How should Christians Vote?

[Calminian]

I would contend that many Christians are using the wrong criteria in choosing their candidate. We're not voting for a pastor or elder or even a Christian. We're electing someone to carry out God's purposes for government laid out in Romans 13 and elsewhere.

Will the candidate you're supporting minister to its citizens by punishing evil doers? Will your candidate be good at this? Or will he be passive and incompetent?

If you study the origins of government you find out, it pre-exists Abraham. It's a gentile institution for all peoples. There should be no faith litmus test at all.

For me, soteriological stances are the last place I'd look in making my choice. Jimmy Carter was a born-again Christian and was a disaster at carrying out God's purposes for government. And I don't know if Reagan was a Christian, but he was excellent at carrying out God's purposes. He ministered to the nation by showing strength.

Here's an article to support my thesis.

How Should Christians Vote? A Question Of Origins?

So far I'm a Trump supporter. He seems to meet every requirement I'm looking for. I could be wrong, but wanted to disclose my leanings.

But I think most Christians are looking at the wrong criteria. When you appoint a doctor, or lawyer, or mechanic do you check his theology? Do you check his marriage record? Or do you look at their competence? If you don't pick the most qualified, you're certainly not glorifying God, nor protecting your family. Same is true in appointing a governing authority. If you just fall into identity politics or pick the guy you think is most decent (like Max Lucado recommends), you're simply ignoring what God has said about the purposes of government. You're making it about your own criteria, rather than God's.

It has to be about policy. Policy expresses the candidate's purposes. Only then can we compare his purposes with God's purposes. Barack Obama is believed my many to be a "decent" man. Lucado has never criticized him. But does he have decent policies?

Just a challenge. Read the article linked above, if possible, before posting.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

I would contend that many Christians are using the wrong criteria in choosing their candidate. We're not voting for a pastor or elder or even a Christian. We're electing someone to carry out God's purposes for government laid out in Romans 13 and elsewhere.

We're electing the President of the United States, as it is spelled out by our Constitution.

Will the candidate you're supporting minister to its citizens by punishing evil doers?

How, exactly, is a president supposed to punish evil-doers? The president is part of neither the judicial nor the legislative branch.

 

[Soyeong]

I would contend that many Christians are using the wrong criteria in choosing their candidate. We're not voting for a pastor or elder or even a Christian. We're electing someone to carry out God's purposes for government laid out in Romans 13 and elsewhere.

Will the candidate you're supporting minister to its citizens by punishing evil doers? Will your candidate be good at this? Or will he be passive and incompetent?

If you study the origins of government you find out, it pre-exists Abraham. It's a gentile institution for all peoples. There should be no faith litmus test at all.

For me, soteriological stances are the last place I'd look in making my choice. Jimmy Carter was a born-again Christian and was a disaster at carrying out God's purposes for government. And I don't know if Reagan was a Christian, but he was excellent at carrying out God's purposes. He ministered to the nation by showing strength.

Here's an article to support my thesis.

How Should Christians Vote? A Question Of Origins?

So far I'm a Trump supporter. He seems to meet every requirement I'm looking for. I could be wrong, but wanted to disclose my leanings.

But I think most Christians are looking at the wrong criteria. When you appoint a doctor, or lawyer, or mechanic do you check his theology? Do you check his marriage record? Or do you look at their competence? If you don't pick the most qualified, you're certainly not glorifying God, nor protecting your family. Same is true in appointing a governing authority. If you just fall into identity politics or pick the guy you think is most decent (like Max Lucado recommends), you're simply ignoring what God has said about the purposes of government. You're making it about your own criteria, rather than God's.

It has to be about policy. Policy expresses the candidate's purposes. Only then can we compare his purposes with God's purposes. Barack Obama is believed my many to be a "decent" man. Lucado has never criticized him. But does he have decent policies?

Just a challenge. Read the article linked above, if possible, before posting.

I think Romans 13 is referring to the synagogue authorities rather than to secular authorities. At the time, the synagogue authorities had to the power to punish people by whipping them and setting other matters. It was these judges who were set up to carry out God's purposes. Whether Christians should seek to be under this form of government where there are religious authorities acting as God's agents is another issue, but there is a difference between that and electing a authorities for defined secular positions with the expectation that they will govern in a different capacity as as God's agents.

 

[Calminian]

We're electing the President of the United States, as it is spelled out by our Constitution.

How, exactly, is a president supposed to punish evil-doers? The president is part of neither the judicial nor the legislative branch.

Well he is the commander in chief. he does set significant foreign and domestic policy. and he does appoint justices. therefore I have to look at his policies and purposes and see if they line up with God's purposes.

