American Revolution: Biblical or Not?

[JerryNumbers]

But according to your interpretation of Romans 13 this is the proper approach. Allegiance no matter what.

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.

[Annie]

Considering that war took place decades after the American Revolution it has no bearing on the question of this thread.

But wars that took place (or were avoided) thousands of years before the War for Independence (under radically different conditions) somehow have more bearing on the question of this thread?

Most folks tend to want to go off in various other directions rather than addressing the clear wording of Romans 13 so I'm simply trying to keep this very focused.

If, in "keeping focused," we can discuss how "the clear wording of Romans 13" relates and applies to the American War for Independence, the French Revolution, David and RehOBoam's actions in ancient Hebrew history, as well as the concept of treason, then how can you say we are not "staying focused" when we try to shed more light on the idea by discussing another, very much related war? Again, your reticence is telling. I'm happy to talk about the War Between the States. I don't think the South was "wrong" biblically to secede. They just failed in their attempt at independence, and, biblically, became accountable once again to the U.S. government at the time of their surrender. They did not seek lawlessness nor anarchy. It's really not that hard to understand, although of course there are complexities in both wars that don't need to be discussed to understand the simple truth that secession, in and of itself (all else being equal), is not unbiblical. I don't see how you can argue with that. Both the WFI and the WBTS were matters of secession, plain and simple.

The clear language of Romans 13 does not describe how one goes about deciding which government to follow, or how, humanly speaking, governments are established; it merely says that we are to OBey the laws of government. (The implication is that we as citizens are to OBey the laws of the government with which we are aligned). Therefore, disOBeying this Scripture would be to engage in lawlessness and anarchy. Those who change their citizenship, or who are able to successfully establish a new government under which they are aligned are not in violation of this Scripture. In fact, this Scripture goes so far as to affirm all governments (which would include new ones which are set up as a result of secession) as established by God. Talk about settling the debate! That does it.

John, if you'd rather not talk about the WBTS, that's fine. I won't say any more about it. Then, we can just go on in this vein:

John: Romans 13 forbids secession.
Me: No, it doesn't.
John: Yes, it does.
Me: No, it doesn't.

LOL...Keeping a discussion so focused that it doesn't get anywhere... Edited October 26, 2010 by Annie

[heartstrings]

Abraham seceded from Ur of the Chaldees. Israel seceded from Egypt. Technically, you could contradict that but, the fact is, they picked up and left. Some Europeans left their homelands to worship freely in a new territitory that might have been claimed by England, but really belonged to the Indians. Over time, these folks began to develop a separate identity from their former countrymen in England, Germany, Holland etc. King George was a tyrant, my friends, pure and simple. We all look with disgust at a men like Hitler, Mao, or Saddam Hussein and call those dictators but, back in King George's time, they would have just been a considered typical kings. The "Revolutionary War" wasn't a revolution at all; it was a struggle for independence by people who had already left "sovereign countries" to start new lives in an occupied territory which was in the process of being taken away from its former inhabitants.

[Brother Rick]

If, in "keeping focused," we can discuss how "the clear wording of Romans 13" relates and applies to the American War for Independence, the French Revolution, David and RehOBoam's actions in ancient Hebrew history, as well as the concept of treason, then how can you say we are not "staying focused" when we try to shed more light on the idea by discussing another, very much related war? Again, your reticence is telling.

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?

[JerryNumbers]

<br />Abraham seceded from Ur of the Chaldees. Israel seceded from Egypt. Technically, you could contradict that but, the fact is, they picked up and left. Some Europeans left their homelands to worship freely in a new territitory that might have been claimed by England, but really belonged to the Indians. Over time, these folks began to develop a separate identity from their former countrymen in England, Germany, Holland etc. King George was a tyrant, my friends, pure and simple. We all look with disgust at a men like Hitler, Mao, or Saddam Hussein and call those dictators but, back in King George's time, they would have just been a considered typical kings. The &quot;Revolutionary War&quot; wasn't a revolution at all; it was a struggle for independence by people who had already left &quot;sovereign countries&quot; to start new lives in an occupied territory which was in the process of being taken away from its former inhabitants.<br />

<br /><br /><br />


How do any of you get pass these verses I'm giving. We can't ignore them, as many seem to do, if we do them go forth supporting war, that goes against God's Word. This was true in the days of the New Testament being written, it was true in the days the Revolutionary War came about, the same truth rings as true today as it did in days of the new Testament.

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.

Ro 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.
Ro 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Ro 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:
Ro 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.
Ro 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Ro 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Ro 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.

