Brian,
I appreciate the engagement. However, I'd like to take this up again on Monday if I'm able. The Lord's Day arrives sooner here!
Do you believe that the American Revolution was biblically justified?
- Thread starter Haeralis
- Start date
- Status
Brian,
I appreciate the engagement. However, I'd like to take this up again on Monday if I'm able. The Lord's Day arrives sooner here!
I wholeheartedly agree. I think that the American Revolution, in spite of its origins, turned out for the best. Even for all its faults, the United States is, I believe, the best country in the world.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
And I appreciate your caution about accepting all the justifications.
Much of the foundational justification, in truth, was more secularistic and Enlghtenment-based than anything (not that all of that was without merit altogether). Others justified it on better grounds, more in line with Protestant resistance theory (though one might question some "special pleading" there!).
Having said all of that, the circumstances (colonies that had developed self -governance, with the connivance of the motherland, breaking away from the distant motherland) did not quite fit any of the categories that Calvin, Beza, Knox, Buchanan, Henderson, Rutherford and company addressed.
My wife's family (the Bacons) came to southern New Jersey in the 17th c. They retained their strong sense of being English and were in agreement with New Jersey's colonial governor (William Franklin, son of Benjamin), who wanted no part of this rebellion. The Bacons either laid low or fled to Canada as loyal subjects of George III. Most returned after the War, though some stayed up in the New England region rather than returning to the Middle States.
My family were rebels in the War between the States. I will not raise the question of the justification of that War, but it's even more complex, in my view, than the War for Independence. As a historian, I don't typically seek to give a definitive answer to such questions as there are too many factors involved.
It reminds me of what Ray Dillard used to say: every difficult, thorny question has one simple, clear, wrong answer to it. This is not an argument for ethical relativism. We must seek to live in accordance, as an expression of gratitude, with God's law. Applying such standards to large scale movements is often tricky. Some things are clearly wrong, through and through (think of the massive sins of the 20th c. by Stalin, Mao, Hitler, et al.); many other things (many of the wars of history) are more mixed, having some justification, but perhaps not enough.
Truth be told, the bottom line justifications for most wars are dubious. But that's part of life in a fallen world. We must do what it is in our power to do, and we will answer for it before God's throne; large-scale historical movements are generally so highly variegated as not to admit of facile judgements (spelled that way for you, Tom, and all our UK and Commonwealth friends!).
Peace,
Alan
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
The question is what type of "guns" should you be allowed to have. One has to draw the line somewhere. People in Canada own guns too. They just don't own military grade assault rifles.
I mean, even in the states they have some limits on what you can own as a regular citizen.
Susan777
Puritan Board Sophomore
“Assault Rifle” is such a loaded term. The AR-15 is considered one by some, but not by others. I do not know, but I do know that it is quite pleasant to operate.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Says who?
And who gets to determine that decision? Have you ever seen pics of Diane Feinstein with poor trigger discipline? These people who are trying to take away our know zero about guns.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Exactly. "Assault" rifle means nothing. It's basically a scary gun (probably because it is black, which scares liberals deep down). If I had a Saiga shotgun I could do far more damage than an AR. Two rounds to demolish the brick wall, and then the other 6+ are open.
hammondjones
Puritan Board Junior
Guns of the type needed to form a militia.
Brian Withnell
Puritan Board Junior
In case you are interested, the vast majority of people in the United States cannot own military grade assault rifles. The only appropriate definition of "assault rifle" is one that is at least select fire (i.e., it can shoot multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger, or can shoot a single round with a single pull of the trigger via a selector). Joe citizen in the United States cannot go out and buy assault rifles (or even automatic pistols). In order to purchase them, they have to be grandfathered (i.e., no new automatic weapons may be purchased) so there is a very limited supply. They have to be made prior to 1986 in order to be transferred by normal citizens. Collectors and those legally selling to non-ordinary citizen (police, military) don't count in this, but there are about 175,000 machine guns (i.e., guns that will fire more than once with a single pull of the trigger).
So if *every* American wanted to buy an assault rifle, they would not be able to. < 1 in a 1000 could.
I view that as an unnecessary infringement on the right to bear arms. The citizen *ought* by right be able to own the weapons necessary to throw off a tyrannical central government.
Susan777
Puritan Board Sophomore
It is the right of the people to resist unlawful tyranny. This government was established BY and FOR the people. Their representatives accorded certain rights to the people, among which was the right to bear arms. Why? For the lawful defense of persons and property as well as the right to overthrow a despotic government should it arise.