And yes, I love the constitution. I think it lines up with God's purposes for government. I'll even go so far as to say it is God ordained, as God ordains all governing authorities. In a sense, you could say the constitution is America's emperor along with 'We The People.'

 

[Calminian]

I think Romans 13 is referring to the synagogue authorities rather than to secular authorities. At the time, the synagogue authorities had to the power to punish people by whipping them and setting other matters. It was these judges who were set up to carry out God's purposes. Whether Christians should seek to be under this form of government where there are religious authorities acting as God's agents is another issue, but there is a difference between that and electing a authorities for secular positions with the expectation that they will govern as God's agents.

If you read Romans 13 you'll notice Paul is addressing the Church and the nations they live in. The church is not in subjection to the laws of the synagog, nor is it to reside inside synagogs. The church is to spread and live within the nations and subject itself to their rule and order. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

I'll even go so far as to say it is God ordained, as God ordains all governing authorities.

Anybody who actually believes that hasn't been paying attention to history.

In a sense, you could say the constitution is America's emperor along with 'We The People.'

The US has no use for an emperor (Norton notwithstanding).

 

[Soyeong]

If you read Roman's 13 you'll notice Paul is addressing the Church and the nations they live in. The church is not in subjection to the laws of the synagog, nor is it to reside inside synagogs. The church is to spread and live within the nations and subject itself to their rule and order. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

At the time when Romans was written, the Church was under synagogue authority and met in synagogues (Acts 15:21). In the surrounding chapters, Paul was addressing how they should live as a community of believers, and Romans 13 is no different. Whether this is the type of government that Christians should seek to be under is again another issue, but you should not expect a secular government to act as a religious authority.

 

[Calminian]

Anybody who actually believes that hasn't been paying attention to history.

The US has no use for an emperor (Norton notwithstanding).

You're argument is with Paul, not me. I believe Paul. And all countries have an ultimate governing authority. If it cease to be 'We The People' it will become someone else. Without an ultimate authority, you have chaos, and that will not work with God's design.

 

[Calminian]

At the time when Romans was written, the Church was under synagogue authority and met in synagogues (Acts 15:21). In the surrounding chapters, Paul was addressing how they should live as a community of believers, and Romans 13 is no different.

No, this is simply not true. Paul was under Roman authority, and he respected it and appealed to it when he needed to. He only went to the synagogs to persuade them about Christ.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

You're argument is with Paul, not me. I believe Paul.

Nah, you're the one who put the argument out there. You don't get to shift that off to somebody else. But fine... you believe Paul. I do not believe Paul, at least not that particular interpretation of that particular point.

And all countries have an ultimate governing authority. If it cease to be 'We The People' it will become someone else. Without an ultimate authority, you have chaos, and that will not work with God's design.

Dunno what any of that has to do with anything I said.

 

[Calminian]

I do not believe Paul,.....

My argument is a biblical one, based on the inerrancy of Scripture, and of Paul as a Scripture writer. If you disagree with Scripture my argument won't carry much weight with you. It's a given premise of the argument. If that premise is false, the argument fails.

 

[Thunder Peel]

I once heard a pastor say that we should read through the Bible and write down what's important to God, then look at each candidate and see which one best lines up with those attributes. I think that's wise advice and a decision that should be made with prayer and conviction.

I think their faith is certainly important but we should also look at who will be the best leader and also the most honest. We've had too many candidates who claimed to be Christians and yet served poorly. Stating they're followers of Christ isn't enough: their record and their actions have to actually show it. I want someone who will be a great president and uphold the Constitution. If they happen to be a Christian then that's just icing on the cake.

 

[Soyeong]

No, this is simply not true. Paul was under Roman authority, and he respected it and appealed to it when he needed to. He only went to the synagogs to persuade them about Christ.

Christianity was originally seen as a sect of Judaism with non-believing Jews complaining that it was impossible to tell them apart. Paul was certainly under Roman authority, but he was also under synagogue authority when he submitted to being punished by them. In Acts 15:21, it has the expectation that they would continue to meet in the synagogues every Sabbath to learn about Moses. While Paul certainly intended to persuade them about about Christ while he was there, he went because that is what God has commanded His people to do.

 

[Calminian]

I once heard a pastor say that we should read through the Bible and write down what's important to God, then look at each candidate and see which one best lines up with those attributes. I think that's wise advice and a decision that should be made with prayer and conviction.

That's well said. Sounds like a smart man.

 

[Calminian]

Christianity was originally seen as a sect of Judaism with non-believing Jews complaining that it was impossible to tell them apart. Paul was certainly under Roman authority, but he was also under synagogue authority when he submitted to being punished by them. In Acts 15:21, it has the expectation that they would continue to meet in the synagogues every Sabbath to learn about Moses. While Paul certainly intended to persuade them about about Christ while he was there, he went because that is what God has commanded His people to do.

