# Patriotism



## jasond49079 (Aug 22, 2004)

Should we be patriots? How important is it? Is there a command or even a hint in the Bible that we have a duty to country beyond Romans 13? Ro. 13 sayes to follow the laws of the land but should we love the land and give our life for it?


----------



## Authorised (Aug 22, 2004)

The overthrow of tyranny is a Biblical mandate, so the war with Britain is justifiable. It is often said that the Reformation caused the first war for American independence, while the Renaissance caused the horribly bloody and useless French Revolution, which only replaced one form of tyranny with another.


----------



## yeutter (Aug 22, 2004)

*Revolution not justified*

The revolutionary war was a mixed bag. It was really a civil war in which Englishmen in North America rebelled against the lawful authority of George Von Hannover. Both Refomation types like John Witherspoon and antirefomation types like adherents of the Enlightenment, Unitarian heretics, and Quaker heretics joined hands to rebell against rather then pray for their King. 

Enlightenment ideas were behind the American Revolution. The writings of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson show that they were men of the Enlightenment. By God's grace the counterrevolutionary forces prevailed in part in the writing of a tolerable constitution.


----------



## cupotea (Aug 22, 2004)

[quote:f2c6d0779d]The overthrow of tyranny is a Biblical mandate, so the war with Britain is justifiable[/quote:f2c6d0779d]

1. There is no overarching Biblical principle requiring nations to overthrow tyrannical governments that I am aware of, if there is, please show it to me.

2. British Rule of the American Colonies wasn't particularly tyrannical, in fact it seems to have been pretty benign. The leading revolutionaries were wealthy bourgeoisie and landowners for the most part irritated because they were being taxed a little unfairly (if being taxed without their say so can be considered unfair) but certainly not 'tyrannically'. The idea that a taxed people should only be taxed with their consent was a novelty at the time the war was fought over it and it certainly isn't a biblical principle by any stretch of the imagination.

Ergo,

3.There were no biblical grounds for the war of American Independence. But then, there needn't have been. The war was justifiable apart from any specific biblical mandate if only as an opportunity to develop and try a kingless republicanism. This 'experiment' has been spectacularly successful on many fronts, but there certainly isn't any reason to look for Biblical support for it. Governments come and go and some are more clearly invested by the fallible human proponents of Godly principles than others and while I would never say that the War of American Independence happened outside of the Providence of God, to assume that this or any specific political movement must needs have explicit biblical support [i:f2c6d0779d]presuppositionally[/i:f2c6d0779d] is, well, unbiblical.

God gives the sword to whom He will...


----------



## Authorised (Aug 22, 2004)

I suppose you don't realize that there are points of history where Christians had to choose between serving their earthly king and serving their heavenly king? It was not the colonists who were rebelling, it was the king who rebelled, so he had to be put down.

God puts kings down and sets them up by these means.


----------



## cupotea (Aug 22, 2004)

[quote:946dc13aff]I suppose you don't realize that there are points of history where Christians had to choose between serving their earthly king and serving their heavenly king? It was not the colonists who were rebelling, it was the king who rebelled, so he had to be put down. 

God puts kings down and sets them up by these means.[/quote:946dc13aff]

Now wait just a minute. You started by saying that the overthrow of tyranny was a biblical mandate and now you're adducing an argument from extra-biblical history? Of course, historically, Christians have often had to make the choice you outline here and as often as not they did so by submitting to torture and execution. This hardly secures your case for the divinely mandated overthrow of governments.

It was, in fact, the colonists who were rebelling in the case of the Americans. The British had given them no reason which could conceivably have stood up to serious inquiry for the taking up of arms against a ruler they had previously sworn to obey. A general, moral argument can sometimes be made for such uprisings, but I have yet to see a biblical argument for such an uprising...and none can even conceivably be made for the American Revolution when the facts are objectively considered.

My point is that there doesn't need to be such an argument...Yes, God sometimes secures regime changes this way and sometimes He ordains that foreign armies invade sovereign nations to effect such regime changes, and sometimes peaceful people just vote changes into effect...

Government happens, not without the Providence and decree of God, but certainly without any regard to a specifically approved form thereof.

Yes, there are markers in Scripture defining which governments are more in line with biblical moral principles and it may be that republican democracy such as we enjoy is one, but it seems just as likely that a benevolently administered parliamentary monarchy is just as well approved of God. And the violent overthrow of either has no biblical mandate under any circumstances that I can discover.

Again, I beg your pardon and indulgence if you would be so kind as to show me such...


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 22, 2004)

There is more than one obligation involved in Romans 13. Yes, the people must honor and submit to the civil magistrate. Why? In order that society may be peaceful and orderly for the propogation of the gospel. But does that mean that the Civil Magistrate is not held to a standard? Of course not. The magistrate has a duty to God to rule justly over the people. I will continue this argument in a reply to another section of your post.


[quote:1a12173b94="Steadfast"]



It was, in fact, the colonists who were rebelling in the case of the Americans. The British had given them no reason which could conceivably have stood up to serious inquiry for the taking up of arms against a ruler they had previously sworn to obey. [/quote:1a12173b94]

In 1775 George III severed all ties with the colonies calling them "wayward sons no longer Englishmen." So in the strictest sense of the word, the colonies were not rebelling per se. It was England who first broke the relationship.

[quote:1a12173b94]A general, moral argument can sometimes be made for such uprisings, but I have yet to see a biblical argument for such an uprising...and none can even conceivably be made for the American Revolution when the facts are objectively considered.[/quote:1a12173b94]

That is a rather odd statement for someone who holds to Reformed theology. I will draw the inference from Romans 13 that we as Christians are at all times to keep the peace. Does that mean that we may depose tyrants? In a limited sense and under the proper circumstances, yes. Drawing from the book of judges and Reformed political thought, especially that of John Knox and the French Huguneot, du Plisse Mornay, tyrants may be deposed by a lesser civil magistrate who derives his authority from the people. That final clause is crucial, for it is the difference between revolution and restoration. The fact that it is led by a lesser civil magistrate signifies, among other things, that it has 1)the backing of the state and 2) its intention is for the return of social order and liberty, which are always the first to go when tyrants rule. 

[quote:1a12173b94]My point is that there doesn't need to be such an argument...Yes, God sometimes secures regime changes this way and sometimes He ordains that foreign armies invade sovereign nations to effect such regime changes[/quote:1a12173b94]

How does God accomplish his will? THrough the means of secondary causes.

[quote:1a12173b94] and sometimes peaceful people just vote changes into effect...[/quote:1a12173b94]

Unless the tyrant rules by the sword and not by the ballot.


----------



## cupotea (Aug 22, 2004)

[quote:59126f14ce]In 1775 George III severed all ties with the colonies calling them "wayward sons no longer Englishmen." So in the strictest sense of the word, the colonies were not rebelling per se. It was England who first broke the relationship. [/quote:59126f14ce]

Could you document this please? Also, it is perhaps worth noting that Britain was far from an absolute monarchy and unless such a pronouncement had Parliamentary endorsement and thus the force of law it would remain little more than the King's opinion. Also, it is worth pointing out that any such pronouncement even if precedent of the Declaration of Independence and legally instrumental as an effective breaking of amicable ties would be entirely beside the point of this discussion, but more on that later in the rerail section of this post...

:smug_b: 

[quote:59126f14ce]I will draw the inference from Romans 13 that we as Christians are at all times to keep the peace. Does that mean that we may depose tyrants? In a limited sense and under the proper circumstances, yes. [/quote:59126f14ce]

I don't recall actually denying this. In fact, it should be inferred from what I've said that "in a limited sense and under the proper circumstances" we may indeed do exactly that.

My contention here is that the American Revolution did not meet any of the inferred criteria necessary for the just overthrow of a tyrant, much less any explicit biblical criteria and that, furthermore, there are no such explicit criteria. By extension, I am not at all sure that I follow those Westminsterian thinkers in their understanding of the chapter on the Civil Magistrate who conclude that because such a revolution seems morally just it is therefore biblically subtantiable.

The rest of your post is interesting and I am grateful for it...but in an effort to rerail here...Authorized contends that the American Revolution was justifiable on Biblical grounds, I deny this and would like to see evidence that I am incorrect in doing so. I contend this based on two points:

1. Scripture does not countenance the violent overthrow of any constituted authority. Indeed rather the opposite. Apostate Israel was several times brought under the rule of pagans by the direct providence of God. At no time was any revolution countenanced in Scripture, indeed, the Prophets are unanimous in their effective endorsement of the invasions and furthermore attribute their eventual removal not to civil agitation but to the Hand of God.

2. Even admitting that tyrants may sometimes be deposed or revolutions effected, the British government, including both King and Parliament were not really tyrannical by any definition and therefore not deserving of rebellion.

This latter will stand even if documentation is kindly given of your quote here since not only is such a quote irrelevant except to the issue of precedence, it may be assumed that any such legal instrument will have been published upon the effective [i:59126f14ce]assumption[/i:59126f14ce] of independence (the withholding of taxes owable to the British government, the discomfiture and firing upon of British troops at the hands of colonists, etc.) regardless of the date of the publication of the Declaration of the same by those colonies in 1776.


----------



## voided user1 (Aug 22, 2004)

It's easy to look back and say, I would have done this or that. That said, I'm going to say it anyway.

I think if you aren't staging an armed revolution right now here in America, you certainly wouldn't have back in 1776. Our taxes are higher, and moral issues at hand are far greater than they ever were before. Would I have revolted against the king? I believe my loyalty as a Christian would have been to uphold and honor the king, up until the point when the new government took over.

Where in the Bible does it say we're supposed to topple a government we deem tyrannical? The last time I checked, the Bible taught that God gives kings their power and also takes it away.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Aug 22, 2004)

One thing I find particularly funny (according to my lectures in history courses) is that the British people were paying twenty-six shillings for taxes when the Americans paid one. George III doubled the taxes of Americans to a shocking two shillings. Americans see it as a 100% tax hike, while the Brits are like "What? You're still paying a thirteenth of what we are!"

And let's not act as if the Americans were not being represented in some way. While they did not elect their representatives, the figures my history professor gave me said that about 30% of Parliament was pro-colonists on issues like taxation. So it's not as if a voice wasn't heard.


----------



## cupotea (Aug 22, 2004)

[aside]It is always interesting to me that many of the same people who argue that the American Revolution was just and biblically substantiable will in another place support the Kirk in her refusal to assist Cromwell in putting down a King who really did need to be put down and a regime which really was tyrannical...[/aside]


----------



## Authorised (Aug 22, 2004)

Oliver Cromwell was justified in both invasions of Ireland and Scotland, and in overthrowing Charles I; I think for the most part, he did his best to rule with Biblical precepts in view.

Government is ordained of God, but wicked government is not and it is our duty as Christians to overthrow, trounce, abolish, and destroy all wickedness in high places. Just because a tyrannical government is in place by God's instrumentality of the wicked (His will of decree), does not mean that we, as Christians, are not to follow His will of precept to fight wickedness.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 22, 2004)

Steadfast:
I spent the last two weeks overloading on American History and came across that quote. To be honest, I forgot where I found it. I believe it is in [i:a2ae023cd8]American Pageant vol. I[/i:a2ae023cd8]. Thanks for mentioning the distinction between King and Parliament. Several Founding Fathers opposed Parliament while supporting the King.

Frozen and Wymer:

Those are good points. I would add that the church isn't putting down tyrants right now because: 1) the mainline church is apostate and the evangelical church is anemic; 2 G W Bush, although he treads upon some of our liberties, is not really a tyrant; 3) Would it be too much of an overstatement to say that the spiritual condition of the church, using the book of Judges, determines the moral condition of the country? (Again, if y'all disagree, that's fine. I am just fleshing this idea out.) Therefore, if the church is apostate at the moment, then it makes little sense for them to bring down the tyrants on spiritual grounds.

I fully concede the other points concerning the "grievances" they had agaisnt England. They almost seem petty in retrospect, especially in light of abortion and homosexuality. 

Regards,


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 22, 2004)

Just to put in a few thoughts, the American revolution was not just about taxes. The Declaration of Independence contains a list of several greivances against King George. And it was England who cut us off first anyway. 

as to biblical precedent for rebellion, what about Jereboam and Jehu? Both were wicked sure. yet both were instructed by God to lead in opposition to tyrannical rebellious kings. Jehu in particular was instructed to kill all the line of Ahab. How is this rebellion justified if God demands submission to civil authorities? Was God contradicting himself when he commanded Jehu to take over Israel? Or was there just grounds to rebel against a tryant? Just some thoughts....


----------



## voided user1 (Aug 22, 2004)

A direct command from God in a specific situation makes the whole issue pretty simple though, doesn't it Patrick? None of us doubts that God was acting in accordance with His own inherent unity, but how does all this fit with biblical principles of submission and authority? God's command to Hosea hardly warrants all us single guys jumping in our cars and heading down to the red-light district.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 22, 2004)

I was just thinking "out loud." I was following more along the lines of their acts not being necessarily as a rebellion but as a restoration of the nation back to where it was suppose to be, though both Jereboam and Jehu failed to completely restore the nation.


----------



## Authorised (Aug 22, 2004)

Manegold of Lautenbach (11th Century)

"œif a king forsakes the rule by law and becomes a tyrant, he is to be considered to have broken the pact [with the people] to which he owes his power and may be desposed by the people."

