# So you want a revolution ....



## rbcbob

Were the Colonists in violation of Romans 13 and 1st Peter 2? I have my opinion but I would like to hear yours. 


Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
1 Peter 2:13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men -- 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

*I believe it would help to stay on topic if we confine our comments to these Scripture passages as they relate to the Colonies in the 18th century situation. *


----------



## JML

Yes. I believe it was wrong to rebel against those who had been placed in authority over us. Neither Paul nor Peter encouraged men to rebel against the authority placed over them and they had way more persecution facing them than "no taxation without representation" (I know that wasn't the only reason that was given for the Revolution). Instead we find verses like the ones that you cited above. I know I am probably in the minority here. Even if we had been slaves to England, the teaching of Scripture was not to rebel but to submit to your master (Eph.6:5-8). If we had been given the opportunity for independence, then it would have been fine but to rebel was wrong.


----------



## brianeschen

Joshua said:


> No. It was not wrong. These weren't mere individual citizens taking up arms against those in authority. Rather, these were magistrates standing up against a tyrannical king for the good of the people over whom they ruled/served. If there are two magistrates to whom you're accountable, and one is more just than the other, to whom do you submit? The answer is easy: the more just of the two.


----------



## wallingj

The magistrates were to submit to the authority placed over them. I am pretty well convinced the authorities placed over Paul and Peter were tyrannical but they still penned Romans 13, and in no place did they ever advocate rebelling against the authorities even if the lower authorities rebel against the greater. Therefore from a purely scriptural view what does scripture clearly say on the matter it cannot be justified, but from a point of man's reasoning it can. I yearn and wish to agree with Joshua, but as Martin Luther said unless I can be convinced by scripture I am going to have to disagree.


----------



## rbcbob

John Lanier said:


> Yes. I believe it was wrong to rebel against those who had been placed in authority over us. Neither Paul nor Peter encouraged men to rebel against the authority placed over them and they had way more persecution facing them than "no taxation without representation" (I know that wasn't the only reason that was given for the Revolution). Instead we find verses like the ones that you cited above. I know I am probably in the minority here. Even if we had been slaves to England, the teaching of Scripture was not to rebel but to submit to your master (Eph.6:5-8). If we had been given the opportunity for independence, then it would have been fine but to rebel was wrong.



Josh,

Thanks for participating! I have researched this subject rather extensively and your answer is far and away the most common. I have been compelled to acquiesce to an opposite conclusion base on my reading of primary sources of the period vis-a-vis the scriptures referenced.

One further question: Would you say that the magistrates were themselves to submit to the king?


----------



## brianeschen

See also the study linked in this thread for a biblical and historical treatment of the matter.


----------



## wallingj

Joshua said:


> I like Calvin on the matter. Calvin's _Institutes_, Book IV, Ch. 20 (my emphases) added:25. The wicked ruler a judgment of God
> 
> But it we have respect to the word of God, it will lead us farther, and make us subject _not only_ to the authority of those princes who honestly and faithfully perform their duty toward us, but all princes, _by whatever means they have so become_, although there is nothing they less perform than the duty of princes. For though the Lord declares that ruler to maintain our safety is the highest gift of his beneficence, and prescribes to rulers themselves their proper sphere, he at the same time declares, that of _whatever description they may be, they derive their power from none but him_. Those, indeed, who rule for the public good, are true examples and specimens of big beneficence, while those who domineer unjustly and tyrannically are raised up by him to punish the people for their iniquity. Still _all alike_ possess that sacred majesty with which he has invested lawful power.
> 
> I will not proceed further without subjoining some distinct passages to this effect. We need not labour to prove that an impious king is a mark of the Lord's anger, since I presume no one will deny it, and that this is not less true of a king than of a robber who plunders your goods, an adulterer who defiles your bed, and an assassin who aims at your life, since all such calamities are classed by Scripture among the curses of God. _But let us insist at greater length in proving what does not so easily fall in with the views of men, that even an individual of the worst character, one most unworthy of all honour, if invested with public authority, receives that illustrious divine power which the Lord has by his word devolved on the ministers of his justice and judgment, and that, accordingly, in so far as public obedience is concerned, he is to be held in the same honour and reverence as the best of kings. _
> 
> 26. Obedience to bad kings required in Scripture
> 
> And, first, I would have the reader carefully to attend to that Divine Providence which, not without cause, is so often set before us in Scripture, and that special act of distributing kingdoms, and setting up as kings whomsoever he pleases. In Daniel it is said, "He changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings," (Dan. 2: 21, 37.) Again, "That the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will," (Dan. 4: 17, 20.) Similar sentiments occur throughout Scripture, but they abound particularly in the prophetical books. What kind of king Nebuchadnezzar, he who stormed Jerusalem, was, is well known. He was an active invader and devastator of other countries. Yet the Lord declares in Ezekiel that he had given him the land of Egypt as his hire for the devastation which he had committed. _Daniel also said to him, "Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven has given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory_. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven has he given into thine hand, and has made thee ruler over them all," (Dan. 2: 37, 38.) Again, he says to his son Belshazzar, "T_he most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour_: and for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him," (Dan. 5: 18, 19.) When we hear that the king was appointed by God, let us, at the same time, call to mind those heavenly edicts as to honouring and fearing the king, and we shall have no doubt that we are to view the most iniquitous tyrant as occupying the place with which the Lord has honoured him. When Samuel declared to the people of Israel what they would suffer from their kings, he said, "This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectioneries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants," (1 Sam. 8: 11-17.) Certainly these things could not be done legally by kings, whom the law trained most admirably to all kinds of restraint; but it was called justice in regard to the people, because they were bound to obey, and could not lawfully resist: as if Samuel had said, To such a degree will kings indulge in tyranny, which it will not be for you to restrain. The only thing remaining for you will be to receive their commands, and be obedient to their words.​. . .29. It is not the part of subjects but of God to vindicate the right
> 
> This feeling of reverence, and even of piety, _we owe to the utmost to all our rulers, be their characters what they may_. This I repeat the softener, that we may learn not to consider the individuals themselves, but hold it to be enough that by the will of the Lord they sustain a character on which he has impressed and engraven inviolable majesty.
> 
> But rulers, you will say, owe mutual duties to those under them. This I have already confessed. But if from this you conclude that obedience is to be returned to none but just governors, you reason absurdly. Husbands are bound by mutual duties to their wives, and parents to their children. Should husbands and parents neglect their duty; should the latter be harsh and severe to the children whom they are enjoined not to provoke to anger (Eph. 6:4), and by their severity harass them beyond measure; should the former treat with the greatest contumely the wives whom they are enjoined to love (Eph. 5:25) and to spare as the weaker vessels (I Peter 3:7); would children be less bound in duty to their parents, and wives to their husbands? They are made subject to the froward and undutiful.
> 
> _Nay, since the duty of all is not to look behind them, that is, not to inquire into the duties of one another but to submit each to his own duty, this ought especially to be exemplified in the case of those who are placed under the power of others. _Wherefore, if we are cruelly tormented by a savage, if we are rapaciously pillaged by an avaricious or luxurious, if we are neglected by a sluggish, if, in short, we are persecuted for righteousness' sake by an impious and sacrilegious prince, let us first call up the remembrance of our faults, which doubtless the Lord is chastising by such scourges. In this way humility will curb our impatience. And let us reflect that _it belongs not to us _to cure these evils, that all that remains for us is to implore the help of the Lord, in whose hands are the hearts of kings, and inclinations of kingdoms (Prov. 21:1). "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." (Ps. 82:1). Before his face shall fall and be crushed all kings and judges of the earth, who have not kissed his anointed, who have enacted unjust laws to oppress the poor in judgment, and do violence to the cause of the humble, to make widows a prey, and plunder the fatherless (Isa. 10:1-2).
> 
> (Constitutional magistrates, however, ought to check the tyranny of kings; obedience to God comes first, 30-31)​31. Constitutional defenders of the people's freedom
> 
> But whatever may be thought of the acts of the men themselves, the Lord by their means equally executed his own work, when he broke the bloody sceptres of insolent kings, and overthrew their intolerable dominations. Let princes hear and be afraid; but let us at the same time guard most carefully against spurning or violating the venerable and majestic authority of rulers, an authority which God has sanctioned by the surest edicts, although those invested with it should be most unworthy of it, and, as far as in them lies, pollute it by their iniquity. Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer. ​And here's the portion I'd like to stress:I speak _*only of private men*_. For when _popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings,_ (as the Ephori, who were opposed to kings among the Spartans, or Tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or Demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and, perhaps, there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their primary diets.) _So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians.
> _​And the lovely last paragraph:32. Obedience to man must not become disobedience to God
> 
> But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, *we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow*. And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey men! The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When he opens his sacred mouth, he alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. _If they command any thing against Him, let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates—a dignity to which, no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God._ On this ground Daniel denies that he had sinned in any respect against the king when he refused to obey his impious decree, (Dan. 6: 22,) because the king had exceeded his limits, and not only been injurious to men, but, by raising his horn against God, had virtually abrogated his own power. On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having too readily obeyed the impious edict of the king. For, when Jeroboam made the golden calf, they forsook the temple of God, and, in submissiveness to him, revolted to new superstitions, (1 Kings 12: 28.) With the same facility posterity had bowed before the decrees of their kings. For this they are severely upbraided by the Prophet, (Hosea 5: 11.) So far is the praise of modesty from being due to that pretence by which flattering courtiers cloak themselves, and deceive the simple, when they deny the lawfulness of declining any thing imposed by their kings, as if the Lord had resigned his own rights to mortals by appointing them to rule over their fellows or as if earthly power were diminished when it is subjected to its author, before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble as suppliants. I know the imminent peril to which subjects expose themselves by this firmness, kings being most indignant when they are condemned. As Solomon says, "The wrath of a king is as messengers of death," (Prov. 16: 14.) But since Peter, one of heaven's heralds, has published the edict, "We ought to obey God rather than men," (Acts 5: 29,) let us console ourselves with the thought, that we are rendering the obedience which the Lord requires when we endure anything rather than turn aside from piety. And that our courage may not fail, Paul stimulates us by the additional considerations (1 Cor. 7: 23,) that w_e were redeemed by Christ at the great price which our redemption cost him, in order that we might not yield a slavish obedience to the depraved wishes of men, far less do homage to their impiety._​


Hey I love Calvin, but it is again based on human reason, commentary is not the same as scripture. One clear scripture reference that refutes Romans 13? Just like I brought up this subject last year, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I still love you and respect what you say. I have studied this for 19 years, the length of time I have served in our military and cannot but help but disagree. 

I know if I was living during that time I would have abstained from the rebellion, like most of the colonists did. Do I admire and appreciate what our founding fathers did, you bet I do, but from a clear scriptural view I would have abstained from the fight. For I cannot get around Romans 13, and if the local magistrate decides to disobey scripture that does not mean I should. Also, usually it wasn't the local magistrates that rebelled but hot headed individuals in the area who assumed roles of leadership.

