American Revolution: Biblical or Not?

[John81]

It's an extreme twisting of reason to say the Founders were not fighting against the British crown (government).

Romans 13 is very clear. If there is an exception somewhere in the New Testament please post it.

[John81]

"God guided in the founding of the Republic and the writing of the Constitution"

What proof of this statement do we have? For reference, many other nations make this same claim.

[Invicta]

But God gave us a Republic, where the PEOPLE are Ceasar, not the government

I find it hard to think that anyone actually believes that. You elect a president, who all you often know about is what his money and advertising tell you. You have a choice of two millionaires to elect from, then when they are elected they are king for four years, or until impeached or assasinated. You choose from rich lawyers, oil barons, etc.

When the president appears it is announced "The President of the United States" as if he is God.

It seems a totally corrupt system to me.

Tues. Dec 23, 1756
I was in the rOBe-chamber, adjoining to the House of Lords, when the King put on his ROBes. His brow much furrowed with age, and quite clouded with care. And is this all the world can give, even to a king, all the world can afford? A blanket of ermine around his shoulders, so heavy and cumbersome he can hardly move under it! An huge heap of borrowed hair, with a few plates of Gold and glittering stones on his head! Alas, what a bauble is human greatness! John Wesley's Journal Edited October 19, 2010 by Invicta

[heartstrings]

Hebrews 11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.

She aided the enemy....against her own government.

[John81]

Hebrews 11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.

She aided the enemy....against her own government.

Rahab was not a Christian and not subject to the New Testament which was yet to come.

[heartstrings]

Rahab was not a Christian and not subject to the New Testament which was yet to come.

I say she was a Christian. Those in the OT were looking ahead to the cross; we are looking back.

[Annie]

It's an extreme twisting of reason to say the Founders were not fighting against the British crown (government).

Romans 13 is very clear. If there is an exception somewhere in the New Testament please post it.

John, it seems like we've been through this before...so I'm just popping in to give my 2 cents. Romans 13 establishes government as representative of God's authority on earth. It clearly states that all the governments that now exist (or have ever existed) are/were here because they are/were ordained by God. IOW, it was God's will that the USA establish its own government. The American War for Independence was entirely different than, say, the French Revolution in that the American colonists were not anarchical. They wanted to be accountable to government, so they were never outside the bounds of Romans 13. They established their own government, and defended it against British attack. As a new civic entity (not as British subjects), they fought against the British crown.

Do you still ardently defend the Southern states' right to secede and make war on the Union? If so, then, to be consistent, you must recognize the right of the colonists to establish their own new civic identity as well. (I know how you interpret "states' rights," etc., but it really boils down to the same thing. They were the UNITED States of America. The Southern states, like the colonists, were accountable to OBey the federal government. If that were not so, then why did they even have to secede? Why did they want to separate if they weren't "attached" in a way that was undesirable to them? And, even if the federal government was "wrong" in the way they viewed the extent of states' rights, the fact still remains: the southern states rebelled against their government.)

My view is consistent in that I maintain that, as long as an entity remains under civic governance (whether it's "we the people" or "he the monarch") it is not guilty of violating the principles found in Romans 13. Edited October 19, 2010 by Annie

[Annie]

I find it hard to think that anyone actually believes that. You elect a president, who all you often know about is what his money and advertising tell you. You have a choice of two millionaires to elect from, then when they are elected they are king for four years, or until impeached or assasinated. You choose from rich lawyers, oil barons, etc.

When the president appears it is announced "The President of the United States" as if he is God.

It seems a totally corrupt system to me.