Fransis Suarez (1548-1617)

"œ2. I hold, secondly that a war of the state against the prince, even if it be aggressive, is not intrinsically evil; but that the conditions necessary for war that is in other respects just must nevertheless be present in order that this sort of war may be righteous. This conclusion holds true when the prince is a tyrant"¦"

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

"œA prince and a lord must remember that according to Romans 13 he is God"(tm)s minister and the servant of his wrath and that the sword has been given to him to use against such [wicked] people. If he does not fulfill the duties of his office by punishing some and protecting others, he commits as great a sin before God as when someone who has not been given the sword commits murders."

John Calvin (1509-1564)

"œFor earthly princes lay aside all their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy of being reckoned in the number of mankind. We ought rather utterly to defy than to obey them whenever they are so restive and wish to spoil God of his rights, and, as it were, to seize upon his throne and draw him down from heaven."

"œif they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dissimulation involved nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know that they have been appointed protectors by God"(tm)s ordinance."

John Wollebius (1586-1629)

"œVIII. Although the church is established by the Word, not by the sword, yet, once it has been established, it may justly be defended by arms against unjust force."

George Buchanan (1506-1582)

"œIf (the King) extorted obedience from the people by force, the people"¦may shake off so grievous a yoke"¦every system upheld by violence may, by the like violence, be overturned."

Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661)

"œIt is lawful for the subjects in any use to take arms against the lawful king, if he degenerated and shall wickedly use his lawful power."

John Lilburne (1618-1657)

"œThe Most authentic servants of Christ have always been the worse enemies of tyranny and the oppressor."



If God has ordained the punishment of the wicked by means of the magistrate, who can punish the wicked magistrate except for those over whom the magistrate rules?

Ehud had no direct commandment of God to do what he did, yet he attacked and killed the highest civil ruler in the land assuming that he, himself, had God's blessing. He used trickery and other dishonest means to kill a tyrant in a particularly horrible, bloody and "dirty" (haha) fashion. This was done in faith, to relieve Israel of a tyrant.

Jael, Heber's wife drove a tent peg into Sisera's head, yet this act was done in faith with God's blessing.

"So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the children of Israel."

Judges 4:23


----------



## irishcalvinist (Aug 23, 2004)

*Supporting Paul Hill????*

[size=16:d5341f7faa]Just curious? Since some here support killing the civil magistrate over a few shillings in taxes, perhaps they could weigh in on Paul Hill who gunned down an abortion doctor. Do they support the actions of Paul Hill in killing over something more important than money: human life... or are we only allowed to murder over disposable income? Or is murder only justified when it actually succeeds in overthrowing the government?

(Just to be clear, I believe that both Paul Hill and the abortion doctor were murderers... but Paul Hill did not have the right to take the law into his own hands. That authority rests with the civil magistrate. Those colonists who fired the first shots in 1775 and murdered members of the British Army only gained legitimacy because their cause succeeded... not because their actions were just. If they had failed, we would probably be in unanimous agreement, that they were murderers.)[/size:d5341f7faa]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 23, 2004)

I have a BS (no jokes please) in Government, i.e. in college I studied governments--comparitively, analytically, behaviorally, historically, etc. All of which means:

all I know [i:5206d4ab9d]for sure[/i:5206d4ab9d] is that this question defies an easy answer. [i:5206d4ab9d]Today[/i:5206d4ab9d] I voted with the affirmative. But my hold on that opinion is far from iron-like or without qualifications.

Just some random observations:
1) I do, in fact, approve (today's opinion remember) of the American Rebellion. "Revolution" is a misnomer, or rather a self-consciously radical, Jacobin (in spirit; I know such a label is slightly ananchronistic), "freethinker" friendly term for the War of Independence. The fact that "Revolutionary" is the war's most common descriptor today shows how far Enlightenment thought has triumphed over other, more biblical categories (and names). 

An argument can unquestionably be made that "lesser magistrates" led this rebellion and that it had some semblance of being orderly and proper (rather the opposite of a revolution: a spinning things around and overturning them). Whether their view received Divine approbation at the Judgment Seat is less certain. No truth-appeal can be made from the "facts of history" (the "is") to the "ought."

2) Please, if you are tempted, do not fall prey to the Marxian error of economic/financial determinism, or the related fallacy of making monetary matters the principal issue in your understanding of this whole affair. Yes, they were there and deserve note, not least for which prominent figures [i:5206d4ab9d]were[/i:5206d4ab9d] so motivted. But they were not (could not have been!) a deciding factor in raising up a volunteer army that fought and ultimately threw out an army of invaders and mercenaries.

3) The phrase "no taxation without representation" should have its emphasis on the "representation" aspect. This was a fundamental right of Englishmen, and it was being trod underfoot. "The power to tax is the power to destroy" was a principle well understood by the colonists [i:5206d4ab9d]and their properly constituted leadership.[/i:5206d4ab9d] The fact that they were so quick to defend their (English) rights at such a (modest, 2sh. vs. 26sh!) point of attack only shows that they were much closer to "all or nothing" kinds of thinkers than their brothers across the sea, or even us today.

This is not to say that they are to be (automatically) judged [i:5206d4ab9d]precipitous[/i:5206d4ab9d] in their conduct, as if the lawless radicals, dressed up like Indians (identities hidden like kidnapping, beheading, poseurs for Al Jazeera today), who put on the Boston Tea Party, typified the colonial mindset. Significant efforts at redress for the many colonial grievances were proceeding and had been pursued within the English system. And perhaps even greater efforts should have been made, and war avoided. But that is a hard call to make, for us so far removed from the complex events of those days.

4) I found a choice quotation from an aged W.o.I. veteran, probably a New Englander (the preferred [i:5206d4ab9d]reasons[/i:5206d4ab9d] for undertaking the conflict varied, sometimes significantly, colony by colony), who many years after the events was interviewed for his recollections of the conflict. It was amusing to read the discomfiture of the idealistic interviewer--heavily influenced by the Enlightenment and Romantic thought-patterns, and the "standard" explanations current in his own day's p-c education and culture, as he pressed his veteran for the latter's supposed idealistic and economic rationales for taking up arms against the Empire's regulars. The old man scoffed at his interviewer's naivete. "We had always governed ourselves [for well over a century in most cases], and they didn't mean we should." 

The abolishing of legislatures had led to civil war in England barely a century prior. Why were their grandchildren surprised (Edmund Burke wasn't) when the same right to resistance was claimed by their fellows?

5) Would I have taken up arms in 1776? I have no idea. None. I can't possibly fathom all the factors that would have impacted my decision-making process. I can't even rely on my "personality" to guide my guess, or my religious beliefs. Nor the fact that I am a veteran. I can just as easily see myself on either side on the sidelines, or running away with or without a "side." Conversely, I can really only see myself in the ranks of the Rebel combatants.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 23, 2004)

Calvin held to a view of principled resistance to unjust, tyrannical civil magistrates known as the theory of interposition. In short, individuals may not resist tyrants on their own, but only under the authority of lesser civil magistrates:

For though the correction of tyrannical domination is the vengeance of God, we are not, therefore, to conclude that it is committed to us who have received no other command than to obey and suffer. This observation I always apply to private persons. For if there be, in the present day, any magistrates appointed for the protection of the people and the moderation of the power of kings ... I am so far from prohibiting them, in the discharge of their duty, to oppose the violence or cruelty of kings, that I affirm, that if they connive at kings in their oppression of their people, such forbearance involves the most nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people of which they know that they have been appointed as protectors by the ordination of God. (Institutes, Bk., 4, Ch. 30, Sec. 21)

The key thing to note is that he did argue that resistance to tyrants was lawful under certain circumstances. Romans 13 is not a blank check to tyrants. Or else, the Scottish Covenanters, French Huguenots, Chinese Christians and others who died because they worshipped King Jesus rather than Caesar died in rebellion to His Word. Perhaps they would have lived if they had not resisted tyranny. On the contray, "we must obey God rather than men." 

Paul Hill was an individual reacting to a crime/criminal in a manner that was not Biblical; he became a law unto himself and therein compounded a terrible tragedy. He was not a lesser civil magistrate standing up for the life of an unborn child in his jurisdiction, which is what civil magistrates should be doing today in the face of the monstrous crime of abortion in our land. 

In contrast, the history leading up to the Declaration of Independence shows that lesser civil magistrates (re: Continental Congress) pursued all means of redress possible and were rejected, thus making their resistance to and separation from the Crown lawful and Biblical. In fact, the American Revolution, or Presbyterian War of Independence as it is sometimes known (due to the Scotch-Irish views on freedom and liberty which so heavily influenced the men who stood up to English oppression), is properly seen as an act of secession by parties who have a natural right to self-government. The Declaration lists numerous just reasons for their actions. Is the American War for Independence a perfect example of Biblical resistance to tyranny? No, I don't think it's a perfect example. Many of our founding fathers were unorthodox in their thinking about the Bible and Christianity (Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine and George Washington all come to mind). But in principle, this war is one of the more just wars in all of human history that I can recall.


----------



## cupotea (Aug 23, 2004)

I am a mere history-buff, and I keep coming back to this:

I have not yet seen a justification for the war of American Independence. If the salient criterion is going to be 'tyranny' on the part of the British Crown and Parliament (even leaving aside entirely for the moment whether there's any Biblical mandate to overthrow tryants [by lesser magistrates or no]), where was it? Where was the tyranny? I mentioned taxation without representation because it's the reason we all heard about in 6th grade history class. I readily admit that there were a number of other issues, pocketbook and otherwise though I do tend to think that economic issues were the most important. Labelling such a view Marxist seems at best unhelpful. 

Again, the blessings of the form of government we now enjoy seem to me to be manifest and obvious. As an experiment it has been successful beyond our wildest dreams. As an aside, I think also that a bi-cameral congress and executive offices are in some sense mirrors of the two houses of parliament and the office of the Premier in the English system (of course without any monarch at all and with at least the theory that such offices are open to any citizen regardless of birth). So, the US isn't some kind of political [i:9b3f522db5]res novus[/i:9b3f522db5] anyway.

But admitting this, and assuming some mythical biblical mandate for the war and actions leading up to the war that brought it about are two different things. Even if it can be maintained biblically that people are permitted to overthrow tyrants, I still don't see how Britain qualified as such.


----------



## cupotea (Aug 23, 2004)

[quote:59882c0542]In contrast, the history leading up to the Declaration of Independence shows that lesser civil magistrates (re: Continental Congress) pursued all means of redress possible and were rejected, thus making their resistance to and separation from the Crown lawful and Biblical.[/quote:59882c0542]

1. It is not established, or even capable of establishment that the Continental Congress (an illegal body, btw) "pursued all means of redress possible". It is certainly true that King George was obstinate and possibly already rather irrational, but the fact remains that the colonists had several advocates in Parliament and that by some accounts the number seemed to be growing.

2. I do not accept that even if they had "pursued all means of redress possible", that the issues for which they were seeking redress were such that they made the King and Parliament of Great Britain tyrants worthy of 'rejection'. Or, for that matter that intruding the word 'biblical' in the second bold remark above is really warranted merely because Calvin and others held an opinion about lesser magistrates having authority to depose tyrants.


----------



## cupotea (Aug 23, 2004)

[quote:7fdc3d8833]If God has ordained the punishment of the wicked by means of the magistrate, who can punish the wicked magistrate except for those over whom the magistrate rules?[/quote:7fdc3d8833] 

Biblically speaking? No one except God. In those instances where Christians had no choice but to obey God rather than Caesar, they did so going to their deaths. This at least is the biblical record.

Your other references are interesting but represent specific examples and not necessarily instances of 'dogmatic case law'.

The assumption that Ehud's approval of Ehud's act and intent equates to God's approval of the same is not reflected in Judges 3. Nowhere is God's approval of this act recorded.

The case of Jael and Sisera comes within the context of an ongoing war between the Israelites and the Canaanites. Sisera was a general, not a tyrannical despot thus his death was an act of war, a combat assassination as it were. It may be assumed that Jabin, king of Canaan [i:7fdc3d8833]was[/i:7fdc3d8833] a tyrannical despot, but then, Jael didn't dispatch [i:7fdc3d8833]him[/i:7fdc3d8833], she killed his general. 

Judges 4:23 illustrates all this amply if it is taken in context. The point is that the Israelties were a sovereign people at war with another sovereign people, the death of Sisera and the destruction of Jabin being Providential outcomes of that war. This cannot realistically be equated with one part of a people rising up against another part of the same people and overthrowing their rule and authority.


----------



## irishcalvinist (Aug 23, 2004)

*Christians should never murder their neighbors for money!!!!*

[size=16:849cd89c67]Andrew:

You said:

[quote:849cd89c67]Paul Hill was an individual reacting to a crime/criminal in a manner that was not Biblical; he became a law unto himself and therein compounded a terrible tragedy. [u:849cd89c67]He was not a lesser civil magistrate standing up for the life of an unborn child in his jurisdiction, which is what civil magistrates should be doing today in the face of the monstrous crime of abortion in our land.[/u:849cd89c67] [/quote:849cd89c67]

Are you suggesting that if the towncouncil of Smalltown, USA voted to revolt against the higher civil magistrate (County, State, Federal, etc.) because of the government's tyrannical support of baby killing (abortion), than they would be free to shoot members of the army, national guard, etc., etc.? You really believe this would be justified by the Scriptures? How much less would killing soldiers and police be justified because citizens wanted to save a few shillings in taxes.

