# Musn't high Church Anglican's reject USA as legiti



## raderag (Apr 15, 2004)

We rebelled from the King of England, who is their head. Am I missing something here?


----------



## Saiph (Apr 15, 2004)

Cromwell Rules !!!!

:tank:


----------



## raderag (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:8a7591885c][i:8a7591885c]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:8a7591885c]
Cromwell Rules !!!!

:tank: [/quote:8a7591885c]

The English reformation is facsinating with so many things going on.


----------



## Bradley Arakelian (Apr 19, 2004)

Dear fellow admirers of Oliver Cromwell,

When I was a junior in high school, now twenty-two years ago, I read Lady Antonia Fraser's lengthy biography of this seventeenth century statesman. I highly recommend it to all of you. If you are interested in the same era of English history from the royalist standpoint, the same author's biography of King Charles II is also superb.
Yes, we revolted against King George III, another great man, but not because he was head of the Church of England [i:0a1882920d]per se[/i:0a1882920d]. He might very well have been a more orthodox Christian than many of our Founding Fathers. Interesting that of the first four Georges, he was the only one that was faithful to his wife (though I recognize that that fact, in and of itself, does not mean he was a Christian).

Yours Faithfully,

Bradley Arakelian

[Edited on 4-19-2004 by Bradley Arakelian]

[Edited on 4-19-2004 by Bradley Arakelian]

[Edited on 4-20-2004 by Bradley Arakelian]


----------



## yeutter (Apr 19, 2004)

*George III*

George von Hannover was the legitimate king against whom the American colonists were wrong to rebel. At the time of the revolution many pious Anglicans and Lutherans fealt constrained to back the tory cause.
After the revolution many solid Anglican clerics in the states were compelled for consciuos sake to go to Canada, the West Indies or back to Great Britian. This devistated the Anglican cause in the states especially in Maryland. Many parishes were lost to Methodism.
The British crown recognized the American government thereby freeing his Majesties loyal subjects from obediance to King George.


----------



## Bradley Arakelian (Apr 20, 2004)

Yeutter,

Very well said, indeed. Actually, I am not absolutely convinced that King George III did anything wrong with respect to the American colonies. Granted, British politicians committed a strategic error by forgetting certain aspects of their own history: the issues over which the American revolution was fought, such as the &quot;arbitrary&quot; power of the king, and &quot;no taxation without representation&quot; were the same that caused the civil war between the Cavaliers and the Roundheads from 1642-1648. That unfortunate series of events resulted in the lopping off of the king's head (and Cromwell's triumph).
King George III said to John Adams, the first American ambassador to the court of St. James, &quot;I was the last to consent to the separation [of the colonies from Great Britain]; but the separation having been made and having become inevitable, I have always said, as I say now, that I would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power.&quot; 
I must also mention that George III was not &quot;Georg von Hannover.&quot; The first two Georges were born in Hanover, but the third was the first monarch born in England since Queen Anne.

Yours Faithfully,

Bradley Arakelian

[Edited on 4-20-2004 by Bradley Arakelian]


----------



## yeutter (Apr 20, 2004)

*Georg III still a von Hannover*

Bradley:

The accident of George III birth in GreatBritian did not alter the fact that he was a von Hannover for he was still King of Hannover and a number of other principalities in Northern Germany. This was true of George IV and William IV as well. Hannover prohibited females from ruling hence Victoria did not ascend the throne after the death of her uncle William IV. Her Uncle Ernst August then became King of Hannover and the two Kingdoms diverged.

The thrust of the main topic under consideration is the &quot;right&quot; to rebell or to self govern. Anglicans, Lutherans, and Eastern Orthodox all have historically taught that the Christian man is obligated to obey the established governmental authority in all things unless expressly forbidden to do so in Scripture. Calvin in Book 4 Chapt 20 of the Institutes seems to take a stance that allows resistance to Civil authority in ways in which Anglicans [and Lutherans] would not be comfortable.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 20, 2004)

*The Declaration of Independence*

Here's the declaration. Let's examine these lists of greviances. Are any of them justification for revoking the authority of the civil magistrate? If not one reason in particular, how about all the reasons taken together? When does the civil magistrate forfeit his legitimacy? Is it even possible for him to do so? 


> The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
> In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
> 
> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
> ...


----------



## sastark (Apr 20, 2004)

[quote:384b5bdbe3][i:384b5bdbe3]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:384b5bdbe3]

The thrust of the main topic under consideration is the &quot;right&quot; to rebell or to self govern. Anglicans, Lutherans, and Eastern Orthodox all have historically taught that the Christian man is obligated to obey the established governmental authority in all things unless expressly forbidden to do so in Scripture. Calvin in Book 4 Chapt 20 of the Institutes seems to take a stance that allows resistance to Civil authority in ways in which Anglicans [and Lutherans] would not be comfortable. [/quote:384b5bdbe3]

And look at the results: Nazis in Germany and Communism in Eastern Europe (and this is only in modern times).

We have our own set of problems in the United States, but the idea that the people should just lie back and take what ever their rulers give them is a fallacy.

Governments exist for the purpose of serving the people. When they cease to do this, they cease being legitamite governments. (Clarification: I'm not saying that if tomorrow, the U.S. mail delivers a letter to my neighbor that should have gone to me, I should start a revolution. I am talking about governments infringing on God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: serious things).


