Should Christians resist tyranny?

[John81]

The following is a portion of a farewell letter written to his children by a Christian martyr, Hendrick Alewijns. His response was common to those who suffered under the heavy hand of Rome, Germany, Holland, and others in the 1500's. I'm not saying it was we have to do...but is what they did. Why?

Hendrick A!ewijns, a purse-maker by trade, and Hans Marijns van Oosten, with Gerrit Duynherder. These suffered from the ministers of antichrist manifold assaults, and threats and tortures terrible to the flesh, all of which they, through faith and the power of God (which was in them) patiently and valiantly resisted. And after they had suffered all this for Christ's sake, they were together burnt alive at said place, on the 9th of February 1569, confirming the belief of the everabiding truth with their death and blood, and now serve as a beacon to all true believers, that they may follow their unfeigned faith. Phil. 3:17.



Their faith cost them something. It was enough to die for. They had no fear of death. They encouraged their children to follow in their footsteps. With exception of the persecuted church in foreign lands, this is only the testimony of Islam anymore!

Excellent post! This is what the New Testament teaches and what the New Testament examples.

[HappyChristian]

So I reckon all those Baptists who had been persecuted in this country prior to the War for Independence, who joined in large numbers to fight against the tyranny of the crown, were all disobedient to the New Testament. And John Leland and others who led the way for the Bill of Rights was just being rebellious.

No. I don't think so.

They directly linked religious liberty with political liberty.

[Annie]

So I reckon all those Baptists who had been persecuted in this country prior to the War for Independence, who joined in large numbers to fight against the tyranny of the crown, were all disobedient to the New Testament. And John Leland and others who led the way for the Bill of Rights was just being rebellious.

No. I don't think so.

They directly linked religious liberty with political liberty.

These are interesting ideas, HappyChristian. Is "religious liberty" a biblical concept? And is there a biblical reason "religious liberty" should be linked with "political liberty?" (I'm asking b/c I don't know of any biblical principles dealing with this at all; I really do think the idea of "civil liberties" came from other sources than Scripture.) That being said, I don't think that the colonists who separated from Britain were "fighting against the tyranny of the crown." They were establishing a completely new government, and hence were still obeying Romans 13, which is the only New Testament passage which indicates how Christians are to respond to government. To my knowledge, King George was not persecuting the colonists b/c of religious differences. IOW, people were not being called upon to die for their faith. (If they were being called upon to die for their faith, then they should have done exactly that and should not have fought.)

[HappyChristian]

These are interesting ideas, HappyChristian. Is "religious liberty" a biblical concept? And is there a biblical reason "religious liberty" should be linked with "political liberty?" (I'm asking b/c I don't know of any biblical principles dealing with this at all; I really do think the idea of "civil liberties" came from other sources than Scripture.) That being said, I don't think that the colonists who separated from Britain were "fighting against the tyranny of the crown." They were establishing a completely new government, and hence were still obeying Romans 13, which is the only New Testament passage which indicates how Christians are to respond to government. To my knowledge, King George was not persecuting the colonists b/c of religious differences. IOW, people were not being called upon to die for their faith. (If they were being called upon to die for their faith, then they should have done exactly that and should not have fought.)

I was speaking specifically of Baptists, Annie. The persecution I mentioned was from those living here - Puritans persecuting Baptists (and Quakers) for not going along with everything they taught.

Yes, they were establishing a new government, but they were fighting the tyranny of the crown - they had to fight to overthrow it. And tyranny was the reason they were forming a new government.

From George Truett:

We shall do well, both as citizens and as Christians, if we will hark back to the chief actors and lessons in the early and epoch-making struggles of this great Western democracy, for the full establishment of civil and religious liberty?back to the days of Washington and Jefferson and Madison, and back to the days of our Baptist fathers, who have paid such a great price, through the long generations, that liberty, both religious and civil, might have free course and be glorified everywhere.

Years ago, at a notable dinner in London, that world-famed statesman, John Bright, asked an American statesman, himself a Baptist, the noble Dr. J. L. M. Curry, "What distinct contribution has your America made to the science of government?" To that question Dr. Curry replied: "The doctrine of religious liberty." After a moment?s reflection, Mr. Bright made the worthy reply: "It was a tremendous contribution."

Indeed, the supreme contribution of the new world to the old is the contribution of religious liberty. This is the chiefest contribution that America has thus far made to civilization. And historic justice compels me to say that it was pre-eminently a Baptist contribution. The impartial historian, whether in the past, present or future, will ever agree with our American historian, Mr. Bancroft, when he says:" Freedom of conscience, unlimited freedom of mind, was from the first the trophy of the Baptists." And such historian will concur with the noble John Locke who said: "The Baptists were the first propounders of absolute liberty, just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty." Ringing testimonies like these might be multiplied indefinitely.