The American Revolution was guided by the Enlightenment and not the Bible. Many American Christians were killed by their neighbors because they chose to remain loyal to their rightful sovereign King George III. Thousands of loyalist Christians were exiled after the war, solely because they chose to obey the command of Romans 13:6-7 'For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.' Christians should never revolt against their civil magistrates and murder their neighbors for money! Such an idea is contrary to the Scriptures.[/size:849cd89c67]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 23, 2004)

It is worth reading the actual text of the Declaration of Independence to examine the question of whether the cause of our founding fathers was just. Here is a link which may be helpful: http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html 

Various powerful and sundry grievances are listed which are clear examples of tyranny on the part of King George III. The signers all testified that every effort was made to redress those grievances. Protestors had been shot and killed, soldiers quartered among an unwilling populace, colonists denied rights assumed as basic by free Englishmen, Indian attacks on colonists encouraged by the Crown -- these were all considered part of a pattern of tyrannical abuse. 

If this is not tyranny, I don't know what is. If one were to wait until the tyrant resorts to mass genocide, then there can certainly be no lawful resistance because there would be no one left to resist. The fact that Americans today don't [i:1fede85b8b]en masse[/i:1fede85b8b] rise up against the IRS or ATF and other forms of modern tyranny does not negate the tyranny that existed in 1776. The downfall of the Confederacy in 1865 has inspired fear in all those Americans who would seek to lawfully seceed ever since. 

Secession should not be assumed to be unBiblical just because Christians have a general duty to honor civil magistrates; civil magistrates are servants, not lords and masters. When they forsake their duties and terrorize their people, secession or overthrow of tyranny under the authority of lesser civil magistrates becomes a duty. People have a basic right to self-defense, even against their leaders. When a King or President breaks covenant with the people, those leaders can and should be held to account. 

The American War of Independence in 1776 is a clear example of lawful resistance to tyranny.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 23, 2004)

Responding to IrishCalvinist:

Your argument is based very much on hyperbole. I have never stated that Christians should kill other Christians in order to save a few shillings on taxes. I am arguing for a principle, enunciated by Calvin in The Institutes, that under the authority of lesser civil magistrates it is lawful for Christians to resist tyranny by force if need be. It seems that your argument against this position leads to the conclusion that no one may fight back against tyranny under any circumstances. That is not the teaching of Romans 13. The American War of Independence was not primarily about money. It was about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," all of which were trampled upon by King George III. Christians ought not to defend the right of a civil magistrate to act that way unimpeded by Christian citizens. As to your query about whether a lesser civil magistrate can resist the killing of unborn children which may be going on under the sanction of a greater civil magistrate, I certainly believe that the shedding of the innocent blood children may be resisted in such a circumstance. 

Simply put, my view is that might does not make right. The law may be on the side of the abortionist, but lesser and greater civil magistrates, I believe, have a duty to God's law over man's. If the greater civil magistrate takes up their duty, all is well and good. If not, and the lesser civil magistrate does so, would you then deny him the right to resist the evil? I hope not. [/quote]


----------



## cupotea (Aug 23, 2004)

[quote:7e41a233b6]Protestors had been shot and killed, soldiers quartered among an unwilling populace, colonists denied rights assumed as basic by free Englishmen, Indian attacks on colonists encouraged by the Crown -- these were all considered part of a pattern of tyrannical abuse. [/quote:7e41a233b6]

"Protestors had been shot and killed". You are referring no doubt to the so-called "Boston Massacre" where 5 men were killed by British soldiers present as peacekeepers in that city. It does seem likely that the soldiers over-reacted but it must be remembered that for some time the Redcoats had been being insulted in the streets, had offal and waste thrown at them and the feeling was, generally, that the Bostonians were going to rise up at some point violently. The sense among these soldiers must have been that this rapidly swelling crowd was the onset of exactly this uprising. 

Of course none of this argues that the British soldiers were right or moderate in their reaction. But, by the same token, neither was the unfortunate deaths of 5 Boston civilians the huge catastrophe it was subsequently painted as by rebel propagandists.

Here is what future President John Adams had to say about his role as attorney for the defense of the soldiers involved:

[quote:7e41a233b6]"The Part I took in Defence of Cptn. Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country. Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right."[/quote:7e41a233b6] 

And the verdict was? Well, it was acquittal.

The billeting of soldiers on an unwilling populace was a long standing practice since Roman times. It was hardly cost effective to build a garrison every time a group of soldiers moved into a given area. Also, under usual practice the landowners thus imposed upon had recourse to the government for compensation after the fact. It was hardly evidence of tyranny.

I would like to see evidence of the Crown encouraging Indians to attack colonists prior to the onset of open conflict between the British Army and those of the Colonists. For that matter, the French involvement in the war also brought a some Indian partisans against the British into the fray at that time as well.

None of this constitutes tyranny.


----------



## irishcalvinist (Aug 23, 2004)

*'Let us do evil, that good may come?'*

[size=16:9f94b5c4c6]Andrew:

You wrote that:

[quote:9f94b5c4c6]Various powerful and sundry grievances are listed which are clear examples of tyranny on the part of King George III. The signers all testified that every effort was made to redress those grievances. Protestors had been shot and killed, soldiers quartered among an unwilling populace, colonists denied rights assumed as basic by free Englishmen, Indian attacks on colonists encouraged by the Crown -- these were all considered part of a pattern of tyrannical abuse.[/quote:9f94b5c4c6]

You seem to believe that the American Colonists were a persecuted population. Were they denied their freedom of religion? No. Were their children taken away from them? No. Were they burned at the stake? No. So lets look at your best examples of persecution:

1. 'Protestors had been shot and killed.' Where? You certainly are not talking about the 'Boston Massacre'... are you? The Boston incident in 1770 occurred when a mass mob of hundreds surrounded eight British soldiers with clubs and started to stone them. The squad desperately tried to defend themselves without lethal force while the crowd got closer and closer and started to grab their rifles. In desperation the men who were in fear of their lives were forced to open fire. Incidently the British officer in command and the men were defended by the American Revoluationary, John Adams. Adams wrote: 'Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right.'

2. 'Soldiers quartered among an unwilling populace.' Do you seriously believe that if the government demands you to house a soldier (who is there to defend you) that this is a Scriptural ground to kill him? 

3. 'Colonists denied rights assumed as basic by free Englishmen.' What rights are those? Taxation without representation? This is a reason to kill your neighbor? Can an American Solider on the island of Guam legitimately plan a revolt against the American Government and start killing others simply because he must pay Federal Income taxes even though he cannot vote for President?

4. 'Indian attacks on colonists encouraged by the Crown.' These attacks were only encouraged against towns in revolt against the crown and therefore happened after the fact. This was not listed as a cause for rebellion... but listed as a cause for independence. So this has no bearing on our discussion.

You gone on to say:

[quote:9f94b5c4c6]If this is not tyranny, I don't know what is.[/quote:9f94b5c4c6]

If these are your best examples of tyranny... than I would have to say that you do not know what the word means. Many Christians in the early church were deprived of home, trade and possessions. They were persecuted, tortured and killed. They were forbidden from worshipping God or possessing Scripture in their homes. This is tyranny! And yet, killing the nearest Roman Centurion would still have been murder. The ends never justify the means. 

The American Colonies in the 1770's were hardly persecuted. The Colonies were prosperous, paid little taxes, were protected by the British Army by land and the Royal Navy by Sea. The Colonists were Anglicans, Baptists, Reformed, Presbyterians, etc. and had freedom to worship God in their churches. They could discipline their children, teach their children and raise their families as they saw fit. They had freedom to speak their minds and to print their thoughts. And you call this tyranny? Honestly!

You go on to say with regards to my example that:

[quote:9f94b5c4c6]I certainly believe that the shedding of the innocent blood children may be resisted in such a circumstance.[/quote:9f94b5c4c6]

Killings Policemen and Soldiers is murder and I find it alarming that you would support murdering your neighbors just because Mr. Smith from the Town Council told you it was ok. Such approval does not overide the authority of the State and Federal Government. 

With regards to Romans 13... I dont find any exemptions listed when ones 'rights' are deprived. In 1 Timothy 2:2 we are commanded to pray 'For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.' How are we obeying this command when we are shooting and killing the King's servants in order to save ourselves a few shillings and the obligation of lawfully assisting the military in times of need (by housing a soldier)? Is this really rendering 'unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's'? Thank God that He works all things (including the sinfulness of rebellion) for good for His elect.

(This is my last posting on this subject, but I am of course interested in what you have to say.)

Romans 3:8 'And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. [/size:9f94b5c4c6]


----------



## sastark (Aug 23, 2004)

I COR 7:23:
[b:e785173222]You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. [/b:e785173222]

As Christians, we have an obligation to resist slavery. We are not to willingly become slaves of men.

I see this as the clearest Biblical precedence for resistence of tyrannical government. Tyranny seeks to enslave. As Christians, we must resist this.

It is clear from a reading of the Declaration of Independence that the British Crown and Parliment were seeking to enslave the colonies. The list of grievences within the Declaration clearly show this. Quartering troops within private homes against the wishes of the home owner is a form of slavery. The British army was dictating to the colonists "You must do this." The colonists did not have a choice about it. That is slavery. And for those of you who have said "It was normal at that time", let me point out that this was such a horrible greivence, that it was incorporated into the Bill of Rights:

[quote:e785173222]Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
[/quote:e785173222]

Further, the king and parliment had abolished the lawfully created houses of Representation which had long governed the colonies. 

Already mentioned was "taxation without representation". But it was more than that. It was government without representation. And this was something new. The colonists were used to being represented, at least in their local colonial Houses of Representation. The King and Parliment had abloshed these houses, seeking to enslave the colonists.

The freedoms which the colonists had previously enjoyed were being taken away. They were become slaves of the British government. They were correct to resist this enslavement.


----------



## sastark (Aug 23, 2004)

A couple of quick follow up points:

First, for those who say "we ought to obey the magistrate, even is that means we are put to death for our faith", I must point out that 1st century Rome was very different from 18th century America. First, the Americans had rights that were later taken away. The 1st century church had no "right" to be Christian (at least, not from the government, of course). The 18th century colonists did have the right to self-government (which had been given to them at the founding of the colonies). This right had been taken away. The colonists were defending their rights. The 1st century church had no "rights" to defend. 

Are those of you who say we can never oppose government serious? Think through to the conclusions of your argument. What if we lived in a country were, not only was Christianity illegal, but we were required, by law, to inform the government of anyone who was a Christian. Would you do it? Would you send your brother to the executer's block so that you could rest easy knowing that you obeyed the magistrate? What about the right of prima nocture? The British practice of taking the bride on the wedding night, from the groom, so that the local magistrate can rape her? Would you comply with that? Perhaps this is a topic for another thread, but anyone who says we must never resist the magistrate because only God can deal with him, really needs to think about what they are saying. When you follow through with that train of thought, I will hope that you will see how ludicris it really is.



Second, I appreciate Contra Mundum's effort to remain neautral in light of the space of time that now seperate us from the founding fathers. I can understand how he can say he's not sure if he would have taken up arms or not. I would have. 

If I was forced to quarter troops in my house, with my family, against my will, that alone would be reason enough for me to take up arms. But that wasn't the only thing going on.

If my brother, cousin, father, mother, or sister were charged with a crime and taken to England to be tried, that alone would be enough for me to take up arms. But that wasn't the only thing going on.

If the government refused to pass laws needed to maintain the public order, that alone would be reason enough to take up arms. But that wasn't the only thing going on.

If the right to trail by jury was suddenly revoked, that alone would be enough to take up arms. But that wasn't the only thing going on.

Read the Declaration of Independence, people. I would have taken up arms against the English Tyranny.


----------



## Authorised (Aug 23, 2004)

Anyone with a healthy amount of time might find these four sermons helpful.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...Section=sermonsspeaker&AudioOnly=true&SortBy=

scroll down to "the christian and civil government"


----------



## cupotea (Aug 23, 2004)

sastark,

Please believe me when I tell you that I say this with all due respect but your post here is gross revisionism. The facts of history tell a significantly different story.

But be that as it may, it's silly to have to run about after some mythical biblical mandate for our existence as a nation. We exist because God decreed that we exist. We exist by the Providence of God acting through secondary means. But this need to vilify the British government is ridiculous and smacks of the kind of make-believe that has spawned several generations of stories and films that bear no real relation to actual events. I am reminded especially of the fairly recent movie "The Patriot" where the British were portrayed as little better than SS Commandoes prosecuting a campaign of total destruction on the American landscape..

the facts are these: without French assistance it is by no means assured that we would have won the war. Washington was an extremely mediocre if tenacious and stubborn general. The continental Amry and the Militiae were often at odds and only succeeded in many instances by pure, blind luck, err, Providence, but anyway, certainly not through cooperation and mutual assistance. The British Empire, still only in it's youth would go on to be the most civilized and civilizing of imperial endeavors including among it's achievements the abolition of slavery before any other major government even seriously considered it.

The colonists had no biblical basis for rebellion. None whatsoever. All the reasons you've cited here have been dealt with. You are welcome to your myths and stories and I wish you the best with them you are certainly not alone in entertaining them. Back when school textbooks could speak of "God' they told generations of young Americans the same stories as truth and even after the word was stricken the Crown and Parliament continued to be portrayed as a bunch of greedy oppressors and publicans who happened to have the worlds most effective and efficient army at their disposal...