Wow, this is so wrong. Paul defied synagog authority and scolded Peter for not rejecting it. This is basic Christianity. What denomination do you belong to? Most messianic Jews also completely reject what you're saying.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

My argument is a biblical one, based on the inerrancy of Scripture, and of Paul as a Scripture writer. If you disagree with Scripture my argument won't carry much weight with you. It's a given premise of the argument. If that premise is false, the argument fails.

Just looking around, you can see that the argument fails--the Third Reich, Khmer Rouge, Communist China, North Vietnam. No, God didn't ordain those governments.

 

[Calminian]

Just looking around, you can see that the argument fails--the Third Reich, Khmer Rouge, Communist China, North Vietnam. No, God didn't ordain those governments.

Yes, but don't mistake the phrase "ordained the purpose" for "caused the actions." the Nazi government did not carry out its ordained purpose. It violated its ordained purpose. Same with your other examples.

Israel, who had much more specific purposes, also, at times, violated their ordained purpose and paid the price.

And if we as voters make the wrong choice, we also can violate God's ordained purposes.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Yes, but don't mistake the phrase "ordained the purpose" for "caused the actions." the Nazi government did not carry out its ordained purpose. It violated its ordained purpose. Same with your other examples..

And what, oh what, was the ordained purpose of the Nazi govenment? Is God a buffoon who doesn't think that Nazis will be Nazis?

 

[Soyeong]

Wow, this is so wrong. Paul defied synagog authority and scolded Peter for not rejecting it. This is basic Christianity. What denomination do you belong to? Most messianic Jews also completely reject what you're saying.

The synagogue authority was a local authority over a place of meeting who had the power to disciple the people who met there. This is different from being under the authority of a particular group of Jews who were wanting people to follow their traditions in order to be saved, and it is this authority that Paul called Peter out for not rejecting. The Jerusalem Council was another authority which Paul accepted. While not everyone agrees with whether Romans 13 refers to a religious and secular authority, I have seen no survey to speak of the opinion of most Messianic Jews on this matter.

I attend Kehilat Sar Shalom: http://rabbiyeshua.com/

 

[farout]

I would contend that many Christians are using the wrong criteria in choosing their candidate. We're not voting for a pastor or elder or even a Christian. We're electing someone to carry out God's purposes for government laid out in Romans 13 and elsewhere.

Will the candidate you're supporting minister to its citizens by punishing evil doers? Will your candidate be good at this? Or will he be passive and incompetent?

If you study the origins of government you find out, it pre-exists Abraham. It's a gentile institution for all peoples. There should be no faith litmus test at all.

For me, soteriological stances are the last place I'd look in making my choice. Jimmy Carter was a born-again Christian and was a disaster at carrying out God's purposes for government. And I don't know if Reagan was a Christian, but he was excellent at carrying out God's purposes. He ministered to the nation by showing strength.

Here's an article to support my thesis.

How Should Christians Vote? A Question Of Origins?

So far I'm a Trump supporter. He seems to meet every requirement I'm looking for. I could be wrong, but wanted to disclose my leanings.

But I think most Christians are looking at the wrong criteria. When you appoint a doctor, or lawyer, or mechanic do you check his theology? Do you check his marriage record? Or do you look at their competence? If you don't pick the most qualified, you're certainly not glorifying God, nor protecting your family. Same is true in appointing a governing authority. If you just fall into identity politics or pick the guy you think is most decent (like Max Lucado recommends), you're simply ignoring what God has said about the purposes of government. You're making it about your own criteria, rather than God's.

It has to be about policy. Policy expresses the candidate's purposes. Only then can we compare his purposes with God's purposes. Barack Obama is believed my many to be a "decent" man. Lucado has never criticized him. But does he have decent policies?

Just a challenge. Read the article linked above, if possible, before posting.

Reagan was a Lone Ranger Christian. He did not attend church, did not give to a church, he accepted instructions from his wife who consulted an astrologer. Yep he carried out Gods purposes. But God will have His purposes attended to by whom ever He so desires. Even Jimmy Carter carried out gods purposes. President Obama God has allowed to him to give the people just what they are asking for and want. That being said expect calamity to increase more and more. Yes God has permitted our Highest Court to make killing babies legal. God has permitted the Highest Court to say homosexuality unions to be called equal to a man and a woman union called marriage. God has said marriage is only between a man and a woman. But our Highest Court has stated the Laws of God will not rule our country.

I believe God has removed His protection and blessings from our country. Look for calamity to increase.