We have never been governed by monarchs nor subscribed to the divine right of kings in the sense that Europeans have. That is not our history. Our nation will eventually fall as all nations before it but for that brief interlude in time there was a place where men were free.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I agree with everything you have said, but historically monarchs never had the power that the IRS has, for example.
ArminianOnceWas
Puritan Board Freshman
The original question is based on Biblical justification. I'm not sure that the American Revolution could be validated by Scripture. It's telling the climate that Jesus ministered in was one where a social/political revolution was brewing because of an imperial government with enormous tax rates, yet the New Testament fails to affirm these politically/military revolutionary views.
However, for me, there is a much deeper concern. I often watch in amazement at the subjects that stir this room to lengthy response and dialogue. I find it disturbing that gun ownership rights and other elements that I assess to stem from some sort of national pride seem to provoke more response than other topics that are grounded much more in Scripture.
I have found certain subjects of human rights on this board to be treated lightly while gun rights to be treated as important.
I have observed that when matters of racism and slavery were brought up on this board that the historical appeal to Presbyterian pride and near infallibility of historical persons leave matters near unapproachable. However, if someone who is not "us" slips then we don't seem to mind to have threads regarding those scandals.
I acknowledge that history, whether it be national, denominational or theological is very important, but I'm not certain that it is as sacred as it sometimes becomes.
It is likely that since I have raised this again, that I will receive messages calling me to repentance and other communications that I have violated Scripture by raising my concerns. Once more I expect communication of potential discipline from the administrators because I am out of line.
However, for me, there is a much deeper concern. I often watch in amazement at the subjects that stir this room to lengthy response and dialogue. I find it disturbing that gun ownership rights and other elements that I assess to stem from some sort of national pride seem to provoke more response than other topics that are grounded much more in Scripture.
I have found certain subjects of human rights on this board to be treated lightly while gun rights to be treated as important.
I have observed that when matters of racism and slavery were brought up on this board that the historical appeal to Presbyterian pride and near infallibility of historical persons leave matters near unapproachable. However, if someone who is not "us" slips then we don't seem to mind to have threads regarding those scandals.
I acknowledge that history, whether it be national, denominational or theological is very important, but I'm not certain that it is as sacred as it sometimes becomes.
It is likely that since I have raised this again, that I will receive messages calling me to repentance and other communications that I have violated Scripture by raising my concerns. Once more I expect communication of potential discipline from the administrators because I am out of line.
I would appreciate your thoughts on
1. how the king violated the law, and
2. what violations permit the magistrates to take up arms against their king (see, for instance, the quote from Calvin in Post #3.)
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
Is this even biblically supported? Our Lord tells us to turn the other cheek, not take up arms. Even in the garden of gethsemane, he urged Peter to put his sword away.
Furthermore, the government is first and foremost established by GOD. It is HIS government, whether they realize that or not, no matter how they come into power, and they are accountable to him first, not the people. Nowhere in the New Testament can anyone even find a shred of evidence that the apostles thought it was OK to rebel against Caesar, for example. Rather they were to "render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's".
Did Caesar have a right to that money? Well, yes and no. Yes, since he was the ruler of that land, but consider how he became ruler - a forced conquest of the Roman empire. Yet Jesus still calls us to render unto Caesar what is Caesars.
What if the democrats get into power in the states and they say "you must turn in your AR-15". What are you going to do? Rebel against the lawful authority of the state? Formed an armed militia? How could you possibly justify that?
Paul teaches the Roman Christians to submit to the governing authorities and pray for them. This is in the context of people being used as human torches. There is no justification for armed rebellion against the government. If you have a problem with them, then preach the gospel and call them to repentance.
Your assessment, I think, is not accurate. I expect that, for many on this board, support of gun ownership stems not from national pride so much as a belief in freedom of the individual, freedom to defend oneself and one's family against harm, and the awareness that the loss of these freedoms puts many other freedoms, and human rights, at risk.
I do not deny that many, especially Americans, seem to regard gun ownership as an "American" thing. That, anyway, is not bad in itself, and they have good reason to take prise in that right (although, as with anything, it can turn idolatrous). But so far as the members of this board are concerned, I expect their convictions run somewhat deeper than "national pride."
Perhaps you're right, but I have not noticed the same. I can't think of any examples. It may be that people are more impassioned about things that more directly concern them. After all, they have more personal experience with it. Or, just because they do not post replies does not mean they care little about an issue.
I haven't seen that. I've seen quite a lot of grace here, especially compared to other forums. Certainly, the moderation on the PB is commendable. And, usually, if someone steps to far, others will disagree or correct them. But, again, without examples I can't be sure.