As for the Declaration of Independence, it is a remarkable document, I have read it a few times. Jefferson's prose is magnificent...but you need to be told that in it's litany of complaints it compresses many, various and sometimes exceedingly rare occasions into a list of ongoing outrages and does so in a demogogic fashion that would make a Robespierre blush.



You seem to have bought the party line on this and it really makes me wonder about many things...not about you particularly, but this blindspot bedeviled Evangelical insistance found in some circles requiring that the US be somehow the very hand of God at work in the world having sprung fully formed from His hand in 1776.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 24, 2004)

It was not a rebellion. 

England severed all ties with the Colonies first, declared them a foreign threat, and then when the King and Parliament could not determine what course to take regarding future relations with the Colonies decided to invaded in order to attempt to conquer us!

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=40

Phillip


----------



## irishcalvinist (Aug 24, 2004)

*Pray 'for kings and all those who are in authority...'*

[size=14:0f1cf47aa2]
(I decided to continue to participate in this discussion... DV.)

Philip:

(No offense to you) but I found your article to be an extremely weak attempt to justify rebellion.

Your article says that:

[quote:0f1cf47aa2]Since the Colonies never fired the first shot, the Colonies were clearly involved in a war of defense[/quote:0f1cf47aa2]

When a mob of hundreds in 1770 are armed with clubs and surround a handful of soldiers... start taunting them... threatening to kill them... start stoning them... and pulling at their rifles... despite the pleas of the soldiers... are the soldiers not acting in self defense when they shoot to protect their lives? Since John Adams himself defended those same exact soldiers in court... obviously some of your 'Founding Fathers' even disagree with the logic.

The article alleges that the Colonists did not fire the first shot:

[quote:0f1cf47aa2]nor in the Lexington and Concord engagements of 1775[/quote:0f1cf47aa2]

As far as I am aware no one knows who fired the first shot at Lexington and Concord. Historians generally agree that it is a mystery to this day. What we do know is that some colonists armed themselves and confronted the civil magistrate. If a mob armed themselves today and confronted the police and shots were fired (no one knowing who fired first).. who would you believe was responsible for the incident?

Your article also says:

[quote:0f1cf47aa2]The Founders believed that God could bless a war of defense but not a war of offense.[/quote:0f1cf47aa2]

One authority on the subject says: 'It should be noted however that a large proportion, probably a majority, of the population did stay loyal or neutral during the war.' (John Adams himself supported the view that the rebels were in the minority.) How were the 'Founders' fighting a war of defense when the majority of the colonists were opposed to their rebellion? Are we supposed to justify killing soldiers and police when the majority of the population did not even support the war? Over what? Taxes? Killing a dozen men in 1770 and 1774 who were hostile, armed and refusing to stand down and submit to the civil magistrate? With that sort of rationale, it would be easy for one to justify just about any sort of rebellion. First... we arm ourselves. Second... we provoke an incident between our armed revolutionists and the police. Finally... we blame the police after they shoot at us. It is also very hard to see the American Revoluation purely as a defensive struggle when those in rebellion against the crown killed their loyalist neighbors and burned their farms to the ground. Or how it was defensive when the rebels invaded Canada during the revolution? 

Those colonists who rebelled against the crown had no problem seizing (stealing) their neighbors food, goods and livestock when they needed it during the war... or of taking over any home (sounds familiar doesn't it) that they needed. Over 100,000 colonists who remained loyal to the British Crown were killed and banished during and after the war (murder and persecution). And we are going to justify this in light of taxes that were only 10% of what we pay today? I think a great many pastors in New England that assisted in stirring up the troubles in America spent far too much time discussing political problems and social action solutions than abiding in their calling to 'seek first the kingdom of God' (Matthew 6:33). The Christians calling is not to overthrow the tyranny of Caesar, but to pray 'for kings and all those who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.' (1 Timothy 2:2).

I think too many of us justifiy rebellion and anarchy because of nationalisn and pragmatism, instead of asking 'What does God command me to do?' Our calling remains the gospel... not the rebels gun.[/size:0f1cf47aa2]


----------



## cupotea (Aug 24, 2004)

To conquer us?

How does a nation conquer itself? A country doesn't get to be an independent state by merely declaring itself to be one. Surely you understand that, from the British perspective, the colonies were in rebellion, in effect committing political parricide. All I am contending is that, in this perspective, they weren't entirely wrong. It still hasn't been shown that British rule in the colonies was adequately tyrannical to warrant wholesale rebellion and war, either for some much-adduced but never quite articulated biblical reason or otherwise.

If this thread shows us anything it is that the chapter of the WCF on the Civil Magistrate is open to various interpretations. 

I do not contend that there are [i:9bcac563ad]never[/i:9bcac563ad] any grounds for rebellion against the state. I merely contend that there isn't any specifically biblical mandate to rebel against any state no matter how tyrannical.

Having said that, may I please beg all of your pardons, but especially that of Sastark for, in the course of this conversation, indulging in excessive bombast, condescension and rudeness?

A good, fairly recent book on the subject is [u:9bcac563ad]"A Few Bloody Noses"[/u:9bcac563ad] by Robert Harvey. Harvey, a British journalist draws his title from the words of George III, [i:9bcac563ad]"We meant well to the Americans, just to punish them with a few bloody noses, and then to make laws for the happiness of both countries."[/i:9bcac563ad], The book is well-written from the British perspective and while it does show that the received images of the US in the war are mostly propaganda, he also shows that Cornwallis was largely inept, that King Goerge didn't really understand the colonists and makes several other points indicative of an effort to be fair in his presentation.

It's a good read.


----------



## cupotea (Aug 24, 2004)

[quote:c4db5d6b85]How were the 'Founders' fighting a war of defense when the majority of the colonists were opposed to their rebellion?[/quote:c4db5d6b85]

By means of propaganda and spin, in blowing up events like the "Boston Massacre" and the Tea Party into huge articulations of American rage at British tyranny, they were, after many years, able to sway at least the majority of the urban population and then, as today, the rural people didn't really count for much, majority or no.

We need to remember that Paine, Revere, Jefferson et al were masters of propaganda. I don't particularly attribute any macchiavellian motives to them. They ardently believed in what they were saying and overblown, rabidly jingoistic prosey defenses and (not to say [i:c4db5d6b85]completely[/i:c4db5d6b85] dishonest) justifications of one's opinion or position were the order of the day in Europe as much as in America.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 24, 2004)

The arguments made by those on this thread in defense of the right of a tyrant to abuse his citizens without resistance from Christians, and the characterization of the British Crown's actions toward American colonists leading up to the 1776 Declaration of Independence as 'not tyrannical' are truly shocking. 

Steadfast at one point above claimed that "Scripture does not countenance the violent overthrow of any constituted authority" but later claims "I do not contend that there are never any grounds for rebellion against the state." One cannot legitimately hold to both views. If Scripture does not permit one to fight back against a tyrant, then there can never be grounds to resist the state. 

IrishCalvinist seems to argue that no one may legitimately resist a tyrant under any circumstances because to do so would violate Romans 13. He assumes that my argument in favor of the right of a Christian to resist a tyrant under the authority of a God-honoring lesser civil magistrate means that I am in favor of killing my neighbors to avoid paying a few shillings. I reject that mischaracterization of my view and I find it offensive in the highest degree. The Scottish Covenanters, according to IrishCalvinists' view, should be condemned for resisting King Charles II. On the contrary, they understood that the citizens owed a higher loyalty to King Jesus than to King Charles. Today in China, the one-child policy requires families to abort any additional children or face punishment by the state. This tyrannical law and other modern examples like it ought to be resisted. The Nazis who were prosecuted at Nuremburg gave as their defense that they were just following orders. In other words, they could not resist the civil magistrate, but had to obey. The Westminster Confession, on the contrary, teaches that we are to obey magistrates' lawful commands. This implies, and the Bible is replete with examples which have been cited above, that unlawful commands or laws may and should be resisted. I have quoted this before, but I pray that our mindset as Christians would be that of Peter who said "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5.29). That is our Biblical mandate which requires resistance to tyranny.


----------



## voided user1 (Aug 24, 2004)

I'm listening to your reasoning, but first you need to define what a tyrant is then you need to tell me how the Bible says to deal with that tyrant.

In the context of Acts 5:29, the civil authorities barred apostles from preaching. Maybe I'm pathetic, liberal, unChristian tofu, but I see that as a far cry from paying a small tax.

Just because I believe the biblical principle is to submit to the civil authority whenever possible, doesn't mean resistance is never the godly thing to do. 

Are you saying every black Christian should have done what Rosa Parks did? What are you doing to resist the current government? How does this break down for you?


----------



## irishcalvinist (Aug 24, 2004)

*Nazi Germany and British Rule in the Thirteen Colonies...*

[size=16:dec125d291]Dear Andrew:

Let me start by saying that I apologize if I offended you or mischaracterized your views. I just do not understand how you can justify rebellion against the British Government for the reasons you provided. None of your reasons seemed all that 'tyranical' to me or to some of the others in this thread. Outside of taxes and providing a spare room... what other atrocities are we speaking about? You have yet to provide ample evidence to support your theory of tyranny.

To be clear.. Christians are not to commit sin, idolatry and murder because the civil magistrate orders it. They are to obey King Jesus rather than man... but they are also not to plot the overthrow of their civil magistrate through conspiracies, plots and rebellions. 

You make the comparison between Nazi Germany and British rule in the thirteen colonies. (Is this really a fair comparison?) But to continue your line of thought... A Christian living in Nazi Germany should NOT have obeyed any command to murder innocent men, women and children... but neither should he have killed policemen and blown up bridges. He should have given Caeser (Hitler) what belonged to Hitler... work, taxes, etc. and given to God what belongs to God through a life of obedience to His Word. If these two obligations came into conflict... he obviously must obey God rather than man. (This is very different from lifting up the sword to kill.) The Christian should have prayed for Hitler and hoped that God would grant the man repentance for his evil (if God willed so). But it runs contrary to God's Word for a German citizen to just start killing all the postal workers and policemen that he can find... simply because they are servants of the civil magistrate. 

Once again the Bible calls us in Romans 13:1-2 '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. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.' Unquestionably the Roman Government at the time of Paul was far more wicked than the British Government in 1775... and yet Christians are told to be 'subject' unto them.

Do you advocate overthrowing the American government today because they allow and promote abortion, homosexuality, lewdness, alchohol, etc. etc.? I remember someone saying that there has been 30 million abortions since Roe Vs. Wade... Do 30 million murders justify rebellion today against the American Goverment? Do you promote such a goal? Than why is money and taxes a legitimate justification to kill the civil magistrate?[/size:dec125d291]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 24, 2004)

... and [i:7ac1668b0b]Today[/i:7ac1668b0b] I think... (just kidding--I can't change my vote anyway)

Trust me, we're [u:7ac1668b0b]all[/u:7ac1668b0b] doing a bit of revisionism here. I would think that [i:7ac1668b0b]any[/i:7ac1668b0b] challenge to the official, unabashed pro-Revolutionary dicta that most of us were fed in school (Public, Christian, or other) is the most obvious form of it. I think it's laudable when we are open to new information that we integrate into our understanding (based on deeper, unchanging committments) rather than forcing the new data to fit the pre-ordered mold we may love.

Steadfast, I tried not to label you, or anybody who puts economics at the top of the motivations list, a Marxist. I merely wanted to make sure the door to non-economic motivations was forcibly opened (because Marxian reductionism is still with us in many forms). We might not agree 100%, but that's OK. I've appreciated your comments, and suppose we agree much more than we differ.
[end of comment meant particularly for one person]

I even concur with the judgment that more than a few of the leaders of the rebellion did have some economic motivations, although mercenary considerations don't seem to [u:7ac1668b0b]me[/u:7ac1668b0b] to be sufficient or even principal incentive to risk literally everything. Recall the mordant words of Franklin, "Gentlemen, we must all hang together, or we will alll hang, seperately."

And as we get down below the leaders to the volunteers in the ranks, I think economics becomes an even less reasonable explanation. I think that attributing all (or most) of the rank-and-file motivation to the propagandistic, and irreligious or deistic spin-meisters is also giving too much credit to one group. The colonists on the whole reasoned at a significantly higher level as a society than we do today (exhibit A: Federalist/Anti-federalist Papers [which closely post-date the war], written as common newpaper articles, now considered suitable for college-level reading). So yes, the propaganda was writen at a higher level, but it also demanded greater rational input to persuade. I believe that probably more people were motivated from prior convictions than new ones, and from pulpits (whether they were being misused or not). But, I may be totally wrong. There is just so much we can only guess at...

As for the claims/counterclaims that more people supported this side or that side--everybody is simply making guesses (educated or otherwise). No one took Gallup polls back then. Parretto's Law rules! At best, only around 20% of any group is motivated enough to take action. I have no statistics, but my (unscientific guess) is that about 20% of the people could have been called Patriots, 20% were hard-core Tories (who either joined the Regulars or fled to Canada, mostly the latter) who lacked the leadership--legitimate, unofficial, or charismatic--to split the 13 break-away colonies. The other 60% were middle of the roaders, who may have had inclinations one way or the other, but were not going to do much other than duck. (For a real-world example of this behavior in action see exhibit B: Iraq.)

