Do you believe that the American Revolution was biblically justified?

Was the War for Independence biblical?


  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
People have a natural right to wage war as a matter of self-defence. Civil government is founded in nature, but, like family government, should be perfected by grace. The fact that the American Revolution was not perfectly or even overtly Christian does not mean that it was invalid, as nature and reason are enough to tell us that tyranny ought to be resisted (the Bible, of course, further confirms what we know from nature and reason). To change the subject in order to illustrate my point, Britain's war against the Nazis was not fought "For Christ's Crown and Covenant", but was still biblically justified despite this deficiency.
I guess the phrase biblically justified being applied to a war fought strictly from and for nature and reason doesn’t really make sense to me. I know the nations of the world not in covenant with Christ fight wars with one or the other of them being more in the right morally. Wouldn’t it be better to say that the US was morally justified (if one thinks it was) in breaking away from England, than to say we were biblically justified?
 
I guess the phrase biblically justified being applied to a war fought strictly from and for nature and reason doesn’t really make sense to me. I know the nations of the world not in covenant with Christ fight wars with one or the other of them being more in the right morally. Wouldn’t it be better to say that the US was morally justified (if one thinks it was) in breaking away from England, than to say we were biblically justified?

I was thinking along the same lines myself that perhaps the question raised in the OP needs to be framed differently lest it is thought that we are saying that something needs to be overtly Christian in order to be morally justified. I suppose, though, you could argue that something is "biblically justified" in the sense that it is not contrary to biblical morality.
 
I just accidentally voted yes being nosy and looking to see who voted. I can’t really vote yes or no because I can’t reconcile the concept of biblical justification with that war.
 
I was thinking along the same lines myself that perhaps the question raised in the OP needs to be framed differently lest it is thought that we are saying that something needs to be overtly Christian in order to be morally justified. I suppose, though, you could argue that something is "biblically justified" in the sense that it is not contrary to biblical morality.
Still pondering!
 
Still pondering!

Again, let us change the subject to illustrate the point: Is it biblically justified for a mother to spank her children when they are obstinately rebelling against her authority? The obvious answer to that question is "yes." But what if the mother is a Deist? To use confessional language, does her "difference or infidelity" with respect to religion make void the authority that nature and scripture give her to discipline her children?
 
If you can make the case by natural law, and the argument is both valid and sound, do you need a biblical proof text for it?
 
To use confessional language, does her "difference or infidelity" with respect to religion make void the authority that nature and scripture give her to discipline her children?
No, she has the authority to do so and it will make their household a better place if she properly disciplines her children. I see your point; just still not sure that bringing the word biblical into it is helpful. The unbelieving mother isn’t disciplining her child biblically, exactly, because she’s not doing it in faith although she is disciplining according to biblical standards, one can say. And will reap the good of it to some extent.
 
If you can make the case by natural law, and the argument is both valid and sound, do you need a biblical proof text for it?

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

Agreed on all counts. While it is not wrong to use the language of something being "biblically justified", it is perhaps not necessary in this case.
 
I had thought about making the point earlier that Daniel and Jacob are now making explicit: what should the thread best be titled to reflect its proper concern(s)?

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

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

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

Peace,
Alan
 
I would appreciate your thoughts on
1. how the king violated the law, and
2. what violations permit the magistrates to take up arms against their king (see, for instance, the quote from Calvin in Post #3.)
Not having been around at the time, I can only take this as second hand information. (Does that deserve a grin.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I, having limited knowledge of the actual facts, am being asked if they were justified. I have to decide based on what I know ... I do not believe those ministers of the gospel that signed the declaration would have signed if there were lies and unsupported statements. I could easily see the king who would have little to lose and much to gain might either lie, or at least deny that the assertions have any merit regardless.
 
I hope my question didn't come off as snarky, because I didn't mean it that way, but meant it as a serious question.
Not at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I, having limited knowledge of the actual facts, am being asked if they were justified. I have to decide based on what I know ... I do not believe those ministers of the gospel that signed the declaration would have signed if there were lies and unsupported statements. I could easily see the king who would have little to lose and much to gain might either lie, or at least deny that the assertions have any merit regardless.
Thank you for your thoughtful and informed response.
 
As interesting as this topic is, it is probably more productive to spend time and energy discerning whether participation in the next revolutionary (civil?) war on American soil is going to be justifiable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top