Interesting perspective, Invicta. Of course no human government is free of corruption; we'd be naive to think otherwise. Your OBservations are true, to some extent. People are always susceptible to political propaganda, and politicians never hesitate to take advantage of their gullibility. But don't believe everything you see and hear in the international media. Although the U.S. President is indeed a powerful office (arguably the most powerful office in the world), the man's hands are indeed tied by our Constitution and governmental system (IOW, by "we the people"). Example: Barack OBama is about to get his socialistic health care "reform"--his defining achievement--thrown into the trash, which will happen as soon as the conservatives regain control of Congress in a few short weeks (because "we the people" will have spoken with our ballots in the midterm election). He might look like a king, but he ain't one, thank goodness! If current trends continue, he won't even have a chance to be re-elected in 2012. Some "king," huh? The best he'll be able to manage is to veto the bills the conservatives pass. He won't be able to advance his agenda in the legislature, because most of the reps will not even be listening to him. King? Hardly!

As I've traveled overseas, I've been interested and amused to OBserve how different countries perceive and portray American governmental figures. They are idolized to an extent that Americans would find humorous. A few years ago when Hillary Clinton was running for president I saw, in a kitschy kiosk in Munich's main square, a Hillary Clinton teddy bear that could have come right out of her campaign headquarters, of all things. (No other candidates were represented at this souvenir stand...and understandably, since to many HC was at that time considered a shoo-in for the Presidential office.) And, even funnier, our CHRISTIAN IFB friends in the Philippines are absolutely ga-ga over President OBama, and are shocked to learn that we don't like him. Why? Foreign media really does treat him like a king. So, I can't blame you for your perception. But it really isn't as it seems, in this case. Edited October 19, 2010 by Annie

[John81]

Romans 13 is very clear, is there an exception clause elsewhere in the New Testament?

There are a plethora of views, thoughts and opinions on this topic as well as with various other wars, governmental aspects, etc. We can discuss those elsewhere if anyone wishes but for this particular question I'm looking for Scripture.

[Annie]

Romans 13 is very clear, is there an exception clause elsewhere in the New Testament?

There are a plethora of views, thoughts and opinions on this topic as well as with various other wars, governmental aspects, etc. We can discuss those elsewhere if anyone wishes but for this particular question I'm looking for Scripture.

John, the title of this thread is "American Revolution: Biblical or Not?" There doesn't need to be an exception clause in the NT for the War for Independence or the Southern Secession to be biblical (in the sense that they are not anti-biblical). I'm not sure what this post of yours means. Are you looking for a specifically delineated "revolutionary mandate"? If so, I don't think you'll find it. The Bible does not concern itself with, as you say, the "plethora of views, thoughts and opinions on this topic." It merely lays out principles that we can apply the best we know how. And, the fact that a certain activity is neither prescribed nor proscribed in the Bible does not make that activity "biblical" or "anti-biblical."

Just think about how unmanageable the Bible would be if it included a specific statement for every potential human activity. Should ladies braid their hair at all? (There's no exception clause to 2 Tim. 3: "not with broided hair.") See how ridiculous it could get? Edited October 19, 2010 by Annie

[John81]

John, the title of this thread is "American Revolution: Biblical or Not?" There doesn't need to be an exception clause in the NT for the War for Independence or the Southern Secession to be biblical (in the sense that they are not anti-biblical). I'm not sure what this post of yours means. Are you looking for a specifically delineated "revolutionary mandate"? If so, I don't think you'll find it.

Romans 13 is clear with regards to Christians and government. As such, it would seem the professing Christians involved in the fomenting and prosecution of the American Revolution were going against the Word of God. If not, there must be a biblical exception somewhere in the New Testament.

[Annie]

Romans 13 is clear with regards to Christians and government. As such, it would seem the professing Christians involved in the fomenting and prosecution of the American Revolution were going against the Word of God. If not, there must be a biblical exception somewhere in the New Testament.

John, the way you are framing this discussion is flawed. (I am glad you used the word seemed, though, to mitigate your childlike stringency.) I could just as easily say, "I Timothy 2:9 is clear with regards to women and jewelry and braided hair. As such, it would seem the professing Christian women and girls involved in braiding their hair and wearing jewelry are going against the Word of God. If not, there must be a biblical exception somewhere in the New Testament."

