# Is the American Revolution Theologically legal?



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 4, 2007)

Hi:

I ask this question because there is a Baptist who attends my church that challenges the notion that America is a legitimate country. He argues many different reasons, but one of them is that the Revolution was an illegitimate act against a lawful king.

I know that Still Waters makes some similar remarks, but I am not familiar with any defense of the American Revolution as consistent with any Reformed views of Church and State relations.

Any arguments or links would be greatly appreciated.

Blessings - and Happy New Year to all!

-CH


----------



## BertMulder (Jan 4, 2007)

Even though the "American Revolution" was an unlawful revolt against the legitimate king, that does not make the United States of America an illegitimate country.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 4, 2007)

*Legitimacy*



BertMulder said:


> Even though the "American Revolution" was an unlawful revolt against the legitimate king, that does not make the United States of America an illegitimate country.



How so?


----------



## Herald (Jan 4, 2007)

BertMulder said:


> Even though the "American Revolution" was an unlawful revolt against the legitimate king, that does not make the United States of America an illegitimate country.



Segway...funny how traitor and patriot swings on whether your side wins or loses.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 4, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> I ask this question because there is a Baptist who attends my church that challenges the notion that America is a legitimate country. He argues many different reasons, but one of them is that the Revolution was an illegitimate act against a lawful king.
> 
> ...



I have often pondered this question. After the revolution we have not had very much good fruit in this nation. We have been in perpetual war it seems and all one has to do is look at the number of cults that have arisen in this country since the 19th century and it makes one wonder.


----------



## Herald (Jan 4, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> I have often pondered this question. After the revolution we have not had very much good fruit in this nation. We have been in perpetual war it seems and all one has to do is look at the number of cults that have arisen in this country since the 19th century and it makes one wonder.



James - if you're using our post-revolution history as fodder to question our legitimacy I suggest you look at Englands history during the same period.


----------



## Peter (Jan 4, 2007)

The Still Waters group does believe the War of Independence was justified and their reasoning is partly b/c they believe the British Crown was illegitimate. In their view according to Ro13 a government is ownly lawful if it is "a minister to good" and a "terror to evil." See further www.covenanter.org under civil government.

Most baptists or conservative christians who disagree w/ the Amer Rev do so on the basis of Ro 13 and the belief this passage forbids all disobedience to govt except where you are directly required to commit sin. I think judging the case by one passage or even trying to construct a theology of revolution is a mistake.

But even assuming the act of rebellion to the king was wrong b/c all revolt is wrong, if that means the American govt is illegit then the reign of George III was illegit too. The Hanoverans succeed the House of Orange which rebelled against King James II. (of course this actually was a big issue in Britain). And, ironically, if, on the premise that any act of disobedience is sin, George III was illegit then there would be nothing wrong with the Amer Revolution.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 4, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> James - if you're using our post-revolution history as fodder to question our legitimacy I suggest you look at Englands history during the same period.




Fair enough dear brother. I do not claim to be an expert about these matters, I only say there are things that make one wonder.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Jan 4, 2007)

I think the real issue is whether or not you consider the leaders of the day as Christian. Or rather if thier actions were biblical. We went to war over several issues that we felt at the time were unjust. But the question remains, were the leaders at the time scripturally motivated or was it simply a matter of what they felt were a violation of their rights. As Christians what rights do we have? Christ is our king. Our rights are determined by scripture, i.e. as His subjects. My personal opinion is the American Revolution was an act of rebellion. But I am still a proud American, and I feel we live in the greatest country on earth.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 5, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> I ask this question because there is a Baptist who attends my church that challenges the notion that America is a legitimate country. He argues many different reasons, but one of them is that the Revolution was an illegitimate act against a lawful king.



