American Revolution: Biblical or Not?

[John81]

I'm just wondering from those who believe the revolution was against God. Is it biblical or against the Bible for a man to be a soldier. I know Jerry was a soldier, and has posted about things to honor soldiers. But can we find in the NT any example of a man becoming a soldier after his conversion (I realize the centurion had faith not found in Israel, but he was not a part of the church and was a soldier before this.) Once a man is a soldier he has not the choice of who or what to fight. Lets look at it considering some of the wars our (America's) soldiers have participated in. Vietnam. Were we as a nation allowing the powers that be to be, or did we divide a nation into two? Even WWII, Though we would have every right to protect ourselves at Pearl Harbor, and any other place that belonged to us, would we have a right to GO to another country to put down their "powers". When our soldiers entered Germany were they not going against the Govt leaders of the place they were in? Would this not be against the same verses? Let's then consider Iraq. It is still very much debated as to whether or not there was any reason to enter Iraq. But our entire mission was to put down their leader, and to build a new Govt. Now were our soldiers OBeying our Govt, or disOBeying theirs? If the first, how seeing they were on Iraq soil? If the second, were they not going against Romans? If they were, is it not unbiblical for a man to put himself in a position to have to go against some Govt. over secular issues? Thus would it not be wrong for us to build up these men who are by the very nature of their jOB putting themselves into a place of disOBeying scripture. If the revolution was wrong, so was iraq, and most any other war. And if this is true we should be as I believe it was the Quackers of the past and say it is wrong for a man to be a soldier. But, even considering them at the time of the Revolution, I have an ancester who would not fight, nor believe in fighting. Yet when General Washington was camped near by provided hay for the winter to feed the horses. I do believe the Revolution was acceptable to God, and he blessed it.

As to your last sentence, why was the Revolution acceptable to God when it violated Romans 13? The American colonies, like the Canadian colonies, were under the governmental authority of Great Britain. Those in the American colonies who chose to fight to break away from Great Britain stated as their main reason being excessive taxes. Where does Scripture provide for rising up against ones government because of high taxes? Where in the New Testament are Christians told to rise up against their government for any reason?

Your other questions are very broad and would take much more time to delve into than I have right now...good questions though!

[JerryNumbers]

As to your last sentence, why was the Revolution acceptable to God when it violated Romans 13? The American colonies, like the Canadian colonies, were under the governmental authority of Great Britain. Those in the American colonies who chose to fight to break away from Great Britain stated as their main reason being excessive taxes. Where does Scripture provide for rising up against ones government because of high taxes? Where in the New Testament are Christians told to rise up against their government for any reason?

Your other questions are very broad and would take much more time to delve into than I have right now...good questions though!

True, and those are something's that I am pondering on.

Wow, this world, and everything in it, the things we learn prejudices us against God's Word, and His ways. And its diffcult to overcome.

[Wilchbla]

This is some tough stuff for me to figure out. I know what Romans 13 says but it's also clear that America had some of it's greatest revivals just after the War of Independence which it may never had under English rule because of the state/religion authority. Maybe there are exceptions just like God made an exception with David when he killed Uriah and committed adultery or with Abraham's sin. Perhaps if a peoples heart is in the right place or they are searching for a more righteous path to follow than God will still bless it despite his warning in Romans 13. If read that the church in China had been driven underground because it took Romans 13 to the extreme and never opposed the government in anything and what they ended up with was a worse situation than previously including the snuffing out of the great missionary movements taking place there prior to the rise of Communism.

[John81]

This is some tough stuff for me to figure out. I know what Romans 13 says but it's also clear that America had some of it's greatest revivals just after the War of Independence which it may never had under English rule because of the state/religion authority. Maybe there are exceptions just like God made an exception with David when he killed Uriah and committed adultery or with Abraham's sin. Perhaps if a peoples heart is in the right place or they are searching for a more righteous path to follow than God will still bless it despite his warning in Romans 13. If read that the church in China had been driven underground because it took Romans 13 to the extreme and never opposed the government in anything and what they ended up with was a worse situation than previously including the snuffing out of the great missionary movements taking place there prior to the rise of Communism.