The point, John, is that, just as 1 Timothy 2:9 (which uses even clearer language than Romans 13) is not condemning the wearing of jewelry, Romans 13 is not condemning the seeking of civic independence by a responsible body which remains accountable to government. You assume a proscription that just isn't in the passage, and, armed with this imaginary proscription, challenge us to find an "exception clause" when none is actually needed to answer the question at hand. Edited October 19, 2010 by Annie

[John81]

John, the way you are framing this discussion is flawed. (I am glad you used the word seemed, though, to mitigate your childlike stringency.) I could just as easily say, "I Timothy 2:9 is clear with regards to women and jewelry and braided hair. As such, it would seem the professing Christian women and girls involved in braiding their hair and wearing jewelry are going against the Word of God. If not, there must be a biblical exception somewhere in the New Testament."

The point, John, is that, just as 1 Timothy 2:9 (which uses even clearer language than Romans 13) is not condemning the wearing of jewelry, Romans 13 is not condemning the seeking of civic independence by a responsible body which remains accountable to government. You assume a proscription that just isn't in the passage, and, armed with this imaginary proscription, challenge us to find an "exception clause" when none is actually needed to answer the question at hand.

How can one remain OBedient to their government while going against it? The reason the third of the American population which supported and/or fought against England were considered traitors by England was because they were fighting against their own government. The Founders knew that if their revolution failed they would face a traitors punishment.

Also, I'm not sure how you see Romans 13 as not being clear.

[Brother Rick]

I say she was a Christian. Those in the OT were looking ahead to the cross; we are looking back.

Chapter and verse? She was NOT a Christian, and no one in the Old Testament was looking forward to the cross.

The prophets were confused by the prophesy of a suffering servant as a Messiah, Nicodemus had no clue about what the new birth was and he was learned in the Scripture more than the common man, and the Apostles were baffled at the idea of Jesus being delivered to the Gentiles to die. If they were looking forward to it, the twelve closest men to Jesus for over a period of three and a half years would have EXPECTED it.

Luke 18:31-34, "Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
32) For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
33) And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
34) And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken."

I Peter 1:10-12, "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace [that should come] unto you:
11) Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12) Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."

John 3:9-10, "Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10) Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"

This is why dispensations are important, regardless of how you cut them. The New Testament tells us to be in submission to our rulers, in the Old Testament God dealt with an entire nation directly and many times told them to kill and destroy their enemies. David even prayed for it. In contrast, we are told to love our enemies and to do good to them which despitefully use us AND persecute us.

If you want to view England as the attacker and the Colonies as defending themselves after declaring independence there's some justification. Or perhaps when the colonies declared themselves separate at that moment the Americans had a separate government to OBey - their own - and England was an outsider, in which case there is biblical justification for defending your country. Edited October 19, 2010 by Rick Schworer

[HappyChristian]

How can one remain OBedient to their government while going against it? The reason the third of the American population which supported and/or fought against England were considered traitors by England was because they were fighting against their own government. The Founders knew that if their revolution failed they would face a traitors punishment.

Also, I'm not sure how you see Romans 13 as not being clear.

John, England was no longer their government. They had severed ties. Romans 13 is quite clear: Paul was talking about government itself, not incumbents. He was instructing the Jews that government was ordained by God. Not a specific type of government, but human government. That it is necessary, because there is evil in the world. He was in no way giving instruction that it's a sin to change the form of government.

The reason they were called traitors was because the crown refused to recognize their independence. The colonies had declared themselves severed from England. So they were not fighting against their own government (and, even if they were: Romans 13 is NOT forbidding that - it is instruction in the fact that God ordained the function of government - not that any government one is under is sacrosanct). They were defending their homeland. And yes, the founders knew that if they failed in the war that Britain initiated (there is a reason it was called the "War with Britain" at that time), they would be killed. The same reason that any who try to fight off oppressors and are defeated are killed. Kinda like Lincoln calling the states that seceded rebel states...when they were no longer part of the US.