# Do you believe that the American Revolution was biblically justified?



## Haeralis (Jul 4, 2019)

Recently, there has been a movement in some theologically Reformed and politically conservative circles to question the biblicity of the Revolution. Neo-loyalists argue that some biblical texts, usually pointing to Romans 13 and 1 Pet. 2, command Christians to obey all political authority. Typically, though not always, this movement overlaps with the neo-Two Kingdoms movement (David VanDrunen, Michael Horton, and John MacArthur), whose proponents insist that the Bible is essentially apolitical and that any attempt to appeal to Scripture as a support for overthrowing a godless and unbiblical political authority is politicizing something that only really gives us exhaustive guidance about the functioning of the church. 

Opponents of this view point to the examples of resistance to tyranny in the Old Testament, especially as seen in the stories of Ehud, Samuel, and Jehu. Ehud (Judges 3:12-33) was raised up by God to execute a wicked, tyrannical usurper of Israel's monarchy. Samuel brutally executed Agag, a tyrannical political authority, by "hacking him to pieces" (1 Sam. 15:33). Jehu was given a command by God to slay the idolatrous tyrant Jehoram (2 Kings 9:1-2). Lastly, there is the example of Jehoida ordering the execution of the wicked and idolatrous queen Athaliah, who had reigned for about seven years (2 Chron. 23:14-15). Protestant resistance theorists argue that the New Testament political passages did not nullify the permanent relevance of these Old Testament Scriptures to a biblical political philosophy.

I side much more with the resistance theorists in this debate. Protestant political thinkers such as John Knox, George Buchanan, John Milton and Samuel Rutherford all made sound biblical cases for the legitimacy of resistance to tyrannical government. As I believe the actions of Parliament during the American crisis constituted an undoubted example of tyranny, I believe that resistance was justified. Even Calvin accepted the legitimacy of lesser magistrates leading a Revolution against tyrannical authority, and it is difficult to deny that this is what happened during the Revolutionary War.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 4, 2019)

Haeralis said:


> neo-Two Kingdoms movement (David VanDrunen



However, Van Drunen has written quite forcefully in expounding Rutherford's theory of resistance. Whatever his beliefs are personally, he has at least publicized resistance theory.

Part of me is a Tory Monarchist, so I understand the arguments against the colonies. On the other hand, it wasn't simply a bunch of beatniks overthrowing lawful govt. A number of factors went into play: the control merchants had over England, America's de facto covenantal self-government, etc.

The cynic in me sees it as a victory of Freemasons over Freemasons.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 4, 2019)

Haeralis said:


> As I believe the actions of Parliament during the American crisis constituted an undoubted example of tyranny, I believe that resistance was justified. Even Calvin accepted the legitimacy of lesser magistrates leading a Revolution against tyrannical authority, and it is difficult to deny that this is what happened during the Revolutionary War.



In what way were the actions of Parliament tyrannical?

Here is Calvin speaking briefly on a relevant point:

"[T]he duty of subjects is not only to respect and revere those over them, but, by prayer, to commend them to the Lord for salvation and prosperity, to submit willingly to their authority, to obey their laws and constitutions, and not to refuse the charges which they impose on them: taxes, tolls, rates and the like, services to the community, conscription and everything similar."

John Calvin, _Truth for all Time_, Banner of Truth, pp. 131-2​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 4, 2019)

Also, any talk of "tyranny" falls flat when one reads of the widespread mistreatment of the Loyalists. Between 60,000 and 80,000 refugees fled to the Canadas as a result of the American Revolution, while many others went elsewhere.

Not to mention that Americans' closest friend in the war was the absolutist monarch Louis XVI (an actual tyrant). And, at the time, Britain was by some distance the freest, most democratic country on the planet.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 4, 2019)

Happy 4th of July. Murica!

The Belfast Covenanter: “Render unto Caesar” does not justify arbitrary taxation

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 4, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Also, any talk of "tyranny" falls flat when one reads of the widespread mistreatment of the Loyalists. Between 60,000 and 80,000 refugees fled to the Canadas as a result of the American Revolution, while many others went elsewhere.
> 
> Not to mention that Americans' closest friend in the war was the absolutist monarch Louis XVI (an actual tyrant). And, at the time, Britain was by some distance the freest, most democratic country on the planet.



It might be worth reading Edmund Burke's speeches on the issue. One point to keep in mind is that that colonies were not (at least not in their opinion) being governed like Britain itself.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 4, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> It might be worth reading Edmund Burke's speeches on the issue. One point to keep in mind is that that colonies were not (at least not in their opinion) being governed like Britain itself.



I think I've read them, but it's been a long time. I am aware that Burke was sympathetic to the rebels.

I do not regard as sufficient cause to overthdow the ordained authorities the imposition of taxation, however arbitrary, nor any other of the actions of the British government that are commonly raised in support of rebellion.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 4, 2019)

Britain had no right to claim the New Land as their own. Once British people left Britain and established their home in the New Land, they weren't subjects of Britain. It was entirely right for them to throw Britain out of America.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 4, 2019)

OPC'n said:


> Britain had no right to claim the New Land as their own. Once British people left Britain and established their home in the New Land, they weren't subjects of Britain. It was entirely right for them to throw Britain out of America.



Where do you get this from? Well into the 18th century, the inhabitants of the colonists not only considered themselves British, but were, as they'd been from the start, under nominal British rule.

Just look at the names of the colonies and towns: Virginia (named for Elizabeth I), Georgia (named for George II), Pittsburgh (named for William Pitt).

EDIT: Your understanding also fails to account for the many Loyalists who could still be found in the colonies during the Revolution.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 4, 2019)

OPC'n said:


> Once British people left Britain and established their home in the New Land, they weren't subjects of Britain.





Tom Hart said:


> Well into the 18th century, the inhabitants of the colonists not only considered themselves British, but were, as they'd been from the start, under nominal British rule.


The main biographers of Jonathan Edwards point out a key to understanding Edwards was that he regarded himself as British.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 4, 2019)

Paul clearly asserted his rights as a Roman citizen and the colonists asserted their rights as British subjects. Nothing says we have to cowardly give up what is recognized as lawful.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 4, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Where do you get this from? Well into the 18th century, the inhabitants of the colonists not only considered themselves British, but were, as they'd been from the start, under nominal British rule.
> 
> Just look at the names of the colonies and towns: Virginia (named for Elizabeth I), Georgia (named for George II), Pittsburgh (named for William Pitt).
> 
> EDIT: Your understanding also fails to account for the many Loyalists who could still be found in the colonies during the Revolution.



I agree there were Loyalists who came to the New World. These people should have stayed in Britain and been content to live under British rule. They had no right trying to make the New World British owned. There were those who fled British rule for a reason. They didn't see themselves as British any longer and wanted to be a citizen of a new country. I'm glad they had the good sense to separate themselves from a country that didn't own the New World, and I'm glad God helped people like President Washington and others to defeat the British.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 4, 2019)

OPC'n said:


> I agree there were Loyalists who came to the New World. These people should have stayed in Britain and been content to live under British rule. They had no right trying to make the New World British owned.



That's my family you're talking about!



OPC'n said:


> There were those who fled British rule for a reason.



And that's my family too...

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 4, 2019)

OPC'n said:


> I agree there were Loyalists who came to the New World. These people should have stayed in Britain and been content to live under British rule. They had no right trying to make the New World British owned. There were those who fled British rule for a reason. They didn't see themselves as British any longer and wanted to be a citizen of a new country. I'm glad they had the good sense to separate themselves from a country that didn't own the New World, and I'm glad God helped people like President Washington and others to defeat the British.



The fact of the matter is that while early settlers left England to found their own settlements, later settlements were expressly founded as English/British colonies, and the inhabitants long considered themselves British.