Baptists have one consistent record concerning liberty throughout all their long and eventful history. They have never been a party to oppression of conscience. They have forever been the unwavering champions of liberty, both religious and civil. Their contention now, is, and has been, and, please God, must ever be, that it is the natural and fundamental and indefeasible right of every human being to worship God or not, according to the dictates of his conscience, and, as long as he does not infringe upon the rights of others, he is to be held accountable alone to God for all religious beliefs and practices. Our contention is not for mere toleration, but for absolute liberty. There is a wide difference between toleration and liberty. Toleration implies that somebody falsely claims the right to tolerate. Toleration is a concession, while liberty is a right. Toleration is a matter of expediency, while liberty is a matter of principle. Toleration is a gift from God. It is the consistent and insistent contention of our Baptist people, always and everywhere, that religion must be forever voluntary and uncoerced, and that it is not the prerogative of any power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, to compel men to conform to any religious creed or form of worship, or to pay taxes for the support of a religious organization to which they do not believe. God wants free worshipers and no other kind.

The entire article is interesting and may answer your questions, Annie.
http://www.biblebelievers.com/truett_ba ... gious.html
Also:

A basic distinction must be made between two terms ? ?religious liberty?
and ?separation of church and state? ? which are often mistakenly used as if they
have the same meaning. These terms are not twins; they are more like close
relatives.
Religious liberty is a theological concept rooted in Scripture. Separation of
church and sate is the method devised by the nation?s founders to implement the
principle of religious liberty. Religious liberty comes before separation of church
and sate, both in historical sequence and in theological importance.
Put another way, religious liberty is God?s gift to humanity. Separation of
church and state is the nation?s means of providing the political atmosphere
which allows that gift to be expressed.
The American doctrine of separation of church and state is connected to
the biblical view of liberty, and Baptists had a significant role in securing
acceptance of that doctrine. Baptists played an essential role in securing
separation of church and state in the nation?s formative years precisely because
of the freedom they believed God had given them and all others.
This conviction was based on the theme of human liberty found
throughout Scripture. That biblical theme includes such precious concepts for
Baptists as the creation of man in the image of God, the voluntary nature of true
faith, the prophetic role of religion in life, and the priesthood of the believer.
The theme of freedom begins with the creation narratives themselves.

I didn't include verses from the article, because they are RSV (in deference to OB board rules). But they follow this.

Although Baptists in America cannot claim all the credit for the triumph of
religious liberty and separation of church and state, responsible and prominent
historians give Baptists a large share of the credit.
Anson Phelps Stokes, perhaps the most renowned church-state historian
in this century, has sated that ?No denomination has its roots more firmly planted
in the soil of religious freedom and Church-State separation than the Baptists.?
Charles Evans Hughes, Chief Justice of the United States and a
prominent Baptist layman, declared at the laying of the cornerstone of the
National Baptist Memorial Church in Washington, D.C., in 1922 that the
contribution of religious liberty ?is the glory of the Baptist heritage, more
distinctive than any other characteristic of belief or practice.?

For the rest of this article (and to check out scripture he uses):
http://www.churchplantingvillage.net/at ... iberty.pdf

[John81]

It wasn't the British government that was persecuting Baptists, it was most of the other various Christian denominations that were doing this. The Baptist responses to this that I've read about didn't reveal any of them taking violent actions but rather redoubled efforts to spread the Gospel and faithfulness to the Word.

What was the tyranny of the British? They passed taxes some colonists didn't like. What government hasn't done that and isn't doing that today? What does the New Testament say about paying taxes?

Where does the New Testament advocte rebelling against the government for any reason? Christians written of in the New Testament were facing high taxation, occupying armies, criminals, persecution from various other religions, and their response is recorded for us right there in the New Testament as an example for us to follow.

[HappyChristian]

It wasn't the British government that was persecuting Baptists' date=' it was most of the other various Christian denominations that were doing this. The Baptist responses to this that I've read about didn't reveal any of them taking violent actions but rather redoubled efforts to spread the Gospel and faithfulness to the Word. John, I said in my previous post that it wasn't the government. But! Something that you must have missed in your reading was that a preponderance of Baptists joined in the fight for independence. That certainly was violent....

What was the tyranny of the British? They passed taxes some colonists didn't like. What government hasn't done that and isn't doing that today? What does the New Testament say about paying taxes? We could get into a looooong discussion about this...depends on how you look at what the NT is saying...regarding rendering to Ceasar, here in America, the people are Ceasar. But that's another thread. It wasn't just the taxes, John. And it wasn't that they didn't like them. It was the lack of representation (which is oppression...tyranny). And we have that in America today, even though we have "reprensentatives" - because they don't truly represent the people who elected them (except maybe Nancy Pelosi). There was also the quartering of soldiers in the colonist's homes. And other things. Frankly,with all of your study of history, I'm surprised at your question, John.