The argument about the biblical propriety of the war comes down to a question of whether rebellion is EVER justified. If you say no, then of course the American Rebellion was unjustified. If you say yes, then you have NEXT to ask if the Colonies were [i:7ac1668b0b]justified[/i:7ac1668b0b] to rebel against the Crown. We have to try to do two things at once: 1) biblically and objectively (as far as possible) define legitimate opposition and illegitimate rule--neither which I suggest will yield a nice, cut-and-dried truthtest; and then 2) adopt a colonial worldview and make or reject the case for rebellion from within it.

The question is not so much were they justified [i:7ac1668b0b]in our eyes[/i:7ac1668b0b] to rebel (although we may have an opinion on that), but were they justified according to their knowledge of the Bible's timeless, unchanging standard and their own ability to apply it. And I think it is possible to have the same or a different opinion on both questions.

Don't suppose I'm advocating a subtle "situation-ethic" here. I'm advocating [b:7ac1668b0b][i:7ac1668b0b]not[/i:7ac1668b0b][/b:7ac1668b0b] reasoning anachronistically. We need an absence of sympathy in looking at the biblical data and historical facts. We need a specific kind of sympathy to get inside their heads, to understand (if we can) what truth, hermeneutic, information, beliefs, and errors led them to make the choices they did. God judges according to the heart--the motivation--as well as maintaining an objective standard. Whether they sinned or not in rebelling is partly a function of their inner convictions, if you believe as I do that rebellion is sometimes justified.

War is horrible. It brings out the worst in us. I'm not sure if there has ever been a purely justified war ever, outside of the conquest of Caanan. It's the true Devil's workshop. It's consistently a form of Judgment on all parties involved. And Romans 8:28 is the one unchanging hope Christians have to cling to in the midst of it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 24, 2004)

Responding to Wymer:

Your question as to what a tyrant is and how the Bible teaches one to deal with a tyrant is very open-ended. A tyrant, simply put, is a ruler who usurps or abuses or exceeds his God-given authority to serve the people under him for their well-being "in the Lord." The Bible does not specify every situation for dealing with tyrants, but it certainly does authorize or compel us to resist unlawful commands by tyrants in order that we might obey God. Tyrants may be obeyed in things lawful, but not in things unlawful without sin on the part of the citizenry. 

You ask whether every black Christian in America should have followed the example of Rosa Parks. In my earlier posts I have repeatedly argued that resistance to tyranny must take place under the authority of a lesser civil magistrate in order to be reckoned as lawful resistance as opposed to rebellion. In her case, I am not aware of this condition being met. Nor would I characterize her stand on where to sit on a bus as being of such great import as to resist the civil magistrate on an individual basis, although a direct command by a Chinese civil magistrate to kill my child, I think, might be lawfully resisted on an individual basis.

You also asked what I personally am doing to resist the present government. I am not inclined to discuss my personal activities in this forum. I am weary of the personal attacks that I have received. I do feel compelled to defend our founding fathers against the slander of the sin of rebellion in the context of the War of Independence. The principle they fought for was a just one and is still relevant today.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 24, 2004)

Responding to IrishCalvinist:

Thank you for your apology. I also appreciate your allowance that it is lawful to resist the civil magistrate in some situations. Although our threshold of what constitutes an unlawful command from a civil magistrate which may be resisted may differ, your acknowledgment that some commands by the magistrate may be resisted is an important concession. 

In colonial America, people were not completely free to worship as they saw fit. In certain colonies, such as Virginia, there was an established church, the Anglican church, which taxed all citizens in the colony whether their conscience permitted this or not. Dissenters were punished by the civil magistrate. Frances Makemie, the father of Presbyterianism in America, was punished for his dissent in several colonies. This scenario seems very much to me like that described in Acts 5.29. On this basis alone, I believe the colonists had a right to resist the ecclesiastical tyranny of the British Crown (remember the King of England claimed to be the head of the Church, which was the whole reason the Scottish Covenanters would not swear loyalty to him and for this cause they were put to death, because they believed King Jesus to be head of the Church).

Much has been made of the fact that taxes are higher today than they were when the colonists complained about "no taxation without representation." But we have representation today, whereas the colonists did not. We can throw the bums out of office and vote for lower taxes anytime we want, but the colonists could not. The colonists believed that a fundamental right to representation had been taken away. They had financial concerns certainly, but there was a principle involved which we take for granted. Earlier you raised the issue of an American soldier stationed in Guam who supposedly pays income taxes but can't vote. Well, any American soldier stationed overseas is allowed to vote. But Guam, Puerto Rico and other American territories have all been given the opportunity to hold referendums as to whether to become a state or not. In most cases that I know of, their preference has been to trade certain benefits for the lack of representation in Congress. That's their choice. In Ulster, where I have spent some time, I know that many Protestants want to maintain their union with Great Britain. That's their choice. Canada some time ago chose to separate from Great Britain. That was her choice. The point is, every group of people has an inherent right to self-determination. To say otherwise, is to argue on behalf of slavery. 

The complaint against British soldiers being quartered or billeted amongst the colonists has been mocked as being of little account. It has even been argued that the soldiers were sent to defend the colonists and thus implied that the colonists should have been grateful. These soldiers often helped themselves to the goods of the house. Many colonists did not want them there. In some cases, soldiers abused, taunted and even raped people in those houses. This was not a benevolent act by the Crown, but an effort at intimidation. 

Life in colonial America was far from being the idyllic peaceful place that defenders of the Crown have argued. Torys were the ones in authority before 1776 and patriots suffered at their hands in many ways, by imprisonment, confiscation of goods and property, and the threat or actual punishment of death or forcible return to England. 

You asked whether the killing of 30 million (I think it may be closer to 40 million) babies in America since Roe v. Wade justifies "rebellion" to the current government. This killing is truly a Holocaust, and every Christian ought to resist this form of tyranny according to their place and station. As to whether Americans should fight against the civil magistrate to do so, I believe I have already answered this question above. If the appropriate lesser civil magistrate stands up to murder sanctioned by the state or federal government, then I believe there is warrant for individuals to stand with him in resisting the shedding of innocent blood. There is little difference that I can see in resisting abortion today from resisting Nazism 60 years ago.


----------



## irishcalvinist (Aug 24, 2004)

*PLO, IRA, ETA, and other terrorist organizations...*

[size=16:b3b0682b25]Andrew:

* Just to be clear, I never suggested that we have a right to 'resist' the civil magistrate through force of arms. But we may refuse commands from the state when they conflict with the commands of Scripture.

* Before the American rebellion there were 'state' churches in Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia. Most of these states continued to have established state churches after the adoption of the Constitution and after the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Some of them had state churches well into the 19th century. Did this justifiy rebellion against the US Government in the early 1800's?

* An American Soldier who was BORN and raised in Guam does not have the right to vote for President... although he still pays Federal Income Taxes. Guam has never had a referendum for independence and is occupied by an inordinate number of American troops all over the island. Would such a Soldier (in your view) be justified in conspiring to overthrow the American Governement?

* You claim that 'In some cases, soldiers abused, taunted and even raped people in those houses. This was not a benevolent act by the Crown, but an effort at intimidation.' Can you provide a reference of some kind for this charge? Could you also provide proof that if such a thing ever happened that it was looked on approvingly by the British government?

* Just to be absolutely clear. Are you saying that if your towncouncil votes to overthrow the federal government and drafts you into their local militia... that you would be justified in shooting police, firefighters and soldiers?

* Does the PLO, IRA, ETA, and other terrorist organizations have the right to kill because they claim to represent subjugated peoples? (They claim religious, cultural and political persecution.)

Interested in your thoughts...[/size:b3b0682b25]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 24, 2004)

Responding to IrishCalvinist:

I am deeply disappointed in your continued efforts to paint me as someone who approves of killing police officers, firefighters and others at random and seeks to overthrow the government. Your last question about whether I support terrorist groups is again offensive in the extreme. I will not engage in further debate with you. I believe that you have crossed a line with your continued hostile portrayal of my views. I pray that the Lord would grant you grace.


----------



## cupotea (Aug 24, 2004)

[quote:9fc2330d66]The arguments made by those on this thread in defense of the right of a tyrant to abuse his citizens without resistance from Christians, and the characterization of the British Crown's actions toward American colonists leading up to the 1776 Declaration of Independence as 'not tyrannical' are truly shocking.[/quote:9fc2330d66] 

And yet, and yet, your being shocked is shocking. How can you be shocked by blithe refusal to go postal over received notions of what those horrid Redcoats did to us, when, in actual fact, they did very little.

What exactly is shocking to you? That no one has been able to adduce a single scrap of evidence to the point that the British government was 'abusing it's citizenry' with all out tyranny and that some of us here are not particularly interested in pretending that they did?

Once for all, Huguenot, show us where the King or Parliament abused Americans. Show us where the King or Parliament practiced a regime of actual tyranny. Not isolated or rare instances of excess, but an actual program of abuse and oppression. First of all this was not a foreign power which had invaded a sovereign nation to impose it's will on them. The colonists were, by and large, Englishmen committed to English principles of government and social order. At the time there were a great number of egalitarian ideas 'in the air' many of which had been imbibed by Americans and while it may be a bit simplistic to attribute it all to Freemasonry, I don't think it can be seriously denied that Deistic and Rationalist notions provided much of the religious and philosophical underpinning for the political ideas that came to full fruit here in America as well as half a generation later in France. [i:9fc2330d66]"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"[/i:9fc2330d66] Really? Where does the Bible support any of that? And to show that the framers didn't really even believe the sentiments expressed here they refused to apply them to black slaves, even the ones Jefferson, the primary author owned and, it may be presumed must, by your standards, have 'tyrannized' mercilessly. To argue that the ideas were Christian is, to put it frankly, nonsense.

I will be the first to admit that the American colonies were economically beneficial to the British government and people. But other areas were far more so, the West Indies were far more lucrative colonially speaking and later, India even moreso. But neither of these areas had really been 'colonized' in a residential sense. The Englishmen who colonized America were, as we know, mostly dissenters from the established church, but the furthest thought from any of their minds was any secession from their ties to English government much less to being English. The idea that the American Colonies should be a separate nation from England has very very little to do with Christianity and a great deal to do with a rising and increasingly wordly Bourgeoisie concerned with keeping American custom American. Deism, Rationalism, Febronianism, Egalitarianism etc. were but the excuse, the frosting on the cake as my Dad would say.

[quote:9fc2330d66]Steadfast at one point above claimed that "Scripture does not countenance the violent overthrow of any constituted authority" but later claims "I do not contend that there are never any grounds for rebellion against the state." One cannot legitimately hold to both views. If Scripture does not permit one to fight back against a tyrant, then there can never be grounds to resist the state. [/quote:9fc2330d66]

Yes, one can legitimately hold both views if one is Amillennarian and thus non-Theonomic. One can legitimately hold both views if one is not a slave to notions regarding the necessity of explicit biblical justification for what ultimately non-religious entities (states, cultures, societies) actually do in history. One can legitimately hold both views if one accepts that God used the pagan Assyrians to scourge Israel and that He continues to use what are essentially Godless entities to effect His Providential plan. One can legitimately hold both views if one regards human beings as fallen in nature and prone to sin and understands that this plays itself out in politics as much as anywhere else and that sometimes the law of unintended consequences takes effect in very striking ways. One can legitimately hold both views if one accepts that not explicitly requiring the overthow of tyrants needn't necessarily equate to not ever permitting it.


----------



## irishcalvinist (Aug 24, 2004)

*Thank God for the grace that covers all of our sins...*

[size=16:16ccb7f3e8]Dear Andrew:

Again I am sorry you were offended... but I do not find my questions any more offensive than your justification for the many British soldiers, loyalists and their families who were murdered by rebels in the colonies. They may only be statistics in the history book for some... but they were fathers, sons, brothers, mothers, sisters and children of someone. Many of them also were reformed christians who chose to seek the Kingdom of God, rather than a Kingdom in this world. Truly... Thank God for the grace that covers all of our sins.[/size:16ccb7f3e8]


----------



## cupotea (Aug 24, 2004)

[quote:9de86feef7]A tyrant, simply put, is a ruler who usurps or abuses or exceeds his God-given authority to serve the people under him for their well-being "in the Lord." [/quote:9de86feef7]

And where is this idea that Kings exist to serve their people to be found in Scripture? God's rebuke through Samuel when the elders of Israel wanted a King like their neighbors certainly doesn't take any such idea into account. (see 1 Sam. 8, esp. v. 10ff)

[quote:9de86feef7]The Bible does not specify every situation for dealing with tyrants, but it certainly does authorize or compel us to resist unlawful commands by tyrants in order that we might obey God. Tyrants may be obeyed in things lawful, but not in things unlawful without sin on the part of the citizenry. [/quote:9de86feef7]

Yes, the bible tells us that when God's law and man's law come into conflict, we are to obey the former. Many Christians have done so, however the vast majority throughout history died for having done so (see those who refused to worship the Beast in Revelation) . Never is this given as a reason for taking up arms against such 'tyrants'. Never.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 24, 2004)

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! -- Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 24, 2004)

Huguenot, 
I tried to PM you but I lost the message. I am in a hurry now so I will make this short. To others beside Hugunot, please do not put the Scottish Covenanters in the same category as the IRA or any other national-terrrostic group. I do not know if it has been mentioned yet, but in Romans 13 there is another ethical obligation alongside that of obeying the Civil Magistrate, who is the civil magistrate to give an account to? If there is no ethical obligation for him, then he is a law unto himself and may do as he pleases. We are to render to Caesar what is Caesar's, but Whose image is found on Caesar? God's; then let Caesar render to God what belongs to God. Hence, who is to hold Caesar accountable? The lesser civil magistrate. The doctrine of interposition is not new to our day. Ambrose interposed himself against the emperor; Calvin articulated it eloquently, Knox fiercely. The French Huguenot Philip du Plisse Mornay set the standard in his book, [i:e62846cdf5]Vindicae Contra Tyrannus[/i:e62846cdf5]. By the way, John Adams said this book was a best seller in the colonies during the War for Independence. 