Following the Seven Years' War, Britain found itself in something of a fiscal crisis. It had emerged from the war not only victorious, but having acquired considerable territorial gains, most notably Quebec and Bengal. (The British had not intended to keep Quebec - they tried to trade it for some Caribbean islands, but the French didn't want it back since it was unprofitable.) The British government needed to institute an empire-wide tax reform of sorts, which is what didn't sit well with the Americans. There was also, of course, the Quebec Act (which was, to the American rebels, the worst of all) which restricted American expansion westward, and which permitted religious toleration of Roman Catholics.

I think that the British handled the American colonies irresponsibly, meddling too much in places thay had previously enjoyed a great deal of freedom. But the question was whether the American revolt was "biblically justified". And the answer, quite plainly, is "No."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 4, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> The fact of the matter is that while early settlers left England to found their own settlements, later settlements were expressly founded as English/British colonies, and the inhabitants long considered themselves British.
> 
> Following the Seven Years' War, Britain found itself in something of a fiscal crisis. It had emerged from the war not only victorious, but having acquired considerable territorial gains, most notably Quebec and Bengal. (The British had not intended to keep Quebec - they tried to trade it for some Caribbean islands, but the French didn't want it back since it was unprofitable.) The British government needed to institute an empire-wide tax reform of sorts, which is what didn't sit well with the Americans. There was also, of course, the Quebec Act (which was, to the American rebels, the worst of all) which restricted American expansion westward, and which permitted religious toleration of Roman Catholics.
> 
> I think that the British handled the American colonies irresponsibly, meddling too much in places thay had previously enjoyed a great deal of freedom. But the question was whether the American revolt was "biblically justified". And the answer, quite plainly, is "No."



The Bible says to submit to the authorities that are set over you, not to random authorities that have no authority over you. We in America do not have to submit to other countries' authority only to our own government. So Biblically speaking our forefathers were not under any obligation to submit to British rule when Britain did not own the New World. A few different countries felt they owned the New World (we bought the Louisiana Purchase from the French even though we shouldn't have paid them a penny for it), but no foreign country legally owned this country. Our forefathers were throwing out illegitimate rulers from this country when they went to war against them.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 4, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> The main biographers of Jonathan Edwards point out a key to understanding Edwards was that he regarded himself as British.



Well, that was because Edwards _was_ British, as he died in 1758, 17 years before the Revolutionary War began.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## bookslover (Jul 4, 2019)

Somewhere in Loraine Boettner's book on predestination, he has a section where he describes the Revolutionary War as being basically run by Presbyterians. So, I suppose _they_ would say it was biblical.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jul 4, 2019)

For the average Joe colonist, this was a matter of following the lesser magistrate. Those magistrates were charged with following law, and if they believed (as they appear to have believed) that the crown had violated the laws that even the king was bound to obey, then they were the ones that made the determination.

The lesser magistrate was duty bound to the law, and if the king was violating that rights of the people, those magistrates would and must work to redress those violations. It was not taken lightly, but the right of a king to rule also rest upon the people they do rule. When Rehoboam promised oppression, the people left him ... and we see the back store that it was God's plan. The kingdom was torn in two.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 4, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Well, that was because Edwards _was_ British, as he died in 1758, 17 years before the Revolutionary War began.


Agreed. I was simply replying to comments from post 8.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 4, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Agreed. I was simply replying to comments from post 8.



Got it. Thanks for clarifying for me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Jul 4, 2019)

I've never thought it was biblical. But, I'm Canadian, and not patriotic at all.

I don't really think it's valid to use examples from OT Israel to justify revolutionary wars, since that was a very unique time in history, wherein the covenant people were contained in one nation-state. This has never happened since.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 4, 2019)

De Jager said:


> I've never thought it was biblical. But, I'm Canadian, and not patriotic at all.
> 
> I don't really think it's valid to use examples from OT Israel to justify revolutionary wars, since that was a very unique time in history, wherein the covenant people were contained in one nation-state. This has never happened since.



You're not allowed to vote since you're Canadian

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 4, 2019)

OPC'n said:


> The Bible says to submit to the authorities that are set over you, not to random authorities that have no authority over you. We in America do not have to submit to other countries' authority only to our own government. So Biblically speaking our forefathers were not under any obligation to submit to British rule when Britain did not own the New World. A few different countries felt they owned the New World (we bought the Louisiana Purchase from the French even though we shouldn't have paid them a penny for it), but no foreign country legally owned this country. Our forefathers were throwing out illegitimate rulers from this country when they went to war against them.


Please read the primary sources such as the charters of Virginia and Pennsylvania which recognized the sovereignty of the British throne. The question then becomes whether they as British subjects could act to assert their rights under British law. John Adams, the Lee family, Patrick Henry, et. al, clearly thought so. Unlike what is taught in the modern era, they were not trying to generate freedom ex nihilo, but within the bounds of law.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jul 4, 2019)

Ummm ... one point.

The colonies _were_ under British rule. They were citizens of England. That is why the Declaration of Independence has so much in it that lays out the justification for the people here to sever ties with England. To wit:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--*Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. [emphasis added of course]*​
The colonies were _British_ colonies. The Declaration of Independence was necessary because they were British.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 4, 2019)

De Jager said:


> But, I'm Canadian, and not patriotic at all.


You have no love for the land of your birth?


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 4, 2019)

jwithnell said:


> Please read the primary sources such as the charters of Virginia and Pennsylvania which recognized the sovereignty of the British throne. The question then becomes whether they as British subjects could act to assert their rights under British law. John Adams, the Lee family, Patrick Henry, et. al, clearly thought so. Unlike what is taught in the modern era, they were not trying to generate freedom ex nihilo, but within the bounds of law.



I have to disagree. Britain had no sovereignty over the New World any more than France had the right to sell us the Louisiana Purchase. Even the Natives didn't own the New World since they refused to "own" the land (their words) and create an independent country. The New World became a legal country in 1776. Before then it was a piece of land that was not considered a country in legal terms.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 4, 2019)

http://www.ushistory.org/us/2.asp. Hence, America was just a giant piece of land many countries were trying to grab but never made a legitimate country. Britain had the least rights over America.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jul 4, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> But the question was whether the American revolt was "biblically justified". And the answer, quite plainly, is "No."


Okay, I was pleased as punch that you had the history correct, but the question of was it Biblically justified goes to the question of lex rex.

If the law is the authority, then the king could be in violation of the law. The local magistrate would be required to defend the citizens from a tyrannical ruler. It was those lesser magistrates that did declare independence, not the average Joe. George was NOT the law himself, and the colonists asserted the king was in violation of natural law ... even if one disagrees with that, it was _their _decision to make, not the colonist citizen. If one is to believe the veracity of the DoI, one would have to believe they engaged repeatedly in attempting to mitigate the problems without war. But the question of was it Biblical is a question of authority. The King was not submitting to the authority of law. The magistrates were.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jul 4, 2019)

OPC'n said:


> I have to disagree. Britain had no sovereignty over the New World any more than France had the right to sell us the Louisiana Purchase. Even the Natives didn't own the New World since they refused to "own" the land (their words) and create an independent country. The New World became a legal country in 1776. Before then it was a piece of land that was not considered a country in legal terms.


That is not what the colonists themselves said in the declaration of independence. They fully comprehended they were British subjects, but understood the crown to have broken the laws of England and nature. The magistrates then severed the relationship.


Brian Withnell said:


> and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.


That is the DoI ... written by the colonists. They were "alter[ing] their former Systems of Government." They were establishing rule other than by England.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 5, 2019)

OPC'n said:


> The Bible says to submit to the authorities that are set over you, not to random authorities that have no authority over you. We in America do not have to submit to other countries' authority only to our own government. So Biblically speaking our forefathers were not under any obligation to submit to British rule when Britain did not own the New World. A few different countries felt they owned the New World (we bought the Louisiana Purchase from the French even though we shouldn't have paid them a penny for it), but no foreign country legally owned this country. Our forefathers were throwing out illegitimate rulers from this country when they went to war against them.