Victory isn't a sign of God's blessing and good things coming after or through something isn't a sign of God's blessing either. God causes the sun and rain to fall upon the just and unjust as well. There have been many revivals around the world under a variety of circumstances. While true revivals are a blessing of God, that doesn't indicate a blessing of God because of some particular event.

Paul wrote Romans 13 when the Roman Empire was subjecting the known world, often very brutally. Chrisians were being rounded up and executed. The Roman Empire at that time was very wicked and immoral and yet Paul wrote Romans 13 just as God instructed. Not even the slightest hint that Christians should revolt against an unjust government or that certain circumstances warrented riots, revolts or revolution. To the contrary, Romans 13 and the way the apostles conducted themselves indicates we are to walk in Christ allowing our witness, testimony and lives to be the change agent through the Holy Ghost working in our lives.

[JerryNumbers]

Victory isn't a sign of God's blessing and good things coming after or through something isn't a sign of God's blessing either. God causes the sun and rain to fall upon the just and unjust as well. There have been many revivals around the world under a variety of circumstances. While true revivals are a blessing of God, that doesn't indicate a blessing of God because of some particular event.

Paul wrote Romans 13 when the Roman Empire was subjecting the known world, often very brutally. Chrisians were being rounded up and executed. The Roman Empire at that time was very wicked and immoral and yet Paul wrote Romans 13 just as God instructed. Not even the slightest hint that Christians should revolt against an unjust government or that certain circumstances warrented riots, revolts or revolution. To the contrary, Romans 13 and the way the apostles conducted themselves indicates we are to walk in Christ allowing our witness, testimony and lives to be the change agent through the Holy Ghost working in our lives.

So right, victory is no sign of God's blessing, We must remember that he promised to work things out for our own good, and that promise is not made to us because we always do the right thing.

[John81]

So right, victory is no sign of God's blessing, We must remember that he promised to work things out for our own good, and that promise is not made to us because we always do the right thing.

Our pastor actually touched upon this today. Even when bad things happen, when times are bad, when persecution comes about, God has promised to work all things for good to those who love Him and are His.

[Wilchbla]

Victory isn't a sign of God's blessing

So you are saying that we would have been better off, spiritually speaking, under British rule? Maybe Victory isn't a sign of blessing but "by their fruits ye shall know them" and we have been far better off with God free from England then under their rule. Unless you like state controlled churches.

[John81]

So you are saying that we would have been better off, spiritually speaking, under British rule? Maybe Victory isn't a sign of blessing but "by their fruits ye shall know them" and we have been far better off with God free from England then under their rule. Unless you like state controlled churches.

Actually, we can't know. For all we know, had the American colonies chose the same course as the Canadian colonies, it's possible the Lord would have begun something here that would have swept through the entire British Empire bringing not only a more free government but more importantly bringing Christ to the masses.

There is a mighty move of God going on in communist China right now. Massive numbers of people are coming to Christ. Does that mean communism is being blessed?

Does Scripture teach that the ends justify the means?

[HappyChristian]

Paul wrote Romans 13 to instruct the Jews in relation to the institution of government: not the incumbent in office. God instituted human government itself. Nowhere in Romans 13 did He mandate that there would never be a time that a government shouldn't be changed.

Note that Paul points out that government is to be a terror to evil works, not good. Someone mentioned Nero earlier...If any government can do anything because God supposedly says they can, then Nero was a good king. He was a terror to the evil. That's what Paul would be saying if what you are trying to make Romans 13 say was true. But that isn't what he was saying.

He was pointing out that GOVERNMENT is necessary, and that when there is government, Christians are to be good citizens. If the government is corrupt, there is nothing at all in scripture that tells us that we cannot do something to change that. If there were anything to indicate that, voting would be unscriptural, because we put our opinions into our votes (and, hopefully with Christians, prayer). And good citizens work to make sure their government is good...

