Patriotism

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jasond49079

Puritan Board Freshman
Should we be patriots? How important is it? Is there a command or even a hint in the Bible that we have a duty to country beyond Romans 13? Ro. 13 sayes to follow the laws of the land but should we love the land and give our life for it?
 
The overthrow of tyranny is a Biblical mandate, so the war with Britain is justifiable. It is often said that the Reformation caused the first war for American independence, while the Renaissance caused the horribly bloody and useless French Revolution, which only replaced one form of tyranny with another.
 
Revolution not justified

The revolutionary war was a mixed bag. It was really a civil war in which Englishmen in North America rebelled against the lawful authority of George Von Hannover. Both Refomation types like John Witherspoon and antirefomation types like adherents of the Enlightenment, Unitarian heretics, and Quaker heretics joined hands to rebell against rather then pray for their King.

Enlightenment ideas were behind the American Revolution. The writings of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson show that they were men of the Enlightenment. By God's grace the counterrevolutionary forces prevailed in part in the writing of a tolerable constitution.
 
[quote:f2c6d0779d]The overthrow of tyranny is a Biblical mandate, so the war with Britain is justifiable[/quote:f2c6d0779d]

1. There is no overarching Biblical principle requiring nations to overthrow tyrannical governments that I am aware of, if there is, please show it to me.

2. British Rule of the American Colonies wasn't particularly tyrannical, in fact it seems to have been pretty benign. The leading revolutionaries were wealthy bourgeoisie and landowners for the most part irritated because they were being taxed a little unfairly (if being taxed without their say so can be considered unfair) but certainly not 'tyrannically'. The idea that a taxed people should only be taxed with their consent was a novelty at the time the war was fought over it and it certainly isn't a biblical principle by any stretch of the imagination.

Ergo,

3.There were no biblical grounds for the war of American Independence. But then, there needn't have been. The war was justifiable apart from any specific biblical mandate if only as an opportunity to develop and try a kingless republicanism. This 'experiment' has been spectacularly successful on many fronts, but there certainly isn't any reason to look for Biblical support for it. Governments come and go and some are more clearly invested by the fallible human proponents of Godly principles than others and while I would never say that the War of American Independence happened outside of the Providence of God, to assume that this or any specific political movement must needs have explicit biblical support [i:f2c6d0779d]presuppositionally[/i:f2c6d0779d] is, well, unbiblical.

God gives the sword to whom He will...
 
I suppose you don't realize that there are points of history where Christians had to choose between serving their earthly king and serving their heavenly king? It was not the colonists who were rebelling, it was the king who rebelled, so he had to be put down.

God puts kings down and sets them up by these means.
 
[quote:946dc13aff]I suppose you don't realize that there are points of history where Christians had to choose between serving their earthly king and serving their heavenly king? It was not the colonists who were rebelling, it was the king who rebelled, so he had to be put down.

God puts kings down and sets them up by these means.[/quote:946dc13aff]

Now wait just a minute. You started by saying that the overthrow of tyranny was a biblical mandate and now you're adducing an argument from extra-biblical history? Of course, historically, Christians have often had to make the choice you outline here and as often as not they did so by submitting to torture and execution. This hardly secures your case for the divinely mandated overthrow of governments.

It was, in fact, the colonists who were rebelling in the case of the Americans. The British had given them no reason which could conceivably have stood up to serious inquiry for the taking up of arms against a ruler they had previously sworn to obey. A general, moral argument can sometimes be made for such uprisings, but I have yet to see a biblical argument for such an uprising...and none can even conceivably be made for the American Revolution when the facts are objectively considered.

My point is that there doesn't need to be such an argument...Yes, God sometimes secures regime changes this way and sometimes He ordains that foreign armies invade sovereign nations to effect such regime changes, and sometimes peaceful people just vote changes into effect...

Government happens, not without the Providence and decree of God, but certainly without any regard to a specifically approved form thereof.

Yes, there are markers in Scripture defining which governments are more in line with biblical moral principles and it may be that republican democracy such as we enjoy is one, but it seems just as likely that a benevolently administered parliamentary monarchy is just as well approved of God. And the violent overthrow of either has no biblical mandate under any circumstances that I can discover.

Again, I beg your pardon and indulgence if you would be so kind as to show me such...
 
There is more than one obligation involved in Romans 13. Yes, the people must honor and submit to the civil magistrate. Why? In order that society may be peaceful and orderly for the propogation of the gospel. But does that mean that the Civil Magistrate is not held to a standard? Of course not. The magistrate has a duty to God to rule justly over the people. I will continue this argument in a reply to another section of your post.