These statements are wildly inaccurate.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 5, 2019)

Brian Withnell said:


> That is not what the colonists themselves said in the declaration of independence. They fully comprehended they were British subjects, but understood the crown to have broken the laws of England and nature. The magistrates then severed the relationship.
> 
> That is the DoI ... written by the colonists. They were "alter[ing] their former Systems of Government." They were establishing rule other than by England.



Hey, Brian, long time no si! Oh, I agree with everyone that many of the colonists were British subjects, but they they were British people squatting on a piece of land that was not a nation. There were a few colonies which had Britain born people living in them and that made them and Britain think they owned the land they were on. Meanwhile, other countries stated they had a claim to vast amounts of the New World. In short, no country could legally claim it as part of their sovereign nation. They only got smart when they figured out they actually owned the land as independent settlers and formed a nation which didn’t include every other nation being apart of the new nation.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 5, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> These statements are wildly inaccurate.



Which part(s)?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 5, 2019)

We're still waiting for those back taxes y'all

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## De Jager (Jul 5, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> You have no love for the land of your birth?



I'm thankful for the freedoms I (still) have, and think we live in a wonderful land that has a lot of resources.

But, our government(s) are very ungodly, and we are for the most part a godless nation, even though many of our laws are rooted in Biblical morals - although that is changing quickly.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 5, 2019)

Whether it was justified or not, we are better off. Most of my friends have hordes of guns and thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammo. In Britain you will get arrested for having a butterknife.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1 | Funny 2


----------



## De Jager (Jul 5, 2019)

The gun thing culture in America is so foreign to me, as a Canadian. The idea of a regular citizen carrying a concealed handgun is troubling. I'm not saying it is immoral, it is just a bit scary, tbh. And I come from the countryside, where the farmers have lots of guns.


----------



## Haeralis (Jul 5, 2019)

In his _Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, _John Milton includes a variety of quotations from the greatest Reformers on the issue of resistance to unlawful authority. It is worth considering these statements in addition to others made by deeply Calvinist men such as George Buchanan, Samuel Rutherford and John Witherspoon. Even Calvin, who argued for submission to government in the _Institutes, _appeared to come around to Knox's position later in life after seeing the persecution of the Huguenots in France. Of course, even in the _Institutes _Calvin did grant that lesser magistrates could resist tyrants even if he nonetheless rejected Lockean social contract-esque theories about popular resistance to government. 

Martin Luther: 

"Neither is Caesar to make war as head of Christendom, protector of the church, defender of the faith; these titles being false and windy, and most kings being the greatest enemies to religion.” Lib. de Bello contra Turcas, apud Sleid. l. 14. What hinders then, but that we may depose or punish them?" 

Huldrich Zwingli: 

“When kings reign perfidiously, and against the rule of Christ, they may according to the word of God be deposed.” 

“I know not how it comes to pass, that kings reign by succession, unless it be with consent of the whole people.” 

“But when by suffrage and consent of the whole people, or the better part of them, a tyrant is deposed or put to death, God is the chief leader in that action.” 

“Now that we are so lukewarm in upholding public justice, we endure the vices of tyrants to reign now-a-days with impunity; justly therefore by them we are trod underfoot, and shall at length with them be punished. Yet ways are not wanting by which tyrants may be removed, but there wants public justice.” 

“Beware, ye tyrants! for now the gospel of Jesus Christ, spreading far and wide will renew the lives of many to love innocence and justice; which if ye also shall do, ye shall be honoured. But if ye shall go on to rage and do violence, ye shall be trampled on by all men.” 

“When the Roman empire, or any other, shall begin to oppress religion, and we negligently suffer it, we are as much guilty of religion so violated, as the oppressors themselves.” 

John Calvin:

On Daniel 4:25 — “Now-a-days monarchs pretend always in their titles, to be kings by the grace of God: but how many of them to this end only pretend it, that they may reign without control! for to what purpose is the grace of God mentioned in the title of kings, but that they may acknowledge no superior? In the mean while God, whose name they use to support themselves, they willingly would tread under their feet. It is therefore a mere cheat, when they boast to reign by the grace of God.” 

On Daniel 6:22 — “Earthly princes depose themselves, while they rise against God; yea they are unworthy to be numbered among men: rather it behoves us to spit upon their heads, than to obey them.” 

Martin Bucer: 

"If a sovereign prince endeavour by arms to defend transgressors, to subvert those things which are taught in the word of God, they, who are in authority under him, ought first to dissuade him; if they prevail not, and that he now bears himself not as a prince but as an enemy, and seeks to violate privileges and rights granted to inferior magistrates, or commonalties, it is the part of pious magistrates, imploring first the assistance of God, rather to try all ways and means, than to betray the flock of Christ to such an enemy of God: for they also are to this end ordained, that they may defend the people of God, and maintain those things which are good and just. For to have supreme power lessens not the evil committed by that power, but makes it the less tolerable, by how much the more generally hurtful. Then certainly the less tolerable, the more unpardonably to be punished.” 

John Knox: 

Wrote an entire book about this ("The Appellation of John Knox") and discusses it at length in "The Second Blast of the Trumpet" 

Thomas Cartwright: 

“Kings have their authority of the people, who may upon occasion reassume it to themselves.” 

“The people may kill wicked princes as monsters and cruel beasts.” 

Christopher Goodman: 

“When kings or rulers become blasphemers of God, oppressors and murderers of their subjects, they ought no more to be accounted kings or lawful magistrates, but as private men to be examined, accused, and condemned and punished by the law of God; and being convicted and punished by that law, it is not man’s but God’s doing.” 

“When magistrates cease to do their duty, the people are as it were without magistrates, yea, worse, and then God giveth the sword into the people’s hand, and he himself is become immediately their head.” 

“If princes do right, and keep promise with you, then do you owe to them all humble obedience; if not, ye are discharged, and your study ought to be in this case how ye may depose and punish according to the law such rebels against God, and oppressors of their country.”

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 5, 2019)

De Jager said:


> The gun thing culture in America is so foreign to me, as a Canadian. The idea of a regular citizen carrying a concealed handgun is troubling. I'm not saying it is immoral, it is just a bit scary, tbh. And I come from the countryside, where the farmers have lots of guns.



I used to carry a concealed gun when I traveled. I don't anymore because the paperwork is a nightmare. And it is hard to hide a big .45 revolver in Louisiana in the summertime.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 5, 2019)

De Jager said:


> The gun thing culture in America is so foreign to me, as a Canadian. The idea of a regular citizen carrying a concealed handgun is troubling. I'm not saying it is immoral, it is just a bit scary, tbh. And I come from the countryside, where the farmers have lots of guns.



Two quotes from Jefferson are appropriate...

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”—Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”—Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_​

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## De Jager (Jul 5, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Two quotes from Jefferson are appropriate...
> 
> “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”—Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”—Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_​



I mean, I see the logic in his arguments.

But as someone who has never carried a weapon I have never really felt threatened, or enslaved by anyone. Maybe those quotes are fitting in a time of war or revolution, but those have no relevance in a setting such as my own.

Our country was established by a peaceful transition of power from the crown to the people in Canada, so there has never really been a need here to carry weapons.

In Canada (where it is illegal to carry a handgun) we have a murder rate of 1.8 per 100,000 people.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510006801

In the US (where in many places it is legal to carry a handgun), there is a murder rate of 5.1 per 100,000 people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

So while one might feel safer, the stats don't back it up.


