Do you believe that the American Revolution was biblically justified?

[Haeralis]

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

neo-Two Kingdoms movement (David VanDrunen

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

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

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

 

[Tom Hart]

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

In what way were the actions of Parliament tyrannical?

Here is Calvin speaking briefly on a relevant point:

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

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

 

[Tom Hart]

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Happy 4th of July. Murica!

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

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

 

[Tom Hart]

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

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

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

 

[OPC'n]

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

 

[Tom Hart]

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

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

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

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

 

[Stephen L Smith]

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

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

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

 

[jwithnell]

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

 

[OPC'n]

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

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

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

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

 

[Tom Hart]

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

That's my family you're talking about!

There were those who fled British rule for a reason.

And that's my family too...

 

[Tom Hart]

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

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

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

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

 

[OPC'n]

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

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

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

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

 

[bookslover]

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

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

 

[bookslover]

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

 

[Brian Withnell]

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

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

 

[Stephen L Smith]

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

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

 

[bookslover]

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

Got it. Thanks for clarifying for me.

 

[De Jager]

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

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

 

[OPC'n]

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

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

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

 

[jwithnell]

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

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

 

[Brian Withnell]

Ummm ... one point.

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

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

The colonies were British colonies. The Declaration of Independence was necessary because they were British.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

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

You have no love for the land of your birth?

 

[OPC'n]

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

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

 

[OPC'n]

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

 

[Brian Withnell]

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

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

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

 

[Brian Withnell]

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

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

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

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

 

[Tom Hart]

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

These statements are wildly inaccurate.