Well speaking as an English Patriot who agrees with the Divine Right of Kings my answer is somewhat obvious. Every Jan 30th I read the Homily against wilful rebellion or http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk2hom21.htm)


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 5, 2007)

*Legitimate Government*



Peter said:


> The Still Waters group does believe the War of Independence was justified and their reasoning is partly b/c they believe the British Crown was illegitimate. In their view according to Ro13 a government is ownly lawful if it is "a minister to good" and a "terror to evil." See further www.covenanter.org under civil government.
> 
> Most baptists or conservative christians who disagree w/ the Amer Rev do so on the basis of Ro 13 and the belief this passage forbids all disobedience to govt except where you are directly required to commit sin. I think judging the case by one passage or even trying to construct a theology of revolution is a mistake.
> 
> But even assuming the act of rebellion to the king was wrong b/c all revolt is wrong, if that means the American govt is illegit then the reign of George III was illegit too. The Hanoverans succeed the House of Orange which rebelled against King James II. (of course this actually was a big issue in Britain). And, ironically, if, on the premise that any act of disobedience is sin, George III was illegit then there would be nothing wrong with the Amer Revolution.



Thank you, Peter, for pointing this out. I might quibble with you concerning whether or not William of Orange made an illegitimate claim to the throne of England. After all, James II was the uncle and father-in-law of William - which gives William the legal right of succession to his uncle.

In reading Still Water's materials concerning legitimate government it seems to me that they pass over a very significant part of Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex of which I will provide below:

*That this question may be the clearer we are to set down these considerations:-

1. The question is, Whether the kingly office itself come from God. I conceive it is, and floweth from the people, not by formal institution, as if the people had by an act of reason devised and excogitated such a power: God ordained the power. It is from the people only by a virtual emanation, in respect that a community having no government at all may ordain a king or appoint an aristocracy. But the question is concerning the designation of the person: Whence is it that this man rather than that man is crowned king? and whence is it - from God immediately and only - that this man rather than that man ... Or is it from the people also, and their free choice? ...

2. The royal power is three ways in the people: 1st, Radically and virtually, as in the first subject. 2nd, Collative vel communicative, by way of free donation, they giving it to this man, not to that man, that he may rule over them. 3rd, Limitate, - they giving it so as these three acts remain with the people. (1.) That they may measure out, by ounce weights, so much royal power, and no more and no less. (2.) So as they may limit, moderate, and set banks and marches to the exercise. (3.) That they give it out, conditionate, upon this and that condition, that they may take again to themselves what they gave out upon condition if the condition be violated ... Conclusion, The power of creating a man a king is from the people.

1. Because those who may create this man a king rather than that man have power to appoint a king; for a comparative action doth positively infer an action ... now, 1 Kings 16 the people made Omri king and not Zimri, and his son Achab rather than Tibni the son of Sinath ... the people made Solomon king and not Adonijah, though Adonijah was the elder brother ... God by the people, by Nathan the prophet, and by the servants of David and the states crying, "God save king Solomon!" made Solomon king; and here is a real action of the people. God is the first agent in all acts of the creature. Where a people maketh choice of a man to be their king, the states do no other thing, under God, but create this man rather than another; and we cannot here find two actions, one of God, and another of the people; but in one and the same action, God, by the people's free suffrages and voices, createth such a man a king, passing by many thousands; and the people are not passive in the action, because by the authoritative choice of the states the man is made of a private man and no king, a public person and a crowned king: 2 Sam 16:18, "Hushai said to Absalom, Nay, but whom the Lord and the people, and all the men of Israel choose, his will I be, and with him I will abide;" Judg. 8:22, "The men of Israel said to Gideon, Rule thou over us;" Judg. 9:6, "The men of Sechem made Abimelech king;" Jud. 9:8,11; 2 Kings 14:21, "The people made Azariah king;" 1 Sam. 12:1; 2 Chron 23:3.
*

You will find the full text here: http://www.constitution.org/sr/q04.htm

Governmental power comes from God. However, God has ordained that this power is granted through the will of the people. It follows then that the will of the people reflects the will of God in matters of civil government.

We see this in the reign of James II - the people of England rejected his Catholicism. They had the divine right to do so, and they appointed a new king in his place. There was nothinig illegitimate about this.