To look at Calvin again he never did raise an army to change France or Switzerland, but tried to change it by other ways.


----------



## brianeschen

rbcbob said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I believe it was wrong to rebel against those who had been placed in authority over us. Neither Paul nor Peter encouraged men to rebel against the authority placed over them and they had way more persecution facing them than "no taxation without representation" (I know that wasn't the only reason that was given for the Revolution). Instead we find verses like the ones that you cited above. I know I am probably in the minority here. Even if we had been slaves to England, the teaching of Scripture was not to rebel but to submit to your master (Eph.6:5-8). If we had been given the opportunity for independence, then it would have been fine but to rebel was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Josh,
> 
> Thanks for participating! I have researched this subject rather extensively and your answer is far and away the most common. I have been compelled to acquiesce to an opposite conclusion base on my reading of primary sources of the period vis-a-vis the scriptures referenced.
> 
> One further question: Would you say that the magistrates were themselves to submit to the king?
Click to expand...

Although I am not Josh (and I am sure he can answer it better) . . . Lesser magistrates are to submit to higher magistrates just as individuals are to submit to the civil rulers. However the Bible does not teach unconditional submission to any earthly ruler, be he king, parent or pastor. Christ is head over all things according to Ephesians 1. To give unconditional submission (in past known as the divine right of kings theory in the political realm) to any earthly ruler is idolatry. The reformation put to rest this false teaching which as of late is being resurrected.

Biblically speaking, the question that needs to be answered is where does submission to human authority end?


----------



## JML

rbcbob said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I believe it was wrong to rebel against those who had been placed in authority over us. Neither Paul nor Peter encouraged men to rebel against the authority placed over them and they had way more persecution facing them than "no taxation without representation" (I know that wasn't the only reason that was given for the Revolution). Instead we find verses like the ones that you cited above. I know I am probably in the minority here. Even if we had been slaves to England, the teaching of Scripture was not to rebel but to submit to your master (Eph.6:5-8). If we had been given the opportunity for independence, then it would have been fine but to rebel was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Josh,
> 
> Thanks for participating! I have researched this subject rather extensively and your answer is far and away the most common. I have been compelled to acquiesce to an opposite conclusion base on my reading of primary sources of the period vis-a-vis the scriptures referenced.
> 
> One further question: Would you say that the magistrates were themselves to submit to the king?
Click to expand...



Bob,

Were you asking me this question or Joshua? You have my quote but his name.


----------



## Marrow Man

Hmmm. I just had a thought (I would say an interesting thought, but it might not be that interesting), based on Brian's post in #11: As far as I know, the King of England declares himself to be the head of the church, even today. Clearly that violates the crown rights of King Jesus (as my Covenanter brethren would say). This was not the issue the colonists were fighting against, but how much does that relate to the issue of submission? Forgive me, I do not want to sidetrack this discussion.


----------



## brianeschen

Marrow Man said:


> I do *now* want to sidetrack this discussion.


I knew it!


----------



## wallingj

Again most magistrates did not take up arms against the King, it was those who assumed leadership roles. Secondly when magistrates take up arms against a superior, it is usually called a rebellion. I love this country and I am glad it did happen, and I might be wrong. Well I hope I am wrong, because I really love the men that founded this country.


----------



## Grimmson

I think we should take this another way and that through a covenant, a reformed man’s favorite word it seems. What was the reason for our founding fathers to go to war? 

In 1689 there was drafted a bill of rights by Convention Parliament that gave requirements for the crown for consent of the people to rule them. It purpose was to go hand in hand with the Manga Carta, which was written up against the first income tax measure by King John and later by Henry the 3rd . It was by the combination of these two documents that the founding fathers could use to be represented by parliament, instead of the virtual one in name only that existed, and to rebel if their rights were not being fulfilled by the King and Parliament. The fact that they could not be involved in the declaration of taxes, which was mandated by Parliament approval was extremely fishy and was reinforced by people like William Pitt to denied the legality of virtual representation of the colonies. Thus taxation without presentation become the cry of many of the founding fathers which resulted in the rebellion of the leaders of the colonies. 

Parliament and crown lost their right to rule when they did not uphold an Englishman’s rights that was guaranteed to them. Thus breaking the covenant that would allow for the rebellion so that they would not be violating Romans 13. In fact, the founders would be in violation for the simple fact that they did not uphold the rights of English settlements in America. So the rebellion was not a religious matter, but a social political contract matter. 
.


----------



## Marrow Man

brianeschen said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do *now* want to sidetrack this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew it!
Click to expand...




Let me fix that!


----------



## rbcbob

Joshua said:


> I like Calvin on the matter. Calvin's _Institutes_, Book IV, Ch. 20 (my emphases) added:25. The wicked ruler a judgment of God
> 
> But it we have respect to the word of God, it will lead us farther, and make us subject _not only_ to the authority of those princes who honestly and faithfully perform their duty toward us, but all princes, _by whatever means they have so become_, although there is nothing they less perform than the duty of princes. For though the Lord declares that ruler to maintain our safety is the highest gift of his beneficence, and prescribes to rulers themselves their proper sphere, he at the same time declares, that of _whatever description they may be, they derive their power from none but him_. Those, indeed, who rule for the public good, are true examples and specimens of big beneficence, while those who domineer unjustly and tyrannically are raised up by him to punish the people for their iniquity. Still _all alike_ possess that sacred majesty with which he has invested lawful power.
> 
> I will not proceed further without subjoining some distinct passages to this effect. We need not labour to prove that an impious king is a mark of the Lord's anger, since I presume no one will deny it, and that this is not less true of a king than of a robber who plunders your goods, an adulterer who defiles your bed, and an assassin who aims at your life, since all such calamities are classed by Scripture among the curses of God. _But let us insist at greater length in proving what does not so easily fall in with the views of men, that even an individual of the worst character, one most unworthy of all honour, if invested with public authority, receives that illustrious divine power which the Lord has by his word devolved on the ministers of his justice and judgment, and that, accordingly, in so far as public obedience is concerned, he is to be held in the same honour and reverence as the best of kings. _
> 
> 26. Obedience to bad kings required in Scripture
> 
> And, first, I would have the reader carefully to attend to that Divine Providence which, not without cause, is so often set before us in Scripture, and that special act of distributing kingdoms, and setting up as kings whomsoever he pleases. In Daniel it is said, "He changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings," (Dan. 2: 21, 37.) Again, "That the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will," (Dan. 4: 17, 20.) Similar sentiments occur throughout Scripture, but they abound particularly in the prophetical books. What kind of king Nebuchadnezzar, he who stormed Jerusalem, was, is well known. He was an active invader and devastator of other countries. Yet the Lord declares in Ezekiel that he had given him the land of Egypt as his hire for the devastation which he had committed. _Daniel also said to him, "Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven has given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory_. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven has he given into thine hand, and has made thee ruler over them all," (Dan. 2: 37, 38.) Again, he says to his son Belshazzar, "T_he most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour_: and for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him," (Dan. 5: 18, 19.) When we hear that the king was appointed by God, let us, at the same time, call to mind those heavenly edicts as to honouring and fearing the king, and we shall have no doubt that we are to view the most iniquitous tyrant as occupying the place with which the Lord has honoured him. When Samuel declared to the people of Israel what they would suffer from their kings, he said, "This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectioneries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants," (1 Sam. 8: 11-17.) Certainly these things could not be done legally by kings, whom the law trained most admirably to all kinds of restraint; but it was called justice in regard to the people, because they were bound to obey, and could not lawfully resist: as if Samuel had said, To such a degree will kings indulge in tyranny, which it will not be for you to restrain. The only thing remaining for you will be to receive their commands, and be obedient to their words.​. . .29. It is not the part of subjects but of God to vindicate the right
> 
> This feeling of reverence, and even of piety, _we owe to the utmost to all our rulers, be their characters what they may_. This I repeat the softener, that we may learn not to consider the individuals themselves, but hold it to be enough that by the will of the Lord they sustain a character on which he has impressed and engraven inviolable majesty.
> 
> But rulers, you will say, owe mutual duties to those under them. This I have already confessed. But if from this you conclude that obedience is to be returned to none but just governors, you reason absurdly. Husbands are bound by mutual duties to their wives, and parents to their children. Should husbands and parents neglect their duty; should the latter be harsh and severe to the children whom they are enjoined not to provoke to anger (Eph. 6:4), and by their severity harass them beyond measure; should the former treat with the greatest contumely the wives whom they are enjoined to love (Eph. 5:25) and to spare as the weaker vessels (I Peter 3:7); would children be less bound in duty to their parents, and wives to their husbands? They are made subject to the froward and undutiful.
> 
> _Nay, since the duty of all is not to look behind them, that is, not to inquire into the duties of one another but to submit each to his own duty, this ought especially to be exemplified in the case of those who are placed under the power of others. _Wherefore, if we are cruelly tormented by a savage, if we are rapaciously pillaged by an avaricious or luxurious, if we are neglected by a sluggish, if, in short, we are persecuted for righteousness' sake by an impious and sacrilegious prince, let us first call up the remembrance of our faults, which doubtless the Lord is chastising by such scourges. In this way humility will curb our impatience. And let us reflect that _it belongs not to us _to cure these evils, that all that remains for us is to implore the help of the Lord, in whose hands are the hearts of kings, and inclinations of kingdoms (Prov. 21:1). "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." (Ps. 82:1). Before his face shall fall and be crushed all kings and judges of the earth, who have not kissed his anointed, who have enacted unjust laws to oppress the poor in judgment, and do violence to the cause of the humble, to make widows a prey, and plunder the fatherless (Isa. 10:1-2).
> 
> (Constitutional magistrates, however, ought to check the tyranny of kings; obedience to God comes first, 30-31)​31. Constitutional defenders of the people's freedom
> 
> But whatever may be thought of the acts of the men themselves, the Lord by their means equally executed his own work, when he broke the bloody sceptres of insolent kings, and overthrew their intolerable dominations. Let princes hear and be afraid; but let us at the same time guard most carefully against spurning or violating the venerable and majestic authority of rulers, an authority which God has sanctioned by the surest edicts, although those invested with it should be most unworthy of it, and, as far as in them lies, pollute it by their iniquity. Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer. ​And here's the portion I'd like to stress:I speak _*only of private men*_. For when _popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings,_ (as the Ephori, who were opposed to kings among the Spartans, or Tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or Demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and, perhaps, there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their primary diets.) _So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians.
> _​And the lovely last paragraph:32. Obedience to man must not become disobedience to God
> 
> But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, *we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow*. And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey men! The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When he opens his sacred mouth, he alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. _If they command any thing against Him, let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates—a dignity to which, no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God._ On this ground Daniel denies that he had sinned in any respect against the king when he refused to obey his impious decree, (Dan. 6: 22,) because the king had exceeded his limits, and not only been injurious to men, but, by raising his horn against God, had virtually abrogated his own power. On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having too readily obeyed the impious edict of the king. For, when Jeroboam made the golden calf, they forsook the temple of God, and, in submissiveness to him, revolted to new superstitions, (1 Kings 12: 28.) With the same facility posterity had bowed before the decrees of their kings. For this they are severely upbraided by the Prophet, (Hosea 5: 11.) So far is the praise of modesty from being due to that pretence by which flattering courtiers cloak themselves, and deceive the simple, when they deny the lawfulness of declining any thing imposed by their kings, as if the Lord had resigned his own rights to mortals by appointing them to rule over their fellows or as if earthly power were diminished when it is subjected to its author, before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble as suppliants. I know the imminent peril to which subjects expose themselves by this firmness, kings being most indignant when they are condemned. As Solomon says, "The wrath of a king is as messengers of death," (Prov. 16: 14.) But since Peter, one of heaven's heralds, has published the edict, "We ought to obey God rather than men," (Acts 5: 29,) *let us console ourselves with the thought, that we are rendering the obedience which the Lord requires when we endure anything* rather than turn aside from piety. And that our courage may not fail, Paul stimulates us by the additional considerations (1 Cor. 7: 23,) that w_e were redeemed by Christ at the great price which our redemption cost him, in order that we might not yield a slavish obedience to the depraved wishes of men, far less do homage to their impiety._​