[quote:1a12173b94="Steadfast"]



It was, in fact, the colonists who were rebelling in the case of the Americans. The British had given them no reason which could conceivably have stood up to serious inquiry for the taking up of arms against a ruler they had previously sworn to obey. [/quote:1a12173b94]

In 1775 George III severed all ties with the colonies calling them "wayward sons no longer Englishmen." So in the strictest sense of the word, the colonies were not rebelling per se. It was England who first broke the relationship.

[quote:1a12173b94]A general, moral argument can sometimes be made for such uprisings, but I have yet to see a biblical argument for such an uprising...and none can even conceivably be made for the American Revolution when the facts are objectively considered.[/quote:1a12173b94]

That is a rather odd statement for someone who holds to Reformed theology. I will draw the inference from Romans 13 that we as Christians are at all times to keep the peace. Does that mean that we may depose tyrants? In a limited sense and under the proper circumstances, yes. Drawing from the book of judges and Reformed political thought, especially that of John Knox and the French Huguneot, du Plisse Mornay, tyrants may be deposed by a lesser civil magistrate who derives his authority from the people. That final clause is crucial, for it is the difference between revolution and restoration. The fact that it is led by a lesser civil magistrate signifies, among other things, that it has 1)the backing of the state and 2) its intention is for the return of social order and liberty, which are always the first to go when tyrants rule.

[quote:1a12173b94]My point is that there doesn't need to be such an argument...Yes, God sometimes secures regime changes this way and sometimes He ordains that foreign armies invade sovereign nations to effect such regime changes[/quote:1a12173b94]

How does God accomplish his will? THrough the means of secondary causes.

[quote:1a12173b94] and sometimes peaceful people just vote changes into effect...[/quote:1a12173b94]

Unless the tyrant rules by the sword and not by the ballot.
 
[quote:59126f14ce]In 1775 George III severed all ties with the colonies calling them "wayward sons no longer Englishmen." So in the strictest sense of the word, the colonies were not rebelling per se. It was England who first broke the relationship. [/quote:59126f14ce]

Could you document this please? Also, it is perhaps worth noting that Britain was far from an absolute monarchy and unless such a pronouncement had Parliamentary endorsement and thus the force of law it would remain little more than the King's opinion. Also, it is worth pointing out that any such pronouncement even if precedent of the Declaration of Independence and legally instrumental as an effective breaking of amicable ties would be entirely beside the point of this discussion, but more on that later in the rerail section of this post...

:smug_b:

[quote:59126f14ce]I will draw the inference from Romans 13 that we as Christians are at all times to keep the peace. Does that mean that we may depose tyrants? In a limited sense and under the proper circumstances, yes. [/quote:59126f14ce]

I don't recall actually denying this. In fact, it should be inferred from what I've said that "in a limited sense and under the proper circumstances" we may indeed do exactly that.

My contention here is that the American Revolution did not meet any of the inferred criteria necessary for the just overthrow of a tyrant, much less any explicit biblical criteria and that, furthermore, there are no such explicit criteria. By extension, I am not at all sure that I follow those Westminsterian thinkers in their understanding of the chapter on the Civil Magistrate who conclude that because such a revolution seems morally just it is therefore biblically subtantiable.

The rest of your post is interesting and I am grateful for it...but in an effort to rerail here...Authorized contends that the American Revolution was justifiable on Biblical grounds, I deny this and would like to see evidence that I am incorrect in doing so. I contend this based on two points:

1. Scripture does not countenance the violent overthrow of any constituted authority. Indeed rather the opposite. Apostate Israel was several times brought under the rule of pagans by the direct providence of God. At no time was any revolution countenanced in Scripture, indeed, the Prophets are unanimous in their effective endorsement of the invasions and furthermore attribute their eventual removal not to civil agitation but to the Hand of God.

2. Even admitting that tyrants may sometimes be deposed or revolutions effected, the British government, including both King and Parliament were not really tyrannical by any definition and therefore not deserving of rebellion.

This latter will stand even if documentation is kindly given of your quote here since not only is such a quote irrelevant except to the issue of precedence, it may be assumed that any such legal instrument will have been published upon the effective [i:59126f14ce]assumption[/i:59126f14ce] of independence (the withholding of taxes owable to the British government, the discomfiture and firing upon of British troops at the hands of colonists, etc.) regardless of the date of the publication of the Declaration of the same by those colonies in 1776.
 
It's easy to look back and say, I would have done this or that. That said, I'm going to say it anyway.

I think if you aren't staging an armed revolution right now here in America, you certainly wouldn't have back in 1776. Our taxes are higher, and moral issues at hand are far greater than they ever were before. Would I have revolted against the king? I believe my loyalty as a Christian would have been to uphold and honor the king, up until the point when the new government took over.

Where in the Bible does it say we're supposed to topple a government we deem tyrannical? The last time I checked, the Bible taught that God gives kings their power and also takes it away.
 