In Ephesians 5 Paul exhorts men, women, slaves, to submit to the proper authorities, [i:e62846cdf5]as to the Lord[/i:e62846cdf5]. My question, does that command unqualified obdience? Surely not. When a superior commands that which is not of the Lord, obedience is to be denied to the utmost. "Earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are not reckoned to be counted among the sons of men. We ought rather to defy them than give them obedience." Interestingly enough, Calvin wrote that in his commentary on Daniel toward the end of his life, after he had been influenced by John Knox.

"It is not enough for me to say that black is not white and that man's tyranny is not God's perfect ordinance." ---John Knox.


----------



## cupotea (Aug 24, 2004)

[quote:f7b0471ae9]When a superior commands that which is not of the Lord, obedience is to be denied to the utmost.[/quote:f7b0471ae9]

Yes, and the question at hand is whether this denial, in some cases, [i:f7b0471ae9]necessarily requires [/i:f7b0471ae9]the taking up of arms against that superior. I say no, but accept that the axiom [i:f7b0471ae9]permits[/i:f7b0471ae9] rebellious action in certain cases. VirginiaHuguenot and others here, evidently, disagree.

The usual scenario goes like this:

"Burn the incense to Caesar, Christian!"

"No, my Lord has done nothing but good to me these many years, why should I repay Him with denial?"

"Then, it is to the lions with you!"

The scenario does not usually go like this:

"Burn the incense to Caesar, Christian!"

"No." (Christian sticks a knife in the Centurian's neck and runs away to gather other sicarii)


----------



## cupotea (Aug 24, 2004)

Here's an interesting, related item...

"œ"¦ much of the traditional account of the Boston Tea Party is wildly misleading. Consider the business about taxes. It is said the colonists feared the effect of British taxes on the economy. But in reality, the Tea Act REDUCED the duty on British tea imported to America. It was this reduction that caused the controversy. Historians say the cut in duty made British tea suddenly competitive with the tea smuggled into the colonies from Holland by American merchants like John Hancock. It was this "" the prospect of cheap British tea, not higher taxes "" that precipitated the Boston Tea Party. American smugglers wanted to save the lucrative American tea market for themselves. (Three-fourths of the tea sold in America was smuggled in.)"

From "œI Love Paul Revere, Whether He Rode or Not" by Richard Shenkman


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 24, 2004)

[quote:47518d33c6="Steadfast"][quote:47518d33c6]When a superior commands that which is not of the Lord, obedience is to be denied to the utmost.[/quote:47518d33c6]

Yes, and the question at hand is whether this denial, in some cases, [i:47518d33c6]necessarily requires [/i:47518d33c6]the taking up of arms against that superior. I say no, but accept that the axiom [i:47518d33c6]permits[/i:47518d33c6] rebellious action in certain cases. VirginiaHuguenot and others here, evidently, disagree.

The usual scenario goes like this:

)[/quote:47518d33c6]

I don't think Huguenot or myself articulated it this way. For one, there is nothing mentioned of the lesser civil magistrate who derives his authority from the people in order that he may restore the social order. If you are going to critique Huguenot or myself, do so on those lines, not the one you mentioned. I do not doubt that many centurion's died like that. The thesis I am trying to put forth is one that [i:47518d33c6] for the sake of the social order[/i:47518d33c6] peace must be maintained in the realm.

WHen madmen rule, the people perish (read the book of proverbs). What kind of society would you rather have: a mad man who rules by arbitrary fiat, or a just government where rulers are accountable to other civil magistrates?


----------



## cupotea (Aug 24, 2004)

[quote:67a2b630f5]Upon the whole, I will beg leave to tell the House what is really my opinion. It is, that the Stamp Act be repealed absolutely, totally, and immediately; that the reason for the repeal should be assigned, because it was founded on an erroneous principle. At the same time, let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend every point of legislation whatsoever: that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power whatsoever - except that of taking money out of their pockets without their consent.[/quote:67a2b630f5] 

William Pitt, Prime Minister of England on the Stamp Act, sometimes presented as the reason par excellence for the colonial rebellion, and on how the British Government should correct and respond.


----------



## cupotea (Aug 24, 2004)

And Finn, my point remains that given [i:bfe7e69931]any[/i:bfe7e69931] circumstances, open rebellion in the case of the American Colonies was unwarranted. If the criterion is that it be the work of lesser magistrates in the interest of 'restoring social order' the lesser magistracy in question, if we are referring to the Continental Congress was an illegal assembly and there was no order to restore. Society was just fine, not perfect but it was working very well, Americans were getting rich, people were getting married and having babies and the true religion was an adornment to the land, government was, largely unobtrusive and tolerant...

[quote:bfe7e69931]When madmen rule, the people perish (read the book of proverbs). What kind of society would you rather have: a mad man who rules by arbitrary fiat, or a just government where rulers are accountable to other civil magistrates?[/quote:bfe7e69931]

Though king George did eventually suffer from severe mental illness, it is not presented by any responsible historian that he was mad at the time of the war of American Independence, records indicate that he was not actually incapacitated until 1811. But even if he were, Great Britain was not a dictatorship but a constitutional republic governed by a hereditary monarch whose actual prerogatives while substantial were very far from absolute. Also, the commander in chief of the British land forces in the US, while ultimately answerable to George for his decisions, was his own master as far as the formulation of those decisions went.

It also bears repeating that when George did eventually go bonkers, he was sequestered and the Kingdom was ruled by a regent.

The quote I've given above should show adequately that some, even many, in Parliament were sympathetic to the Colonists grievances and eager to work them out. It is significant that the colonists were unwilling to see this sympathy mature but preferred precipitous action.

As an aside, has it ever occurred to you that Washington's father named him George in tribute to the King of England, a personage very much respected and revered in all the colonies right up to the time of open conflict?

As English Kings go, George III was very tolerant and benevolent and well meaning. He wasn't the baby-eating tyrant some would portray him to have been. He appears to have been very distressed at the idea of going to war with people he could only have conceived as Englishmen. Many have conjectured that it was was the loss of the colonies which formed the bulk of the stress which brought about his eventual mental illness and death.


----------



## cupotea (Aug 25, 2004)

I just think it bears noting that the English people at the time of the American Revolution were the most tolerant, successful, culturally advanced and colonially generous on earth and that the main reason they were this way is because they had the most unobtrusive, tolerant and generous government on earth. Things didn't really start going bad for them culturally until the so called Industrial Revolution some generations later. At the time Britain was poised on the cusp of Naval supremacy and generally Military greatness, cultural achievement unmatched by civilized people and a social tolerance unknown even in Europe much less the rest of the world.

There is a reason why, in "The Age of Revolution", Britain never had a revolution on her own shores.


----------



## irishcalvinist (Aug 25, 2004)

*The legitimacy of the 'Continental Congress'*

[size=16:9af8d6ab49]Michael:

I agree with your point about the legitimacy of the 'Continental Congress.' Many Royal Governors who represented the legitimate lesser magistracy were overthrown by colonists in rebellion against Britain. So how does Andrew arrive at his conclusion that it was simply a matter of the lesser magistrate taking the greater magistrate to task about law and order? The argument does not hold up. I am certainly not trying to represent the British Government as a benevolent Christian entity... but it was the legitimate authority.

Finn:

I did not compare the Scottish Covenanters to the IRA (I did not even mention the Scottish Covenanters in any of my posts... please read again.) Neither do I think it is fair to compare the British Government in the 18th Century to Nazi Germany (as Andrew has done). Do you agree that this too is an unfair comparison?[/size:9af8d6ab49]


----------



## cupotea (Aug 25, 2004)

I believe it was I who drew the rather ironic distinction between the Covenanters who refused assistance to Cromwell in putting down a [i:a4c4814193]real[/i:a4c4814193] Tyrant and their progeny here who would acquit the political overthrow of what, by any standards was a really fairly benign and reformable government.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 25, 2004)

My church history professor whom I [u:0e9bbd0b68]greatly[/u:0e9bbd0b68] admired (he died in the middle of my seminary days), C.Gregg Singer, wrote the book [i:0e9bbd0b68]A Theological Interpretation of American History.[/i:0e9bbd0b68] Dr. Singer disapproved of the W.o.I., or at the very least thought it began in haste.


Yet, as a (wishy-washy) W.o.I. advocate, I still have some questions: 

How much government is oppression? When does its aggrandizing tendency cross the line? Who gets to decide?
What is the standard? Is it totally objective?
Does what we think today equal the general opinion of the 1770s?
In the Colonies, vs. Great Britain? Or what [[i:0e9bbd0b68]should have been[/i:0e9bbd0b68] their opinion(s)? How would we know? Should the same standard be applied to both? Why or why not? What factors (temporal? spatial? historical? other? any?) should be considered in deciding that point?
Some colonies charters had been abrogated and their legislatures suspended. Governors had been replaced by Crown political appointees. Could these actions [i:0e9bbd0b68]ever[/i:0e9bbd0b68] be considered just grounds for a Declaration of Independence? What standard made the Continental Congress an illegal assembly? Was it a voluntary assembly of state/colony representatives, duly appointed by their governments? By the same standard was the Long Parliament an illegal assembly too?
Who has a duty to act? And when? Is there a neat, uncomplicated biblical rule to follow to decide this point?
How many breaches of rights/liberties, at what intensity, on whose severity-meter constitutes sufficient warrant for a lesser judicatory to act, if ever? Again: What is the standard?

I'm not claiming there are any easy answers. The ones who have it easiest answering are those who reject all resistance (I'm not sure if any of our posters are quite holding there). I am just pointing out that the poll being what it is [b:0e9bbd0b68][i:0e9bbd0b68]if one is going to take the other side to task[/i:0e9bbd0b68][/b:0e9bbd0b68] remember both sides have a "burden of proof," not just the [i:0e9bbd0b68]afirmo,[/i:0e9bbd0b68] as if this were a debate format. The no-votes side (when they affirm the general right to rebel at some point) is saying the tipping point wasn't reached. But where was that point? How do you know? And even though/if it wasn't, should that have been apparent to the colonists who took up arms and fought the Red-coats, and "coalition force" Hessians? Could a few, some, many, or most have been conscience-clear by a biblical standard they were supporting a just cause?

The yes-votes have tossed out some proofs, though some are calling them weak reeds: mostly claims drawn from the Declaration of Independence. That evidence has been pooh-poohed by the no-votes. But that has all been of the "says you" variety of rebuttal. Well, now, OK, if that's not enough, then what and how much is? Give the yes-votes your standard and let's see if it can be met!

... And ... to all ... don't hold your opinions too close to your egos. No one's questioning anyone's integrity here (or shouldn't be), even when you are accused of holding "dangerous thoughts" that might "s'port ter'rism". Just try and explain how that ain't so. This series has been pretty civil so far, as controversies go, In my humble opinion.


----------



## jasond49079 (Aug 25, 2004)

WOW I did not expect this deep of a discussion? The core question I am trying to answer is there a biblical argument for 1. National Religion 2. Patriotism


----------



## cupotea (Aug 27, 2004)

Bruce,

Thanks so much for your effort to return us to sanity...

 

I entered this discussion upon seeing one comment by Authorized to the effect that the overthrow of tyrants was biblically mandated.

I consider the burden of proof to be on him and others here who agree with him to substantiate this claim and a corresponding implication of the discussion at hand:

1. that the overthrow of tyrants is biblically mandated, and 

2.that the British were in actual fact sufficiently tyrannical to justify such an overthrow.

Neither question has been adequately answered at this point.


----------



## cupotea (Aug 27, 2004)

Jason,

1. Given the essentially pan-ethnic nature of Christianity, I do not believe that there is a biblical argument for National religion, and 

2. I don't see a direct biblical mandate for patriotism but consider it to be consistent with biblical principles regarding the duties of citizens to the state.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 27, 2004)

Michael, 
On the first of your two observations (not the ones to Jason) I agree. I do not think overthrow of tyranny is biblically [i:3021c8ea1d]mandated;[/i:3021c8ea1d] and by mandated, I am assuming you mean [u:3021c8ea1d]commanded[/u:3021c8ea1d] or at least [u:3021c8ea1d]promoted/encouraged[/u:3021c8ea1d].

I do believe that in certain instances it is [i:3021c8ea1d][u:3021c8ea1d]permitted/justified[/u:3021c8ea1d].[/i:3021c8ea1d]

On the second point, I'm on the other side NOT principally because I can offer much beyond the facts already mentioned--facts not persuasive to everyone but persuasive (so far) to me. Mainly I hold my opinion because I think its more important to understand why so many who fought clearly believed they were biblically justified to do so, rather than read their behavior in the light of modern prejudices and opinions about what constitues actual tyranny.