Calvin has many good points. Notice in the blue highlights above that in refusing obedience to a wicked command from a magistrate Calvin is endorsing what the Scriptures enforce, i.e. *passive disobedience* and meekly suffering the consequences. This is right. *But it in no way supports the active revolution on the Colonists!*

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 12:49:51 EST-----



John Lanier said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I believe it was wrong to rebel against those who had been placed in authority over us. Neither Paul nor Peter encouraged men to rebel against the authority placed over them and they had way more persecution facing them than "no taxation without representation" (I know that wasn't the only reason that was given for the Revolution). Instead we find verses like the ones that you cited above. I know I am probably in the minority here. Even if we had been slaves to England, the teaching of Scripture was not to rebel but to submit to your master (Eph.6:5-8). If we had been given the opportunity for independence, then it would have been fine but to rebel was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Josh,
> 
> Thanks for participating! I have researched this subject rather extensively and your answer is far and away the most common. I have been compelled to acquiesce to an opposite conclusion base on my reading of primary sources of the period vis-a-vis the scriptures referenced.
> 
> One further question: Would you say that the magistrates were themselves to submit to the king?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> Were you asking me this question or Joshua? You have my quote but his name.
Click to expand...


Must have hit the wrong button ... oops

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 12:54:03 EST-----



wallingj said:


> Again most magistrates did not take up arms against the King, it was those who assumed leadership roles. Secondly when magistrates take up arms against a superior, it is usually called a rebellion. I love this country and I am glad it did happen, and I might be wrong. Well I hope I am wrong, because I really love the men that founded this country.



I love this country too! But I have read *literally* thousands of pages, mostly primary documents and sermons from the period, and I believe that it can be demonstrated conclusively that the founding fathers understood that they were rebelling against King George.

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 01:03:29 EST-----



Joshua said:


> Respectfully, Mr. Walling, you're begging the question by calling it a _rebellion_. That's what needs to be proven, and it hasn't. As for a Scripture reference that refutes Romans 13, why would I want such an impossible thing? I believe that the colonists were certainly obeying Romans 13 by obeying the lawful commands of their magistrates.



Years after the dust had settled John Adams wrote in a letter to a friend;

"The revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; *a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations ...* This radical change in the principles, opinions sentiments, and affections of the people wass *the real American Revolution*"


----------



## CDM

wallingj said:


> Hey I love Calvin, but it is again based on human reason, commentary is not the same as scripture. One clear scripture reference that refutes Romans 13? Just like I brought up this subject last year, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I still love you and respect what you say. I have studied this for 19 years, the length of time I have served in our military and cannot but help but disagree.
> 
> I know if I was living during that time I would have abstained from the rebellion, like most of the colonists did. *Do I admire and appreciate what our founding fathers did, you bet I do, but from a clear scriptural view I would have abstained from the fight.* For I cannot get around Romans 13, and if the local magistrate decides to disobey scripture that does not mean I should. Also, usually it wasn't the local magistrates that rebelled but hot headed individuals in the area who assumed roles of leadership.
> 
> To look at Calvin again he never did raise an army to change France or Switzerland, but tried to change it by other ways.





wallingj said:


> Again most magistrates did not take up arms against the King, it was those who assumed leadership roles. Secondly when magistrates take up arms against a superior, it is usually called a rebellion. *I love this country and I am glad it did happen, and I might be wrong.* Well I hope I am wrong, because I really love the men that founded this country.



Sir, I am not sure what you mean--please elaborate. 

You condemn the founders for rebellion...that means, in your words, it was sinful. Yet, you celebrate and approve of it. You are in fact "glad". You cannot have it both ways. 

I apologize if I have misunderstood you.


----------



## LawrenceU

Just curious about how many of you have read this work:

Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos

It was written by a Hugenot. It is an excellent piece. Understanding the reasoning of the time is almost impossible without knowing this piece. It was the second most published work in the colonies at the time, second to the Bible.


----------



## wallingj

CDM said:


> wallingj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey I love Calvin, but it is again based on human reason, commentary is not the same as scripture. One clear scripture reference that refutes Romans 13? Just like I brought up this subject last year, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I still love you and respect what you say. I have studied this for 19 years, the length of time I have served in our military and cannot but help but disagree.
> 
> I know if I was living during that time I would have abstained from the rebellion, like most of the colonists did. *Do I admire and appreciate what our founding fathers did, you bet I do, but from a clear scriptural view I would have abstained from the fight.* For I cannot get around Romans 13, and if the local magistrate decides to disobey scripture that does not mean I should. Also, usually it wasn't the local magistrates that rebelled but hot headed individuals in the area who assumed roles of leadership.
> 
> To look at Calvin again he never did raise an army to change France or Switzerland, but tried to change it by other ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wallingj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again most magistrates did not take up arms against the King, it was those who assumed leadership roles. Secondly when magistrates take up arms against a superior, it is usually called a rebellion. *I love this country and I am glad it did happen, and I might be wrong.* Well I hope I am wrong, because I really love the men that founded this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sir, I am not sure what you mean--please elaborate.
> 
> You condemn the founders for rebellion...that means, in your words, it was sinful. Yet, you celebrate and approve of it. You are in fact "glad". You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> I apologize if I have misunderstood you.
Click to expand...

Neither do I condemn nor do I approve. I love them and am glad for what they did. I did not walk in their shoes, but from my prespective I cannot scriptually validate the rebellion. What I do know is I could be wrong, thus no judgment against them. God used them to bring forth this country that I know for certain. It is one of those intriguing emotional things, to hold what appear to be opposite views.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I think the Declaration of Independence *was* a rebellion, and for now I'm content to think it was legitimate or righteous.

The *consequent* War of Independence was a fight against unlawful aggression by a (now) usurping power, namely the no-longer-legitimate power of the English Crown.

One always needs to use appropriate caution in drawing from Israelite history to adduce examples for our consideration. However, the *initial* separation of the Northern Tribes from the Davidic throne was
1) done decently and in order, and 
2) directed by the prophet of God in the name of God, and by a man who, like Saul, was chosen by God.

Like Saul, there was a redemptive-historical purpose behind choosing a man who would rebel. But the promise of God to Jeroboam cannot be said to have been given with a misleading subtlety. IF Jeroboam had been willing/able to do as directed, he would have been blessed.

We have no idea how God could have brought resolution to the Davidic promises in such a case, but neither could we have shown how things were going to be resolved in dozens of ways before they took place.

*************
So, it seems apparent that in some cases, lesser magistrates have rights (perhaps defined in law) to assert themselves in behalf of those in their care. And this, even against "higher" authorities, who are abusing their authority.

If you read the Declaration of Independence, you will read how the British authority had violated the scope of its authority, and in the eyes of many (though not all) Colonists, had forfeited its sovereign claims. Had they? Had things gotten so bad there was no more legitimate claim to right and rule? That is the real question, and not (It seems to me) whether this was a rebellion or not. The question is the lawfulness of the legal claim to independence.


Remember, an illegitimate authority is NO authority. If the Declaration is valid, then these Colonies and their separate, sovereign governments were no longer true subjects of the British Crown, no matter what assertions (or forcible means) were made against them. This would characterize the _War of Independence_ as a _War *to Maintain* Independence_ against unlawful aggression.


----------



## rbcbob

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think the Declaration of Independence *was* a rebellion, and *for now I'm content to think it was legitimate or righteous.*
> 
> The *consequent* War of Independence was a fight against unlawful aggression by a (now) usurping power, namely the no-longer-legitimate power of the English Crown.
> 
> One always needs to use appropriate caution in drawing from Israelite history to adduce examples for our consideration. However, the *initial* separation of the Northern Tribes from the Davidic throne was
> 1) done decently and in order, and
> 2) directed by the prophet of God in the name of God, and by a man who, like Saul, was chosen by God.
> 
> Like Saul, there was a redemptive-historical purpose behind choosing a man who would rebel. But the promise of God to Jeroboam cannot be said to have been given with a misleading subtlety. IF Jeroboam had been willing/able to do as directed, he would have been blessed.
> 
> We have no idea how God could have brought resolution to the Davidic promises in such a case, but neither could we have shown how things were going to be resolved in dozens of ways before they took place.
> 
> *************
> So, *it seems apparent* that in some cases, lesser magistrates have rights (perhaps defined in law) to assert themselves in behalf of those in their care. And this, even against "higher" authorities, who are abusing their authority.
> 
> If you read the Declaration of Independence, you will read how the British authority had violated the scope of its authority, and in the eyes of many (though not all) Colonists, had forfeited its sovereign claims. Had they? Had things gotten so bad there was no more legitimate claim to right and rule? That is the real question, and not (It seems to me) whether this was a rebellion or not. *The question is the lawfulness of the legal claim to independence.*
> 
> 
> Remember, an illegitimate authority is NO authority. If the Declaration is valid, then these Colonies and their separate, sovereign governments were no longer true subjects of the British Crown, no matter what assertions (or forcible means) were made against them. This would characterize the _War of Independence_ as a _War *to Maintain* Independence_ against unlawful aggression.



Bruce, (and indeed all of my beloved brethren) keep in mind that while I am taking the opposite interpretation of the deeds of our national forefathers I do so understanding that my position is a minority one in the extreme! I really appreciate the dialogue.

That said, there can be no defense of rebellion for a Christian. "Be submissive to the existing authorities" was written to Roman Christians who were living under despotic Roman (*g*ods).

