American Revolution: Biblical or Not?

[rancher824]

OK, we have been given "clear" scripture. You cannot argue with scripture, I do not believe any of us would argue that point. But are the clear scriptures as clear as they are made seem?? Let's look at them a bit closer starting with James.

Jas 4:1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
Jas 4:2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot OBtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
Jas 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

Wars come from lust, ok I have no prOBlem with that. But which side is lusting??? For instance a man joins your church and after some time becomes a teacher. After some time he has taught a false doctrine to his pupils enough that they are following him rather than scripture and you (speaking as to a pastor). You have no idea that this is going on until one day it is brought to your attention. Now you can see approx. 1/2 of the congregation stands by scripture, and the other 1/2 stands by the false teacher. Do you stand and proclaim the truth and "fight" for the truth. You realize to proclaim the truth boldly you, in reality, will begin a war within the church. Now tell me which side would be lusting for this war to take place?? You as the one "starting" it, or him by trying to lead others away?? Or, since all wars are caused by lust, maybe both you and he are guilty of lust!!! The fact is one side may be guilty and the other innocent.
Putting this back to the colonists. From my understanding they were to have representation within the British Govt. But they were never given it. The crown was lusting for power. When they complained that they were not being given what was theirs by law (representation) they were answered by higher taxation. The crown lusted for power and money!!! They finally declared that if they were not going to be given what the law required, that they were going to break free and be independent. So we can see that the scripture is correct as always that there was much lust at the root of the war.

1Pe 2:11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
1Pe 2:12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
1Pe 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
1Pe 2:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
1Pe 2:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
1Pe 2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Rom 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Rom 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Let's look at these. One thing I notice in these "clear" verses is that they nowhere say the "king" "power" ect that you are under. They simply say powers. Why do I bring this up? I am going back to my point about soldiers. If a man becomes a soldier he is facing the fact that he might have to go to war. If he does who will he be fighting? Would it not be one of the powers that God says if you resist you are resisting Him, and will bring damnation upon yourself?? Now to take it a step farther we can look at the draft. Is it Godly to accept the draft. If a man does not accept, he is breaking the law. But if he accepts he is more than likely going to be fighting against a power God has set up and says not to resist. I can see that as long as he is fighting on the shores of his own country it would be completely defense and would be following the law of the land. But the very second his foot hit enemy territory he would be breaking the law of the land!!!! These verses are clear we are not to resist the powers God has placed. Now as I look at this I wonder does God establish his will through sin??? There is no power but of God. When the colonists "sinned" by rebelling did God set up a new power by sin?? I realize in to OT he did such, but this is the NT. During the war were the people in the colonies to OBey the Crown, or the Colonial Govt??? When and why did this change?? Should we still be serving the Crown today???

Now if we put these verses only on a personal level we have less prOBlems. An individual is not to try for anarchy. He is not to break the laws or go against the powers on his own. Whether this be his govt or the govt of a land he is visiting. But as is the case with the colonists, a man can stand with a new govt. A new govt can begin with a group of men fighting for their rights, then after trying all they can, form a new govt. The colonists did not break God's law. Yes, I admit for some of this we must go back to our schoolmaster (OT) to see. A soldier can kill a man that if it was ot for the war he would be guilty of murder. Why, he would be acting on his own outside of war. But as a soldier he is working for the powers that be of God!!

[Wilchbla]

The Bible is very clear, war is not the answer, and it clearly tells us why war comes about, and its quite easy to understand why war does come about, lust for what others have, its very clear why we do not have, we do not ask and or we ask amiss.


Jas 4:1 ¶ From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?Jas 4:2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot OBtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
Jas 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

Yes, the verses are so clear, and easy understood, yet few will accept them for what they say, instead support war along with those who proclaim war as great people.

No, the bible is not clear never to go to war. In fact it says there are times to go to war and that the Lord himself is a "man of war". The bible claims wars come from our lusts but even than there may be exceptions. So, if a government calls you to war than you should support it all you can and go to war if called. At least, if we are to OBey your logic concerning Romans 13.