Where does the New Testament advocte rebelling against the government for any reason? Christians written of in the New Testament were facing high taxation, occupying armies, criminals, persecution from various other religions, and their response is recorded for us right there in the New Testament as an example for us to follow. Again, many, many Baptists fought in the War for Independence, because it was linked to religious liberty. They were much more students of the Word than the average Baptist today. So tell me, John...do you do ANYTHING that isn't outlined in the NT? (that isn't meant to be a smart aleck remark)

[PreacherBen]

Sister LuAnne,

You said:

So I reckon all those Baptists who had been persecuted in this country prior to the War for Independence, who joined in large numbers to fight against the tyranny of the crown, were all disobedient to the New Testament.

My sister, what did Jesus say? I don't really care what John Leland, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, etc., said, but what did our Lord and Saviour say, nay, command?

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Why did Jesus say this? What is the outcome of this radical behaviour?

Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

We are guilty of reading the bible with Red, White, and Blue colored glasses. This is error. The bible is not a book of revolution, but of revelation! We are the children of God! Jesus also said earlier in the same chapter:

Mat 5:9 Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Did Paul back up this new concept Jesus was teaching?

Rom 12:14 Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.

Rom 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
Rom 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Rom 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Rom 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

It's true, Paul did teach, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to be at peace with our enemies and not to avenge them. He told the Thessalonians,

1Th 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any [man]; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all [men].

Luke recorded another concept of this love of enemies:

Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil.

Jesus saw those who loved their enemies and did good to them as the children of the Highest!

You sent on to say:

And John Leland and others who led the way for the Bill of Rights was just being rebellious.
No. I don't think so.

But Peter said:

1Pe 2:16 As free,[in Christ, insertion mine] 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.
1Pe 2:18 Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
1Pe 2:19 For this [is] thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
1Pe 2:20 For what glory [is it], if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer [for it], ye take it patiently, this [is] acceptable with God.

Peter clearly taught we are to honour the king! Paul told us how to entreat the king:

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;[why?] 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;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The New Testament doesn't teach revolution against authority, but submission, humility, and prayerful godliness. So, yes, John Leland and anyone else who promoted revolution were in rebellion against God and the perfect counsel of His word. Why do you think we have a nation full of rebels, our chickens have come home to roost!

Furthermore you said:

They directly linked religious liberty with political liberty.

Where did they get that New Testament command? The fact of the matter is they didn't. Jesus did not teach revolution.

2Cr 10:1 Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence [am] base among you, but being absent am bold toward you:
2Cr 10:2 But I beseech [you], that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.
2Cr 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
2Cr 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds You know what those weapons are, Eph. 6

LuAnne, I was saved, discipled, schooled, ministered, and have evangelized with and for the dear brethren in the IFB churches. I love them. However, we have been taught FLAT WRONG on this topic and only pride will cause us to say with them who reject trutch, "I don't care what the Bible says (or what Jesus said,) I am a Patriot, and we had to fight!" We must be careful of this VERY DANGEROUS ATTITUDE. Jesus also said:

Jhn 18:35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
Jhn 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

We are citizens of Heaven, we are Ambassadors to Earth. We live in America, but our allegiance and patriotism is to the King of kings and Lord of lords. Sister, I encourage you in a godly way to prayerfully consider the scriptures I have given you. This nation has turned it's back on God, and will join with the antichrist one day to fight against our Dear and Beloved Saviour.

Rev 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all [men, both] free and bond, both small and great.
Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

America is a lost case, we need to shore up the children of God and our comprehension and faithfulness to the kingdom of God in these last days. The placement of men like our current President and the liberal, god-hating, Islam loving, pro-gay, etc., ad nauseum, administration, is just a sign for us (God's children,) to know that the end is near, and we need to focus on Him, win souls, and build our most holy faith. We are going to be boxed into a corner and the only way out is strong faith in Christ and allegiance to Him.

And as for America the beautiful...

Isa 1:15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

It's too late to pray for America to turn around. God's people had better do the turning around and build up the waste places.

[HappyChristian]

*sigh* We are a nation of rebels because our forefathers wanted religious liberty? Okay. Silly me, I thought it was because we had turned our backs on God. Again, those men were more students of the Word (not Jefferson or Madison...I'm talking about the Baptists) than most today. I'm certainly not going to pass judgment that our nation is a nation of rebels because they believed in liberty. Did you read the articles I posted?

[PreacherBen]

Yes I read the articles did you read the words of Jesus?

[HappyChristian]

Yes I read the articles did you read the words of Jesus?

Yes, I did. And I do. And so did those Baptists who were involved in what you are saying is the reason our country is so rebellious.

What about the scriptures in the articles? Are those moot?