Consider the following to catch something of the prevailing political attitude in mid-eighteenth century America:

“Jefferson did not share [John] Adams’ fears of popular tumult and insurrection … ‘I like a little rebellion now and then’ he told the Adamses”- Peterson, Adams and Jefferson a Revolutionary Dialogue

Regarding the infamous Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts Thomas Jefferson said:
“… can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of its motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid that we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion” – Debate on the Constitution Vol I p.310
********************** ***********************


There were significant differences in the makeup of the two gatherings in Philadelphia, the one in 1776 which produced the Declaration of Independence and the one in 1787 which gave us the constitution of the United States of America. Not only were there age differences between the two groups, but there were philosophical differences as well. Singer notes that “the membership of the [Constitutional] Convention was more conservative, politically and theologically, than was the membership of the Continental Congress of 1776”.
Not surprisingly the documents produced by these two gatherings are as different as their respective authors. Various writers have noted the conspicuous absence in 1787 of key radicals who were present in 1776.
Notice the mindset of the gathering of 1776 in the language taken from John Locke’s Essay on Civil Government –
“… whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, [i.e. ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ (Locke’s phrase was life, liberty, and property) it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it … it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government …” –Declaration of Independence, 1776
The more conservative membership of the 1787 assembly in Philadelphia disavowed any inherent right of the several states or its citizens to rebel against the newly formed federal government.


----------



## R Harris

Bob,

In order to properly understand Romans 13:1, you must interpret it within the context of verses 2-6. 

I love the way William Symington phrased this in his book _Messiah the Prince_. Romans 13:1, obey the magistrates; verses 2-6, _here's why_.

Symington relates this to Nero, whom people like you love to demonstrate that he was in authority at that time. Could Nero pass _any_ of the tests of verses 2-6? No, he could not. Thus, as Symington, Samuel Rutherford, Junius Brutus, and many others have stated, a magistrate forfeits its authority when it usurps its privileges given to it by God. In other words, no magistrate has the unlimited, sovereign right to rob, rape, or murder its subjects. We must obey God, not man. NO authority under God has the right to do whatever it wants to do.

BTW, as Rev. Buchanan stated above, have you read all of the offenses stated in _The Declaration of Independence_ committed by the British government againsts the colonists? They are pretty strong.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I prefer the conservative Patrick Henry, who when speaking of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, "I smell a rat."

I'm less inclined to favor the actual "revolution" of 1787-9.

It is obvious that one can take an extreme position on Rom.13. But I don't know of any sensible Christian who doesn't believe the maxim "We must obey God, rather than men."

That is rebellion, plain and simple. And I'm not afraid to say so. So, I won't take Rom.13 in any absolute sense. Certain rebellion, then, is God-honoring. Other forms are not.

The story of the 10 Tribe's rejection of the monarchy is instructive. And I believe we should take appropriate lessons from it. It was not all quite "right," but neither in context was it all quite "wrong" either.


----------



## wallingj

R Harris said:


> Bob,
> 
> In order to properly understand Romans 13:1, you must interpret it within the context of verses 2-6.
> 
> I love the way William Symington phrased this in his book _Messiah the Prince_. Romans 13:1, obey the magistrates; verses 2-6, _here's why_.
> 
> Symington relates this to Nero, whom people like you love to demonstrate that he was in authority at that time. Could Nero pass _any_ of the tests of verses 2-6? No, he could not. Thus, as Symington, Samuel Rutherford, Junius Brutus, and many others have stated, a magistrate forfeits its authority when it usurps its privileges given to it by God. In other words, no magistrate has the unlimited, sovereign right to rob, rape, or murder its subjects. We must obey God, not man. NO authority under God has the right to do whatever it wants to do.
> 
> BTW, as Rev. Buchanan stated above, have you read all of the offenses stated in _The Declaration of Independence_ committed by the British government againsts the colonists? They are pretty strong.


 
But wasn't it Paul who wrote Rom 13 and who would die under Nero. I believe he took what he wrote to heart. You argue Nero foreited his right to rule under God. All I know is God put Nero there, and Paul died under him without ever hinting that rebellion was an a OK idea if a tyrant is in charge. I know Saul had forfeited his right to rule, so declared God speaking through Samuel, but David still would not cut off God's appointed, for he considered it a great evil.


----------



## rbcbob

R Harris said:


> Bob,
> 
> In order to properly understand Romans 13:1, you must interpret it within the context of verses 2-6.
> 
> I love the way William Symington phrased this in his book _Messiah the Prince_. Romans 13:1, obey the magistrates; verses 2-6, _here's why_.
> 
> Symington relates this to Nero, whom people like you love to demonstrate that he was in authority at that time. Could Nero pass _any_ of the tests of verses 2-6? No, he could not. Thus, as Symington, Samuel Rutherford, Junius Brutus, and many others have stated, a magistrate forfeits its authority when it usurps its privileges given to it by God. In other words, no magistrate has the unlimited, sovereign right to rob, rape, or murder its subjects. We must obey God, not man. NO authority under God has the right to do whatever it wants to do.
> 
> BTW, as Rev. Buchanan stated above, have you read all of the offenses stated in _The Declaration of Independence_ committed by the British government againsts the colonists? They are pretty strong.



"Symington relates this to Nero, whom people like you [and the apostle Paul] love to demonstrate that he was in authority at that time.

There is nothing in Paul's directive to exclude submission (which might for the believer include passive disobedience and its consequences) to even Nero.

1 Peter 2:13-19 13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man *for the Lord's sake*, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 *For this is the will of God*, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men -- 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. 18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, *not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh*. 19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully.


"have you read all of the offenses stated in The Declaration of Independence committed by the British government againsts the colonists?" YES, I HAVE 

They are pretty strong."-NON SEQUITUR


----------



## SolaScriptura

Maybe it was morally wrong, maybe it wasn't.

For those who think the Revolution was sinful... so what now? Would you feel better if you renounced your US citizenship, swore loyalty to the British Crown and sought citizenship there?

I don't find it helpful to ask "was the American Revolution biblically defensible" unless the aim is to get to the point and ask, "Under what circumstances - if any - would WE rebel with biblical justification?"


----------



## rbcbob

SolaScriptura said:


> Maybe it was morally wrong, maybe it wasn't.
> 
> For those who think the Revolution was sinful... *so what now? Would you feel better if you renounced your US citizenship, swore loyalty to the British Crown and sought citizenship there?*
> 
> I don't find it helpful to ask "was the American Revolution biblically defensible" unless the aim is to get to the point and ask, "Under what circumstances - if any - would WE rebel with biblical justification?"



Not necessary now. In the treaty of Paris Britain conceded our independence and recognized us as a separate nation in our own right.

BTW I bless God that he rules and overrules even the rebellious actions of men for our good, especially for the good of His Church. Thank God I am an American.


----------



## JML

Acts 12

1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
5 Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.
6 And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and the keepers before the door kept the prison.
7 And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands.
8 And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me.
9 And he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which was done by the angel; but thought he saw a vision.
10 When they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of his own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him.
11 And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the LORD hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews.
12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying. 


*If we look at verses 5 & 12, we find what the church was doing. They were gathered together in prayer not in arms against their oppressors who had already killed James and would have killed Peter had it not been for the miracle the Lord performed. I think that the answer is given by Paul:*


1 Timothy 2

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 


*I don't want to start a discussion of whether or not war is ever acceptable but in the context we are dealing with (the American Revolution), I think it was wrong to rebel.*


----------



## R Harris

rbcbob said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> In order to properly understand Romans 13:1, you must interpret it within the context of verses 2-6.
> 
> I love the way William Symington phrased this in his book _Messiah the Prince_. Romans 13:1, obey the magistrates; verses 2-6, _here's why_.
> 
> Symington relates this to Nero, whom people like you love to demonstrate that he was in authority at that time. Could Nero pass _any_ of the tests of verses 2-6? No, he could not. Thus, as Symington, Samuel Rutherford, Junius Brutus, and many others have stated, a magistrate forfeits its authority when it usurps its privileges given to it by God. In other words, no magistrate has the unlimited, sovereign right to rob, rape, or murder its subjects. We must obey God, not man. NO authority under God has the right to do whatever it wants to do.
> 
> BTW, as Rev. Buchanan stated above, have you read all of the offenses stated in _The Declaration of Independence_ committed by the British government againsts the colonists? They are pretty strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Symington relates this to Nero, whom people like you [and the apostle Paul] love to demonstrate that he was in authority at that time.
> 
> There is nothing in Paul's directive to exclude submission (which might for the believer include passive disobedience and its consequences) to even Nero.
> 
> 1 Peter 2:13-19 13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man *for the Lord's sake*, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 *For this is the will of God*, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men -- 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. 18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, *not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh*. 19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully.
> 
> 
> "have you read all of the offenses stated in The Declaration of Independence committed by the British government againsts the colonists?" YES, I HAVE
> 
> They are pretty strong."-NON SEQUITUR
Click to expand...


So then why was Paul, along with other martyrs, put to death? Because they _disobeyed_ the civil magistrate!! They proclaimed Jesus as King, not Caesar - and were thus put to death. So even though they did not resist with arms, they nonetheless still resisted.

It is sort of like imprecatory psalms - Christians love to cite Paul as the reason not to invoke imprecatory psalms, yet Paul did so himself.

Again - everything in its proper context.

But let me again ask you - are you claiming that a civil magistrate does have the right to rob, rape, and murder its citizens? If not, then what is a subject to do? Please provide actionable examples of what to do (of course, prayer is obvious, so don't cite that one).


----------



## wallingj

SolaScriptura said:


> Maybe it was morally wrong, maybe it wasn't.
> 
> For those who think the Revolution was sinful... so what now? Would you feel better if you renounced your US citizenship, swore loyalty to the British Crown and sought citizenship there?
> 
> I don't find it helpful to ask "was the American Revolution biblically defensible" unless the aim is to get to the point and ask, "Under what circumstances - if any - would WE rebel with biblical justification?"


 
Now that I agree with! It happened, I love my country, and am glad of the outcome! If the founding was born in sin or not, God used it to bring forth a nation, that has done a lot of good. From a historical prespective our good has far outweighed our defecits compared to other nations.


----------



## Wayne

Here are two pertinent quotes that I posted last night on my blog. And then you guys go and have this thread--how pertinent is that? (Do great minds think alike?)


Francis Schaeffer on our Presbyterian heritage (1982)

July 1, 2009 in Francis A. Schaeffer, Joining & Receiving, Presbyterian Church in America | Leave a comment

The following quote is taken from an address given by Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer before the Tenth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, on the occasion of the reception of the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod into the PCA. Dr. Schaeffer’s address was subsequently printed as a separate monograph and it is also available online at the PCA Historical Center’s web site. The direct link is A Day of Sober Rejoicing, by Dr. Francis Schaeffer, 16 June 1982

“As Presbyterians our heritage is with a Calvin who dared to stand against the Dukes of Savoy regardless of what it
cost. Our heritage is with a John Knox who taught us, as I’ve stressed in A Christian Manifesto, a great theology of standing against tyranny. Our heritage is with a Samuel Rutherford who wrote those flaming words, Lex Rex—only the law is king and “king” under any name must never be allowed to arbitrary law. Are you Presbyterians? Have we a Presbyterian body? These men are the men who give us our heritage—Calvin and his position, John Knox and his, Samuel Rutherford his, and no less than these in our own country, a John Witherspoon who understood that tyranny must be met and must be met squarely because tyranny is wrong. These who understood that true love in this fallen world often meant the acceptance of the tears which go with confrontation. None of us like confrontation, or I hope
none of us do. But in a fallen world there is confrontation, there is confrontation concerning truth, there must be confrontation against evil and that which is wrong. The love must be there but so must the hard thing of acting upon differentiation, the differentiation God gives between truth and falsehood, between what is just, based on God’s existence and His justice, and injustice.”
A Very Insightful Comment from A.A. Hodge (1877)

June 30, 2009 in Archibald Alexander Hodge | Leave a comment

“From the Reformation, for two hundred years, these principles stood in antagonism to absolutism of hierarchy in the Church, and of personal government in the State. In modern times the conditions are materially changed, and a triangular contest has been inaugurated between Presbyterian principles of human equality subject to divine sovereignty, and of liberty under the supremacy of the written Word, at the apex, and the ancient foe of absolutism and the modern foe of license at the opposite angles. . .”