[Wilchbla]

She's right John, you can't say the Civil War is irrelevant here and then refer to these other wars and situations.

You're dodging.

Civil War - right or wrong, biblical or unbiblical?

Seems he's still dodging.

[Annie]

Of course if you are going to ignore Romans 13 and believe it's okay to rebel from being under your governments authority because you want to and then claim it's okay because you declare an alternate new government.

Of course, one can't legally form that new government and declare independence without first being in rebellion against the government God has placed them under.

Imagine if we made other verses so elastic!

No elasticity here, John. Romans 13 says for Christians to be subject to the laws of government. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for the powers that be are ordained of God." As long as a Christian is submitting to the government under which he has aligned himself (which, depending on the situation, could give that Christian a variety of options), then he is not in violation of Romans 13. How can you say that he is?

Maybe a better way to put it is this: Annie Field must submit to "the higher powers." If Annie chooses to separate herself from the land of her birth (USA) and become a Canadian citizen, then, to continue in OBedience to Scripture, she must OBey the laws of her chosen citizenship as a Canadian. She is no longer responsible to submit to the laws or pay the taxes imposed by the U.S. government upon its citizens. She is now independent from that government. Her actions have not violated Romans 13, because at no time has she been out from under accountability to a higher power.

However, if Annie were to continue to live in the United States as a citizen, enjoying the privileges and protection which the U.S. government offers, and covertly gathered support for an uprising intended to take over the government, kill the president, and do whatever else was necessary to overthrow the "powers that be," she would be in violation of Romans 13. The violation would occur because Annie is not in subjection to any higher power, but rather is a "law unto herself."

Now, changing out the names....The colonists must submit to "the higher powers." If the colonists choose to separate themselves from the land of their birth (Britain) and become American citizens, then, to continue in OBedience to Scripture, they must OBey the laws of their chosen citizenship as Americans. They are no longer responsible to submit to the laws or pay the taxes imposed by the British government upon its citizens. They are now independent from that government. Their actions have not violated Romans 13, because at no time have they been out from under accountability to a higher power.

However, if the colonists were to continue to live as British subjects, enjoying the privileges and protection which the British government offers, and covertly gathered support for an uprising intended to take over the government, kill the king, and do whatever else was necessary to overthrow the "powers that be," they would be in violation of Romans 13. The violation would occur because the colonists are not in subjection to any higher power, but rather are "a law unto themselves."

The Continental Congress, according to Romans 13, was a higher power established by God, as much as the British throne was established by God. Choosing which government to follow is not condemned by Romans 13. Romans 13 does not even address this issue (establishing new governments, changing citizenship, etc.); it merely tells Christians to submit to the laws of government, i.e., not to be lawless. There is a lot of latitude there. You add restrictions that aren't in the passage, John, when you say that secession is forbidden. There's a difference between rebelling (French Revolution) and separating (War for Independence, War Between the States).

[JerryNumbers]

The Continental Congress was a government formed because man rebelled against the government they were under. Your very good at trying to explain it away.

[Brother Rick]

"This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends....."

Edited October 28, 2010 by Rick Schworer

[heartstrings]

OK, we have been given "clear" scripture. You cannot argue with scripture, I do not believe any of us would argue that point. But are the clear scriptures as clear as they are made seem?? Let's look at them a bit closer starting with James.



Wars come from lust, ok I have no prOBlem with that. But which side is lusting??? For instance a man joins your church and after some time becomes a teacher. After some time he has taught a false doctrine to his pupils enough that they are following him rather than scripture and you (speaking as to a pastor). You have no idea that this is going on until one day it is brought to your attention. Now you can see approx. 1/2 of the congregation stands by scripture, and the other 1/2 stands by the false teacher. Do you stand and proclaim the truth and "fight" for the truth. You realize to proclaim the truth boldly you, in reality, will begin a war within the church. Now tell me which side would be lusting for this war to take place?? You as the one "starting" it, or him by trying to lead others away?? Or, since all wars are caused by lust, maybe both you and he are guilty of lust!!! The fact is one side may be guilty and the other innocent.
Putting this back to the colonists. From my understanding they were to have representation within the British Govt. But they were never given it. The crown was lusting for power. When they complained that they were not being given what was theirs by law (representation) they were answered by higher taxation. The crown lusted for power and money!!! They finally declared that if they were not going to be given what the law required, that they were going to break free and be independent. So we can see that the scripture is correct as always that there was much lust at the root of the war.