I'm saying we need to distinguish between 
1) Whose (moot point) side we come down on today or who we think we might have supported at that time (with all the benefis of hindsight), and 
2) Understanding what motivated those patriots--especially the Christian believers--to such profound action, and critiquing them both from within their worldview (were they rational and consistent?) and from without (how does what they did line up with [i:3021c8ea1d]our[/i:3021c8ea1d] biblical understanding?). 
It's a little different from critiquing our own religious/social/political issues, because we are inside the same cultural currents and breathe the same air. 

Fact is, right or wrong (if there be some way to objectively measure that) the Americans did think they were tyrannized, and felt it to the point of arming themselves. You or I may think they should not have felt that way for many reasons, including some that they themselves could not possibly have understood. But many of them believed they were biblically justified in resisting.

I'll try to illustrate the difficulty I see by a modern hypothetical example: it might well be unfathomable for someone in another time or place to conceive of Americans today (however they relate to us as an alien people) going to war with authorities because some strange "right" embodied in the "2nd Amendment to the US Constitution" had been repealed--all dressed up in legalese, all formally properly executed by the government, and what have you. I don't know if I would be a combatant in such a hypothetical conflict, but I'm almost certain I would openly support the "old order."

But it's all so theoretical. What objective standard of "tyranny" can we point to that says that in the 21st century, or any time ever, absolutely restricting ownership of "firesticks" is a tyrannical move? Or for that matter repealing any of the enumerated rights in the Constitution? Its almost too plain to say that such a move would fracture this country. (Maybe not, if the rights were eroded over many years.) The menace many would feel at seeing this or other dearly held freedoms stripped away would easily be understood by us. Yet, at some distance, that feeling and the violent actions it led to might seem quite unjustified to an observer.

Similar observations could be made regarding Covenanters (already mentioned), the Roundheads (I mentioned), the Confederates, and how many others? 


I think the inherent difficulty of this question is demonstrated in what is perhaps the main biblical example illustrating this whole question of resistance/separation--the dividing of the Kingdom, I Kings 11-12. Men turn to sin what God nevertheless ordains, and in this case even commands and promises (conditionally) to honor and bless (see I Ki. 11:35, 38-39). Solomon, for his part though he knew the Word of the Lord had been uttered in this thing, nevertheless attempted to assasinate Jereboam (v. 40). 

I Ki. 12:1-12 shows a model of probity and decorum in the people's conduct, though it might be mixed with pride and baser motivations. Rehoboam shows himself the fool (v. 8, 13-14). The people's response is indignation (v. 16), not wholly unjustified. The rebellion is of mixed character indeed, yet verses 15 and 21-24 prove that this outcome was from God himself. 

We may speak of sin on both sides, of the rapid fall into idolatry of Israel, of their neglect of the Temple, of their sin of despising David's house. All quite true and tragic. But none was inevitable, except in the secret decree of God. God might have preserved Israel in righteousness, instead of letting them slide into apostasy, for his own holy ends, ultimately uniting them again secularly in David's house in a happy reunion. Or perhaps only uniting them at last in the Spiritual Kingdom of David's Son, the Messiah, which was always the final goal of the kingdom anyway (the earthly destined to pass away). But in [i:3021c8ea1d]retrospect[/i:3021c8ea1d] we know that was not his design.

On that day of Revolt (even if never again!), the Ten Tribes could say in TRUTH, "We are justified in rejecting this fool and tyrant, and have done even according to the Word of the Lord in departing the house of David this day" (see 19-20, cf. 15-16). [b:3021c8ea1d]God evidently sanctioned this Declaration of Independence.[/b:3021c8ea1d] 

This illustration is no apology for the American Rebellion, but an example of how thorny the question is.


----------



## smhbbag (Aug 27, 2004)

only skimmed the thread.....but this is a subject I've discussed a lot in the last few months, so here's my few cents:

1)The Roman authority Paul has in view in Romans 13 was 1000 times more tyrannical than the British rule over the colonies - yet he does not even entertain the notion of an armed rebellion/overthrow, or permit it. 

2) Disobedience to rulers is assumed and encouraged in the case of a public/secular law declaring right Christian conduct illegal (Acts 5:40-42). Yet Scripture never (to my knowledge) prescribes or permits usurping this tyrannical and unBiblical authority by forceful or illegal means - regardless of the extent of their tyranny.

3) Those under an authority have no right to displace it; it has been established over them by God for a purpose - and "whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed" (Rom 13:2). Those outside the rulership of an unjust authority (i.e. another nation or entity) are NOT bound to obey this ruler who has no position over them....and are not explicitly commanded to keep from overthrowing them (this means that under certain circumstances, nation-to-nation conflict is permissible - but this is not the topic at hand).

4) Already mentioned, but Paul, in Romans 13, includes the tyrranical Roman government as a legitimate, binding authority on believers (recipients of this letter). The Roman authorities were "ministers of God" (Rom 13:6) even in their degenerate state of rule.


----------



## twogunfighter (Aug 27, 2004)

[quote:a23e0b9da9]1. that the overthrow of tyrants is biblically mandated, and [/quote:a23e0b9da9]

I think that mandation is too high a bar. The Bible never "mandates" the overthrow of tyrants. In some cases the overthrow is righteous though. I think that the example of Israel is instructive. On several occasions Israel as the covenant people threw off ungodly tyrants that ruled them. Leaving Egypt was seen by the Egyptians as a slave revolt. Throughout Judges they threw off outside tyrants. With Jehu and Jereboam they threw off tyrannical leaders of their own ethnicity. The chief priest felt it his duty to install a 7 yr old boy as king instead of Athaliah despite the fact that she had been reigning for six years and had consolidated the kingdom to herself. Should not God's covenant people of today be prepared to bear arms against tyranny as they did back then? 

Just because it is sometimes righteous though does not mean that it always is. The people under Nebuchadnezzar were in the same situation as when they were under Eglon but God required them to live under that tyranny. In fact the prophets told them that they were to endure the tyranny until God decided to deliver them. God calls some to fight by faith and others to endure by faith. When to fight is a call that must be based on the situation that the people of faith live under. 

[quote:a23e0b9da9]Heb 11:32 And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: 33 who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again. And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. 36 Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, F55 were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented-- 38 of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth. 39 And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, 40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us. [/quote:a23e0b9da9]


Some other interesting verses:

[quote:a23e0b9da9]1 Samuel 11:14 Then Samuel said to the people, "Come, let us go to Gilgal and renew the kingdom there." 15 So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the Lord in Gilgal. There they made sacrifices of peace offerings before the Lord, and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly. [/quote:a23e0b9da9]

The people established the king.

[quote:a23e0b9da9]1 Samuel 12:16 "Now therefore, stand and see this great thing which the Lord will do before your eyes: 17 Is today not the wheat harvest? I will call to the Lord, and He will send thunder and rain, that you may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which you have done in the sight of the Lord, in asking a king for yourselves." 18 So Samuel called to the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day; and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. 19 And all the people said to Samuel, "Pray for your servants to the Lord your God, that we may not die; for we have added to all our sins the evil of asking a king for ourselves."[/quote:a23e0b9da9]

God is not necessarily "pro" power consolidation. In this case He states that asking for a king is sinful. In other places Samuel made a substantial case for the foolishness of having a King. 

[quote:a23e0b9da9]1 Kings 19:15 Then the Lord said to him: "Go, return on your way to the Wilderness of Damascus; and when you arrive, anoint Hazael as king over Syria. 16 Also you shall anoint Jehu the son of Nimshi as king over Israel. And Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel Meholah you shall anoint as prophet in your place. 17 It shall be that whoever escapes the sword of Hazael, Jehu will kill; and whoever escapes the sword of Jehu, Elisha will kill. 18 Yet I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him." 
[/quote:a23e0b9da9]

The church leadership appointed a private individual to lead in a bloody coup de etat against the duly constituted government. Hmmmm..... 

[quote:a23e0b9da9]2.that the British were in actual fact sufficiently tyrannical to justify such an overthrow. 
[/quote:a23e0b9da9] 

What would you suggest would be a sufficient level of tyranny?

Chuck


----------



## twogunfighter (Aug 27, 2004)

[quote:83f388442e]3) Those under an authority have no right to displace it; it has been established over them by God for a purpose - and "whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed" (Rom 13:2). [/quote:83f388442e] 

So Jehoiada was acting sinfully? Was Jehoiada not appointed by God to heroically depose the evil Athaliah to show that even governments are under the law of God? Would it have been possible for a chinese christian to righteously stand in Tianamen square braving the tanks or is that level of valor only for non-Christians and we must just always take what the government metes out until a one less righteous than us rebels and we can reap the benefits?


2 Kings 11:3 So he was hidden with her in the house of the Lord for six years, while Athaliah reigned over the land. 

4 In the seventh year Jehoiada sent and brought the captains of hundreds--of the bodyguards and the escorts--and brought them into the house of the Lord to him. And he made a covenant with them and took an oath from them in the house of the Lord, and showed them the king's son. 5 Then he commanded them, saying, "This is what you shall do: One-third of you who come on duty on the Sabbath shall be keeping watch over the king's house, 6 one-third shall be at the gate of Sur, and one-third at the gate behind the escorts. You shall keep the watch of the house, lest it be broken down. 7 The two contingents of you who go off duty on the Sabbath shall keep the watch of the house of the Lord for the king. 8 But you shall surround the king on all sides, every man with his weapons in his hand; and whoever comes within range, let him be put to death. You are to be with the king as he goes out and as he comes in." 9 So the captains of the hundreds did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded. Each of them took his men who were to be on duty on the Sabbath, with those who were going off duty on the Sabbath, and came to Jehoiada the priest. 10 And the priest gave the captains of hundreds the spears and shields which had belonged to King David, that were in the temple of the Lord. 11 Then the escorts stood, every man with his weapons in his hand, all around the king, from the right side of the temple to the left side of the temple, by the altar and the house. 12 And he brought out the king's son, put the crown on him, and gave him the Testimony; F10 they made him king and anointed him, and they clapped their hands and said, "Long live the king!"


----------



## smhbbag (Aug 27, 2004)

I still see absolutely no reason in that text to conclude that the overthrow of authority was sanctioned or commanded by God (although we do know it was decreed by Him to happen).

As for the Tianamen Square question - that is an unlawful protest....and actions which are not commanded for us directly by scripture.....so I am consistent, and I see no warrant for any Christian to break the law of the land outside of a direct Biblical mandate. You call that protest "valor" - I call it passionate rebellion against the holy God who established those authorities.

Again, we have the authors of NT scripture living under equal, if not greater, tyranny than the believers in China - and Paul calls these evil, deplorable men "ministers of God" appointed over believers. They have a legitimate authority, and are not to be disobeyed unless they command disobedience to a higher authority - the Lord of all Lords Himself.

By the way, in your signature (twogunfighter) - "It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors God's ministers" - That is precisely what Paul did.


----------



## twogunfighter (Aug 30, 2004)

SMH

[quote:93275b1cf0]2 Kings 12:20 And his servants arose and formed a conspiracy, and killed Joash in the house of the Millo, F12 which goes down to Silla. 21 For Jozachar F13 the son of Shimeath and Jehozabad the son of Shomer, F14 his servants, struck him. So he died, and they buried him with his fathers in the City of David. Then Amaziah his son reigned in his place. 

2 Kings 14:3 And he did what was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not like his father David; he did everything as his father Joash had done. 4 However the high places were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places. 5 Now it happened, as soon as the kingdom was established in his hand, that he executed his servants who had murdered his father the king. 6 But the children of the murderers he did not execute, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, in which the Lord commanded, saying, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; but a person shall be put to death for his own sin." F18 [/quote:93275b1cf0]

This is how the rebellion against Joash was written about. Note the description of "murderers".

[quote:93275b1cf0]2 Kings 11:13 Now when Athaliah heard the noise of the escorts and the people, she came to the people in the temple of the Lord. 14 When she looked, there was the king standing by a pillar according to custom; and the leaders and the trumpeters were by the king. All the people of the land were rejoicing and blowing trumpets. So Athaliah tore her clothes and cried out, "Treason! Treason!" 15 And Jehoiada the priest commanded the captains of the hundreds, the officers of the army, and said to them, "Take her outside under guard, and slay with the sword whoever follows her." For the priest had said, "Do not let her be killed in the house of the Lord." 16 So they seized her; and she went by way of the horses' entrance into the king's house, and there she was killed. 

17 Then Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord, the king, and the people, that they should be the Lord's people, and also between the king and the people. 18 And all the people of the land went to the temple of Baal, and tore it down. They thoroughly broke in pieces its altars and images, and killed Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars. And the priest appointed officers over the house of the Lord. 19 Then he took the captains of hundreds, the bodyguards, the escorts, and all the people of the land; and they brought the king down from the house of the Lord, and went by way of the gate of the escorts to the king's house. Then he sat on the throne of the kings. 20 So all the people of the land rejoiced; and the city was quiet, for they had slain Athaliah with the sword in the king's house. 21 Jehoash was seven years old when he became king. 