“. . .But the pre-eminent characteristic of modern times is the tendency in various degrees among all peoples of European descent to carry the reaction against authority inaugurated at the Reformation to the destructive extreme of license. The insurrection of reason against traditional superstitions and the usurped authority of the hierarchy, has been succeeded by the illegitimate insurrection of reason against all supernatural revelation and spiritual illumination. Rebellion against absolutism in civil government has been perverted by anarchical and anti-social principles, and been succeeded by the assertion of independence [from] the authority of God.”

[excerpted from "Adaptation of Presbyterianism to the Wants and Tendencies of the Day," by A.A. Hodge, in Report of the Proceedings of the First General Presbyterian Council, Convened at Edinburgh, July 1877. Edinburgh: Thomas and Archibald Constable, 1877. Page 58.]


----------



## rbcbob

R Harris said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> In order to properly understand Romans 13:1, you must interpret it within the context of verses 2-6.
> 
> I love the way William Symington phrased this in his book _Messiah the Prince_. Romans 13:1, obey the magistrates; verses 2-6, _here's why_.
> 
> Symington relates this to Nero, whom people like you love to demonstrate that he was in authority at that time. Could Nero pass _any_ of the tests of verses 2-6? No, he could not. Thus, as Symington, Samuel Rutherford, Junius Brutus, and many others have stated, a magistrate forfeits its authority when it usurps its privileges given to it by God. In other words, no magistrate has the unlimited, sovereign right to rob, rape, or murder its subjects. We must obey God, not man. NO authority under God has the right to do whatever it wants to do.
> 
> BTW, as Rev. Buchanan stated above, have you read all of the offenses stated in _The Declaration of Independence_ committed by the British government againsts the colonists? They are pretty strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Symington relates this to Nero, whom people like you [and the apostle Paul] love to demonstrate that he was in authority at that time.
> 
> There is nothing in Paul's directive to exclude submission (which might for the believer include passive disobedience and its consequences) to even Nero.
> 
> 1 Peter 2:13-19 13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man *for the Lord's sake*, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 *For this is the will of God*, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men -- 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. 18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, *not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh*. 19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully.
> 
> 
> "have you read all of the offenses stated in The Declaration of Independence committed by the British government againsts the colonists?" YES, I HAVE
> 
> They are pretty strong."-NON SEQUITUR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then why was Paul, along with other martyrs, put to death? Because they _disobeyed_ the civil magistrate!! They proclaimed Jesus as King, not Caesar - and were thus put to death. So even though they did not resist with arms, they nonetheless still resisted.
> 
> It is sort of like imprecatory psalms - Christians love to cite Paul as the reason not to invoke imprecatory psalms, yet Paul did so himself.
> 
> Again - everything in its proper context.
> 
> *But let me again ask you - are you claiming that a civil magistrate does have the right to rob, rape, and murder its citizens? * If not, then what is a subject to do? * Please provide actionable examples of what to do* (of course, prayer is obvious, so don't cite that one).
Click to expand...



1. If you would (and I am in no way putting you off) carefully define how you are using *right* in this context I will have something to work with and very gladly try to give you a proper answer.

2. What we are to do is that which Christians have always done, whether under Nero, Caligula, Hitler, the Boxer Rebellion, etc. Fear God and keep His Commandments as we await a better resurrection.

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 03:23:27 EST-----



Grimmson said:


> I think we should take this another way and that through a covenant, a reformed man’s favorite word it seems. What was the reason for our founding fathers to go to war?
> 
> In 1689 there was drafted a bill of rights by Convention Parliament that gave requirements for the crown for consent of the people to rule them. It purpose was to go hand in hand with the Manga Carta, which was written up against the first income tax measure by King John and later by Henry the 3rd . It was by the combination of these two documents that the founding fathers could use to be represented by parliament, instead of the virtual one in name only that existed, and to rebel if their rights were not being fulfilled by the King and Parliament. The fact that they could not be involved in the declaration of taxes, which was mandated by Parliament approval was extremely fishy and was reinforced by people like William Pitt to denied the legality of virtual representation of the colonies. Thus taxation without presentation become the cry of many of the founding fathers which resulted in the rebellion of the leaders of the colonies.
> 
> Parliament and crown lost their right to rule when they did not uphold an Englishman’s rights that was guaranteed to them. Thus breaking the covenant that would allow for the rebellion so that they would not be violating Romans 13. In fact, the founders would be in violation for the simple fact that they did not uphold the rights of English settlements in America. So the rebellion was not a religious matter, but a social political contract matter.
> .




In vain do we look to England for worthy precedents on rebellion. The difficulty confronting the American Colonists in the middle of the 18th century is essentially the same which troubled England more than a century before. The “Great Rebellion” which precipitated the first English Civil War was an attempt to overthrow constituted authority and yet preserve some semblance of respect for constituted authority. The notion of a “Just Rebellion” no less employs an oxymoron that does the idea of “righteous witchcraft” “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king.”( 1 Samuel 15:23 ) 
Cromwell, by the power of the sword, both executed his king and compelled Parliament to do his will. And when Parliament was not willing to do so he dissolved it. As one studies his life, the contradictions and convoluted reasonings by which he sought to maintain law and order while in power are all too evident. As Churchill says of him “no one can remain unconscious of his desire to find a moral basis for his power”.


----------



## Grimmson

I still think the contractable perspective should be the way we should look at it. The form of government based on the Manga Carta and the 1689 provides the legal right for a rebellion. This is not like the context of Saul where no such right was given or allowed or in the case of Nero, whom Paul died under. May I also remind you that before the revolution the colonies did declare their grieves, but were largely ignored by those that ruled over them.

Before Chapter 13 we have in Chapter 12, verse18, “if possible so far as it depends on you, live peaceful with all.” This was not some religious rebellion even though one could make a case for allowing such a rebellion based on the documents mentioned, but it was a mixed rebellion of both believers and non believers. I also find it interesting that verse 17 of chapter 13 of Romans has not been used, primarily because of the question did they need to pay a tax that they were not a part of ratifying in accordance to the Englishman’s Bill of rights? Another important question is could they really be at peace with some of their neighbors that did go to war? It’s a very touching and emotional charged question. Especially once the war hit and a few churches buildings were burned to the ground purposely, such as the case with First Presbyterian Church of Springfield; it was not just something that was created by the move the Patriot. 

Let us look at this another way. Let us say the State or Federal government by the end of this year owed you $3000, would you not see that it was the State or Federal right to give you that money. Would you not complain and perhaps bring about a legal court order if the State or Federal Government decided to tax you more for that past year that has already been completed? Has there been a breach of legal contract here that means you should not receive what you are due? In this case you probably will fight, it wouldn’t be a rebellion and no one will die, but the same principal applies bases upon the British form of Government. 

I personally this war is a terrible thing, but at times they need to be fought. This war was based on principles that were not upheld and many Christians today and Americans are not willing to fight for the same such principles; even though they are willing to based upon emotion. If you asked me if Christians had a legal right to rebel; my answer is simple. They had every right to as much as non-believers when they were not given the rights of liberty that they were promised. If you are not willing to fight to protect such liberties for your family and friends you will lose them. Lose them to the point where we may no longer have the right to preach Christ and then we have no choice but to rebel by preaching Christ illegally. 



rbcbob said:


> The notion of a “Just Rebellion” no less employs an oxymoron that does the idea of “righteous witchcraft” “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king.”( 1 Samuel 15:23 )
> Cromwell, by the power of the sword, both executed his king and compelled Parliament to do his will. And when Parliament was not willing to do so he dissolved it. As one studies his life, the contradictions and convoluted reasonings by which he sought to maintain law and order while in power are all too evident. As Churchill says of him “no one can remain unconscious of his desire to find a moral basis for his power”.[/SIZE][/FONT]



I do not think you can use this passage against those that see the American Revolution as a just rebellion. First off this passage the rebellion was against God concerning Saul sin for not destroying King Agag and sheep and the oxen. His rebellion was against the divine word of God, whom he had rejected. And it God’s own timing Saul ended his own life. The passage does not deal with the legal right to rebel in accordance to your own law. Plus it shows our need to obey God and his divine word, there were many that were thinking just that.

I am not saying all rebellions are good and proper, but sometimes there comes around a case for one; especially if you are a good citizen of that government and it is allowed and accepted by that government at least in writing. Many rebellions are replaced by the same tyrant. By God’s grace such was not the case for us and it is a fact we should praise God over. In fact the structure we put in place was to prevent such to come to power with our checks and balances.


----------



## kevin.carroll

R Harris said:


> Symington relates this to Nero, whom people like you love to demonstrate that he was in authority at that time. Could Nero pass _any_ of the tests of verses 2-6? No, he could not.



And yet, Paul said to submit to the government without all of the caveats you have added...

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 05:03:46 EST-----

I know y'all are just looking for a reason to rebel against Obama.


----------



## Jeff Allen

This is so timely. Two days ago I was reading in Luthers Small Catechism right in his tables of duties. Under duties for citizens it states to submit to government and I thought "Was our revolution biblical? " But as has been stated, It's water under the bridge" and obviously fell in the purview of God allowing it since it did happen.

I will not venture an opionion as others have done much better. I plead undecided.


----------



## Knoxienne

kevin.carroll said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Symington relates this to Nero, whom people like you love to demonstrate that he was in authority at that time. Could Nero pass _any_ of the tests of verses 2-6? No, he could not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, Paul said to submit to the government without all of the caveats you have added...
> 
> -----Added 7/1/2009 at 05:03:46 EST-----
> 
> I know y'all are just looking for a reason to rebel against Obama.
Click to expand...


Obama _is_ a rebel.