[PreacherBen]

PreacherBen wrote:
"Yes I read the articles did you read the words of Jesus?"

Yes, I did. And I do. And so did those Baptists who were involved in what you are saying is the reason our country is so rebeillious.

Your missing the point. They DID NOT DO what Jesus taught. That is the plain truth. They did not obey. Do you understand the influence of Calvinism on the early Baptists, and the very false Calvinistic teaching of Dominion Theology? This is an important question.

You also said:

What about the scriptures in the articles? Are those moot?

You made one ambiguous reference to Rom. 13. Let's look:

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.

If I go by this scripture alone, there is ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION for rebellion against the (even corrept) reign of the king of England. We clearly rebelled in light of the clear commands of God. You pooint is not moot, it is just not founded on truth, the word of God.

[PreacherBen]

Dominion theology is predicated upon three basic beliefs:

(a) Satan usurped man's dominion over the earth through the temptation of Adam and Eve;
( The Church is God's instrument to take dominion back from Satan; and
© Jesus cannot or will not return until the Church has taken dominion by gaining control of the earth's governmental and social institutions.

In a nutshell, the elect are going to Heaven, the unelect are going to hell, war therefore does not trump the sovereignty of God in saving the elect, therefore war is deemed "righteous war" in the name of God.

THIS IS NOT BIBLE. PERIOD.

Many if not most of the early American Christians were in some way influenced by the Reformers. THAT was the foundation for their justification to overthrow this wicked king. They used scripture as a justification, but only as Calvin and the Reformers did through the teaching of Dominion Theology. If we reject the error of Calvinism, then we need to reject this also. If we do, then we begin to see the light in regard to the false premise the founding fathers used to justify ''righteous rebellion." Does that sound good to you? Righteous Rebillion??? That is everything but godly or biblical.

[John81]

I was aware of these, but was aiming for simplicity.

Yes, many Baptists were involved in uprising against England. Does that make it right? What Scripture supports what they did?

Taxes was the main issue of the Revolution and most other issues stemmed from this one. The NT Christians under Roman rule faced similar and even worse than what the colonists faced yet they didn't revolt and the examples in Scripture of Christians facing these things was of joy, contentment and if they felt necessary, of moving away.

The NT does not say Christians should fight for "religious liberty" (a manmade concept). We are not told to revolt against tyranny.

Scripture is very clear as to what Christians are to be doing, how we are to be living and how our dealing with the government is to be.

As a follower of Christ it's my aim to live according to the Word of God. As I pursue holiness I must be willing to cast off that which is unscriptural. Christians are to be a peculiar people, we are to stand out as very different from non-Christians. Christians are told in the New Testament just how much different our lives are to be and how we are to live and react to conditions and those around us. The Word must be our sole standard and nothing else.

[Annie]

Your missing the point. They DID NOT DO what Jesus taught. That is the plain truth. They did not obey. Do you understand the influence of Calvinism on the early Baptists, and the very false Calvinistic teaching of Dominion Theology? This is an important question.

PreacherBen, can you direct me to a source which states that a tenet of Calvinism is dominion theology? I know there are some Calvinists which ascribe to dominion theology, but I don't think it is a teaching of Calvin. (I could be wrong, though. That's why I'm interested in documentation.)

[Annie]

Yes' date=' many Baptists were involved in uprising against England. Does that make it right?[/quote']

No, it doesn't.



What Scripture prohibits what they did? They did not seek to depose King George. They did not seek to disobey his laws. They were subject unto a "higher power" per Romans 13 (the new American government), not acting lawlessly. They did not "rise up" and attack the crown. They defended the new nation, the government of which had been ordained by God, as Romans 13 clearly says. They did not have a "revolution" as the French or Bolsheviks did. They merely separated into a new entity, and then defended that new entity. There is a VAST difference between a real, unscriptural "revolution" and the American War for Independence.


Here, you're comparing apples and oranges. The early Christians faced religious persecution; the colonists were dealing with something entirely different: civil, not religious matters.



I agree 100%. Revolution, tyranny, and religious liberty aren't concepts mentioned in Scripture. Scripture neither mandates nor prohibits warring about civil matters. It merely says that we are to be subject to the higher powers, because the powers that be are ordained of God to keep order on the earth. If we are subjecting ourselves to any government, then we are following Romans 13. If we are being lawless, and are refusing to submit ourselves to the laws laid out by those who are in authority over us, then we are not following Romans 13. As I've said before, in many cases we can CHOOSE who we want to be in authority over us. We can change our citizenship. We can form new governments (where does Scripture prohibit this? It actually says that the powers that be are "ordained by God!"). The point of Rom. 13 is that we are to submit ourselves to the accountability of a government. You can't read any more into Romans 13 than that. I think that might be what you're doing, John.