The only point you made that had anything to do with the Bible was Abraham, and Abraham was told by God what to do, as for Abraham and war, the only war he was involved in was on behalf of His nephew Lot, that was not a war fought to free himself from those who had authority over him as was the Revolutionary War. Why did the early Americans want out from under control of England, for they lusted to be their own authority and their own power, that goes against every thing in Romans 13 as well as many other verses.

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:

Submit yourselves to every ordnance of man, why, for the Lords sake, no where in these verses can you defend rebelling against the government that is over you and going to war, its clear, for you and I, war is not in God's will, if we rebel against our government, those in authority, we cannot back it up with Bible verses, yet we can give many verses why we should not and II'm giving many verse to prove war is wrong.

2Pe 2:10 ¶ But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

Tit 3:1 ¶ Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to OBey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

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.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

Why do wars come about, lust, that is when we walk after the lust of the flesh for we despise government and dignities, those who are our authority. Its so clear on the New Testament, in many verses, the one who goes to war against those in authority over them does so against the will of God.

Remember, the Bible is the finaly authority, ot go against it is to go against God, and he tells us "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God."

[heartstrings]

How do any of you get pass these verses I'm giving. We can't ignore them, as many seem to do, if we do them go forth supporting war, that goes against God's Word. This was true in the days of the New Testament being written, it was true in the days the Revolutionary War came about, the same truth rings as true today as it did in days of the new Testament.

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.

First of all, this verse you posted has NOTHING to do with "going to war"; it is speaking about covetousness among Christians and Christians squabbling among themselves.

Ro 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.
Ro 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Ro 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:
Ro 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.
Ro 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Ro 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Ro 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.

If you were a 1st century Christian, over 18 years old, and your government happened to be the ROMAN government, and they conscripted you, would you abide by the command of Romans 13?

The only point you made that had anything to do with the Bible was Abraham, and Abraham was told by God what to do, as for Abraham and war, the only war he was involved in was on behalf of His nephew Lot, that was not a war fought to free himself from those who had authority over him as was the Revolutionary War.

Blah Blah Blah, you didn't even read the context of what I posted. How can you understand the Bible? I said Abraham LEFT UR of the Chaldees and the Israelites left Egypt. They "defected" sir. They left their own country for uncharted territory. That's what the Christians of the colonial period did. sir. I said nothing about "Abraham going to war".

Why did the early Americans want out from under control of England, for they lusted to be their own authority and their own power, that goes against every thing in Romans 13 as well as many other verses.

Chirtians left England, Holland, Germany because they wanted to be free to worship God as their conscience dictated. That is not "Going to war".

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:

Jerry, If you lived in North Korea, and you decided one day to leave and take residence in South Korea. You left so that you could be free, correct? Now suppose North Korea later INVADES South Korea, you will then be asked to fight against your former governemt, would you not?

Submit yourselves to every ordnance of man, why, for the Lords sake, no where in these verses can you defend rebelling against the government that is over you and going to war, its clear, for you and I, war is not in God's will, if we rebel against our government, those in authority, we cannot back it up with Bible verses, yet we can give many verses why we should not and II'm giving many verse to prove war is wrong.

2Pe 2:10 ¶ But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

Tit 3:1 ¶ Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to OBey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

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.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

Why do wars come about, lust, that is when we walk after the lust of the flesh for we despise government and dignities, those who are our authority. Its so clear on the New Testament, in many verses, the one who goes to war against those in authority over them does so against the will of God.

Remember, the Bible is the finaly authority, ot go against it is to go against God, and he tells us "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God."

Sir, if you lived in Nazi Germany in 1939, who would your government be? Suppose the Gestapo arrived at your door one night and proceeded to molest your wife and kids, and take them away from you; would you stand by, submit and honour your government then? Or would you try to stop them? I would do my best to stop them and I wouldn't feel the least guilt for doing so. There is a HUGE difference between willful aggression, despising authority and fighting to defend your home and family. Such a man as this...is a FAITHFUL man. And God uses such to illustrate a faithful servant of Jesus Christ.

2 Timothy 2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 3Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 4No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

[Invicta]

I think that if the gestapo had arriv3ed at your doorhere was no way you would have been able to stop them. But that is not the issue. Would it be wrong for a Christian to rebel against the government at that time? Yes, I think it would. Rome was as bad, at times, as Nazi Germany, and certainly the Papacy was, or even worse fo Christians. (Hitler built his sate on RC teachings, and said the SS were fashionesd on the Jesuits, and that Himmler was his Ignatius Loyola) Yet the Christians usder Romanism did not rebel.

In France (only about 50 miles from here) after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Christians were forbidden to assemble and anyone preaching at an assembly was sentenced to have their bodies broken on the wheel and then hung. Any man attending meetings was sentenced to the galleys for life and women were imprisoned for life, in places like the Tower of Constance, in a town called Aigres Mortes (Bitter Deaths) in the South of France. The pastors refused to allow their flock to rebel until when they did not exist due to the tribulation and exile, pastorless prophets arose, the Camisards, and exhorted the people to rebel and fight the state. They were soundly defeated in about 1705, despite their prophets.