----------



## LadyCalvinist (Jul 5, 2019)

I think the situation prior to, and during the War for Independence was a complicated. Part of the problem was that Britain was governed by singularly incompetent prime ministers as well as having a king, while a decent man, and probably a Christian, was stubborn and incompetent as well. They meant one things by their actions and Americans interpreted it in quite another. Americans felt that their liberties, which they had long enjoyed in the colonies, was being threatened by Parliament. The link that the colonies had with Britain was through the king, not parliament, and when parliament starting trying to legislate over the colonies, the colonists grew alarmed and ultimately, felt that they had no choice but leave. They felt that Britain had broken their covenant with America.

If you want to really a good book on what happened I recommend Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 5, 2019)

Private gunowners are the reason we don't have universalized-healthcare-and-its-corollary-death-panels.

Reactions: Like 4 | Funny 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 5, 2019)

De Jager said:


> I mean, I see the logic in his arguments.
> 
> But as someone who has never carried a weapon I have never really felt threatened, or enslaved by anyone. Maybe those quotes are fitting in a time of war or revolution, but those have no relevance in a setting such as my own.
> 
> ...


How do the states rack up? Many of our states are the size of countries and have their own gun laws. Generally, the more stringent the laws, the more crime, especially gun related. The opposite is also the case.
Look it up.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Jul 5, 2019)

arapahoepark said:


> How do the states rack up? Many of our states are the size of countries and have their own gun laws. Generally, the more stringent the laws, the more crime, especially gun related. The opposite is also the case.
> Look it up.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Murder rate/100,000

Texas 4.7
Arizona 4.5
Louisiana 10.3
Mississippi 8.7
Kentucky 4.7
Alaska 8.0

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## timfost (Jul 5, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I used to carry a concealed gun when I traveled. I don't anymore because the paperwork is a nightmare. And it is hard to hide a big .45 revolver in Louisiana in the summertime.



There are smaller guns out there, FYI.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 5, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> We're still waiting for those back taxes y'all


And given that her Majesty the Queen is a Scot, it would be easy to convince her they should be paid to the Scottish government


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 5, 2019)

De Jager said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
> 
> Murder rate/100,000
> 
> ...



The La. rate is a bit misleading. Cities like New Orleans are basically Chicago, and they wouldn't obey gun control laws anyway.

And the key stat isn't "murder rate," but "gun murder rate." In that case, the numbers go down. And Democrat-controlled DC is far worse. And take New Orleans out of the picture, and La.'s goes down.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 5, 2019)

Haeralis said:


> In his _Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, _John Milton includes a variety of quotations from the greatest Reformers on the issue of resistance to unlawful authority. It is worth considering these statements in addition to others made by deeply Calvinist men such as George Buchanan, Samuel Rutherford and John Witherspoon. Even Calvin, who argued for submission to government in the _Institutes, _appeared to come around to Knox's position later in life after seeing the persecution of the Huguenots in France. Of course, even in the _Institutes _Calvin did grant that lesser magistrates could resist tyrants even if he nonetheless rejected Lockean social contract-esque theories about popular resistance to government.
> 
> Martin Luther:
> 
> ...



These are great quotations. But they have nothing to do with George III or the British Parliament.

The Huguenots' mitary reisistance was justified. Men, women and children were being murdered for confessing the true faith.

The Dutch resistance to the Spanish in the Eighty Years' War was justified. They were being slaightered in the tens of thousands by a truly tyrannical regime.

The Covenanters' struggle was justified. They were fighting to preserve the true religion against idolatry.

But how is the revolt in the Thirteen Colonies like any of these? The colonists were mad over taxation, lack of representation, and resticted westward expansion. Where are the rebels against God in this scenario?


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 5, 2019)

@De Jager,

Here's one Canadian who thinks the right to bear arms is quite a fundamental freedom.

I look at it two ways, basically:

1. The state has no right to tell me I can't ptotect myself or my family.

2. The state military should not be the only "gun owner". They'll be able to impose whatever they want.

I might start another thread when I can snatch a moment.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Jul 5, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I might start another thread when I can snatch *a moment*.



If past threads are an indicator, you may need a couple moments.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## timfost (Jul 5, 2019)

(posted same thing twice...)


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 5, 2019)

De Jager said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
> 
> Murder rate/100,000
> 
> ...


And you see 3 are below the national average that you put in the list.
Many more do not back up your claim.
https://mises.org/wire/few-gun-laws-new-hampshire-safer-canada


----------



## ZackF (Jul 5, 2019)

De Jager said:


> The gun thing culture in America is so foreign to me, as a Canadian. The idea of a regular citizen carrying a concealed handgun is troubling. I'm not saying it is immoral, it is just a bit scary, tbh. And I come from the countryside, where the farmers have lots of guns.


So you’re an open carry guy?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 5, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Our country was established by a peaceful transition of power from the crown to the people in Canada, so there has never really been a need here to carry weapons.



This is not quite true. Canada's had its share of frontier wars and rebellions. Historically it was very normal for a family to own a musket. It proved handy when the Yankees tried invading. Still many Canadians own guns (they really are a necessity for many people) but they're not treated kindly for it by the government or the media (liberal élite).



De Jager said:


> In Canada (where it is illegal to carry a handgun) we have a murder rate of 1.8 per 100,000 people.





De Jager said:


> In the US (where in many places it is legal to carry a handgun), there is a murder rate of 5.1 per 100,000 people.



These stats do not show at all precisely that guns are the problem. There are almost certainly other issues at play (ie. drugs, gangs and other crime, not to mention nihilistic atheism).


----------



## ArminianOnceWas (Jul 5, 2019)

Interesting question given that the context of Jesus' ministry was during foreign occupation and that taxation was one of the major components of division.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jul 5, 2019)

OPC'n said:


> Hey, Brian, long time no si! Oh, I agree with everyone that many of the colonists were British subjects, but they they were British people squatting on a piece of land that was not a nation. There were a few colonies which had Britain born people living in them and that made them and Britain think they owned the land they were on. Meanwhile, other countries stated they had a claim to vast amounts of the New World. In short, no country could legally claim it as part of their sovereign nation. They only got smart when they figured out they actually owned the land as independent settlers and formed a nation which didn’t include every other nation being apart of the new nation.


Puerto Rico is akin to a colony ... it is not a state, it is a territory of the U.S. It is very much like a colony in that the people there are American Citizens (they vote for our president and are covered by our constitution and federal laws).

England had claimed it, and fought a war over it as well. Part of the grievances of the colonies were because England had levied taxes that disproportionately were charging the colonies for the costs of that war. The colonies (justly) felt that the costs of England defending English citizens ought be born equally by all English subjects. England was continually thinking the colonies would be a source of revenue, not a cost center. The only other major country that had a claim to the British colonies would have been France, and they were turned back from that claim by the above mentioned war.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jul 5, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Private gunowners are the reason we don't have universalized-healthcare-and-its-corollary-death-panels.


Quite off topic if you ask me, but hey. I thought that was funny.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jul 5, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The La. rate is a bit misleading. Cities like New Orleans are basically Chicago, and they wouldn't obey gun control laws anyway.
> 
> And the key stat isn't "murder rate," but "gun murder rate." In that case, the numbers go down. And Democrat-controlled DC is far worse. And take New Orleans out of the picture, and La.'s goes down.


If you take the high gun control cities out of the numbers and they are obviously the cause of most of the deaths. If you compare densely populated cities with little or not gun control, they have lower rates than those with strict gun control.

(I leave finding the data as an exercise for the student.)


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 6, 2019)

This is, as such historical questions often are, a fairly complex matter and does not admit of a simple answer.

Certainly, Protestants, especially of our stripe, have historically developed resistance theory. I think that such is biblically defensible. Koty has quoted a number of figures who espouse such. In the case of the War for Independence, however, such was not ordinarily adduced (though it certainly was by some Presbyterians, especially Covenanters, in support of the War).