The colonists did not "overthrow" the English crown. The colonists were English citizens, and they were supposed to be held under the same laws as those in the mother country. They were not. The king decided that he had a cash cow across the pond and taxed them accordingly. He also controlled much of their movement, and their religious activity. (now, if BO signed an executive order that every American must become Muslim or die: would you do that? If not, then you are not following your definition of Romans 13. But wait, you say. That demand wouldn't be scriptural, so I don't have to OBey....Ah, but our founders were wrong to demand the scriptural right to worship God without interference from the government...because that was a major part of the dissent). They petitioned him. And petitioned him. Again and again. (his ignoring of the petitioning is the reason for it being part of the first amendment...)

The Declaration of Independence was written to sever ties with England. Not to overthrow. The colonists wanted a peaceful transition. But the king wasn't interested. The colonies had agreed (enough to count) to Independence. By the time the war actually started, they weren't English citizens: independence had been declared, whether the king accepted it or not. Kinda like with the Civil War: the south was no longer a part of the US, but Lincoln just ignored it.

His answer? To become more oppressive. Send soldiers to be housed in colonist's homes: without their consent. Would you sit still and allow BO to do that? Of course you would, because your ideas of Romans 13 tells you to...The king's actions regarding the soldiers is the reason for the third amendment.

England precipitated the war. The colonists responded. Wouldn't you do the same if your home(land) were attacked? Nah, Romans 13 says not to, right?

And the passage in James is talking about church situations....not countries at war. To say that it applies to all war indicts God: He sent Israel to battle. And He gave the victory. Just as He gave victory in the American War for Independence.

Isn't it something how gracious God was to us? Jesus, while here on the earth, lived under the opressive Roman empire (even though, while the Jews were under them, they actually did a lot of their own thing...). But God gave us aRepublic, where the PEOPLE are Ceasar, not the government. And, yes, God gave it us.

[heartstrings]

Paul wrote Romans 13 to instruct the Jews in relation to the institution of government: not the incumbent in office. God instituted human government itself. Nowhere in Romans 13 did He mandate that there would never be a time that a government shouldn't be changed.

Note that Paul points out that government is to be a terror to evil works, not good. Someone mentioned Nero earlier...If any government can do anything because God supposedly says they can, then Nero was a good king. He was a terror to the evil. That's what Paul would be saying if what you are trying to make Romans 13 say was true. But that isn't what he was saying.

He was pointing out that GOVERNMENT is necessary, and that when there is government, Christians are to be good citizens. If the government is corrupt, there is nothing at all in scripture that tells us that we cannot do something to change that. If there were anything to indicate that, voting would be unsctriptural, because we put our opinions into our votes (and, hopefully wiht Christians, prayer). And good citizens work to make sure their government is good...

The colonists did not "overthrow" the English crown. The colonists were English citizens, and they were supposed to be held under the same laws as those in the mother country. They were not. The king decided that he had a cash cow across the pond and taxed them accordingly. He also controlled much of their movement, and their religious activity. (now, if BO signed an executive order that every American must become Muslim or die: would you do that? If not, then you are not following your definition of Romans 13. But wait, you say. That demand wouldn't be scriptural, so I don't have to OBey....Ah, but our founders were wrong to demand the scriptural right to worship God without interference from the government...because that was a major part of the dissent). They petitioned him. And petitioned him. Again and again. (his ignoring of the petitioning is the reason for it being part of the first amendment...)

The Declaration of Independence was written to sever ties with England. Not to overthrow. The colonists wanted a peaceful transition. But the king wasn't interested. The colonies had agreed (enough to count) to Independence. By the time the war actually started, they weren't English citizens: independence had been declared, whether the kind accepte it or not. Kinda like with the Civil War: the south was no longer a part of the US, but Lincoln just ignored it.

His answer? To become more oppressive. Send soldiers to be housed in colonist's homes: without their consent. Would you sit still and allow BO to do that? Of course you would, because your ideas of Romans 13 tells you to...The king's actions regarding the soldiers is the reason for the third amendment.

