good men.”

Let’s start with the word “good.” Although the people that wrote the commercial for the U.S. Marines probably don’t know it, the word “good” derives from the word “God.” To be good is to be Godly. A good man is one who appreciates and rehearses the attributes and the characteristics of God.

And so, if our man is someone who understands his oath of office, then he fears God and believes that there is an eternal system of rewards and punishments that applies to him personally.

This is precisely what an oath is all about.

And I think we can assume that if he does not see himself accountable to God for the truthfulness of his oath, then there is little hope that he will feel himself accountable to you or me once he is elected.

But he needs to show us more than just fear of The Eternal. He also must demonstrate that he understands the Biblical limitations of civil government as well as the limitations placed on him by the State Constitution and the Constitution of these United States. Unhappily, few, if any, of the candidates who come to you asking for your vote and your money, have even taken the time to read either of the documents that they are promising you, before Almighty God, that they will uphold.

Moreover, our candidate must not only show us that he knows what is required of him, but he must also demonstrate that he will act on that which he knows. It won’t do us any good electing someone who knows what to do but won’t do it, whether out of fear of men or desire to be re-elected, or whatever. This would be a vain thing, indeed.

To summarize, my precious vote can only be spent on a candidate that:

*Acknowledges and fears God
*Demonstrates that he has an American view of law and government
*Demonstrates that he will take actions that are driven by and in harmony with God’s law and the limitations of the Constitution

I firmly believe that if I cast my vote for someone who doesn’t meet these requirements, then I will stand before God and be judged for my failure to obey Him. To vote for someone who does not meet these criteria is to do a vain thing before God and men. The chaos and incompetence and corruption of our civil government in all three branches is a result of our failure to choose wisely. When we choose “the lesser of two evils” we continually get evil and we certainly deserve it. After all, we chose it, didn’t we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
13 minutes ago, John81 said:

Perhaps this short article could help start a discussion of just how we, as good Christians, should vote.

 

HOW SHOULD WE VOTE?

By Jake MacAulay
March 16, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

What should we do now that the elections are approaching? How should we act? What should we know? What should we ask? What are we looking for? And finally, knowing what we know (and don’t know), how should we then vote?

Whether we’re talking about Dog Catcher, city or County Council, State House, or our national government, it seems to me that, just like the Marines, we are looking for a “few good men.”

Let’s start with the word “good.” Although the people that wrote the commercial for the U.S. Marines probably don’t know it, the word “good” derives from the word “God.” To be good is to be Godly. A good man is one who appreciates and rehearses the attributes and the characteristics of God.

And so, if our man is someone who understands his oath of office, then he fears God and believes that there is an eternal system of rewards and punishments that applies to him personally.

This is precisely what an oath is all about.

And I think we can assume that if he does not see himself accountable to God for the truthfulness of his oath, then there is little hope that he will feel himself accountable to you or me once he is elected.

But he needs to show us more than just fear of The Eternal. He also must demonstrate that he understands the Biblical limitations of civil government as well as the limitations placed on him by the State Constitution and the Constitution of these United States. Unhappily, few, if any, of the candidates who come to you asking for your vote and your money, have even taken the time to read either of the documents that they are promising you, before Almighty God, that they will uphold.

Moreover, our candidate must not only show us that he knows what is required of him, but he must also demonstrate that he will act on that which he knows. It won’t do us any good electing someone who knows what to do but won’t do it, whether out of fear of men or desire to be re-elected, or whatever. This would be a vain thing, indeed.

To summarize, my precious vote can only be spent on a candidate that:

*Acknowledges and fears God
*Demonstrates that he has an American view of law and government
*Demonstrates that he will take actions that are driven by and in harmony with God’s law and the limitations of the Constitution

I firmly believe that if I cast my vote for someone who doesn’t meet these requirements, then I will stand before God and be judged for my failure to obey Him. To vote for someone who does not meet these criteria is to do a vain thing before God and men. The chaos and incompetence and corruption of our civil government in all three branches is a result of our failure to choose wisely. When we choose “the lesser of two evils” we continually get evil and we certainly deserve it. After all, we chose it, didn’t we?