Bernard Bailyn is correct that the primary intellectual justification on the part of most of the American Founders was a combination of French and English natural rights theorist, John Locke perhaps most prominently. Colonists also hearkened back especially to the Glorious Revolution (of 1688) for arguments for their revolution (a side issue: were any of the 17th c. Puritan revolts in Scotland and England properly warranted?).

One great difference between the American situation of the 18th c. and the English of the 17th (as well as the French Revolution) is that the American War for Independence was just that: it was not an overthrow of local rule but a throwing off the yoke of what had come to be regarded as foreign rule (by England's claimed tyranny--again disputable, but not so breezily dealt with as some here suggest). Those who were colonial leaders before the War were still leaders afterwards: this was no revolution about "who shall rule at home" but rather a war for "home rule." The typical context for resistance theory was otherwise: local rebellion, not colonial revolt, which only now came into existence.

Brian Withnell's points have also not been answered, particularly his proper assertion that this was a revolt of the lower magistrates and the colonial citizenry had little recourse in the matter (except to resist and/or flee to Canada as my wife's loyalist ancestors did). If lower magistrates may rightly revolt within a discrete state, surely they may in a colonial situation in a war for independence far at a remove from the motherland. Yes, I know that it must be biblically justified and that's the question before us.

That it can be biblically justified (it was by many Presbyterians in both lands at the time) does not mean that it truly is justified. Is some of the justification merely humanistic and unconvincing? Surely, as Enlightenment secularism began to exert itself. Does this mean that it others didn't have better reasons? No. Was it justifiable over all? Hard to say. 

But I heartily join Jacob in being thankful that it happened. This is the way most of history works, by the way. Very little is simply good and nothing, nothing that has ever happened since the Fall, save the Incarnation, is unmixed.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Timmay (Jul 6, 2019)

Here are some quotes from Presbyterian ministers regarding rebellion. I think Witherspoon’s final sentence or so of his quote is very very interesting. 

https://www.logcollegepress.com/blog/2019/7/3/freedoms-cost


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 6, 2019)

Brian Withnell said:


> Okay, I was pleased as punch that you had the history correct, but the question of was it Biblically justified goes to the question of lex rex.
> 
> If the law is the authority, then the king could be in violation of the law. The local magistrate would be required to defend the citizens from a tyrannical ruler. It was those lesser magistrates that did declare independence, not the average Joe. George was NOT the law himself, and the colonists asserted the king was in violation of natural law ... even if one disagrees with that, it was _their _decision to make, not the colonist citizen. If one is to believe the veracity of the DoI, one would have to believe they engaged repeatedly in attempting to mitigate the problems without war. But the question of was it Biblical is a question of authority. The King was not submitting to the authority of law. The magistrates were.



Brian,

I appreciate the engagement. However, I'd like to take this up again on Monday if I'm able. The Lord's Day arrives sooner here!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 6, 2019)

Alan D. Strange said:


> But I heartily join Jacob in being thankful that it happened. This is the way most of history works, by the way. Very little is simply good and nothing, nothing that has ever happened since the Fall, save the Incarnation, is unmixed.



I wholeheartedly agree. I think that the American Revolution, in spite of its origins, turned out for the best. Even for all its faults, the United States is, I believe, the best country in the world.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 6, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Even for all its faults



And I appreciate your caution about accepting all the justifications.

Much of the foundational justification, in truth, was more secularistic and Enlghtenment-based than anything (not that all of that was without merit altogether). Others justified it on better grounds, more in line with Protestant resistance theory (though one might question some "special pleading" there!).

Having said all of that, the circumstances (colonies that had developed self -governance, with the connivance of the motherland, breaking away from the distant motherland) did not quite fit any of the categories that Calvin, Beza, Knox, Buchanan, Henderson, Rutherford and company addressed.

My wife's family (the Bacons) came to southern New Jersey in the 17th c. They retained their strong sense of being English and were in agreement with New Jersey's colonial governor (William Franklin, son of Benjamin), who wanted no part of this rebellion. The Bacons either laid low or fled to Canada as loyal subjects of George III. Most returned after the War, though some stayed up in the New England region rather than returning to the Middle States.

My family were rebels in the War between the States. I will not raise the question of the justification of that War, but it's even more complex, in my view, than the War for Independence. As a historian, I don't typically seek to give a definitive answer to such questions as there are too many factors involved.

It reminds me of what Ray Dillard used to say: every difficult, thorny question has one simple, clear, *wrong* answer to it. This is not an argument for ethical relativism. We must seek to live in accordance, as an expression of gratitude, with God's law. Applying such standards to large scale movements is often tricky. Some things are clearly wrong, through and through (think of the massive sins of the 20th c. by Stalin, Mao, Hitler, et al.); many other things (many of the wars of history) are more mixed, having some justification, but perhaps not enough.

Truth be told, the bottom line justifications for most wars are dubious. But that's part of life in a fallen world. We must do what it is in our power to do, and we will answer for it before God's throne; large-scale historical movements are generally so highly variegated as not to admit of facile judgements (spelled that way for you, Tom, and all our UK and Commonwealth friends!).

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## De Jager (Jul 6, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> @De Jager,
> 
> Here's one Canadian who thinks the right to bear arms is quite a fundamental freedom.
> 
> ...



The question is what type of "guns" should you be allowed to have. One has to draw the line somewhere. People in Canada own guns too. They just don't own military grade assault rifles.

I mean, even in the states they have some limits on what you can own as a regular citizen.


----------



## Susan777 (Jul 6, 2019)

De Jager said:


> The question is what type of "guns" should you be allowed to have. One has to draw the line somewhere. People in Canada own guns too. They just don't own military grade assault rifles.
> 
> I mean, even in the states they have some limits on what you can own as a regular citizen.


“Assault Rifle” is such a loaded term. The AR-15 is considered one by some, but not by others. I do not know, but I do know that it is quite pleasant to operate.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2019)

De Jager said:


> The question is what type of "guns" should you be allowed to have. One has to draw the line somewhere.



Says who?

And who gets to determine that decision? Have you ever seen pics of Diane Feinstein with poor trigger discipline? These people who are trying to take away our know zero about guns.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2019)

Susan777 said:


> “Assault Rifle” is such a loaded term. The AR-15 is considered one by some, but not by others. I do not know, but I do know that it is quite pleasant to operate.



Exactly. "Assault" rifle means nothing. It's basically a scary gun (probably because it is black, which scares liberals deep down). If I had a Saiga shotgun I could do far more damage than an AR. Two rounds to demolish the brick wall, and then the other 6+ are open.


----------



## hammondjones (Jul 6, 2019)

De Jager said:


> The question is what type of "guns" should you be allowed to have



Guns of the type needed to form a militia.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jul 6, 2019)

De Jager said:


> The question is what type of "guns" should you be allowed to have. One has to draw the line somewhere. People in Canada own guns too. They just don't own military grade assault rifles.
> 
> I mean, even in the states they have some limits on what you can own as a regular citizen.


In case you are interested, the vast majority of people in the United States cannot own military grade assault rifles. The only appropriate definition of "assault rifle" is one that is at least select fire (i.e., it can shoot multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger, or can shoot a single round with a single pull of the trigger via a selector). Joe citizen in the United States cannot go out and buy assault rifles (or even automatic pistols). In order to purchase them, they have to be grandfathered (i.e., no new automatic weapons may be purchased) so there is a very limited supply. They have to be made prior to 1986 in order to be transferred by normal citizens. Collectors and those legally selling to non-ordinary citizen (police, military) don't count in this, but there are about 175,000 machine guns (i.e., guns that will fire more than once with a single pull of the trigger).

So if *every* American wanted to buy an assault rifle, they would not be able to. < 1 in a 1000 could.