One thing I find particularly funny (according to my lectures in history courses) is that the British people were paying twenty-six shillings for taxes when the Americans paid one. George III doubled the taxes of Americans to a shocking two shillings. Americans see it as a 100% tax hike, while the Brits are like "What? You're still paying a thirteenth of what we are!"

And let's not act as if the Americans were not being represented in some way. While they did not elect their representatives, the figures my history professor gave me said that about 30% of Parliament was pro-colonists on issues like taxation. So it's not as if a voice wasn't heard.
 
[aside]It is always interesting to me that many of the same people who argue that the American Revolution was just and biblically substantiable will in another place support the Kirk in her refusal to assist Cromwell in putting down a King who really did need to be put down and a regime which really was tyrannical...[/aside]
 
Oliver Cromwell was justified in both invasions of Ireland and Scotland, and in overthrowing Charles I; I think for the most part, he did his best to rule with Biblical precepts in view.

Government is ordained of God, but wicked government is not and it is our duty as Christians to overthrow, trounce, abolish, and destroy all wickedness in high places. Just because a tyrannical government is in place by God's instrumentality of the wicked (His will of decree), does not mean that we, as Christians, are not to follow His will of precept to fight wickedness.
 
Steadfast:
I spent the last two weeks overloading on American History and came across that quote. To be honest, I forgot where I found it. I believe it is in [i:a2ae023cd8]American Pageant vol. I[/i:a2ae023cd8]. Thanks for mentioning the distinction between King and Parliament. Several Founding Fathers opposed Parliament while supporting the King.

Frozen and Wymer:

Those are good points. I would add that the church isn't putting down tyrants right now because: 1) the mainline church is apostate and the evangelical church is anemic; 2 G W Bush, although he treads upon some of our liberties, is not really a tyrant; 3) Would it be too much of an overstatement to say that the spiritual condition of the church, using the book of Judges, determines the moral condition of the country? (Again, if y'all disagree, that's fine. I am just fleshing this idea out.) Therefore, if the church is apostate at the moment, then it makes little sense for them to bring down the tyrants on spiritual grounds.

I fully concede the other points concerning the "grievances" they had agaisnt England. They almost seem petty in retrospect, especially in light of abortion and homosexuality.

Regards,
 
Just to put in a few thoughts, the American revolution was not just about taxes. The Declaration of Independence contains a list of several greivances against King George. And it was England who cut us off first anyway.

as to biblical precedent for rebellion, what about Jereboam and Jehu? Both were wicked sure. yet both were instructed by God to lead in opposition to tyrannical rebellious kings. Jehu in particular was instructed to kill all the line of Ahab. How is this rebellion justified if God demands submission to civil authorities? Was God contradicting himself when he commanded Jehu to take over Israel? Or was there just grounds to rebel against a tryant? Just some thoughts....
 
A direct command from God in a specific situation makes the whole issue pretty simple though, doesn't it Patrick? None of us doubts that God was acting in accordance with His own inherent unity, but how does all this fit with biblical principles of submission and authority? God's command to Hosea hardly warrants all us single guys jumping in our cars and heading down to the red-light district.
 
I was just thinking "out loud." I was following more along the lines of their acts not being necessarily as a rebellion but as a restoration of the nation back to where it was suppose to be, though both Jereboam and Jehu failed to completely restore the nation.
 
Manegold of Lautenbach (11th Century)

"œif a king forsakes the rule by law and becomes a tyrant, he is to be considered to have broken the pact [with the people] to which he owes his power and may be desposed by the people."

Fransis Suarez (1548-1617)

"œ2. I hold, secondly that a war of the state against the prince, even if it be aggressive, is not intrinsically evil; but that the conditions necessary for war that is in other respects just must nevertheless be present in order that this sort of war may be righteous. This conclusion holds true when the prince is a tyrant"¦"

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

"œA prince and a lord must remember that according to Romans 13 he is God"(tm)s minister and the servant of his wrath and that the sword has been given to him to use against such [wicked] people. If he does not fulfill the duties of his office by punishing some and protecting others, he commits as great a sin before God as when someone who has not been given the sword commits murders."

John Calvin (1509-1564)

"œFor earthly princes lay aside all their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy of being reckoned in the number of mankind. We ought rather utterly to defy than to obey them whenever they are so restive and wish to spoil God of his rights, and, as it were, to seize upon his throne and draw him down from heaven."

"œif they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dissimulation involved nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know that they have been appointed protectors by God"(tm)s ordinance."

John Wollebius (1586-1629)

"œVIII. Although the church is established by the Word, not by the sword, yet, once it has been established, it may justly be defended by arms against unjust force."

George Buchanan (1506-1582)

"œIf (the King) extorted obedience from the people by force, the people"¦may shake off so grievous a yoke"¦every system upheld by violence may, by the like violence, be overturned."

Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661)

"œIt is lawful for the subjects in any use to take arms against the lawful king, if he degenerated and shall wickedly use his lawful power."

John Lilburne (1618-1657)

"œThe Most authentic servants of Christ have always been the worse enemies of tyranny and the oppressor."



If God has ordained the punishment of the wicked by means of the magistrate, who can punish the wicked magistrate except for those over whom the magistrate rules?

Ehud had no direct commandment of God to do what he did, yet he attacked and killed the highest civil ruler in the land assuming that he, himself, had God's blessing. He used trickery and other dishonest means to kill a tyrant in a particularly horrible, bloody and "dirty" (haha) fashion. This was done in faith, to relieve Israel of a tyrant.

Jael, Heber's wife drove a tent peg into Sisera's head, yet this act was done in faith with God's blessing.

"So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the children of Israel."

Judges 4:23
 
Supporting Paul Hill????

[size=16:d5341f7faa]Just curious? Since some here support killing the civil magistrate over a few shillings in taxes, perhaps they could weigh in on Paul Hill who gunned down an abortion doctor. Do they support the actions of Paul Hill in killing over something more important than money: human life... or are we only allowed to murder over disposable income? Or is murder only justified when it actually succeeds in overthrowing the government?

(Just to be clear, I believe that both Paul Hill and the abortion doctor were murderers... but Paul Hill did not have the right to take the law into his own hands. That authority rests with the civil magistrate. Those colonists who fired the first shots in 1775 and murdered members of the British Army only gained legitimacy because their cause succeeded... not because their actions were just. If they had failed, we would probably be in unanimous agreement, that they were murderers.)[/size:d5341f7faa]
 
I have a BS (no jokes please) in Government, i.e. in college I studied governments--comparitively, analytically, behaviorally, historically, etc. All of which means:

all I know [i:5206d4ab9d]for sure[/i:5206d4ab9d] is that this question defies an easy answer. [i:5206d4ab9d]Today[/i:5206d4ab9d] I voted with the affirmative. But my hold on that opinion is far from iron-like or without qualifications.

Just some random observations:
1) I do, in fact, approve (today's opinion remember) of the American Rebellion. "Revolution" is a misnomer, or rather a self-consciously radical, Jacobin (in spirit; I know such a label is slightly ananchronistic), "freethinker" friendly term for the War of Independence. The fact that "Revolutionary" is the war's most common descriptor today shows how far Enlightenment thought has triumphed over other, more biblical categories (and names).

An argument can unquestionably be made that "lesser magistrates" led this rebellion and that it had some semblance of being orderly and proper (rather the opposite of a revolution: a spinning things around and overturning them). Whether their view received Divine approbation at the Judgment Seat is less certain. No truth-appeal can be made from the "facts of history" (the "is") to the "ought."

2) Please, if you are tempted, do not fall prey to the Marxian error of economic/financial determinism, or the related fallacy of making monetary matters the principal issue in your understanding of this whole affair. Yes, they were there and deserve note, not least for which prominent figures [i:5206d4ab9d]were[/i:5206d4ab9d] so motivted. But they were not (could not have been!) a deciding factor in raising up a volunteer army that fought and ultimately threw out an army of invaders and mercenaries.

3) The phrase "no taxation without representation" should have its emphasis on the "representation" aspect. This was a fundamental right of Englishmen, and it was being trod underfoot. "The power to tax is the power to destroy" was a principle well understood by the colonists [i:5206d4ab9d]and their properly constituted leadership.[/i:5206d4ab9d] The fact that they were so quick to defend their (English) rights at such a (modest, 2sh. vs. 26sh!) point of attack only shows that they were much closer to "all or nothing" kinds of thinkers than their brothers across the sea, or even us today.

This is not to say that they are to be (automatically) judged [i:5206d4ab9d]precipitous[/i:5206d4ab9d] in their conduct, as if the lawless radicals, dressed up like Indians (identities hidden like kidnapping, beheading, poseurs for Al Jazeera today), who put on the Boston Tea Party, typified the colonial mindset. Significant efforts at redress for the many colonial grievances were proceeding and had been pursued within the English system. And perhaps even greater efforts should have been made, and war avoided. But that is a hard call to make, for us so far removed from the complex events of those days.

4) I found a choice quotation from an aged W.o.I. veteran, probably a New Englander (the preferred [i:5206d4ab9d]reasons[/i:5206d4ab9d] for undertaking the conflict varied, sometimes significantly, colony by colony), who many years after the events was interviewed for his recollections of the conflict. It was amusing to read the discomfiture of the idealistic interviewer--heavily influenced by the Enlightenment and Romantic thought-patterns, and the "standard" explanations current in his own day's p-c education and culture, as he pressed his veteran for the latter's supposed idealistic and economic rationales for taking up arms against the Empire's regulars. The old man scoffed at his interviewer's naivete. "We had always governed ourselves [for well over a century in most cases], and they didn't mean we should."