I'm not convinced that we should vote at all, can you imagine the Apostles queuing up to vote?

Can anyone find some indication in the New Testament that Christians should vote?

1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1Ti 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 minutes ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

I'm not convinced that we should vote at all, can you imagine the Apostles queuing up to vote?

Can anyone find some indication in the New Testament that Christians should vote?

1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1Ti 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Good points to consider. Would the Apostles have voted if Rome decided to grant such a thing? Why or why not?

Are we (American Christians) living our lives as the Apostles were, devoting virtually all of our time to prayer, study of the Word, spreading the Gospel and preaching?

In a country which votes for leaders, should Christians not only pray for and obey those in authority but also engage in the selection of leaders through voting?

Along with asking if the NT might indicate if Christians should vote, shouldn't we also ask if anything in the NT might indicate we shouldn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Rosie said:

if us Christians don't vote then that means more votes for the one we don't want OR SURE

Maybe. I can remember many Christians flocking to "Southern Baptist" Bill Clinton back in '92.

That said, I get your point. At least as far as more traditional, conservative or fundamentalist Christians goes, it's likely their votes would go towards a more acceptable (in our eyes) candidate than what some others may vote for.

Even so, unless we count all so-called "evangelical Christians", our numbers are too few to sway most national elections.

Where our votes could have the most power, in some primaries, local and even some State elections, we (Christians) don't come together behind a candidate or we don't even vote in those elections.

Over the last three election cycles, including this one, there have been several professing Christians running for president. Whether it's voters fault, Christian "leaders" fault, or the candidates fault (or likely a combination), none of them received strong, committed backing in the primaries from Christians. The result was Left-leaning McCain in '08, Left-leaning Romney in '12, and looking ever more likely a 'who knows for sure where he stands' Trump in '16.

Myself, I vote in primaries, local and State elections and "off year" elections as well as the presidential elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Christians vote for the only or best Christian running or stay home.  It is evil to support a child of the devil with your vote.  Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter claim to be Christians but their walk has produced no Godly fruit.  A Communist cannot be a Christian.

The doctrine of separation still applies when it comes to Christians and their local governments.  We are not to vote for heathens and people of low moral character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That would mean Christians couldn't have voted for Thomas Jefferson, a Christ denier, or Dwight D. Eisenhower who was a JW prior to election and then joined the Presbyterian Church after becoming president. Both of these are held up by Christians as good or great presidents.

In '08 we couldn't vote for McCain, a fake Christian, and we couldn't have voted for Romney in '12 because he was a Mormon. In '88 we couldn't vote for Bush the First who admitted he couldn't even do a good job of pretending to be a Christian.

When we look behind the curtain at most professing Christian candidates we find them lacking so maybe we should refrain from national elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We had an attempt to have a Christian parliament in the mid1640s til 1650s.  We had a number, dominated by Presbyterians, Puritans, 5th  Monarchists, Presbyterians again. Most hoping to promote godliness.  All failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, John81 said:

That would mean Christians couldn't have voted for Thomas Jefferson, a Christ denier, or Dwight D. Eisenhower who was a JW prior to election and then joined the Presbyterian Church after becoming president. Both of these are held up by Christians as good or great presidents.

In '08 we couldn't vote for McCain, a fake Christian, and we couldn't have voted for Romney in '12 because he was a Mormon. In '88 we couldn't vote for Bush the First who admitted he couldn't even do a good job of pretending to be a Christian.

When we look behind the curtain at most professing Christian candidates we find them lacking so maybe we should refrain from national elections.

Jefferson was not a Christ denier in the context that even though he was not saved the bible's way, he did acknowledge God and Jesus Christ and knew the scriptures better than most of us.

Now, on to your assertion that we should not have voted for these men, that's right!  IF they do not have a biblical testimony of salvation, a christian should not vote for them.  To vote for them is to disregard the biblical doctrine of separation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, swathdiver said:

Jefferson was not a Christ denier in the context that even though he was not saved the bible's way, he did acknowledge God and Jesus Christ and knew the scriptures better than most of us.