I view that as an unnecessary infringement on the right to bear arms. The citizen *ought* by right be able to own the weapons necessary to throw off a tyrannical central government.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Susan777 (Jul 8, 2019)

De Jager said:


> A regular citizen needs an AR-15? Why? What possible purpose could it serve? Why only an AR-15? Why not less? Why not more? Why not mount a 50 calibre machine gun to the back of your truck? What's wrong with that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is the right of the people to resist unlawful tyranny. This government was established BY and FOR the people. Their representatives accorded certain rights to the people, among which was the right to bear arms. Why? For the lawful defense of persons and property as well as the right to overthrow a despotic government should it arise.
We have never been governed by monarchs nor subscribed to the divine right of kings in the sense that Europeans have. That is not our history. Our nation will eventually fall as all nations before it but for that brief interlude in time there was a place where men were free.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 8, 2019)

Susan777 said:


> We have never been governed by monarchs nor subscribed to the divine right of kings in the sense that Europeans have.



I agree with everything you have said, but historically monarchs never had the power that the IRS has, for example.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ArminianOnceWas (Jul 8, 2019)

The original question is based on Biblical justification. I'm not sure that the American Revolution could be validated by Scripture. It's telling the climate that Jesus ministered in was one where a social/political revolution was brewing because of an imperial government with enormous tax rates, yet the New Testament fails to affirm these politically/military revolutionary views. 

However, for me, there is a much deeper concern. I often watch in amazement at the subjects that stir this room to lengthy response and dialogue. I find it disturbing that gun ownership rights and other elements that I assess to stem from some sort of national pride seem to provoke more response than other topics that are grounded much more in Scripture. 

I have found certain subjects of human rights on this board to be treated lightly while gun rights to be treated as important.

I have observed that when matters of racism and slavery were brought up on this board that the historical appeal to Presbyterian pride and near infallibility of historical persons leave matters near unapproachable. However, if someone who is not "us" slips then we don't seem to mind to have threads regarding those scandals. 

I acknowledge that history, whether it be national, denominational or theological is very important, but I'm not certain that it is as sacred as it sometimes becomes. 

It is likely that since I have raised this again, that I will receive messages calling me to repentance and other communications that I have violated Scripture by raising my concerns. Once more I expect communication of potential discipline from the administrators because I am out of line.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 8, 2019)

Brian Withnell said:


> Okay, I was pleased as punch that you had the history correct, but the question of was it Biblically justified goes to the question of lex rex.
> 
> If the law is the authority, then the king could be in violation of the law. The local magistrate would be required to defend the citizens from a tyrannical ruler. It was those lesser magistrates that did declare independence, not the average Joe. George was NOT the law himself, and the colonists asserted the king was in violation of natural law ... even if one disagrees with that, it was _their _decision to make, not the colonist citizen. If one is to believe the veracity of the DoI, one would have to believe they engaged repeatedly in attempting to mitigate the problems without war. But the question of was it Biblical is a question of authority. The King was not submitting to the authority of law. The magistrates were.



I would appreciate your thoughts on
1. how the king violated the law, and
2. what violations permit the magistrates to take up arms against their king (see, for instance, the quote from Calvin in Post #3.)


----------



## De Jager (Jul 8, 2019)

Susan777 said:


> *It is the right of the people to resist unlawful tyranny.* This government was established BY and FOR the people. Their representatives accorded certain rights to the people, among which was the right to bear arms. Why? For the lawful defense of persons and property as well as the right to overthrow a despotic government should it arise.
> We have never been governed by monarchs nor subscribed to the divine right of kings in the sense that Europeans have. That is not our history. Our nation will eventually fall as all nations before it but for that brief interlude in time there was a place where men were free.



Is this even biblically supported? Our Lord tells us to turn the other cheek, not take up arms. Even in the garden of gethsemane, he urged Peter to put his sword away.

Furthermore, the government is first and foremost established by GOD. It is HIS government, whether they realize that or not, no matter how they come into power, and they are accountable to him first, not the people. Nowhere in the New Testament can anyone even find a shred of evidence that the apostles thought it was OK to rebel against Caesar, for example. Rather they were to "render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's". 

Did Caesar have a right to that money? Well, yes and no. Yes, since he was the ruler of that land, but consider how he became ruler - a forced conquest of the Roman empire. Yet Jesus still calls us to render unto Caesar what is Caesars.

What if the democrats get into power in the states and they say "you must turn in your AR-15". What are you going to do? Rebel against the lawful authority of the state? Formed an armed militia? How could you possibly justify that?

Paul teaches the Roman Christians to submit to the governing authorities and pray for them. This is in the context of people being used as human torches. There is no justification for armed rebellion against the government. If you have a problem with them, then preach the gospel and call them to repentance.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 8, 2019)

ArminianOnceWas said:


> I find it disturbing that gun ownership rights and other elements that I assess to stem from some sort of national pride seem to provoke more response than other topics that are grounded much more in Scripture.



Your assessment, I think, is not accurate. I expect that, for many on this board, support of gun ownership stems not from national pride so much as a belief in freedom of the individual, freedom to defend oneself and one's family against harm, and the awareness that the loss of these freedoms puts many other freedoms, and human rights, at risk.

I do not deny that many, especially Americans, seem to regard gun ownership as an "American" thing. That, anyway, is not bad in itself, and they have good reason to take prise in that right (although, as with anything, it can turn idolatrous). But so far as the members of this board are concerned, I expect their convictions run somewhat deeper than "national pride."



ArminianOnceWas said:


> I have found certain subjects of human rights on this board to be treated lightly while gun rights to be treated as important.



Perhaps you're right, but I have not noticed the same. I can't think of any examples. It may be that people are more impassioned about things that more directly concern them. After all, they have more personal experience with it. Or, just because they do not post replies does not mean they care little about an issue.



ArminianOnceWas said:


> I have observed that when matters of racism and slavery were brought up on this board that the historical appeal to Presbyterian pride and near infallibility of historical persons leave matters near unapproachable. However, if someone who is not "us" slips then we don't seem to mind to have threads regarding those scandals.



I haven't seen that. I've seen quite a lot of grace here, especially compared to other forums. Certainly, the moderation on the PB is commendable. And, usually, if someone steps to far, others will disagree or correct them. But, again, without examples I can't be sure.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jul 8, 2019)

This is an interesting thread, but how does it affect us in practical life either way?


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 8, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Is this even biblically supported? Our Lord tells us to turn the other cheek, not take up arms. Even in the garden of gethsemane, he urged Peter to put his sword away.
> 
> Furthermore, the government is first and foremost established by GOD. It is HIS government, whether they realize that or not, no matter how they come into power, and they are accountable to him first, not the people. Nowhere in the New Testament can anyone even find a shred of evidence that the apostles thought it was OK to rebel against Caesar, for example. Rather they were to "render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's".
> 
> ...



This is a tricky subject and it should probably be in a new thread.

But I'll ask a few questions:

You have appeared to state that resistance to authority is never justified. But I think that, given a little more consideration, you might think differently.

The Waldensians of the Alps, who suffered crusade after crusade intended to eradicate them, whose families were thrown from cliffs, whose women were stripped naked and impaled, whose children were torn limb from limb. Were they right to resist?

The Huguenots, who, banned from worshipping in buildings, were being murdered in the streets and the fields (men, women and children), rose up against the Roman Catholic French lords. Were they right to resist?

The Dutch Protestants who rebelled against the King of Spain in the Eighty Years' War, whole towns put to the sword and burned, thousands executed in a putooseful reign of terror. Were they right to resist?

The Covenanters, who were forbidden from meeting, from preaching, from worshipping, whose wives, children and husbands were brutally tortured and executed, or murdered in their houses, simply for the crime of being Presbyterians. Were they right to resist?