England precipitated the war. The colonists responded. Wouldn't you do the same if your home(land) were attacked? Nah, Romans 13 says not to, right?

And the passage in James is talking about church situations....not countries at war. To say that it applies to all war indicts God: He sent Israel to battle. And He gave the victory. Just as He gave victory in the American War for Independence.

Isn't it something how gracious God was to us? Jesus, while here on the earth, lived under the opressive Roman empire (even though, while the Jews were under them, they actually did a lot of their own thing...). But God gave us aRepublic, where the PEOPLE are Ceasar, not the government. And, yes, God gave it us.

[PreacherE]

Paul wrote Romans 13 to instruct the Jews in relation to the institution of government: not the incumbent in office. God instituted human government itself. Nowhere in Romans 13 did He mandate that there would never be a time that a government shouldn't be changed.

Note that Paul points out that government is to be a terror to evil works, not good. Someone mentioned Nero earlier...If any government can do anything because God supposedly says they can, then Nero was a good king. He was a terror to the evil. That's what Paul would be saying if what you are trying to make Romans 13 say was true. But that isn't what he was saying.

He was pointing out that GOVERNMENT is necessary, and that when there is government, Christians are to be good citizens. If the government is corrupt, there is nothing at all in scripture that tells us that we cannot do something to change that. If there were anything to indicate that, voting would be unsctriptural, because we put our opinions into our votes (and, hopefully wiht Christians, prayer). And good citizens work to make sure their government is good...

The colonists did not "overthrow" the English crown. The colonists were English citizens, and they were supposed to be held under the same laws as those in the mother country. They were not. The king decided that he had a cash cow across the pond and taxed them accordingly. He also controlled much of their movement, and their religious activity. (now, if BO signed an executive order that every American must become Muslim or die: would you do that? If not, then you are not following your definition of Romans 13. But wait, you say. That demand wouldn't be scriptural, so I don't have to OBey....Ah, but our founders were wrong to demand the scriptural right to worship God without interference from the government...because that was a major part of the dissent). They petitioned him. And petitioned him. Again and again. (his ignoring of the petitioning is the reason for it being part of the first amendment...)

The Declaration of Independence was written to sever ties with England. Not to overthrow. The colonists wanted a peaceful transition. But the king wasn't interested. The colonies had agreed (enough to count) to Independence. By the time the war actually started, they weren't English citizens: independence had been declared, whether the kind accepte it or not. Kinda like with the Civil War: the south was no longer a part of the US, but Lincoln just ignored it.

His answer? To become more oppressive. Send soldiers to be housed in colonist's homes: without their consent. Would you sit still and allow BO to do that? Of course you would, because your ideas of Romans 13 tells you to...The king's actions regarding the soldiers is the reason for the third amendment.

England precipitated the war. The colonists responded. Wouldn't you do the same if your home(land) were attacked? Nah, Romans 13 says not to, right?

And the passage in James is talking about church situations....not countries at war. To say that it applies to all war indicts God: He sent Israel to battle. And He gave the victory. Just as He gave victory in the American War for Independence.

Isn't it something how gracious God was to us? Jesus, while here on the earth, lived under the opressive Roman empire (even though, while the Jews were under them, they actually did a lot of their own thing...). But God gave us aRepublic, where the PEOPLE are Ceasar, not the government. And, yes, God gave it us.

[Covenanter]

I do not think that anything in the NT would justify an armed revolt against a stable locally based government.

Civil & religious disOBedience where the government is acting against God's laws is in accord with the Apostles continuing to preach Jesus as Lord & Christ when they were commanded to desist by the authorities. That would include peaceful demonstrations against abortion, homosexuality, etc.

A local government of a colony is in a dual role, as it acts for the colonial power & governs locally. It does not have a "Christian" role, even though local Christians are in leadership. If they are dependent on the colonial power for supplies & protection, then independence is not a option, but when they become strong enough to be self supporting, then a declaration of independence is in order, & a wise colonial power will accept the new situation.