The abolishing of legislatures had led to civil war in England barely a century prior. Why were their grandchildren surprised (Edmund Burke wasn't) when the same right to resistance was claimed by their fellows?

5) Would I have taken up arms in 1776? I have no idea. None. I can't possibly fathom all the factors that would have impacted my decision-making process. I can't even rely on my "personality" to guide my guess, or my religious beliefs. Nor the fact that I am a veteran. I can just as easily see myself on either side on the sidelines, or running away with or without a "side." Conversely, I can really only see myself in the ranks of the Rebel combatants.
 
Calvin held to a view of principled resistance to unjust, tyrannical civil magistrates known as the theory of interposition. In short, individuals may not resist tyrants on their own, but only under the authority of lesser civil magistrates:

For though the correction of tyrannical domination is the vengeance of God, we are not, therefore, to conclude that it is committed to us who have received no other command than to obey and suffer. This observation I always apply to private persons. For if there be, in the present day, any magistrates appointed for the protection of the people and the moderation of the power of kings ... I am so far from prohibiting them, in the discharge of their duty, to oppose the violence or cruelty of kings, that I affirm, that if they connive at kings in their oppression of their people, such forbearance involves the most nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people of which they know that they have been appointed as protectors by the ordination of God. (Institutes, Bk., 4, Ch. 30, Sec. 21)

The key thing to note is that he did argue that resistance to tyrants was lawful under certain circumstances. Romans 13 is not a blank check to tyrants. Or else, the Scottish Covenanters, French Huguenots, Chinese Christians and others who died because they worshipped King Jesus rather than Caesar died in rebellion to His Word. Perhaps they would have lived if they had not resisted tyranny. On the contray, "we must obey God rather than men."

Paul Hill was an individual reacting to a crime/criminal in a manner that was not Biblical; he became a law unto himself and therein compounded a terrible tragedy. He was not a lesser civil magistrate standing up for the life of an unborn child in his jurisdiction, which is what civil magistrates should be doing today in the face of the monstrous crime of abortion in our land.

In contrast, the history leading up to the Declaration of Independence shows that lesser civil magistrates (re: Continental Congress) pursued all means of redress possible and were rejected, thus making their resistance to and separation from the Crown lawful and Biblical. In fact, the American Revolution, or Presbyterian War of Independence as it is sometimes known (due to the Scotch-Irish views on freedom and liberty which so heavily influenced the men who stood up to English oppression), is properly seen as an act of secession by parties who have a natural right to self-government. The Declaration lists numerous just reasons for their actions. Is the American War for Independence a perfect example of Biblical resistance to tyranny? No, I don't think it's a perfect example. Many of our founding fathers were unorthodox in their thinking about the Bible and Christianity (Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine and George Washington all come to mind). But in principle, this war is one of the more just wars in all of human history that I can recall.
 
I am a mere history-buff, and I keep coming back to this:

I have not yet seen a justification for the war of American Independence. If the salient criterion is going to be 'tyranny' on the part of the British Crown and Parliament (even leaving aside entirely for the moment whether there's any Biblical mandate to overthrow tryants [by lesser magistrates or no]), where was it? Where was the tyranny? I mentioned taxation without representation because it's the reason we all heard about in 6th grade history class. I readily admit that there were a number of other issues, pocketbook and otherwise though I do tend to think that economic issues were the most important. Labelling such a view Marxist seems at best unhelpful.

Again, the blessings of the form of government we now enjoy seem to me to be manifest and obvious. As an experiment it has been successful beyond our wildest dreams. As an aside, I think also that a bi-cameral congress and executive offices are in some sense mirrors of the two houses of parliament and the office of the Premier in the English system (of course without any monarch at all and with at least the theory that such offices are open to any citizen regardless of birth). So, the US isn't some kind of political [i:9b3f522db5]res novus[/i:9b3f522db5] anyway.

But admitting this, and assuming some mythical biblical mandate for the war and actions leading up to the war that brought it about are two different things. Even if it can be maintained biblically that people are permitted to overthrow tyrants, I still don't see how Britain qualified as such.
 
[quote:59882c0542]In contrast, the history leading up to the Declaration of Independence shows that lesser civil magistrates (re: Continental Congress) pursued all means of redress possible and were rejected, thus making their resistance to and separation from the Crown lawful and Biblical.[/quote:59882c0542]

1. It is not established, or even capable of establishment that the Continental Congress (an illegal body, btw) "pursued all means of redress possible". It is certainly true that King George was obstinate and possibly already rather irrational, but the fact remains that the colonists had several advocates in Parliament and that by some accounts the number seemed to be growing.

