Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

American Revolution: Biblical or Not?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

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.


I agree with this, thanks, Happy, for clarifying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members





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.


Luke 1:39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; 40And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. 41And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Elisabeth had believed on the Lord Jesus Christ before he was even born.

Psalm 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. David was referring to non other than the Lord Jesus Christ....he called him "my Lord". Matthew 22:42-45 When Jesus came, people had been already looking for "the Christ" and "the Messiah". Some, had a distorted understanding of WHO that Messiah was, but the ones who trusted in Him as the Lord and the saviour of mankind, like Elisabeth, Isaiah and David, were the ones who were truly trusting in Christ. Dispensations do noit negate the plan of salvation, sir.
Nicodemus was a Jew, but he was not a believer until after he had encoun tered Jesus. Rahab the Old Testament harlot was.


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.
That's how I view England. They were outsiders. Europeans left Europe, began to develop an identity as Americans and eventually declared independence. Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees and the Israelites left Egypt. The NT may not tell us to fight, but it does tell us to separate ourselves from the world. But the Bible also says that a man who won't provide for his own is worse than an infidel, and I beleive that includes protection. So you can mess with me and that's one thing; but mess with my family, my wife and my kids and you will get a taste of what war is. Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Luke 1:39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; 40And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. 41And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Elisabeth had believed on the Lord Jesus Christ before he was even born.

Psalm 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. David was referring to non other than the Lord Jesus Christ....he called him "my Lord". Matthew 22:42-45 When Jesus came, people had been already looking for "the Christ" and "the Messiah". Some, had a distorted understanding of WHO that Messiah was, but the ones who trusted in Him as the Lord and the saviour of mankind, like Elisabeth, Isaiah and David, were the ones who were truly trusting in Christ. Dispensations do noit negate the plan of salvation, sir.
Nicodemus was a Jew, but he was not a believer until after he had encountered Jesus. Rahab the Old Testament harlot was.



Thanks for the verses. I honestly don't think they prove the idea that people looked forward to the cross in the same manner that we look back to the cross. David spoke in spirit, so he may or may not have known what he was talking about. Even if he did, acknowledging the future Messiah as being Lord is not one and the same as admitting you are a sinner and putting your faith in the shed blood atonement of Jesus Christ to save you from your sins. The same applies to Elisabeth, they were excited about the King of the Jews being born, they knew little to nothing about a suffering servant dying on a cross - which goes for all of Israel at that time. This is why the apostles, after three years with Christ, still had no clue or idea that Jesus Christ was to be crucified.

Nicodemus was a Pharisee, they knew the Old Testament better than anyone at the time. He was a believer in Judaism, but not in Jesus - as every Jew was at some point. If there was such a thing as the new birth in the Old Testament, then Nicodemous, an open minded Pharisee, would have known about it. How could there be new birth in the Old Testament if the body of Christ wasn't even formed until the cross?

There is a legitimate argument for people being "saved" in the Old Testament by faith in God or His promises (Abraham justified by faith) OR there is a legitimate argument for a combination of faith and works (Lev. 4:26,31,35; 5:10; 19:22; Num. 15:28; Ez. 18:24) - but nowhere is there any record of anyone leading anyone to faith in the shed blood atonement of the cross. They did not look forward to the cross for salvation, they didn't even go to Heaven when they died - they went to Paradise.


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.
That's how I view England. They were outsiders. Europeans left Europe, began to develop an identity as Americans and eventually declared independence. Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees and the Israelites left Egypt. The NT may not tell us to fight, but it does tell us to separate ourselves from the world. But the Bible also says that a man who won't provide for his own is worse than an infidel, and I beleive that includes protection. So you can mess with me and that's one thing; but mess with my family, my wife and my kids and you will get a taste of what war is.


I agree, brother.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



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.


We would always be better off OBeying God, rebelling against those who have rule over us is rebelling against God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One can't declare themselves to be another country without first declaring they are leaving the country, and government, to which they belong. This, under nearly every government, is an act of treason and rebellion, and thus a violation of Romans 13.

It should also be remembered that only 1/3 of the colonists pushed for and prosecuted the war. Two-thirds of the population didn't agree with the Revolution yet found themselves drug along by the other third.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

We know whence wars comes from, lust, pure lust, and of course disOBedience to God. That is if we believe the above verses.



Can you defend those who participated in the Boston Tea Party?

Watching political events on TV many times it looks like a mOB that lust after all the world has to offer, some of them seem ready to go to war in order to fulfill their lust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One can't declare themselves to be another country without first declaring they are leaving the country, and government, to which they belong. This, under nearly every government, is an act of treason and rebellion, and thus a violation of Romans 13.

It should also be remembered that only 1/3 of the colonists pushed for and prosecuted the war. Two-thirds of the population didn't agree with the Revolution yet found themselves drug along by the other third.




John, Some see to have so much allegiance to this country that it blinds them to the wrongs this country has done on many fronts. These are the one that seems to believe the America way is always the Bible way no matter what the Bible says about the issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



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.