I would suggest that this is what happened with the American Revolution. The people overthrew a tyrannical government and replaced it with something more to their liking. Thus, the preamble to the Constitution which reads, "We the people..." is not contrary to Christian theism, because Governmental power "emanates" from the people being ruled.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jan 6, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Well speaking as an English Patriot who agrees with the Divine Right of Kings my answer is somewhat obvious. Every Jan 30th I read the Homily against wilful rebellion or http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk2hom21.htm:)


the link is not working.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 6, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> I ask this question because there is a Baptist who attends my church that challenges the notion that America is a legitimate country. He argues many different reasons, but one of them is that the Revolution was an illegitimate act against a lawful king.
> 
> ...



How about asking him how Rome was a legitimate empire. It is clearly legitimate in the eyes of Paul. Why? What right did it have to exist based on its political origins that he finds acceptable?


----------



## Timothy William (Jan 6, 2007)

Peter said:


> The Still Waters group does believe the War of Independence was justified and their reasoning is partly b/c they believe the British Crown was illegitimate. In their view according to Ro13 a government is ownly lawful if it is "a minister to good" and a "terror to evil." See further www.covenanter.org under civil government.
> 
> Most baptists or conservative christians who disagree w/ the Amer Rev do so on the basis of Ro 13 and the belief this passage forbids all disobedience to govt except where you are directly required to commit sin. I think judging the case by one passage or even trying to construct a theology of revolution is a mistake.
> 
> But even assuming the act of rebellion to the king was wrong b/c all revolt is wrong, if that means the American govt is illegit then the reign of George III was illegit too. The Hanoverans succeed the House of Orange which rebelled against King James II. (of course this actually was a big issue in Britain). And, ironically, if, on the premise that any act of disobedience is sin, George III was illegit then there would be nothing wrong with the Amer Revolution.


I can't let thiss pass without comment. The question is not whether a government is legitimate or illigitimate. 
" 1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. "

We are required to submit to the powers that be. Whatever you think of the British in the late 18 Century, they were better rulers than the Romans of Paul's time, and more legitimate rulers of the 13 colonies than the Romans were of most of their empire. Most, perhaps all, rulers in human history are illegitimate if their roots are traced back far enough (and I don't think that false religion Democracy makes any difference to this - a government supported by 51% of the people can be just as illegitimate as one with minority support, especially when democracy itself has been imposed by force of arms - George Bush and co. take note.)

I'm not much in favour of tyrannical governmant, being Austrian in my economics and mainly Libertarian and partly Reconstructionist in my politics. But there is simply no scriptural evidence that we have the right to overthrow poor rulers. Again, this would cause Christians to be in a near permanent state of armed rebellion, with most governments throughout human history being fairly woeful when judged by biblical standards. But believers in both Old and New Testaments are instructed to and commended for submitting to governments far worse than that of George III.

Advocacy of the American Revolution and similar revolutions seems to me to misunderstand a crucial aspect of Christian ethics - it assumes that whenever our rights are being violated, or someone in a relationship to us is not acting as they should, we have a right to respond with force, or to respond by terminating the relationship. Are we not clearly commanded not to do violence against those who wrong us, to be longsuffering, to go the second mile when our persons are commandeered by the Roman soldier? Did not the Apostle say that there should not even be lawsuits among believers - like, for example, between George III and the leaders of the Revolution? Or is that not relevant because half the Revolutionaries were Deists anyway?


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 6, 2007)

Timothy William said:


> I can't let thiss pass without comment. The question is not whether a government is legitimate or illigitimate.
> " 1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
> 
> 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. "
> ...


I'll throw out a bone for contention.

From a Biblical perspective, is there signficance in the fact that many of the colonies' royal charters were violated by the efforts to engage in internal taxation by Parliament? After all the authority to conduct internal affairs was delegated to the charter-holders, including the right and responsibility to create legislatures and laws to govern themselves internally. If Parliament and Royal ministers violate these charters, are they not in effect nullifying their claim to legal governance?


----------



## Timothy William (Jan 6, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> I'll throw out a bone for contention.
> 
> From a Biblical perspective, is there signficance in the fact that many of the colonies' royal charters were violated by the efforts to engage in internal taxation by Parliament? After all the authority to conduct internal affairs was delegated to the charter-holders, including the right and responsibility to create legislatures and laws to govern themselves internally. If Parliament and Royal ministers violate these charters, are they not in effect nullifying their claim to legal governance?