Heartstrings, What would you or I have done is such circumstances, I wonder?

[John81]

I think that if the gestapo had arriv3ed at your doorhere was no way you would have been able to stop them. But that is not the issue. Would it be wrong for a Christian to rebel against the government at that time? Yes, I think it would. Rome was as bad, at times, as Nazi Germany, and certainly the Papacy was, or even worse fo Christians. (Hitler built his sate on RC teachings, and said the SS were fashionesd on the Jesuits, and that Himmler was his Ignatius Loyola) Yet the Christians usder Romanism did not rebel.

In France (only about 50 miles from here) after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Christians were forbidden to assemble and anyone preaching at an assembly was sentenced to have their bodies broken on the wheel and then hung. Any man attending meetings was sentenced to the galleys for life and women were imprisoned for life, in places like the Tower of Constance, in a town called Aigres Mortes (Bitter Deaths) in the South of France. The pastors refused to allow their flock to rebel until when they did not exist due to the tribulation and exile, pastorless prophets arose, the Camisards, and exhorted the people to rebel and fight the state. They were soundly defeated in about 1705, despite their prophets.

Heartstrings, What would you or I have done is such circumstances, I wonder?

Yes, Romans 13 is clear. It's also clear what government we are under, and what government the colinists were under, and Romans 13 is clear as to how Christians are to conduct themselves. Christians are also given the clear command to pray for all of our government leaders. Christ and the Apostles gave us clear examples of how to live this out.

[JerryNumbers]

Yes, Romans 13 is clear. It's also clear what government we are under, and what government the colinists were under, and Romans 13 is clear as to how Christians are to conduct themselves. Christians are also given the clear command to pray for all of our government leaders. Christ and the Apostles gave us clear examples of how to live this out.

John, I took a time out, after having the words "Blah Blah Blah" used in a reply to me. For I do not want to return what has been said to me, I do not want to taunt anyone, and that is exactly what a person does when they use such words. And it would be so easy to return such words when they've been directed towards me in such a manner.

Besides I feel I have said about all I can on the subject, it seems several rejects all the verses we have put forth saying they don't mean what they seem to imply. I shall try to set it out, for this is going nowhere.

[Annie]

Yes, Romans 13 is clear. It's also clear what government we are under, and what government the colinists were under,

Yes. They were under the government of the Continental Congress, which eventually seceded from Britain (just as the Confederate States of America seceded from Washington).

and Romans 13 is clear as to how Christians are to conduct themselves.

100% correct. They are to be in submission to the higher powers that God has established...which, for the colonists, was the Continental Congress/colonial government...and/or the government of Great Britain. When the local colonial government decided to secede from GB, the colonists had two options, both of which were in keeping with Romans 13: They could choose to be identified as British citizens, staying under the government of Great Britain (against the wishes of their local government), or they could identify themselves as Americans, staying under their local government (against the wishes of the crown). No matter what they chose, they were going against the wishes of one government or the other. They couldn't avoid that. But it is also true that, no matter what they chose, they remained under accountability to government, and (I repeat) were not in violation of Romans 13.

[John81]

The colonists were under the English crown. The continental congress is what they established in order to usurp authority from the English crown.

If Chicago establishes its own congress and declares independence it would be doing exactly what the colonists did. They would be rebelling against the governmental authority over them and in rebellion proclaiming they can set up their own government regardless of what the government over them says.

In both cases, Christians involved in this violate Romans 13.

[Annie]

The colonists were under the English crown. The continental congress is what they established in order to usurp authority from the English crown.

If Chicago establishes its own congress and declares independence it would be doing exactly what the colonists did. They would be rebelling against the governmental authority over them and in rebellion proclaiming they can set up their own government regardless of what the government over them says.

In both cases, Christians involved in this violate Romans 13.

No, they don't.

[John81]

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!

[Invicta]

I really don't like tro get involved in this, being on the 'other side' as it were, however the point made was 'no taxation without representation' I believe. I would just add:

Mar 12:14. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
Mar 12:15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see [it].
Mar 12:16 And they brought [it]. And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.
Mar 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

[John81]

I really don't like tro get involved in this, being on the 'other side' as it were, however the point made was 'no taxation without representation' I believe. I would just add:

Mar 12:14. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
Mar 12:15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see [it].
Mar 12:16 And they brought [it]. And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.
Mar 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

This is a Christian issue, not an American or British issue. You are correct, Scripture gives no loophole to rebel against your government because of taxation issues.