----------



## rbcbob

Grimmson said:


> I still think the contractable perspective should be the way we should look at it. The form of government based on the Manga Carta and the 1689 provides the legal right for a rebellion. This is not like the context of Saul where no such right was given or allowed or in the case of Nero, whom Paul died under. May I also remind you that before the revolution the colonies did declare their grieves, but were largely ignored by those that ruled over them.
> 
> Before Chapter 13 we have in Chapter 12, verse18, “if possible so far as it depends on you, live peaceful with all.” This was not some religious rebellion even though one could make a case for allowing such a rebellion based on the documents mentioned, but it was a mixed rebellion of both believers and non believers. I also find it interesting that verse 17 of chapter 13 of Romans has not been used, primarily because of the question did they need to pay a tax that they were not a part of ratifying in accordance to the Englishman’s Bill of rights? Another important question is could they really be at peace with some of their neighbors that did go to war? It’s a very touching and emotional charged question. Especially once the war hit and a few churches buildings were burned to the ground purposely, such as the case with First Presbyterian Church of Springfield; it was not just something that was created by the move the Patriot.
> 
> Let us look at this another way. Let us say the State or Federal government by the end of this year owed you $3000, would you not see that it was the State or Federal right to give you that money. Would you not complain and perhaps bring about a legal court order if the State or Federal Government decided to tax you more for that past year that has already been completed? Has there been a breach of legal contract here that means you should not receive what you are due? In this case you probably will fight, it wouldn’t be a rebellion and no one will die, but the same principal applies bases upon the British form of Government.
> 
> I personally this war is a terrible thing, but at times they need to be fought. This war was based on principles that were not upheld and many Christians today and Americans are not willing to fight for the same such principles; even though they are willing to based upon emotion. If you asked me if Christians had a legal right to rebel; my answer is simple. They had every right to as much as non-believers when they were not given the rights of liberty that they were promised. If you are not willing to fight to protect such liberties for your family and friends you will lose them. Lose them to the point where we may no longer have the right to preach Christ and then we have no choice but to rebel by preaching Christ illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> The notion of a “Just Rebellion” no less employs an oxymoron that does the idea of “righteous witchcraft” “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king.”( 1 Samuel 15:23 )
> Cromwell, by the power of the sword, both executed his king and compelled Parliament to do his will. And when Parliament was not willing to do so he dissolved it. As one studies his life, the contradictions and convoluted reasonings by which he sought to maintain law and order while in power are all too evident. As Churchill says of him “no one can remain unconscious of his desire to find a moral basis for his power”.[/SIZE][/FONT]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I do not think you can use this passage against those that see the American Revolution as a just rebellion.* First off this passage the rebellion was against God concerning Saul sin for not destroying King Agag and sheep and the oxen. His rebellion was against the divine word of God, whom he had rejected. And it God’s own timing Saul ended his own life. The passage does not deal with the legal right to rebel in accordance to your own law. Plus it shows our need to obey God and his divine word, there were many that were thinking just that.
> 
> I am not saying all rebellions are good and proper, but sometimes there comes around a case for one; especially if you are a good citizen of that government and it is allowed and accepted by that government at least in writing. Many rebellions are replaced by the same tyrant. By God’s grace such was not the case for us and it is a fact we should praise God over. In fact the structure we put in place was to prevent such to come to power with our checks and balances.
Click to expand...


David,
May I just say that you, as I once did, read your Bible through 21st century American lenses. Notice your words that I highlighted in red. Step away from the stars and stripes for a moment and look at the passage from the standpoint of a citizen of heaven and a subject of King Jesus. The text says that *rebellion* _*qua*_ rebellion is the same as witchcraft.

Cromwell thought, as do all revolutionaries, that his circumstances were *extraordinary* and therefore provided an exception to the rules which rightfully bind others. He professed to be a Christian and, though there may be evidence to call such a profession into question, there is yet indication that he desired to obey God. He was familiar with his bible and sought to order his life by its precepts. He seems not to have understood the apostle Paul who asked _and why not say, let us do evil that goood may come? as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just._

As one of Cromwell's biographers noted:

No doubt there are errors [in Cromwell] 'It is lawful for the lesser party, *when in the right* to force the majority, Cromwell says.  But where is the _lesser party_ the minority, that does not think it is right?


----------



## SRoper

SolaScriptura said:


> Maybe it was morally wrong, maybe it wasn't.
> 
> For those who think the Revolution was sinful... so what now? Would you feel better if you renounced your US citizenship, swore loyalty to the British Crown and sought citizenship there?
> 
> I don't find it helpful to ask "was the American Revolution biblically defensible" unless the aim is to get to the point and ask, "Under what circumstances - if any - would WE rebel with biblical justification?"



I guess the answer to the question would shape our attitude towards celebrations like Independence Day, which is probably why the question came up now.

The larger question in your last sentence is probably the more interesting one, though.


----------



## Confessor

Okay, in terms of Biblical principles, we've got the fact that we ought to obey magistrates except when they cause us to sin. In that case, we can disobey by revolting or by simply refusing to obey those specific commands. Is there ever Biblical warrant for revolting? If so, where are the verses?

Also, there was talk about lesser magistrates and some kind of hierarchical structure. I have heard of that before but I don't know how categorically that fits into the morality of rebellion. Could someone explain this?

I am undecided but currently, as long as the Brits were not _causing_ the colonists to sin, it seems that the colonists were not Biblically permitted to rebel.


----------



## Grimmson

rbcbob said:


> David,
> May I just say that you, as I once did, read your Bible through 21st century American lenses. Notice your words that I highlighted in red. Step away from the stars and stripes for a moment and look at the passage from the standpoint of a citizen of heaven and a subject of King Jesus. The text says that *rebellion* _*qua*_ rebellion is the same as witchcraft.
> 
> Cromwell thought, as do all revolutionaries, that his circumstances were *extraordinary* and therefore provided an exception to the rules which rightfully bind others. He professed to be a Christian and, though there may be evidence to call such a profession into question, there is yet indication that he desired to obey God. He was familiar with his bible and sought to order his life by its precepts. He seems not to have understood the apostle Paul who asked _and why not say, let us do evil that goood may come? as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just._
> 
> As one of Cromwell's biographers noted:
> 
> No doubt there are errors [in Cromwell] 'It is lawful for the lesser party, *when in the right* to force the majority, Cromwell says.  But where is the _lesser party_ the minority, that does not think it is right?



I think it is funny that am accused as being blinded by the starts and stripes; particularly because I am extremely critical of my country and the policies they create and exactly where my tax money goes. I wouldn’t say am reading the Bible through 21 century but a combination of two lens. The first one being the initial application of the test within redemptive history and the second is how does this relate within God’s Law and Gospel; this does not mean I don’t read it through a 20 century lens at times. Ok, so let us step back and look at it as a citizen of heaven and as Jesus as the King. If we were in heaven and we went directly against the clear word of God on a matter then yes we would be in violation of God’s law. However, does scripture clearly teach that even if it is legal within your law to rebel against a ruling nation across an ocean that you shouldn’t rebel for the betterment of society? Remember there were pastor for and against that preached the subject of independence and was probably why churches like The Cathedral of Kingston were burned down. The English during the time of the rebellion were not exactly civil and did not always show partiality on who they killed and why. 

I think it is a mistake to try to equate the American Revolution to the life’s work of Oliver Cromwell. First of all the American Revolution did not seek to destory the Monarchy, just to have freedom to govern themselves. Second, Cromwell’s war with the Irish went further then just protecting the Protestant, but was fueled probably with his hatred of the Roman Catholic theological system. No such fueling existed with the American Revolution against the crown directly. Another major difference between Cromwell and the American Revolution is also the distribution of fame and power, which Cromwell had to much of. And I think the practices Cromwell/parliament and the founding fathers were also quite different with the form of government and who was to be the successor. So I do not think its completely a fair comparisons. And regards to criticisms of his theology, let face we can do the same to just about anyone then, today, even our church fathers when it comes to biblical interpretation. 
I still do not see a clear cut passage that condemns the revolution. I think that at this point it is an issue of conscience and liberty that God has not granted to vast majority of governments and empires, for most within their own laws do not allow for the legal right to rebel if the citizens rights were not being upheld.


----------



## rbcbob

Confessor said:


> Okay, in terms of Biblical principles, we've got the fact that we ought to obey magistrates except when they cause us to sin. In that case, we can disobey by revolting or by simply refusing to obey those specific commands. Is there ever Biblical warrant for revolting? If so, where are the verses?
> 
> Also, there was talk about lesser magistrates and some kind of hierarchical structure. I have heard of that before but I don't know how categorically that fits into the morality of rebellion. Could someone explain this?
> 
> I am undecided but currently, as long as the Brits were not _causing_ the colonists to sin, it seems that the colonists were not Biblically permitted to rebel.



Ben, there was an allusion in an earlier post which implied that the citizens were merely obeying their regional magistrates, who, it is supposed could lead a rebellion against a tyrant king without violating Romans 13. I think that such reasoning is specious. It is interesting that the Colonists themselves opined that they were not under the jurisdiction of the English Parliament, but were admittedly under the rightful rule of King George.


James Madison writing in 1800, and reflecting back upon the separation from Great Briton, said:
“The fundamental principle of the revolution was, that the colonies were co-ordinate members with each other, and with Great-Britain; of an Empire, united by a common Executive Sovereign, but not united by any common Legislative Sovereign. The Legislative power was maintained to be as complete in each American Parliament, as in the British Parliament.”-James Madison, Writings,p.633


----------



## SolaScriptura

It has been implied (if not stated) that the signers of the Declaration were "magistrates" acting on behalf of their constituency.

I do agree with the principle of a "lesser" magistrate rising up against a "greater" magistrate in defense of the people... but I want to challenge the notion that the Founders can be properly understood as "magistrates."

Were they REALLY magistrates?

What lawfully appointed office did any of them hold in which they had a public obligation? 

I think that for the most part they were wealthy, well-connected men emerging from a still aristocratic culture... but I can't think of any off the top of my head who were actual magistrates at any level at the time of the Declaration.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The Declaration of Independence was adopted by elected delegates to the Continental Congress.
List of delegates to the Continental Congress

See also:
Continental_Congress


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy

Interesting thread.


----------



## rbcbob

SolaScriptura said:


> It has been implied (if not stated) that the signers of the Declaration were "magistrates" acting on behalf of their constituency.
> 
> *I do agree with the principle of a "lesser" magistrate rising up against a "greater" magistrate in defense of the people*... but I want to challenge the notion that the Founders can be properly understood as "magistrates."
> 
> Were they REALLY magistrates?
> 
> What lawfully appointed office did any of them hold in which they had a public obligation?
> 
> I think that for the most part they were wealthy, well-connected men emerging from a still aristocratic culture... but I can't think of any off the top of my head who were actual magistrates at any level at the time of the Declaration.



Do I understand that you actually approve a subordinate official rebelling against a superior official? How can that be allowed in light of the Word of God?
1 Peter 2:13-17 13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, *whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him* for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men -- 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.


For Thomas Jefferson, the right, the duty to throw off one’s government was among those “self-evident truths” of which the Declaration speaks. But Madison and his peers just eleven years later feared this “principle” and regarded it as less than axiomatic. It was, in fact, comparatively new in English political thought.