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
This is an interesting thread, but how does it affect us in practical life either way?
This is a tricky subject and it should probably be in a new thread.
But I'll ask a few questions:
You have appeared to state that resistance to authority is never justified. But I think that, given a little more consideration, you might think differently.
The Waldensians of the Alps, who suffered crusade after crusade intended to eradicate them, whose families were thrown from cliffs, whose women were stripped naked and impaled, whose children were torn limb from limb. Were they right to resist?
The Huguenots, who, banned from worshipping in buildings, were being murdered in the streets and the fields (men, women and children), rose up against the Roman Catholic French lords. Were they right to resist?
The Dutch Protestants who rebelled against the King of Spain in the Eighty Years' War, whole towns put to the sword and burned, thousands executed in a putooseful reign of terror. Were they right to resist?
The Covenanters, who were forbidden from meeting, from preaching, from worshipping, whose wives, children and husbands were brutally tortured and executed, or murdered in their houses, simply for the crime of being Presbyterians. Were they right to resist?
Should these have "turned the other cheek"?
Love God and love your neighbour. You are at liberty to lay down your life, but would you let another man take your wife's or your child's? Is that "loving your neighbour"?
Just so we can be a little more ready for the next revolution.
Joseph Knowles
Puritan Board Freshman
Regarding #1, do you mean violations other than those enumerated in the Declaration of Independence?
Last edited:
You have to remember that it is the magistrate who has the authority to take up arms, never the church. Individual Christians may indeed be called on to fight under a lawful magistrate in a just cause, and the church can agree with the rightness of the cause.
Last edited:
It will be sufficient to establish the reasons of the American Revolutionaries and then to test those against Scripture, as well as other revolutions and rebellions and the opinions of theologians. If you can think of any other violations you are free to mention them (but I do think there can be a risk here of reading too much of one's own perspective into a historical event).
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Self-defence and the means thereof is a human right. In the United States, the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution. Citizens of the United States are perfectly justified in wanting to protect their natural and constitutional rights.
That assessment is not correct. I, among others, called out J. Gresham Machen for refusing to engage in Christian fellowship with black Christians. The fact that it was Machen committing such a sin makes it no less sinful.
I agree with this point, and I say that as a trained historian. Some of these things are just too complicated to work out via discussion boards.
The Puritan Board is not a church (nor does it claim to be) and exercises no such discipline.
Joseph Knowles
Puritan Board Freshman
I hope my question didn't come off as snarky, because I didn't mean it that way, but meant it as a serious question. Too often people attempt to reduce the war to "no taxation without representation," but (as I can tell you're aware) that's a gross oversimplification. There were (depending on how you count them) twenty-seven grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence (not to mention others, such as the practice of using general warrants or writs of assistance in the years leading up to the war) upon which the Americans based their secession. Raising taxes might not be so tyrannical that taking up arms is a Biblical response. However, when you put that alongside the decades-long accumulation of other things that happened, perhaps there's something there and perhaps Americans were facing more of a tyrannical ruler than some are willing to acknowledge.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Agreed. Abstracted human rights don't exist. Natural rights do, however.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
You are confusing two separate issues. Individually I have the duty to turn the other cheek. The magistrate, though, does not. And while this may not have been mentioned, we as individuals aren't resisting tyranny. The lesser magistrate is. This is Reformed Ethics 101.
https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/review-and-outline-of-lex-rex/
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
You need to be fair. While some have defended aspects of Dabney, most have condemned racism. Unless by racism you mean Person x's not agreeing to a certain social justice agenda.
But, brothers, about that war being “biblically justified.” How do we answer the question of biblical justification for a war that wasn’t fought with Christ’s crown rights at all in mind? The revolution was mostly fought under the influence of enlightenment ideals, if I understand it right.
Don't hold your breath!
Separation from England was inevitable. The colonies had their own identity and customs. British troops were garrisoned and viewed as outsiders by all but loyalists. By the time the Intolerable Acts were announced the momentum towards independence could only be delayed, not stopped. Was independence biblical? I think Brian's arguments about the role of the lesser magistrate is worth considering as proper justification for independence.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
People have a natural right to wage war as a matter of self-defence. Civil government is founded in nature, but, like family government, should be perfected by grace. The fact that the American Revolution was not perfectly or even overtly Christian does not mean that it was invalid, as nature and reason are enough to tell us that tyranny ought to be resisted (the Bible, of course, further confirms what we know from nature and reason). To change the subject in order to illustrate my point, Britain's war against the Nazis was not fought "For Christ's Crown and Covenant", but was still biblically justified despite this deficiency.
- Status
Similar threads