Let's look at these. One thing I notice in these "clear" verses is that they nowhere say the "king" "power" ect that you are under. They simply say powers. Why do I bring this up? I am going back to my point about soldiers. If a man becomes a soldier he is facing the fact that he might have to go to war. If he does who will he be fighting? Would it not be one of the powers that God says if you resist you are resisting Him, and will bring damnation upon yourself?? Now to take it a step farther we can look at the draft. Is it Godly to accept the draft. If a man does not accept, he is breaking the law. But if he accepts he is more than likely going to be fighting against a power God has set up and says not to resist. I can see that as long as he is fighting on the shores of his own country it would be completely defense and would be following the law of the land. But the very second his foot hit enemy territory he would be breaking the law of the land!!!! These verses are clear we are not to resist the powers God has placed. Now as I look at this I wonder does God establish his will through sin??? There is no power but of God. When the colonists "sinned" by rebelling did God set up a new power by sin?? I realize in to OT he did such, but this is the NT. During the war were the people in the colonies to OBey the Crown, or the Colonial Govt??? When and why did this change?? Should we still be serving the Crown today???

Now if we put these verses only on a personal level we have less prOBlems. An individual is not to try for anarchy. He is not to break the laws or go against the powers on his own. Whether this be his govt or the govt of a land he is visiting. But as is the case with the colonists, a man can stand with a new govt. A new govt can begin with a group of men fighting for their rights, then after trying all they can, form a new govt. The colonists did not break God's law. Yes, I admit for some of this we must go back to our schoolmaster (OT) to see. A soldier can kill a man that if it was ot for the war he would be guilty of murder. Why, he would be acting on his own outside of war. But as a soldier he is working for the powers that be of God!!

Good Post!

[JerryNumbers]

OK, we have been given "clear" scripture. You cannot argue with scripture, I do not believe any of us would argue that point. But are the clear scriptures as clear as they are made seem?? Let's look at them a bit closer starting with James.



Wars come from lust, ok I have no prOBlem with that. But which side is lusting??? For instance a man joins your church and after some time becomes a teacher. After some time he has taught a false doctrine to his pupils enough that they are following him rather than scripture and you (speaking as to a pastor). You have no idea that this is going on until one day it is brought to your attention. Now you can see approx. 1/2 of the congregation stands by scripture, and the other 1/2 stands by the false teacher. Do you stand and proclaim the truth and "fight" for the truth. You realize to proclaim the truth boldly you, in reality, will begin a war within the church. Now tell me which side would be lusting for this war to take place?? You as the one "starting" it, or him by trying to lead others away?? Or, since all wars are caused by lust, maybe both you and he are guilty of lust!!! The fact is one side may be guilty and the other innocent.
Putting this back to the colonists. From my understanding they were to have representation within the British Govt. But they were never given it. The crown was lusting for power. When they complained that they were not being given what was theirs by law (representation) they were answered by higher taxation. The crown lusted for power and money!!! They finally declared that if they were not going to be given what the law required, that they were going to break free and be independent. So we can see that the scripture is correct as always that there was much lust at the root of the war.