It has been well understood in Christian nations that ultimate human authority resided in the king. As Josh noted in an earlier post Calvin argued scripturally and well that we must obey even harsh rulers. This understanding of what is sometimes referred to as the DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS was, however, perverted in the seventeenth century by such writers as Thomas Hobbes and Sir Robert Filmer. These men detached the principal of the sovereignty of the king from its biblical foundation and postulated raw or naked power as the foundation for the authority of the king.

It was against this perverted concept, more than that of Christian writers like Calvin, that Locke wrote, *positing his even more tenuous theory of SOCIAL CONTRACT*. It was likewise against Hobbes and Filmer that the justification for both the English Civil War, and the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 was argued.

During this turbulent period of the 17th century a new understanding of sovereignty was developed. Absolute, incontestable authority came to be viewed as resting in Parliament, which represented the people. In this milieu John Locke published his famous SECOND TREATISE ON GOVERNMENT which was widely disseminated throughout the Colonies. In that work he gave encouragement to those who believed they were being ill treated by their rulers saying “… tell the people they are absolved from obedience … and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates.”


----------



## SolaScriptura

Contra_Mundum said:


> The Declaration of Independence was adopted by elected delegates to the Continental Congress.
> List of delegates to the Continental Congress
> 
> See also:
> Continental_Congress



Elected by whom?

Or more appropriately, appointed by what lawful authority? 

The whole point of the argument about a lesser magistrate resisting a greater magistrate is that the lesser magistrate is in fact a lawfully recognized magistrate.


----------



## SolaScriptura

rbcbob said:


> Do I understand that you actually approve a subordinate official rebelling against a superior official? How can that be allowed in light of the Word of God?



Yes, I actually approve of that.

The problem with simplisitic prima facie readings of Scripture is that one quickly absolutizes things to the "insaneth" degree. Take for example Ephesians 5:24... Wives are told to submit to their husbands "in everything." Really? Absolutely EVERYTHING? After all, isn't the word "EVERYTHING" absolute in its comprehensiveness? But as we both know (at least I hope we BOTH know...) there are other things that have to factor into how we interpret this passage.

The same is true in regards to submitting to rulers. Since all human authority/submission commandments stem from the 5th Commandment, I think this is a decent example...

If a FATHER is brutally abusing the son or daughter, does the MOTHER have the right - the duty, perhaps - to rise up and defend the child in defiance against her husband, the head of the house, the "greater ruler?" Both are rulers in the home, though the mother is the "lesser." 

What if the father is brutalizing the mother? Can the children - the ones who owe obedience and honor to both "rulers in the home" - legitimately use force to defend their mother in defiance against their father?

I say yes in both cases. In neither case does being the "greater ruler" in the home give him the absolute right to brutalize with impunity.

Since both governmental and parenting authority/submission relationships flow from the 5th Commandment, I believe that this example would hold true at the governmental/citizenry level as well.

As to why Paul didn't write about rebelling... well, it was probably for the same reason that he didn't write against slavery or any other social issue.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

SolaScriptura said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was adopted by elected delegates to the Continental Congress.
> List of delegates to the Continental Congress
> 
> See also:
> Continental_Congress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elected by whom?
> 
> Or more appropriately, appointed by what lawful authority?
> 
> The whole point of the argument about a lesser magistrate resisting a greater magistrate is that the lesser magistrate is in fact a lawfully recognized magistrate.
Click to expand...


According to one encyclopaedia article, they were sent in the main as representatives from their respective Colonial Assemblies.

So, they were elected by the bodies who had been elected by the people of those Colonies (who had the franchise).

In similar fashion, according to the original Constitution of these United States, the State Legislatures used to elect and send the two State Representatives as delegates to the US Senate.

So, unless one argues successfully that the Colonial Assemblies had no right (as Englishmen or subjects of the Crown) to a regional assembly of powers with common cause or interest, I cannot see how this Congress violated any principles of English Common Law.


In contrast, SFAIK, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was organized beginning with a plebiscite, contrary to the ordinary principles of law and order. If anything, the work of 1787 (which typically gets the highest praise from the Christian America crowd) was exactly the sort of end-run "appeal to the masses" to subvert lawful authority, by finding the seat of final authority in a 51% vote.

There, it was exactly a special-interest crowd, organized and gathered as a special interest, who were unhappy with the greater independency the Articles of Confederation accorded the free and independent States. It was too messy and impossible to enforce whatever dictatorial whims of the central-power.

Call me an "Anti-Federalist."


----------



## wallingj

SolaScriptura said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I understand that you actually approve a subordinate official rebelling against a superior official? How can that be allowed in light of the Word of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I actually approve of that.
> 
> The problem with simplisitic prima facie readings of Scripture is that one quickly absolutizes things to the "insaneth" degree. Take for example Ephesians 5:24... Wives are told to submit to their husbands "in everything." Really? Absolutely EVERYTHING? After all, isn't the word "EVERYTHING" absolute in its comprehensiveness? But as we both know (at least I hope we BOTH know...) there are other things that have to factor into how we interpret this passage.
> 
> The same is true in regards to submitting to rulers. Since all human authority/submission commandments stem from the 5th Commandment, I think this is a decent example...
> 
> If a FATHER is brutally abusing the son or daughter, does the MOTHER have the right - the duty, perhaps - to rise up and defend the child in defiance against her husband, the head of the house, the "greater ruler?" Both are rulers in the home, though the mother is the "lesser."
> 
> What if the father is brutalizing the mother? Can the children - the ones who owe obedience and honor to both "rulers in the home" - legitimately use force to defend their mother in defiance against their father?
> 
> I say yes in both cases. In neither case does being the "greater ruler" in the home give him the absolute right to brutalize with impunity.
> 
> Since both governmental and parenting authority/submission relationships flow from the 5th Commandment, I believe that this example would hold true at the governmental/citizenry level as well.
> 
> As to why Paul didn't write about rebelling... well, it was probably for the same reason that he didn't write against slavery or any other social issue.
Click to expand...

 
Now that line of argument could convince me that my prior convictions are wrong!


----------



## R Harris

SolaScriptura said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I understand that you actually approve a subordinate official rebelling against a superior official? How can that be allowed in light of the Word of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I actually approve of that.
> 
> The problem with simplisitic prima facie readings of Scripture is that one quickly absolutizes things to the "insaneth" degree. Take for example Ephesians 5:24... Wives are told to submit to their husbands "in everything." Really? Absolutely EVERYTHING? After all, isn't the word "EVERYTHING" absolute in its comprehensiveness? But as we both know (at least I hope we BOTH know...) there are other things that have to factor into how we interpret this passage.
> 
> The same is true in regards to submitting to rulers. Since all human authority/submission commandments stem from the 5th Commandment, I think this is a decent example...
> 
> If a FATHER is brutally abusing the son or daughter, does the MOTHER have the right - the duty, perhaps - to rise up and defend the child in defiance against her husband, the head of the house, the "greater ruler?" Both are rulers in the home, though the mother is the "lesser."
> 
> What if the father is brutalizing the mother? Can the children - the ones who owe obedience and honor to both "rulers in the home" - legitimately use force to defend their mother in defiance against their father?
> 
> I say yes in both cases. In neither case does being the "greater ruler" in the home give him the absolute right to brutalize with impunity.
> 
> Since both governmental and parenting authority/submission relationships flow from the 5th Commandment, I believe that this example would hold true at the governmental/citizenry level as well.
> 
> As to why Paul didn't write about rebelling... well, it was probably for the same reason that he didn't write against slavery or any other social issue.
Click to expand...


Excellent post Ben.

Regarding the issue of rebellion, how do some of you interpret the rebellion against Athaliah in 2 Kings 11? 

You may argue that Athaliah obtained power in Judah by illegimate means with the killing of many of the royal family after the death of Ahaziah. But have not government leaders throughout the past obtained power through illegitimate means, either by force of arms or by LYING and DECEIT in order to obtain votes at the ballot box?

Look at King Charles II. He SWORE AN OATH to the Covenanters that he would abide by the Solemn League and Covenant, and that he would remain loyal to Jesus Christ, recognizing him as Head alone of the Church. 

Of course, Charles II broke that vow and instituted Anglicanism as the true worship and that HE would be the head of the Church. He proceeded to then persecute all that opposed his blatant blasphemy, even imprisoning, torturing, and killing brethren.

Finally, the Covenanters took up arms in the Battle of Rullion Green in 1666.

Comments, please.


----------



## SolaScriptura

wallingj said:


> Now that line of argument could convince me that my prior convictions are wrong!



Thank you for being willing to consider that another position may be correct and for not bull-doggedly refusing to consider changing views.


----------



## Confessor

SolaScriptura said:


> If a FATHER is brutally abusing the son or daughter, does the MOTHER have the right - the duty, perhaps - to rise up and defend the child in defiance against her husband, the head of the house, the "greater ruler?" Both are rulers in the home, though the mother is the "lesser."



I think this is simply to say that the mother is dutifully obliged to protect life per the sixth commandment, and therefore this is a case of obeying God rather than man, for her husband's ordering her not to defend the children would be an order that she sin.

In other words, this seems to be an example where you ought to disobey if you are ordered to sin. But I don't know how this relates to the American Revolution.

-----Added 7/2/2009 at 12:07:55 EST-----

Good points, Randy.


----------



## JML

I would like to politely ask those who are implying that rebellion is ok in certain circumstances (I am not speaking of the extreme circumstances mentioned by our brother a few posts ago): Where do you draw the line? How do you determine what is worthy of rebellion and what is not? Personally I don't think that the Scripture gives us that right as my earlier posts have shown. But where would it stop, we would always be at war because there would always be something that we don't agree with in government. I could say that Obama's foreign policy is endangering our country, so we should rebel to protect ourselves or his blatant acceptance of false religions and ungodliness puts in danger my right to worship freely in this country so we should rebel. I could go on and on and when would it stop. We would be in constant rebellion whenever we found something that we disagreed with. I don't see that logic in Paul's writings.


----------



## Confessor

Joshua said:


> No. It was not wrong. These weren't mere individual citizens taking up arms against those in authority. Rather, these were magistrates standing up against a tyrannical king for the good of the people over whom they ruled/served. If there are two magistrates to whom you're accountable, and one is more just than the other, to whom do you submit? The answer is easy: the more just of the two.



I have a couple questions:

(1) Is the lesser magistrate morally permitted to rebel against a greater magistrate? If so, why?

(2) Where is the Biblical evidence for this principle of following the just magistrate when they conflict? Is Judges the best book to look for that?


----------



## SolaScriptura

Confessor said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a FATHER is brutally abusing the son or daughter, does the MOTHER have the right - the duty, perhaps - to rise up and defend the child in defiance against her husband, the head of the house, the "greater ruler?" Both are rulers in the home, though the mother is the "lesser."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is simply to say that the mother is dutifully obliged to protect life per the sixth commandment, and therefore this is a case of obeying God rather than man, for her husband's ordering her not to defend the children would be an order that she sin.
> 
> In other words, this seems to be an example where you ought to disobey if you are ordered to sin. But I don't know how this relates to the American Revolution.
Click to expand...