Should these have "turned the other cheek"?

Love God and love your neighbour. You are at liberty to lay down your life, but would you let another man take your wife's or your child's? Is that "loving your neighbour"?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 8, 2019)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> This is an interesting thread, but how does it affect us in practical life either way?


Just so we can be a little more ready for the next revolution.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Joseph Knowles (Jul 8, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I would appreciate your thoughts on
> 1. how the king violated the law, and
> 2. what violations permit the magistrates to take up arms against their king (see, for instance, the quote from Calvin in Post #3.)


 Regarding #1, do you mean violations other than those enumerated in the Declaration of Independence?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 8, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Is this even biblically supported? Our Lord tells us to turn the other cheek, not take up arms. Even in the garden of gethsemane, he urged Peter to put his sword away.
> 
> Furthermore, the government is first and foremost established by GOD. It is HIS government, whether they realize that or not, no matter how they come into power, and they are accountable to him first, not the people. Nowhere in the New Testament can anyone even find a shred of evidence that the apostles thought it was OK to rebel against Caesar, for example. Rather they were to "render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's".
> 
> ...


You have to remember that it is the magistrate who has the authority to take up arms, never the church. Individual Christians may indeed be called on to fight under a lawful magistrate in a just cause, and the church can agree with the rightness of the cause.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 8, 2019)

Joseph Knowles said:


> Regarding #1, do you mean violations other than those enumerated in the Declaration of Independence?



It will be sufficient to establish the reasons of the American Revolutionaries and then to test those against Scripture, as well as other revolutions and rebellions and the opinions of theologians. If you can think of any other violations you are free to mention them (but I do think there can be a risk here of reading too much of one's own perspective into a historical event).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 8, 2019)

ArminianOnceWas said:


> I have found certain subjects of human rights on this board to be treated lightly while gun rights to be treated as important.



Self-defence and the means thereof is a human right. In the United States, the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution. Citizens of the United States are perfectly justified in wanting to protect their natural and constitutional rights.



ArminianOnceWas said:


> I have observed that when matters of racism and slavery were brought up on this board that the historical appeal to Presbyterian pride and near infallibility of historical persons leave matters near unapproachable. However, if someone who is not "us" slips then we don't seem to mind to have threads regarding those scandals.



That assessment is not correct. I, among others, called out J. Gresham Machen for refusing to engage in Christian fellowship with black Christians. The fact that it was Machen committing such a sin makes it no less sinful.



ArminianOnceWas said:


> I acknowledge that history, whether it be national, denominational or theological is very important, but I'm not certain that it is as sacred as it sometimes becomes.



I agree with this point, and I say that as a trained historian. Some of these things are just too complicated to work out via discussion boards.



ArminianOnceWas said:


> Once more I expect communication of potential discipline from the administrators because I am out of line.



The Puritan Board is not a church (nor does it claim to be) and exercises no such discipline.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Joseph Knowles (Jul 8, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> It will be sufficient to establish the reasons of the American Revolutionaries and then to test those against Scripture, as well as other revolutions and rebellions and the opinions of theologians. If you can think of any other violations you are free to mention them (but I do think there can be a risk here of reading too much of one's own perspective into a historical event).


I hope my question didn't come off as snarky, because I didn't mean it that way, but meant it as a serious question. Too often people attempt to reduce the war to "no taxation without representation," but (as I can tell you're aware) that's a gross oversimplification. There were (depending on how you count them) twenty-seven grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence (not to mention others, such as the practice of using general warrants or writs of assistance in the years leading up to the war) upon which the Americans based their secession. Raising taxes might not be so tyrannical that taking up arms is a Biblical response. However, when you put that alongside the decades-long accumulation of other things that happened, perhaps there's something there and perhaps Americans were facing more of a tyrannical ruler than some are willing to acknowledge.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 8, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Self-defence and the means thereof is a human right.



Agreed. Abstracted human rights don't exist. Natural rights do, however.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 8, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Is this even biblically supported? Our Lord tells us to turn the other cheek, not take up arms. Even in the garden of gethsemane, he urged Peter to put his sword away.



You are confusing two separate issues. Individually I have the duty to turn the other cheek. The magistrate, though, does not. And while this may not have been mentioned, we as individuals aren't resisting tyranny. The lesser magistrate is. This is Reformed Ethics 101.
https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/review-and-outline-of-lex-rex/


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 8, 2019)

ArminianOnceWas said:


> I have observed that when matters of racism and slavery were brought up on this board that the historical appeal to Presbyterian pride and near infallibility of historical persons leave matters near unapproachable.



You need to be fair. While some have defended aspects of Dabney, most have condemned racism. Unless by racism you mean Person x's not agreeing to a certain social justice agenda.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 8, 2019)

But, brothers, about that war being “biblically justified.” How do we answer the question of biblical justification for a war that wasn’t fought with Christ’s crown rights at all in mind? The revolution was mostly fought under the influence of enlightenment ideals, if I understand it right.


----------



## Herald (Jul 8, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> We're still waiting for those back taxes y'all


Don't hold your breath!


----------



## Herald (Jul 8, 2019)

Separation from England was inevitable. The colonies had their own identity and customs. British troops were garrisoned and viewed as outsiders by all but loyalists. By the time the Intolerable Acts were announced the momentum towards independence could only be delayed, not stopped. Was independence biblical? I think Brian's arguments about the role of the lesser magistrate is worth considering as proper justification for independence.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 8, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> But, brothers, about that war being “biblically justified.” How do we answer the question of biblical justification for a war that wasn’t fought with Christ’s crown rights at all in mind? The revolution was mostly fought under the influence of enlightenment ideals, if I understand it right.



People have a natural right to wage war as a matter of self-defence. Civil government is founded in nature, but, like family government, should be perfected by grace. The fact that the American Revolution was not perfectly or even overtly Christian does not mean that it was invalid, as nature and reason are enough to tell us that tyranny ought to be resisted (the Bible, of course, further confirms what we know from nature and reason). To change the subject in order to illustrate my point, Britain's war against the Nazis was not fought "For Christ's Crown and Covenant", but was still biblically justified despite this deficiency.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 8, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> People have a natural right to wage war as a matter of self-defence. Civil government is founded in nature, but, like family government, should be perfected by grace. The fact that the American Revolution was not perfectly or even overtly Christian does not mean that it was invalid, as nature and reason are enough to tell us that tyranny ought to be resisted (the Bible, of course, further confirms what we know from nature and reason). To change the subject in order to illustrate my point, Britain's war against the Nazis was not fought "For Christ's Crown and Covenant", but was still biblically justified despite this deficiency.


I guess the phrase biblically justified being applied to a war fought strictly from and for nature and reason doesn’t really make sense to me. I know the nations of the world not in covenant with Christ fight wars with one or the other of them being more in the right morally. Wouldn’t it be better to say that the US was morally justified (if one thinks it was) in breaking away from England, than to say we were biblically justified?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 8, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I guess the phrase biblically justified being applied to a war fought strictly from and for nature and reason doesn’t really make sense to me. I know the nations of the world not in covenant with Christ fight wars with one or the other of them being more in the right morally. Wouldn’t it be better to say that the US was morally justified (if one thinks it was) in breaking away from England, than to say we were biblically justified?



I was thinking along the same lines myself that perhaps the question raised in the OP needs to be framed differently lest it is thought that we are saying that something needs to be overtly Christian in order to be morally justified. I suppose, though, you could argue that something is "biblically justified" in the sense that it is not contrary to biblical morality.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 8, 2019)

I just accidentally voted yes being nosy and looking to see who voted. I can’t really vote yes or no because I can’t reconcile the concept of biblical justification with that war.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 8, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I was thinking along the same lines myself that perhaps the question raised in the OP needs to be framed differently lest it is thought that we are saying that something needs to be overtly Christian in order to be morally justified. I suppose, though, you could argue that something is "biblically justified" in the sense that it is not contrary to biblical morality.