Let's look at these. One thing I notice in these "clear" verses is that they nowhere say the "king" "power" ect that you are under. They simply say powers. Why do I bring this up? I am going back to my point about soldiers. If a man becomes a soldier he is facing the fact that he might have to go to war. If he does who will he be fighting? Would it not be one of the powers that God says if you resist you are resisting Him, and will bring damnation upon yourself?? Now to take it a step farther we can look at the draft. Is it Godly to accept the draft. If a man does not accept, he is breaking the law. But if he accepts he is more than likely going to be fighting against a power God has set up and says not to resist. I can see that as long as he is fighting on the shores of his own country it would be completely defense and would be following the law of the land. But the very second his foot hit enemy territory he would be breaking the law of the land!!!! These verses are clear we are not to resist the powers God has placed. Now as I look at this I wonder does God establish his will through sin??? There is no power but of God. When the colonists "sinned" by rebelling did God set up a new power by sin?? I realize in to OT he did such, but this is the NT. During the war were the people in the colonies to OBey the Crown, or the Colonial Govt??? When and why did this change?? Should we still be serving the Crown today???

Now if we put these verses only on a personal level we have less prOBlems. An individual is not to try for anarchy. He is not to break the laws or go against the powers on his own. Whether this be his govt or the govt of a land he is visiting. But as is the case with the colonists, a man can stand with a new govt. A new govt can begin with a group of men fighting for their rights, then after trying all they can, form a new govt. The colonists did not break God's law. Yes, I admit for some of this we must go back to our schoolmaster (OT) to see. A soldier can kill a man that if it was ot for the war he would be guilty of murder. Why, he would be acting on his own outside of war. But as a soldier he is working for the powers that be of God!!

1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
1Pe 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.


Submit yourself, not rebel, not resist.. Why? For the Lord's sake. Its very simple.

[John81]

You are biblically correct Jerry.

[heartstrings]

You are biblically correct Jerry.

General ROBert E. Lee's own state governemt, the State of Virginia, seceded from the Federal Government, the United States of America. He, being a Christian had to make the choice of who to fight for and who to fight against. The Secession BTW, was LEGAL and constitutional. Was ROBert E. Lee a rebel?

[JerryNumbers]

General ROBert E. Lee appears to have been a Christina man. What he did and or did not do has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. The Bible is God's Word, we are to study and OBey it.

By the way, the RCC studies what men in the past have done, even giving more importance to what they have done and or wrote, than they do God's Word. We should learn from that and not make the same mistake.

It is the Holy Scriptures we are to use for reproof, correction, not what some man did.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Tim 3:16-17 (KJV)

[Annie]

General ROBert E. Lee appears to have been a Christina man. What he did and or did not do has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.

How can this be true, Jerry? If ROBert E. Lee was a God-fearing man, and he was part of an effort to secede, then why does he not belong in a discussion about whether or not secession is biblical?

Heartstrings, you won't get an answer on this one. We can talk about any war except the War Between the States in this thread.

[JerryNumbers]

How can this be true, Jerry? If ROBert E. Lee was a God-fearing man, and he was part of an effort to secede, then why does he not belong in a discussion about whether or not secession is biblical?

Heartstrings, you won't get an answer on this one. We can talk about any war except the War Between the States in this thread.

Annie, Do you know of a man that has been perfect, outside of Christ the Savior? Do you think a man has to be perfect to enter heaven, to be saved? You seem to be inferring that ROBert E. Lee has to make heaven under his on merit. Isn't man saved by grace through faith, not of works, not of himself, its a gift?

And you tell heartstrings that he will not get answers, there has been Bible answers, along with Bible Scriptures, yet you refuse them..

[Wilchbla]

1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
1Pe 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

This is at the heart of the argument. What happens when the government begans to praise evildoers and punish those who do well? Is it still the government of God? We are getting to this point now. Edited October 30, 2010 by Wilchbla

[heartstrings]

Annie, Do you know of a man that has been perfect, outside of Christ the Savior? Do you think a man has to be perfect to enter heaven, to be saved? You seem to be inferring that ROBert E. Lee has to make heaven under his on merit. Isn't man saved by grace through faith, not of works, not of himself, its a gift?

And you tell heartstrings that he will not get answers, there has been Bible answers, along with Bible Scriptures, yet you refuse them..

Really?
I thought this topic was about whether it was Biblcally right to rebel against your own government....or somehing along those lines.