When we look at Africa, celebrating 50 years of independence, we see a parlous situation. A responsible colonial power is replaced by a local tyrant, & the people become worse off.

America as a colony was prOBably in a happier state than the UK. Scotland was still suffering from joining the 1745 rebellion in which Bonnie Prince Charlie sought to reclaim the throne. All the landowners treated the common people as cheap labour with no rights of representation. "Criminals" were deported to the colonies for minor offences.

The Methodist revival did a lot to stabilise the situation in England, as the oppression could have resulted in a revolution as occurred in France.

[John81]

Where is the biblical justification for fighting against the government you are under? The only form of "rebellion" sanctioned is when governing authorities try to force Christians to disOBey God. In such cases, Christians are to continue living for Christ but they are not to fight against the government.

Where are Christians ever told to revolt, take up arms, fight against their government? Christians are told continually to live differently than the world, to walk in Christ in all His ways, and that is how the Lord will bring about the change He desires.

[HappyChristian]

I do not think that anything in the NT would justify an armed revolt against a stable locally based government.
And to a point I would agree with you. But God guided in the founding of the Republic and the writing of the Constitution (not that it's a Christian document, but it is liberty based, which is a Biblical principle). And that, along with the Declaration, states that there are times when a change in government is necessary. Not a dissolution of government, but a change. As in the colonies separation, and then again with the south during the Civil War. Peaceful separation is not wrong. But sometimes that government doesn't want to allow it - and the only way to protect oneself if by arming oneself. I realize that we can pray, and I am not diminishing that. But there are times when fighting is necessary.

Civil & religious disOBedience where the government is acting against God's laws is in accord with the Apostles continuing to preach Jesus as Lord & Christ when they were commanded to desist by the authorities. That would include peaceful demonstrations against abortion, homosexuality, etc. Agreed. And that is one of the reasons our founders included the entire wording of the first amendment.

A local government of a colony is in a dual role, as it acts for the colonial power & governs locally. It does not have a "Christian" role, even though local Christians are in leadership. If they are dependent on the colonial power for supplies & protection, then independence is not a option, but when they become strong enough to be self supporting, then a declaration of independence is in order, & a wise colonial power will accept the new situation. Exactly!!

When we look at Africa, celebrating 50 years of independence, we see a parlous situation. A responsible colonial power is replaced by a local tyrant, & the people become worse off.

America as a colony was prOBably in a happier state than the UK. Scotland was still suffering from joining the 1745 rebellion in which Bonnie Prince Charlie sought to reclaim the throne. All the landowners treated the common people as cheap labour with no rights of representation. "Criminals" were deported to the colonies for minor offences. To a point, happier might have been true - comparing to Scotland, very likely (and thus the advantage of distance), but with the crown deciding policies and laws without proper representation from the colonies, with the crown deciding whether or not someone could preach,etc., it began to be quite oppressive.

The Methodist revival did a lot to stabilise the situation in England, as the oppression could have resulted in a revolution as occurred in France. And one thing that many folk miss who try to say the War for Independence is unbiblical is that the colonists tried peaceful means: at no time did anyone kidnap the royal family, imprison them and behead them...

John, do you not realize that the English crown WAS trying to force the Christians to disOBey God? Imprisoning anyone who had the temerity to preach without a license; taxing everyone to pay tithes for the state church...
~~
Where does the Bible say that it's wrong for a Christian to take up arms against someone who is intent on destroying him? Whether that someone is the incumbents in governmental office or his next door neighbor...

The founders did not fight against government. They were pushed into a fight against tyranny. The Bible doesn't forbid that. The Bible doesn't command it, either. But God used our founders to give us a form of human government that is better than any other that's been on the face of the earth.

[Invicta]

I am not sure that you know what a tyrrany is. Hitler was a tyrant but he calaimed that "God is with us" Mussellini was a tyrant, Mary Tudor was a tyrant, Gen. Franco was a tyrant.

King George III was the last English king to refuse to sign a bill into law because it went against his Christian beliefs, I believe he did this twice.