I'm not sure exactly what the historical situation was, but to refer it back to our NT example- if Ceasar had been in dispute with Herod as to the collection and distribution of taxes within the province ruled by Herod, and if the Christians in that province had decided that, legally, Herod had a better case, would the local Christians then have had the right to engage in armed rebellion against Ceasar? And of course depose Herod in the process though he was the one they were nominally supporting. Does anything in scripture suggest we should take sides in such disputes? Again, I would suggest that such an attitude would lead to near permanent warfare, and show the opposite of Christian humility and forebearance. What if we were to engage in military uprisings on such a basis, only to discover later that we were in fact wrong in our legal understanding of the tax dispute, how would we then conpensate the people we had murdered and the God- ordained government we had overthrown? 

The Gospel of Christ would be looked upon far better by the world if Christians were humble and submissive to their God-ordained governments, and Christian governments were humble and diligent in upholding the God-given rights of their subjects. I'm not exactly hold my breath for either to occur though.


----------



## Timothy William (Jan 6, 2007)

Addendum: I hope that no one reads my posts as an Australian engaging in some American-bashing. I believe that, throughout its 200+ year existance, the US has been one of the world's best governed countries, that the US Constitution would be a sound model for any nation writing a constitution, and that many of those who engaged in the Revolution did so with the best of intentions, motivated by a goal of justice and liberty for their fellow Americans. I just don't think that armed rebellion was a biblically justifiable way of achieving those aims. I also wish that the US and the Empire/ Commonwealth of Nations had retained better relations, including perhaps US involvement in the Commonwealth.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Jan 10, 2007)

*Some interesting articles involving Calvinism*

Here are some worthwhile reads proving just how influential Calvinistic theology expounded upon by Lex Rex infiltrated secular thought and drove the American Revolution theologically behind the scenes.

You may be flattered/appalled, depending on your views as to how influential the Presbytery was on the founding of the Amercian republic and the federalism it would adopt.

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue06/calvin.htm

http://www.geocities.com/y_a_r_r/history/chap8.htm


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 10, 2007)

Greetings, sir! It's nice to have you on the board.

Please see this page for the signature requirements.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Jan 10, 2007)

Fixed it.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 11, 2007)

Slippery said:


> the link is not working.



Fixed it: http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk2hom21.htm


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Jan 11, 2007)

What happens when the rebel faction turns into Rome as in the American case?
Trans-Atlantic benevolence is truly a unique place in history for former rebels and the empire they defied to have.

The British played Greek to America's Rome.

Surely God has raised us up, even if it is to destroy us later.


----------



## heartoflesh (Jan 11, 2007)

I believe in "Common Sense", Thomas Paine argues that the British monarchy was ultimately illegitimate, stemming from William the Conquerer who was a foreigner to begin with, a rogue and a plunderer. I think John Adams also formulated "legal" reasons why the colonies should be liberated from England. 

Washington was mostly angered about being ripped off financially and having to forfeit a whole bunch of his land. I don't think he cared how legal the revolution was.


----------



## cupotea (Jan 11, 2007)

Rick Larson said:


> I believe in "Common Sense", Thomas Paine argues that the British monarchy was ultimately illegitimate, stemming from William the Conquerer who was a foreigner to begin with, a rogue and a plunderer. I think John Adams also formulated "legal" reasons why the colonies should be liberated from England.
> 
> Washington was mostly angered about being ripped off financially and having to forfeit a whole bunch of his land. I don't think he cared how legal the revolution was.



Wow.

I never knew Paine was such a Jesuit.

Pure casuistry.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Jan 11, 2007)

I'm surprised no one has commented on those articles I posted, hint hint.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Jan 11, 2007)

There is an Arminian acquaitance of mine asserting that the Baptist tradition is the origin of religious liberty in western thought and the United States specifically, I say hogwash.

The protestant tradition certainly but to give Baptists alone such credit is ridiculous any thoughts and rebuttals?

History doesn't seem to align with this but neither does his theology.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 12, 2007)

Can we learn anything regarding this question from the fact that in the NT times the pagan Roman government was not overthrown by the Christian Church?


----------