2. I do not accept that even if they had "pursued all means of redress possible", that the issues for which they were seeking redress were such that they made the King and Parliament of Great Britain tyrants worthy of 'rejection'. Or, for that matter that intruding the word 'biblical' in the second bold remark above is really warranted merely because Calvin and others held an opinion about lesser magistrates having authority to depose tyrants.
 
[quote:7fdc3d8833]If God has ordained the punishment of the wicked by means of the magistrate, who can punish the wicked magistrate except for those over whom the magistrate rules?[/quote:7fdc3d8833]

Biblically speaking? No one except God. In those instances where Christians had no choice but to obey God rather than Caesar, they did so going to their deaths. This at least is the biblical record.

Your other references are interesting but represent specific examples and not necessarily instances of 'dogmatic case law'.

The assumption that Ehud's approval of Ehud's act and intent equates to God's approval of the same is not reflected in Judges 3. Nowhere is God's approval of this act recorded.

The case of Jael and Sisera comes within the context of an ongoing war between the Israelites and the Canaanites. Sisera was a general, not a tyrannical despot thus his death was an act of war, a combat assassination as it were. It may be assumed that Jabin, king of Canaan [i:7fdc3d8833]was[/i:7fdc3d8833] a tyrannical despot, but then, Jael didn't dispatch [i:7fdc3d8833]him[/i:7fdc3d8833], she killed his general.

Judges 4:23 illustrates all this amply if it is taken in context. The point is that the Israelties were a sovereign people at war with another sovereign people, the death of Sisera and the destruction of Jabin being Providential outcomes of that war. This cannot realistically be equated with one part of a people rising up against another part of the same people and overthrowing their rule and authority.
 
Christians should never murder their neighbors for money!!!!

[size=16:849cd89c67]Andrew:

You said:

[quote:849cd89c67]Paul Hill was an individual reacting to a crime/criminal in a manner that was not Biblical; he became a law unto himself and therein compounded a terrible tragedy. [u:849cd89c67]He was not a lesser civil magistrate standing up for the life of an unborn child in his jurisdiction, which is what civil magistrates should be doing today in the face of the monstrous crime of abortion in our land.[/u:849cd89c67] [/quote:849cd89c67]

Are you suggesting that if the towncouncil of Smalltown, USA voted to revolt against the higher civil magistrate (County, State, Federal, etc.) because of the government's tyrannical support of baby killing (abortion), than they would be free to shoot members of the army, national guard, etc., etc.? You really believe this would be justified by the Scriptures? How much less would killing soldiers and police be justified because citizens wanted to save a few shillings in taxes.

The American Revolution was guided by the Enlightenment and not the Bible. Many American Christians were killed by their neighbors because they chose to remain loyal to their rightful sovereign King George III. Thousands of loyalist Christians were exiled after the war, solely because they chose to obey the command of Romans 13:6-7 'For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.' Christians should never revolt against their civil magistrates and murder their neighbors for money! Such an idea is contrary to the Scriptures.[/size:849cd89c67]
 
It is worth reading the actual text of the Declaration of Independence to examine the question of whether the cause of our founding fathers was just. Here is a link which may be helpful: http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

Various powerful and sundry grievances are listed which are clear examples of tyranny on the part of King George III. The signers all testified that every effort was made to redress those grievances. Protestors had been shot and killed, soldiers quartered among an unwilling populace, colonists denied rights assumed as basic by free Englishmen, Indian attacks on colonists encouraged by the Crown -- these were all considered part of a pattern of tyrannical abuse.

If this is not tyranny, I don't know what is. If one were to wait until the tyrant resorts to mass genocide, then there can certainly be no lawful resistance because there would be no one left to resist. The fact that Americans today don't [i:1fede85b8b]en masse[/i:1fede85b8b] rise up against the IRS or ATF and other forms of modern tyranny does not negate the tyranny that existed in 1776. The downfall of the Confederacy in 1865 has inspired fear in all those Americans who would seek to lawfully seceed ever since.

Secession should not be assumed to be unBiblical just because Christians have a general duty to honor civil magistrates; civil magistrates are servants, not lords and masters. When they forsake their duties and terrorize their people, secession or overthrow of tyranny under the authority of lesser civil magistrates becomes a duty. People have a basic right to self-defense, even against their leaders. When a King or President breaks covenant with the people, those leaders can and should be held to account.

The American War of Independence in 1776 is a clear example of lawful resistance to tyranny.
 