I'm not saying that Romans 13 isn't clear...just that, contrasted with 1 Tim. 2:9, it doesn't specify a prohibition in clear, direct language. 1 Tim. 2:9 states outright: "NOT with broided hair, or gold , or pearls, or costly array"...It is a clear "prohibition" if taken at face value, yet Christian women DO wear braided hair, gold, pearls, etc. Are they, then, disOBeying Scripture? Romans 13 is different in that it speaks in generalities ("be subject") and does not strongly state unequivocal prohibitions. It doesn't say "a group shall not secede from the nation to which it belongs in order to establish a new government." Yet you somehow assume that secession is forbidden by Romans 13. How can you (in the face of the clearly expressed language of 1 Tim.) think it is all right for women to wear jewelry, and yet (lacking any such direct language in Romans 13) prohibit secession? Seems a bit topsy-turvy to me. The truth is that both passages are dealing with principles, not "do's" and "don'ts." 1 Timothy 2: Women are not to dress immodestly/excessively. Romans 13: Anarchy and lawlessness are against God's will. He sets up governments to keep order by rewarding good and punishing evil under their jurisidiction.

We can go round and round with this, and not convince each other, but the colonists were not seeking anarchy. They were not acting outside of government, and thus remained within the bounds of Romans 13. Sure, from the English perspective, they were traitors...but the Americans tried and hanged other Americans who aided the British cause as traitors. They could not have done this without a government (fledgling though it was) against which treason could be committed. Sure, people had a choice to make: which government to identify themselves with. As far as I know, the typical Tory wasn't executed for treason. This is in direct contrast to the actions of the French Revolution.

Another angle: Changing one's citizenship is not unbiblical. Choosing which government to submit to is not forbidden. Anarchy and lawlessness are what Romans 13 are addressing, not changing governments. Edited by Annie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mt 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

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.

What do we owe our government? Honor, OBedience, Tribute. If you totally rebel against your government, you can not give it, Honor, OBedience, and Tribute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators


I'm not saying that Romans 13 isn't clear...just that, contrasted with 1 Tim. 2:9, it doesn't specify a prohibition in clear, direct language. 1 Tim. 2:9 states outright: "NOT with broided hair, or gold , or pearls, or costly array"...It is a clear "prohibition" if taken at face value, yet Christian women DO wear braided hair, gold, pearls, etc. Are they, then, disOBeying Scripture? Romans 13 is different in that it speaks in generalities ("be subject") and does not strongly state unequivocal prohibitions. It doesn't say "a group shall not secede from the nation to which it belongs in order to establish a new government." Yet you somehow assume that secession is forbidden by Romans 13. How can you (in the face of the clearly expressed language of 1 Tim.) think it is all right for women to wear jewelry, and yet (lacking any such direct language in Romans 13) prohibit secession? Seems a bit topsy-turvy to me. The truth is that both passages are dealing with principles, not "do's" and "don'ts." 1 Timothy 2: Women are not to dress immodestly/excessively. Romans 13: Anarchy and lawlessness are against God's will. He sets up governments to keep order by rewarding good and punishing evil under their jurisidiction.

We can go round and round with this, and not convince each other, but the colonists were not seeking anarchy. They were not acting outside of government, and thus remained within the bounds of Romans 13. Sure, from the English perspective, they were traitors...but the Americans tried and hanged other Americans who aided the British cause as traitors. They could not have done this without a government (fledging though it was) against which treason could be committed. Sure, people had a choice to make: which government to identify themselves with. As far as I know, the typical Tory wasn't executed for treason. This is in direct contrast to the actions of the French Revolution.

Another angle: Changing one's citizenship is not unbiblical. Choosing which government to submit to is not forbidden. Anarchy and lawlessness are what Romans 13 are addressing, not changing governments.

:goodpost:


John, declaring oneself free from one form of government in order to go under another type of government is not unbiblical. To try to twist Romans 13 around to be saying that is adding to scripture that which is not there. And you've never answered why you support the secession of the southern states prior to the Civil War and do not call that treason. Perhaps because you know it isn't? Well, if it isn't, neither was the colonies declaration of independence from England. A disagreement with the form of government, and replacing that form of government, is not unbiblical.

Just because the incumbents in office declare something treason doesn't make it so. There are congress members who have recently declared that those who read the Constitution are terrorists. Does that make it so? Absolutely not. In fact, we would all most likely say those who stated that are nuts. But being a domestic terrorist is treason, so they are ipso facto declaring Constitution readers as treasonous. According to your non-correct view of Romans 13, we should all say yes, you are so right because you are government and as a Christian I must bow the knee.

Jerry8, once again you've misapplied scripture. We don't owe the government ANY tribute. In this Republic, according to the Constitution, Congress has the authority to levy taxes. And so we pay those. BUT! We have a little something called the voting booth where we can vote to change Congress, to change those taxes. In effect, WE the PEOPLE are Ceasar. We do not live under an Empire, and thus do not owe our lives and monies to the Emperor. Therefore, in actuality, the incumbents in office are to render unto WE the PEOPLE, within the boundary lines of the Constitution.

Of course, perhaps according to Romans 13 we shouldn't vote. After all, that changes the incumbents in office, and affects laws in the land...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If one can turn against their government at will then there is no such thing as treason. If anyone can declare independence from any government at any time and be biblical in doing so then no government has any real stability or authority.

According to nearly every government on earth, to declare oneself free from their government in order to start another is illegal, is an act of treason and rebellion and most often the penalty is death. If one takes such a course of action they must violate Romans 13.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...