I think you are missing the point and trying to create too narrow a line by trying to make this an issue in which someone is being "ordered to sin."
The 5th Commandment principle as I decscribed it applies to the government as to the parents. 

In my example, the father doesn't have to order her to do anything... the mother goes against Eph 5 by refusing to sit idly by, but is justified by her defense of her kids. Likewise, the kids are justified if they use force to protect their mother from a cruel father. 

How it relates to the American Revolution...

Magistrates, like parents, are dutifully bound to protect and defend their charges.

If the list of grievances in the Declaration is accurate, then we get a picture of a government that was essentially raping the populace. The Founding Fathers (acting here as the mother from my previous illustration) stood up and said, "No more" to the Crown (acting here as the father from my previous illustration). It was the Crown that then initiated military action. (Kind of like a cruel father turning his wrath on the mother when she stands up to protect the children.)

If you want to do what you did and try to make my illustration one in which the wife is justified because the father was "ordering" her to sin by "ordering" her to sit by in violation of the 6th Commandment... well... then I think that would apply in the case of the Revolution in that the Crown essentially told the Founders to be quiet. Except in the case of the Revolution, the Founders weren't ordered to be quiet as the Crown violated the 6th Commandment alone... they were told to submit as the Crown forced violation of the 6th, 7th and 8th and 10th!

Submission to any human authority is always conditional and never unflinchingly and unswervingly absolute.


----------



## brianeschen

Confessor said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It was not wrong. These weren't mere individual citizens taking up arms against those in authority. Rather, these were magistrates standing up against a tyrannical king for the good of the people over whom they ruled/served. If there are two magistrates to whom you're accountable, and one is more just than the other, to whom do you submit? The answer is easy: the more just of the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a couple questions:
> 
> (1) Is the lesser magistrate morally permitted to rebel against a greater magistrate? If so, why?
> 
> (2) Where is the Biblical evidence for this principle of following the just magistrate when they conflict? Is Judges the best book to look for that?
Click to expand...

One more question:

Is it impossible for the greater magistrate to be considered a rebel or does being the highest magistrate exempt you from that charge?


----------



## Confessor

Ben,

First, I wasn't saying that the father was breaking the sixth commandment; therefore the mother was obliged to help. My point was that the sixth commandment involves the obligation to protect life, and if the father forbade that the mother fulfill that obligation, then he would be commanding her to sin. EDIT - Never mind this first point.

Second, as a result, I was trying to point out that whether you want to view the mother as a "lesser magistrate" or "ordinary citizen," it follows that she is obligated to disobey the father because she is being commanded to sin. Seeing as the American Revolution involved a situation where (presumably) the citizens were not being forced to sin, it would seem that the argument from analogy breaks down at this point. We would need some analogy where the "citizen" is obliged to obey but the "lesser magistrate" is permitted/obliged to arise against the "greater magistrate." In your analogy, all "citizens" would be obliged to disobey against the "greater magistrate," in which case it doesn't accurately represent the American Revolution.

Third, if it can be shown that lesser magistrates are permitted (perhaps obliged) to arise against greater magistrates, and that the Founding Fathers were indeed lesser magistrates, then you've got me convinced that the American Revolution was not an unlawful rebellion.


----------



## Grimmson

brianeschen said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It was not wrong. These weren't mere individual citizens taking up arms against those in authority. Rather, these were magistrates standing up against a tyrannical king for the good of the people over whom they ruled/served. If there are two magistrates to whom you're accountable, and one is more just than the other, to whom do you submit? The answer is easy: the more just of the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a couple questions:
> 
> (1) Is the lesser magistrate morally permitted to rebel against a greater magistrate? If so, why?
> 
> (2) Where is the Biblical evidence for this principle of following the just magistrate when they conflict? Is Judges the best book to look for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One more question:
> 
> Is it impossible for the greater magistrate to be considered a rebel or does being the highest magistrate exempt you from that charge?
Click to expand...


I think to answer this question, 1 Samuel 15, is the perfect example because of his rebellious action against the word of God. So they cannot be exempted from the charge.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Confessor said:


> I have a couple questions:
> 
> (1) Is the lesser magistrate morally permitted to rebel against a greater magistrate? If so, why?
> 
> (2) Where is the Biblical evidence for this principle of following the just magistrate when they conflict? Is Judges the best book to look for that?



(1) If it would be a violation of his trust to NOT resist. His authority is ultimately from God as well, and not just a trust from his earthly superior.

Now, the question comes: what if he miscalculates? What if his judgment is in error? This warning suffices: Jas.3:1 "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the *greater condemnation*." That counsel is true whether the leader is sacred or secular.

(2) It is a commonsense observation, but one that highlights the responsibility of private judgment.

The magistrate's subjects are never absolved entirely of all individual responsibility to judgment. There is a common view today (odd, to find it among so many nominal Protestants) that whatever the President decides, we are simply to follow, asking no "questions fo conscience' sake." Really? We are to exercise private judgment in matters ecclesial, but not secular?

The problem that all leaders face today is that they do not have a prophet, as Israel did of old. They are not graced with an infallible oracle to decide for them the godly course of action. How much a blessing, then, to have a truly godly leader, surrounded by wise counselors (not sycophants and contributors to his election), who is himself steeped for years in the revealed prophecies of the Bible.

Failing that, I wish we could just get a "wise turk"...


----------



## Confessor

Rev. Buchanan,

If lesser magistrates are obliged to disobey greater magistrates, then where should lines be drawn, if any? For instance, is a state governor allowed to rebel against the president? What about a village mayor?

And how does this fit in with the fact that magistrates are arranged hierarchically? What use is it to speak of lesser magistrates if they are allowed to rebel against any higher magistrates?

Actually, suddenly, I think I may have the general principle down, but please correct me if I am wrong: _citizens must disobey any magistrates if and only if they are ordered to sin. Lesser magistrates must disobey any greater magistrates if and only if the greater magistrates are themselves unduly wicked._ (This wickedness may be hard to demarcate, but the principle is still there.) Does that sound good?


----------



## Confessor

christabella_warren said:


> If, as St. Paul says in Romans 13:1-2, the powers that be are ordained by God, then in Heaven's name what else could He expect the magistrates that He has ordained to do but to protect those whom He has given them to rule over?



Awesome point! That basically establishes how the "follow God rather than man" principle applies differently to magistrates than to citizens. When magistrates are confronted with the options of permitting a wicked magistrate to continue his oppression or resisting him, then to follow God they must choose the former. They would be sinning in choosing the latter.

Cool. I like when things fit together like this.


----------



## rbcbob

I have noted with a surprised sadness a number of those who seem to be entrenched in justifying rebellion which God has so clearly condemned. The abiding imperatives of the Lord are, it seems, set at naught in order to hold to an imagined and cherished _right_.
Even those who grudgingly acknowledge that these commands should usually be followed the ever lurking subjective trump card of _“my case isn’t covered by this biblical principal. Our situation is extraordinary!”_

As I noted in post #40,
Cromwell thought, as do all revolutionaries, that his circumstances were *extraordinary* and therefore provided an exception to the rules which rightfully bind others. He professed to be a Christian and, though there may be evidence to call such a profession into question, there is yet indication that he desired to obey God. He was familiar with his bible and sought to order his life by its precepts. He seems not to have understood the apostle Paul who asked _and why not say, let us do evil that goood may come? as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just._

As one of Cromwell's biographers noted:

No doubt there are errors [in Cromwell] 'It is lawful for the lesser party, when in the right to force the majority, Cromwell says. *But where is the lesser party the minority, that does not think it is right?*

I note with thankfulness that several of you have demonstrated a spirit of willingness to seriously consider bringing long cherished views to the bar of Scripture and change if need be. 

Others however have more or less said that plain sense of these passages does not mean what is clearly said. May I say that merely asserting that they *can’t* or *don’t* mean that will not do. Apart from one very untenable interpretation of Romans 13 there has been no genuine effort to demonstrate that these verses (Rom 13; 1 Pet 2) do not forbid rebellion against the authorities established by God. Indeed it requires standing the Scriptures on their head to attempt it.

May I appeal to those of you who will give an account of those sheep under your watch-care. Be very sure that you ground them in the truth of these passages. We will give an account to the Chief Shepherd for what they do with them, having trusted us with rightly handling the Word.
And we may ere long (may God spare us) be put to the test in our own land. Sooner or later, whether in our generation or that of our offspring, a cry will ring out in the streets and passions will run high. What will be the response of God’s people?

Allow me to say that none of this is abstract or theoretical to me. Our brethren in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan (where two dear friends of mine were martyred nearly two years ago), China (where dear friends of mine are now risking their lives), and in many, many other nations, regimes, and forms of government are reading the same bible as you and me, attempting to take the same principles and apply them consistently in every diverse setting.

Isaiah 66:2 For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist," Says the LORD. "But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word.

Psalm 119:161 Princes persecute me without a cause, But my heart stands in awe of Your word.

Matthew 15:4 "*For God commanded*, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' 5 "*But you say*, _[you can insert here your own exception clause]_ 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God" -- 6 '*then he need not* honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.

1 Peter 2:13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men -- 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

Some of you will likely be offended at my words. I fear it cannot be helped. I will love you still. And I pledge to pray for you still.

In the bonds of Christian love,


----------



## rbcbob

c,
I will try to read and respond in the next day or two. Candidly, I am exhausted.

The Lord bless you and keep you.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Ben,
I would just say that people these days don't seem ready to put up with anything. And this is a sinful attitude. The first time, the least instance someone oversteps his authority or tramples someone's rights, and people want their pound of flesh.

Forbearance is also a duty. If the argument is: "You tweaked my nose, so now I don't have to pay my taxes, etc, etc..." then it would appear that all human authority is compromised by man's inherent and pervasive sin-nature.

Calvin is not being inconsistent with himself when he says on the one hand that private and public persons must be willing to endure unjustified attacks on their persons and property. Because there may be no lawful recourse besides the court of heaven, or because the results of resistance would be even worse, or some other factor.

And on the other hand, he says (in effect) that there will be occasions when justice demands that defense of the 6th commandment means that a previously obtaining 5th-commandment situation has been removed. In an imperfect world, these kinds of decisions are not going to be cut-and-dried.


There's another factor that weighs into this whole discussion. What about the lawful magistrate, exercising lawful jurisdiction, and dealing with an unlawfully rebellious subordinate? He also has an obligation to exercise forbearance. To de-escalate, to use minimal force, and force-as-a-last-resort. This attitude is rapidly disappearing among those wielding authority, and with it so is moral authority (each corresponding loss contributing to the other in a downward spiral).


The main body of Reformed thought since the 16th century has resisted simplistic solutions to either extreme. We are neither committed to utter passivity, nor are we able to sign-on to any group that asserts its "right" or "might" to have it's rebellious way.

We are obliged to long-suffering. This is God's example as king. It is the way we should behave toward tyranny, praying that God would soften the tyrant (or break him) from on high. But if God raises up a judge-intermediate, we are going to have to make a conscience-decision.


----------