Responding to IrishCalvinist:

Your argument is based very much on hyperbole. I have never stated that Christians should kill other Christians in order to save a few shillings on taxes. I am arguing for a principle, enunciated by Calvin in The Institutes, that under the authority of lesser civil magistrates it is lawful for Christians to resist tyranny by force if need be. It seems that your argument against this position leads to the conclusion that no one may fight back against tyranny under any circumstances. That is not the teaching of Romans 13. The American War of Independence was not primarily about money. It was about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," all of which were trampled upon by King George III. Christians ought not to defend the right of a civil magistrate to act that way unimpeded by Christian citizens. As to your query about whether a lesser civil magistrate can resist the killing of unborn children which may be going on under the sanction of a greater civil magistrate, I certainly believe that the shedding of the innocent blood children may be resisted in such a circumstance.

Simply put, my view is that might does not make right. The law may be on the side of the abortionist, but lesser and greater civil magistrates, I believe, have a duty to God's law over man's. If the greater civil magistrate takes up their duty, all is well and good. If not, and the lesser civil magistrate does so, would you then deny him the right to resist the evil? I hope not. [/quote]
 
[quote:7e41a233b6]Protestors had been shot and killed, soldiers quartered among an unwilling populace, colonists denied rights assumed as basic by free Englishmen, Indian attacks on colonists encouraged by the Crown -- these were all considered part of a pattern of tyrannical abuse. [/quote:7e41a233b6]

"Protestors had been shot and killed". You are referring no doubt to the so-called "Boston Massacre" where 5 men were killed by British soldiers present as peacekeepers in that city. It does seem likely that the soldiers over-reacted but it must be remembered that for some time the Redcoats had been being insulted in the streets, had offal and waste thrown at them and the feeling was, generally, that the Bostonians were going to rise up at some point violently. The sense among these soldiers must have been that this rapidly swelling crowd was the onset of exactly this uprising.

Of course none of this argues that the British soldiers were right or moderate in their reaction. But, by the same token, neither was the unfortunate deaths of 5 Boston civilians the huge catastrophe it was subsequently painted as by rebel propagandists.

Here is what future President John Adams had to say about his role as attorney for the defense of the soldiers involved:

[quote:7e41a233b6]"The Part I took in Defence of Cptn. Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country. Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right."[/quote:7e41a233b6]

And the verdict was? Well, it was acquittal.

The billeting of soldiers on an unwilling populace was a long standing practice since Roman times. It was hardly cost effective to build a garrison every time a group of soldiers moved into a given area. Also, under usual practice the landowners thus imposed upon had recourse to the government for compensation after the fact. It was hardly evidence of tyranny.

I would like to see evidence of the Crown encouraging Indians to attack colonists prior to the onset of open conflict between the British Army and those of the Colonists. For that matter, the French involvement in the war also brought a some Indian partisans against the British into the fray at that time as well.

None of this constitutes tyranny.
 
'Let us do evil, that good may come?'

[size=16:9f94b5c4c6]Andrew:

You wrote that:

[quote:9f94b5c4c6]Various powerful and sundry grievances are listed which are clear examples of tyranny on the part of King George III. The signers all testified that every effort was made to redress those grievances. Protestors had been shot and killed, soldiers quartered among an unwilling populace, colonists denied rights assumed as basic by free Englishmen, Indian attacks on colonists encouraged by the Crown -- these were all considered part of a pattern of tyrannical abuse.[/quote:9f94b5c4c6]

You seem to believe that the American Colonists were a persecuted population. Were they denied their freedom of religion? No. Were their children taken away from them? No. Were they burned at the stake? No. So lets look at your best examples of persecution:

1. 'Protestors had been shot and killed.' Where? You certainly are not talking about the 'Boston Massacre'... are you? The Boston incident in 1770 occurred when a mass mob of hundreds surrounded eight British soldiers with clubs and started to stone them. The squad desperately tried to defend themselves without lethal force while the crowd got closer and closer and started to grab their rifles. In desperation the men who were in fear of their lives were forced to open fire. Incidently the British officer in command and the men were defended by the American Revoluationary, John Adams. Adams wrote: 'Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right.'

2. 'Soldiers quartered among an unwilling populace.' Do you seriously believe that if the government demands you to house a soldier (who is there to defend you) that this is a Scriptural ground to kill him?

3. 'Colonists denied rights assumed as basic by free Englishmen.' What rights are those? Taxation without representation? This is a reason to kill your neighbor? Can an American Solider on the island of Guam legitimately plan a revolt against the American Government and start killing others simply because he must pay Federal Income taxes even though he cannot vote for President?

4. 'Indian attacks on colonists encouraged by the Crown.' These attacks were only encouraged against towns in revolt against the crown and therefore happened after the fact. This was not listed as a cause for rebellion... but listed as a cause for independence. So this has no bearing on our discussion.