Still pondering!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 8, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Still pondering!



Again, let us change the subject to illustrate the point: Is it biblically justified for a mother to spank her children when they are obstinately rebelling against her authority? The obvious answer to that question is "yes." But what if the mother is a Deist? To use confessional language, does her "difference or infidelity" with respect to religion make void the authority that nature and scripture give her to discipline her children?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 8, 2019)

If you can make the case by natural law, and the argument is both valid and sound, do you need a biblical proof text for it?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 8, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> To use confessional language, does her "difference or infidelity" with respect to religion make void the authority that nature and scripture give her to discipline her children?


No, she has the authority to do so and it will make their household a better place if she properly disciplines her children. I see your point; just still not sure that bringing the word biblical into it is helpful. The unbelieving mother isn’t disciplining her child biblically, exactly, because she’s not doing it in faith although she is disciplining according to biblical standards, one can say. And will reap the good of it to some extent.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 8, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If you can make the case by natural law, and the argument is both valid and sound, do you need a biblical proof text for it?





Jeri Tanner said:


> I see your point; just still not sure that bringing the word biblical into it is helpful. The unbelieving mother isn’t disciplining her child biblically, exactly, because she’s not doing it in faith although she is disciplining according to biblical standards, one can say. And will reap the good of it to some extent.



Agreed on all counts. While it is not wrong to use the language of something being "biblically justified", it is perhaps not necessary in this case.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 8, 2019)

I had thought about making the point earlier that Daniel and Jacob are now making explicit: what should the thread best be titled to reflect its proper concern(s)? 

I propose, "Was the War for Independence justly waged?" This would take into account broader natural law and related concerns. A narrow focus on "is it biblical?" could lead us down the wrong path. As it is, the discussion has been, in my view as a historian, more properly wide-ranging. 

We often make the mistake of thinking that we can bring a definitive judgment on past matters that, in fact, are too complex and obscure in enough aspects, not to admit of such. 

And, of course, many things contain much evil, or are largely evil altogether, that our gracious God has employed to bring about much good. That does not render evil good: evil remains evil (Gen. 50:20), even though great good emerges from such. This is the way that God wonderfully rules the world, always turning even the worst events (Christ's death on the cross tops the list) to our good and His glory (Rom. 8:28).

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jul 9, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I would appreciate your thoughts on
> 1. how the king violated the law, and
> 2. what violations permit the magistrates to take up arms against their king (see, for instance, the quote from Calvin in Post #3.)


Not having been around at the time, I can only take this as second hand information. (Does that deserve a grin.)

My view on this is to look at the charges against the King, and see if they are at all backup up by historical accounts. The charges would be those things found in the declaration of independence. There is a long list of them ... and from my perspective, would would have to look at it as a whole, not just is each one considered separately sufficient justification, but is the whole generally true, and would that constitute violation of the limits upon the crown that had been agreed upon over the many internal wars that occurred in England. These would be primary offenses that would be just cause for separation ... they were agreed to by the crown, and so if George did not abide by those laws, he is not lawfully the king.

Then there is one charge, that if true is sufficient in and of itself. "He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us." If the king in fact did wage war against his people, he has initiated the conflict himself and ought not only have the people separate themselves, but have them bring him to justice (and if any died in that waging of war, his life ought be forfeit for treason against the people ... which I admit is not in view at the time, but certainly is what caused many a monarch to be brought to death.)

Certainly history is not going to be an unbiased observer. History is written by the winner of a war. Yet it is not a strange behavior for the crown. Many of the prior kings of England had similar charges brought against them. Much of the same behavior was seen in later times. But ultimately, the monarchy became a figurehead as it had similar problems over and over. So my initial position is that the charges are more likely right than wrong.

So the question is were the local magistrates guilty or were they justified. That is something that one would have to judge mostly from looking at their character and do we believe them? If they were truthful, a king that did the things charged deserves more than just be deposed, he would deserve hanging. Who were the local magistrates and what would they gain from the declaration and what risk would they incur because of it?

The local magistrates were in general honorable men. Many of them honored clergy. Even among those that were not, they were not brigands, thieves, liars or blatantly scandalous. What did they expect to gain? Perhaps freedom. In the long run, perhaps some marginal economic gain in the form of lower taxes? Increased trade possibilities? What did they have to lose? "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." In short, everything. I tend to adopt the CS Lewis form of deciding who is telling the truth ... which one is more likely to be telling the truth and which is more likely to lie.

So did they believe they were justified? Obviously. Where there Biblical scholars among them? Yes. Where there pastors among them, for which we must be even more careful about leveling a charge against them? Yes.

So I, having limited knowledge of the actual facts, am being asked if they were justified. I have to decide based on what I know ... I do not believe those ministers of the gospel that signed the declaration would have signed if there were lies and unsupported statements. I could easily see the king who would have little to lose and much to gain might either lie, or at least deny that the assertions have any merit regardless.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 9, 2019)

Joseph Knowles said:


> I hope my question didn't come off as snarky, because I didn't mean it that way, but meant it as a serious question.


Not at all.



Joseph Knowles said:


> Too often people attempt to reduce the war to "no taxation without representation," but (as I can tell you're aware) that's a gross oversimplification. There were (depending on how you count them) twenty-seven grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence (not to mention others, such as the practice of using general warrants or writs of assistance in the years leading up to the war) upon which the Americans based their secession. Raising taxes might not be so tyrannical that taking up arms is a Biblical response. However, when you put that alongside the decades-long accumulation of other things that happened, perhaps there's something there and perhaps Americans were facing more of a tyrannical ruler than some are willing to acknowledge.


Thanks for your reply. I do appreciate it.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 9, 2019)

Brian Withnell said:


> Not having been around at the time, I can only take this as second hand information. (Does that deserve a grin.)






Brian Withnell said:


> My view on this is to look at the charges against the King, and see if they are at all backup up by historical accounts. The charges would be those things found in the declaration of independence. There is a long list of them ... and from my perspective, would would have to look at it as a whole, not just is each one considered separately sufficient justification, but is the whole generally true, and would that constitute violation of the limits upon the crown that had been agreed upon over the many internal wars that occurred in England. These would be primary offenses that would be just cause for separation ... they were agreed to by the crown, and so if George did not abide by those laws, he is not lawfully the king.
> 
> Then there is one charge, that if true is sufficient in and of itself. "He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us." If the king in fact did wage war against his people, he has initiated the conflict himself and ought not only have the people separate themselves, but have them bring him to justice (and if any died in that waging of war, his life ought be forfeit for treason against the people ... which I admit is not in view at the time, but certainly is what caused many a monarch to be brought to death.)
> 
> ...


Thank you for your thoughtful and informed response.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Jul 9, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And it is hard to hide a big .45 revolver in Louisiana in the summertime.


Open carry is the answer for that.


----------



## Username3000 (Jul 9, 2019)

As interesting as this topic is, it is probably more productive to spend time and energy discerning whether participation in the _next_ revolutionary (civil?) war on American soil is going to be justifiable.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 9, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> Open carry is the answer for that.



True. As a godly patriot I have the natural law right to open carry. In terms of wisdom, though, I choose not to. When Antifa finally decides to commit suicide by mob revolt, then I will open carry.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 15, 2019)

'Murica!

John Witherspoon on the just cause of the American Revolution.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 16, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> 'Murica!
> 
> John Witherspoon on the just cause of the American Revolution.


Thanks, Daniel. Any thoughts extant from John Witherspoon on the lack of U.S.’s covenanting with God and Christ? I struggle to comprehend how a Presbyterian minister signed on to that, and want help!


----------