----------



## sastark (Apr 20, 2004)

[quote:faa4307b6e][i:faa4307b6e]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:faa4307b6e]
George von Hannover was the legitimate king against whom the American colonists were wrong to rebel. At the time of the revolution many pious Anglicans and Lutherans fealt constrained to back the tory cause.
After the revolution many solid Anglican clerics in the states were compelled for consciuos sake to go to Canada, the West Indies or back to Great Britian. This devistated the Anglican cause in the states especially in Maryland. Many parishes were lost to Methodism.
The British crown recognized the American government thereby freeing his Majesties loyal subjects from obediance to King George. [/quote:faa4307b6e]

Whoa!!! Hold up there! A couple of points:

First, the American colonies were certainly [b:faa4307b6e]not[/b:faa4307b6e] wrong to rebel. Read the Declaration of Independence (thanks for posting it, Patrick). The sheer fact that England was harboring a large standing army in the colonies without the consent of the colonists is reason enough in my mind to start a war - The colonies were already occupied! There were many other valid reasons for the American Revolution. Like I said, read the Declaration of Independence.

Second, I assume you are an American citizen? As an American citizen, you have no problem saying that the United States should not exist? Sorry, I find that a bit ironic.

Third, how quickly we forget. If you lived in the colonies in the 1770s, I wonder what your attitude would be towards the British monarchy? If the local British Army Captian suddenly decided that he and his staff would be staying in your house and you and your family would be required to feed them and wait on them, what would you say? And if you refused, and were then arrested and taken from your wife and children, what would you say? And as you sailed to Britian to be put on trial (not in the colonies, mind you), what would you say? And when you were put on trial without a jury, what would you say?
Honestly, would you be holding to the same position you are now? 

Fourth, you said: &quot;At the time of the revolution many pious Anglicans and Lutherans fealt constrained to back the tory cause.&quot; So, I suppose those Presbyterians and congregationalists (and also Anglicans and Lutherans) who backed the United States were somehow &quot;less-pious&quot;? Please.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 20, 2004)

I agree to some extent Seth. I certainly do not advocate rebellion, especially being in the Navy  But, the colonists were under great tribulation. They were expected to share in the burdens of English citizenship, yet were not afforded equal rights with English citizens, as the Declaration illustrates. Local magistrates had there hands tied so they could not govern the immediate needs of the people. In essence you had the King refusing to rule his citizens fairly, and punishing those who complained about it. But is this grounds for rebellion, biblically speaking?


----------



## Bradley Arakelian (Apr 20, 2004)

Have Christians the right to rebel against the civil magistrate? According to Romans 13:1-7, yes, if that magistrate is behaving in a manner that violates the standards in the word of God. If the charges laid against King George III in the [i:ef5b0acc4a]Declaration of Independence[/i:ef5b0acc4a] were true, then the American colonists were within their rights. I merely offer, as one who has studied the life of King George III, that I am not convinced that he was the great ogre that the [i:ef5b0acc4a]Declaration of Independence[/i:ef5b0acc4a] and American history since 1776 have made him out to be. Neither were the majority of American colonists at the time said declaration was composed convinced of this.
To study the American revolution as it is portrayed by British scholars and historians is to know another, and interesting, point of view.

Yours Faithfully,

Bradley Arakelian


----------



## pastorway (Apr 20, 2004)

As to the Decalration of Independence and the &quot;rebellion&quot; - here is the key:

[quote:b7acd6cfcb]He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. [/quote:b7acd6cfcb]

The Parliment declared us out of the King's protection and out from under his authority, then he declared war and invaded to get us back. We were a pawn between the King and Parliament as they fought for power in England.

On Oct 26, 1775, King George in an address to Parliament declared that the colonies were a foreign enemy! The Prohibitory Act passed in Nov 1775 declared us &quot;open enemies.&quot; This was 8 months before the Decalration of Independence, and colonial representatives proclaimed their loyalty to the King, but instisted that he address their grievances. He instead declared war with intent to conquer the colonies! A member of Parliment, David Hartley, summed up the Prohibitory Act by saying, &quot;An inflexible majority in the Parliament have now declared all America to be an independent hostile state.&quot; This was in December and 7 months prior to the Declaration of Independence. England declared us independent before we did ourselves! 

We, now free from his rule, and under attack, were forced to defend ourselves.

It was not a rebellion. It was self defense. 

Phillip


----------



## Scott (Apr 21, 2004)

Phillip:

That is an interesting perspective and I never heard that before. Did any of the contemporary colonists take this view? If so, it would seem the Declaration of Independence was Unnecessary. Further, the Colonists seems to consider themselves in open revolt based on their writings and language.

Also, I am not sure an act of that sort would have the legal effect of dissolving ties to the colonies (maybe it would - I don't know enough about 18th century English law on that point). 

Scott


----------



## pastorway (Apr 21, 2004)

Get ahold of the book [i:6c2201e67e]The Revolution Myth[/i:6c2201e67e] by Gene Fisher and Glen Chambers, available from David Barton's Wallbuilder ministry. He gives the historical details and quotes the founders to support the evidence i have given.

Phillip


----------



## yeutter (Apr 22, 2004)

*Waging war on the colonies*

Waging war on the colonies seems to be the strongest case made to justify the colonies declaring independance as part of their civil war against parliment and the crown. The sad fact is the crown was provoked in this matter by those who seemed bent on rebellion. That is not to say that all were rebellious at the start of the dispute. [I am not certain President Witherspoon set out to be a rebell against established order] 

When should the colonists have stopped praying for George their soveriegn and started praying for the defeat of the British forces.


----------