You gone on to say:

[quote:9f94b5c4c6]If this is not tyranny, I don't know what is.[/quote:9f94b5c4c6]

If these are your best examples of tyranny... than I would have to say that you do not know what the word means. Many Christians in the early church were deprived of home, trade and possessions. They were persecuted, tortured and killed. They were forbidden from worshipping God or possessing Scripture in their homes. This is tyranny! And yet, killing the nearest Roman Centurion would still have been murder. The ends never justify the means.

The American Colonies in the 1770's were hardly persecuted. The Colonies were prosperous, paid little taxes, were protected by the British Army by land and the Royal Navy by Sea. The Colonists were Anglicans, Baptists, Reformed, Presbyterians, etc. and had freedom to worship God in their churches. They could discipline their children, teach their children and raise their families as they saw fit. They had freedom to speak their minds and to print their thoughts. And you call this tyranny? Honestly!

You go on to say with regards to my example that:

[quote:9f94b5c4c6]I certainly believe that the shedding of the innocent blood children may be resisted in such a circumstance.[/quote:9f94b5c4c6]

Killings Policemen and Soldiers is murder and I find it alarming that you would support murdering your neighbors just because Mr. Smith from the Town Council told you it was ok. Such approval does not overide the authority of the State and Federal Government.

With regards to Romans 13... I dont find any exemptions listed when ones 'rights' are deprived. In 1 Timothy 2:2 we are commanded to pray 'For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.' How are we obeying this command when we are shooting and killing the King's servants in order to save ourselves a few shillings and the obligation of lawfully assisting the military in times of need (by housing a soldier)? Is this really rendering 'unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's'? Thank God that He works all things (including the sinfulness of rebellion) for good for His elect.

(This is my last posting on this subject, but I am of course interested in what you have to say.)

Romans 3:8 'And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. [/size:9f94b5c4c6]
 
I COR 7:23:
[b:e785173222]You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. [/b:e785173222]

As Christians, we have an obligation to resist slavery. We are not to willingly become slaves of men.

I see this as the clearest Biblical precedence for resistence of tyrannical government. Tyranny seeks to enslave. As Christians, we must resist this.

It is clear from a reading of the Declaration of Independence that the British Crown and Parliment were seeking to enslave the colonies. The list of grievences within the Declaration clearly show this. Quartering troops within private homes against the wishes of the home owner is a form of slavery. The British army was dictating to the colonists "You must do this." The colonists did not have a choice about it. That is slavery. And for those of you who have said "It was normal at that time", let me point out that this was such a horrible greivence, that it was incorporated into the Bill of Rights:

[quote:e785173222]Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
[/quote:e785173222]

Further, the king and parliment had abolished the lawfully created houses of Representation which had long governed the colonies.

Already mentioned was "taxation without representation". But it was more than that. It was government without representation. And this was something new. The colonists were used to being represented, at least in their local colonial Houses of Representation. The King and Parliment had abloshed these houses, seeking to enslave the colonists.

The freedoms which the colonists had previously enjoyed were being taken away. They were become slaves of the British government. They were correct to resist this enslavement.
 
A couple of quick follow up points:

First, for those who say "we ought to obey the magistrate, even is that means we are put to death for our faith", I must point out that 1st century Rome was very different from 18th century America. First, the Americans had rights that were later taken away. The 1st century church had no "right" to be Christian (at least, not from the government, of course). The 18th century colonists did have the right to self-government (which had been given to them at the founding of the colonies). This right had been taken away. The colonists were defending their rights. The 1st century church had no "rights" to defend.

Are those of you who say we can never oppose government serious? Think through to the conclusions of your argument. What if we lived in a country were, not only was Christianity illegal, but we were required, by law, to inform the government of anyone who was a Christian. Would you do it? Would you send your brother to the executer's block so that you could rest easy knowing that you obeyed the magistrate? What about the right of prima nocture? The British practice of taking the bride on the wedding night, from the groom, so that the local magistrate can rape her? Would you comply with that? Perhaps this is a topic for another thread, but anyone who says we must never resist the magistrate because only God can deal with him, really needs to think about what they are saying. When you follow through with that train of thought, I will hope that you will see how ludicris it really is.



Second, I appreciate Contra Mundum's effort to remain neautral in light of the space of time that now seperate us from the founding fathers. I can understand how he can say he's not sure if he would have taken up arms or not. I would have.

If I was forced to quarter troops in my house, with my family, against my will, that alone would be reason enough for me to take up arms. But that wasn't the only thing going on.

If my brother, cousin, father, mother, or sister were charged with a crime and taken to England to be tried, that alone would be enough for me to take up arms. But that wasn't the only thing going on.

If the government refused to pass laws needed to maintain the public order, that alone would be reason enough to take up arms. But that wasn't the only thing going on.

If the right to trail by jury was suddenly revoked, that alone would be enough to take up arms. But that wasn't the only thing going on.

Read the Declaration of Independence, people. I would have taken up arms against the English Tyranny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top