2 Kings 12:2 Jehoash did what was right in the sight of the Lord all the days in which Jehoiada the priest instructed him. [/quote:93275b1cf0]

Now if Amaziah put to death the murderers of his father, why would not Joash do the same thing if Athaliah (his grandmother) was indeed murdered? Why is Jehoida not characterized as a murderer if scripture is clear on the status of Joash's servants? How could Jehoida be an evil murderer and treasonous subject and still be allowed to lead the people in renewing their covenant? And why is Jehoash's righteousness at least partly attributed to Jehoida's instruction? 

But if that does not answer, then Jehu son of Nimshi a regular guy is called upon by Elisha a prophet of God and an officer of the church to kill all of Ahab's descendants and ascend to the throne himself. Was he wrong to do so? Was Elisha wrong to commission him for the task? 

What of David, as leader of the breakaway province of Judah, who waged a war directed by GOD against the duly constituted head of the state of Israel? 

[quote:93275b1cf0]2 Sam2: 4 Then the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David, saying, "The men of Jabesh Gilead were the ones who buried Saul." 5 So David sent messengers to the men of Jabesh Gilead, and said to them, "You are blessed of the Lord, for you have shown this kindness to your lord, to Saul, and have buried him. 6 And now may the Lord show kindness and truth to you. I also will repay you this kindness, because you have done this thing. 7 Now therefore, let your hands be strengthened, and be valiant; for your master Saul is dead, and also the house of Judah has anointed me king over them." 

8 But Abner the son of Ner, commander of Saul's army, took Ishbosheth F1 the son of Saul and brought him over to Mahanaim; 9 and he made him king over Gilead, over the Ashurites, over Jezreel, over Ephraim, over Benjamin, and over all Israel. 10 Ishbosheth, Saul's son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned two years. Only the house of Judah followed David. 11 And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months. 
[/quote:93275b1cf0]

I am in no way trying to say that rebellion is the norm for Christian dealing with disagreeable government. In fact I believe that Rom 13 sets out the norm and the anecdotal evidence that I have shown from the OT proves that there are exceptions. My difficulty is that you refuse to say that there any exceptions. Scripture clearly shows that in certain extreme circumstances rebellion against tyranny is a righteous option. The fact that you refuse to see it is of little consequence to me since Calvin, Du Plessis Mornay, Kuyper, Knox and others have aggreed with my side.

http://www.kuyper.org/stone/lecture3.html#1
http://www.crta.org/calvinism/
http://www.constitution.org/vct/vindiciae.htm
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm

The difficulty is in determining what the circumstances are. Which is why I think that any judging of the founding fathers should assume their innocence rather than making them treasonous rebels based on our idea of what tyranny is "bad enough" to warrant rising against the tyrant. 

Chuck


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 30, 2004)

[quote:839aa74d7d="smhbbag"]
By the way, in your signature (twogunfighter) - "It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors God's ministers" - That is precisely what Paul did.[/quote:839aa74d7d]

You are assuming what you are trying to prove. In this case, and I can't do it now resource wise, isn't a more valid option to see Paul speaking prescriptively, not descriptive? Doesn't that make more sense? After all, Paul had a strong ethical component in his letters, exhorting the Christians to good behavior, among other things. If Nero is "a minister for good," and the Christians read that, what are they to conclude? After Paul has been exhorting them to love and good works and then pronounces Nero "good," has God now changed his standard? 

No, I do not believe Paul is describing the current situation. If so, then we need to redefine the word "is." It makes more sense to see Paul laying the ethical demands for rulers. Now as a word of caution to what I am saying: There is more to this text than a categorical "ought," although that is most surely there.


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 17, 2005)

*Really a Rebellion?*

I see some reducing the war for American independence to some bourgosie crusade for economic freedom and liberation from taxation. What distinguishes the so called American "rebellion" from the French Revolution, is that the lesser magistrates in the colonies interposed against the usurpations of King George and the Crown... The French Revolution was just a bloodletting by quixotic egalitarian ideologues. The colonials relentlessly pleaded their sufferings by petition for more than a decade, and it was far more than taxation abuse, as they enumerated in detail those usurpations in the Declaration of Independence. The struggle was very much a war for restoration of the Anglo-American common law tradition, as well as political and economic independence. And likewise in the Second War of Independence in 1861, the lesser magistrates interposed and it was no more of a"rebellion." In both cases, our country was invaded by a foreign oppressor who sought to subjugate us in both cases. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is similar. I recommend the Vision Forums CD/Tape series in the _Christian Controversies Series_, such as _Yankees v. Rebels_ and _Patriots v. Tories_.

:bigsmile:

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 17, 2005)

*Yankee Inconsistency*



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> It was not a rebellion.
> 
> England severed all ties with the Colonies first, declared them a foreign threat, and then when the King and Parliament could not determine what course to take regarding future relations with the Colonies decided to invaded in order to attempt to conquer us!
> ...



Unfortunately, the Yankee oppressors of my Southron ancestors couldn't maintain such consistency.... First, the Confederates were considered rebels against the central authority, but during the occupation years we were considered a foreign power and treated as conquered territory. For whatever reason, our constiuent states incorporated back into the Union abrogated any claim to state sovereignty at the behest of the radical republicans and a puppet regime called the shots so as to illegally and unconstitutionally preserve the unpopular Republican majority in the Congress and control of the White House. Republican self-government was vanquished as the South was likewise subject to the oppressive heel of the jackboot, military dictatorship, and disenfranchisement. At least, the British were consistent in that regard.

[Edited on 2-19-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Richard King (Feb 17, 2005)

I am probably oversimplifying but in answer to whether we should be patriots I have always felt that if my father and others before him fought to give me a life that is more free than other countries then I should honor my father and mother and others before them that paid a high price for this country. I am not a blind patriot. I am fully aware of the abuses and the wrongs our country supports. (For instance abortion. ) but I consider our Romans 13 type king or power or authority that we are blessed with in America is our Constitution and the Bill of Rights...not mere men like Lincoln or Janet Reno or Roosevelt or GW, or any political party or movement like moral majority. If they counter our Constitution or Bill of Rights they are breaking Roman's 13. This flawed country was a bold experiment led by men that have the same theology as many of you. If we feel no responsibility to that well at least I think there are scriptures that support protecting and defending the helpless. I cannot find anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that is contrary to scripture.


----------



## Peter (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by smhbbag_
> only skimmed the thread.....but this is a subject I've discussed a lot in the last few months, so here's my few cents:
> 
> 1)The Roman authority Paul has in view in Romans 13 was 1000 times more tyrannical than the British rule over the colonies - yet he does not even entertain the notion of an armed rebellion/overthrow, or permit it.
> ...



What an incoherent and utterly repugnant view of civil govt. 1st of all its historically inaccurate. Roman govt under Nero at this point really wasn't that bad. The letter was written circa 56 AD, Christian persecution didnt begin until after the fire in Rome circa 64 ad.
2) Contradictory- in #3 you say tyrants are put in authority for a reason, and those under their authority cannot rebel, yet you say foreign nations may overthrow them. Well if God desires the reign of tyrants for a reason (& we are not speaking of His secret will) then it is sin for anyone to remove them. Think of how absurd this view of yours is- its a sin for a Christian to resist a tyranical prince providentially wielding mere power (simply the ability to do something) over a plot of land he happens to reside on, yet his neighbor who he doesnt own that power over may depose him.
3) This view makes God the author of sin, it confuses his secret will and his revealed will. The view that Rom 13 states anyone providentially wielding the mere ability to coerce people has the authority to do so believes MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. This is the biggest logical fallacy in the book- argument ad bacculum. Essentially its baptized social darwinism- that God gives the authority to do something to those who have the power to it- the idea is repulsive. I quote Samuel Willson, 


> _Submission to the Powers that be_
> http://covenanter.org/JMWillson/submission.htm
> But what does this ordinance comprehend? Does it embrace no more that the affixing of a divine sanction to the exercise of such authority among men as is denominated civil?—leaving every thing relating to its ends, its limits, its exercise, completely independent of God's will and direction? Certainly not. A divine ordinance is something. God's minister has something to do in that character. And whatever government is, it must be moral—for God is holy and good. Whatever his servant has to do, he must, in doing it, bear the image of God for whom he acts. It is monstrous even to imagine that the Most High has impressed his sanction upon every kind of human authority, however immoral, profane, blasphemous, requiring of the unhappy and tempted subject of such dominion, not merely a peaceful subjection to irresistible power, but a conscientious reverence of its officers and agents, as his ministers. We are not left to adopt any such revolting conclusion.



Here is what I am contending for: Paul no where calls Rome the ordinance of God or a power. Paul was writing to those people within the church who believed all civil govt unnecessary and evil, and to the church in all ages not just 1st century believers in the city of Rome. Paul carefully defines what a power is in vs 3,4 a terror to those that do evil and a minister of God for good, tyrants do not fit the description. Ex 18:21 further defines the biblical qualifications for a magistrate, he must fear God. Deu 17:14-20, sets many specific requirements, among them that he must know the Law of God and enforce it. I view these requirements as essential to the constitution of a civil minister as 1Tim 3 is essential to an ecclesiastical minister. If either minister lacks their respective requirements they are not a minister but an unlawful corruption thereof. Nero is no more a civil minister as a female "pastor" is an ecclesiastical minister. 

The q. are those providentially put in power automatically the ordinance of God? I believe not.
"Hosea 8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off. "
Here God definiatively says that they made princes not by him, ie, they are not His ordinance. So one exception disproves the assertion God ALWAYS ordains every Government.

Why didnt 1st century Christians resist? Paul explains two types of obedience. Obedience for wraths sake and obedience for conscience sake. A Christian can never conscientiously submit to be ruled by evil. A Christian can submit because he fears the magistrates unjust wrath. He may, and often morally obliged to patiently wait under a tyrants persecutions if resistance is needlessly dangerous, or may unnecessarily cause social discord.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 17, 2005)

Puritanhead:

I thought I detected Joe Morecraft in your post. Those might be some of the finer lectures I have ever heard. Every God-fearing, freedom loving Christian needs to listen to those lectures.

Richard King wrote:



> but I consider our Romans 13 type king or power or authority that we are blessed with in America is our Constitution and the Bill of Rights...not mere men like Lincoln or Janet Reno or Roosevelt or GW, or any political party or movement like moral majority. If they counter our Constitution or Bill of Rights they are breaking Roman's 13.



I don't disagree. We do realize, don't we, that when a president swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, he is saying that he will face the judgment of God if he breaks it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Richard King_
> I cannot find anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that is contrary to scripture.



My own view is that the Constitution on a procedural basis has much Biblical warrant (I primarily refer to the division of power amongst the three branches of government and within Congress itself as a check and balance against totalitarianism as well as the republican -- lower case 'r' -- nature of our government). However, with respect to moral, ethical and religious issues, our Constitution may be weighed on the scales of God's law and found deeply wanting.

The Preamble (which arguably lacks force of law, perhaps, but nevertheless shows the basis of authority upon which the Constitutution rests) says: 



> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



This is the place to acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as King over the nation and his word as the basis for establishing Justice, etc. No mention of Christ here is a sin of omission since magistrates cannot expect God's blessing without confession that he is Lord. 



> Article VI:
> Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.



Here again is a place where God's law ought to be acknowledged as the rule or basis of authority for government. There is a law higher than the Constitution.



> Article VI:
> Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.



God's Word requires religious tests for public office because the magistrate is a minister of God (Rom. 13.4). "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." (2 Sam. 23.3)

If the Constitution contains sinful provisions, as I argue, than the oath it requires is also sinful. 



> Amendment 1:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



It is the duty of nations to confess Jesus Christ as Lord. It is the duty of magistrates to "maintain piety, justice, and peace" (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. XXIII.II). The establishment of a national church is precisely a Biblical requirement (see the Westminster Larger Catechism's exposition of the first, second, third and fourth commandments) and this amendment contravenes that. Free expression of all ideas and religions, heretical and nonsensical is contrary to the maintenance of piety, justice and peace (see Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. XX.IV). The magistrate's duty is to uphold the Ten Commandments and this does not allow for toleration of false and harmful religions and philosophies. 

I'll skip over Amendments dealing with citizenship rights, slavery, income taxes and womens' suffrage since they came after the Bill of Rights. 

My point is, our Constitution even as originally written, stands in great need of Reformation. It has much that is good in it, but its flaws are fundamental and lie at the heart of many of the problems that our society faces today.


----------



## Richard King (Feb 18, 2005)

Good points but we have to take into account they were trying so hard to get away from a place where the Crown dictated how they would worship. I think they were just trying to avoid being Rome or the King's church etc . They did acknowledge our Creator. Still I see your points. 

I just think nowadays people think bowing to authority means the UN or the NEA or the Labor unions, an unchecked FBI, or the secretary of whatever, or any other federals...when they should Constitutionally test every move the people in power make. 
This country was set up with our leaders having a revocable power. They serve us ...not the other way around. For that I thank God. If only we all realized it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 18, 2005)

I think the question over whether the Crown was really tyrannical compared to Nero is beside the point. The colonials knew their english history and the precarious nature of civil liberty. If they allowed the Crown to tax them unjustly, this would set precedent for more unjust measures. This is different from your modern American. You modern asserts that taxes are okay as long as there are not a lot of them. He never asks the question as to whether they are biblical or constiutional.

[Edited on 2--18-05 by Draught Horse]


----------