Now, on to your assertion that we should not have voted for these men, that's right!  IF they do not have a biblical testimony of salvation, a christian should not vote for them.  To vote for them is to disregard the biblical doctrine of separation.  

Jefferson didn't believe Jesus was the Christ, he didn't believe Jesus was the son of God, he didn't believe in the God of the Bible, he believed every miracle recorded in the Bible was made up. What Jefferson did like about the Bible was some of the principles he believed would work well for an ordered society.

Considering most candidates profess to be Christian, some even giving conversion testimonies, how do we determine whether they are worthy of our vote? You said above, "Christians vote for the only or best Christian running or stay home". How do we determine whether to vote or stay home?

As you probably recall, many on this forum have asserted during other election cycles that a candidates religion isn't important, only that they say they will follow the Constitution. Some have said they would rather vote for an atheist who would abide by the Constitution than vote for a Christian who wouldn't. How do we factor that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

All this may not matter anyways... EVERYONE is talking about this video today... the GOP has basically said that the individual's vote doesn't "count" in the primary elections... only the delegate vote counts. While I DO understand the delegate vote... aren't they (each individual delegate) bound to give representation of vote according to what the MAJORITY of the popular vote is per their region (no matter what the individual delegate vote representative's own personal opinion is)??? Apparently, the GOP doesn't think so. According to this man, He doesn't know why they even HAVE a primary vote for the population!?!?!? 

No matter which republican candidate ends up with the most popular (citizens) vote... it seems as though the GOP is saying "too bad" and/or sending the message that they couldn't care less what the popular vote was in the primary!   

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choose-the-nominee-not-the-voters-senior-gop-official.html

 

A phrase that keeps coming to mind of late is "subverting the will of mankind"... Just about EVERY news article I run across, be it here in the US or anywhere in the world... it all really comes down to that... "subverting the will of mankind". That's the devil's forte.  God gave mankind FREE WILL. Once this world gets so squashed under mankind's own elite's who (around the globe) are working feverishly to subvert the will of mankind... there will come a point when God has had enough. The wrath of God is going to fall upon this evil and unbelieving world after the rapture (in my belief) and I also believe it will be SOON! One big reason is that there no longer are any nations where subverting the will of mankind is NOT the government's main objective. When the antichrist's global government (10 horns) comes together that will also be his main objective, and we know he will be successful at that for a short space of time (using total control, the mark of the beast, and other means of subverting mankind's will). Doesn't any one else see this entire world (including this once great nation) clearly trending towards and escalating towards that evil goal?  "The subverting of the will of mankind"... Think about that phrase the next news piece or article you read or watch, and see if that doesn't apply. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

On the first ballot count of delegates at the convention the delegates are required to vote for their declared candidate. If a second vote is required only a percentage of delegates must vote for their declared candidate, less on a third vote and I think if votes are required after that delegates can vote for whoever they want to.

If the delegate vote goes beyond the first ballot, that's when backroom deals and political gamesmanship really kicks in as delegates face those working for different candidates, or even an outsider, using the carrot and stick to try and get them to switch their vote or maintain their vote.

In the end, it's the delegates votes and the electoral system that actually decides the next president, not popular vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 hours ago, swathdiver said:

Jefferson was not a Christ denier in the context that even though he was not saved the bible's way, he did acknowledge God and Jesus Christ and knew the scriptures better than most of us.

Now, on to your assertion that we should not have voted for these men, that's right!  IF they do not have a biblical testimony of salvation, a christian should not vote for them.  To vote for them is to disregard the biblical doctrine of separation.  

Jefferson as far as I know never denied 'christ', but he did deny the 'Christ of the Bible', as in the so called Jefferson Bible had many parts cut out, mostly the parts concerning miracles. He believed 'reason' should be above faith. And so in essence was a 'Luciferian' or a Sadducee (no faith).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...