Patriotism

Status
Not open for further replies.
sastark,

Please believe me when I tell you that I say this with all due respect but your post here is gross revisionism. The facts of history tell a significantly different story.

But be that as it may, it's silly to have to run about after some mythical biblical mandate for our existence as a nation. We exist because God decreed that we exist. We exist by the Providence of God acting through secondary means. But this need to vilify the British government is ridiculous and smacks of the kind of make-believe that has spawned several generations of stories and films that bear no real relation to actual events. I am reminded especially of the fairly recent movie "The Patriot" where the British were portrayed as little better than SS Commandoes prosecuting a campaign of total destruction on the American landscape..

the facts are these: without French assistance it is by no means assured that we would have won the war. Washington was an extremely mediocre if tenacious and stubborn general. The continental Amry and the Militiae were often at odds and only succeeded in many instances by pure, blind luck, err, Providence, but anyway, certainly not through cooperation and mutual assistance. The British Empire, still only in it's youth would go on to be the most civilized and civilizing of imperial endeavors including among it's achievements the abolition of slavery before any other major government even seriously considered it.

The colonists had no biblical basis for rebellion. None whatsoever. All the reasons you've cited here have been dealt with. You are welcome to your myths and stories and I wish you the best with them you are certainly not alone in entertaining them. Back when school textbooks could speak of "God' they told generations of young Americans the same stories as truth and even after the word was stricken the Crown and Parliament continued to be portrayed as a bunch of greedy oppressors and publicans who happened to have the worlds most effective and efficient army at their disposal...

As for the Declaration of Independence, it is a remarkable document, I have read it a few times. Jefferson's prose is magnificent...but you need to be told that in it's litany of complaints it compresses many, various and sometimes exceedingly rare occasions into a list of ongoing outrages and does so in a demogogic fashion that would make a Robespierre blush.



You seem to have bought the party line on this and it really makes me wonder about many things...not about you particularly, but this blindspot bedeviled Evangelical insistance found in some circles requiring that the US be somehow the very hand of God at work in the world having sprung fully formed from His hand in 1776.
 
Pray 'for kings and all those who are in authority...'

[size=14:0f1cf47aa2]
(I decided to continue to participate in this discussion... DV.)

Philip:

(No offense to you) but I found your article to be an extremely weak attempt to justify rebellion.

Your article says that:

[quote:0f1cf47aa2]Since the Colonies never fired the first shot, the Colonies were clearly involved in a war of defense[/quote:0f1cf47aa2]

When a mob of hundreds in 1770 are armed with clubs and surround a handful of soldiers... start taunting them... threatening to kill them... start stoning them... and pulling at their rifles... despite the pleas of the soldiers... are the soldiers not acting in self defense when they shoot to protect their lives? Since John Adams himself defended those same exact soldiers in court... obviously some of your 'Founding Fathers' even disagree with the logic.

The article alleges that the Colonists did not fire the first shot:

[quote:0f1cf47aa2]nor in the Lexington and Concord engagements of 1775[/quote:0f1cf47aa2]

As far as I am aware no one knows who fired the first shot at Lexington and Concord. Historians generally agree that it is a mystery to this day. What we do know is that some colonists armed themselves and confronted the civil magistrate. If a mob armed themselves today and confronted the police and shots were fired (no one knowing who fired first).. who would you believe was responsible for the incident?

Your article also says:

[quote:0f1cf47aa2]The Founders believed that God could bless a war of defense but not a war of offense.[/quote:0f1cf47aa2]

One authority on the subject says: 'It should be noted however that a large proportion, probably a majority, of the population did stay loyal or neutral during the war.' (John Adams himself supported the view that the rebels were in the minority.) How were the 'Founders' fighting a war of defense when the majority of the colonists were opposed to their rebellion? Are we supposed to justify killing soldiers and police when the majority of the population did not even support the war? Over what? Taxes? Killing a dozen men in 1770 and 1774 who were hostile, armed and refusing to stand down and submit to the civil magistrate? With that sort of rationale, it would be easy for one to justify just about any sort of rebellion. First... we arm ourselves. Second... we provoke an incident between our armed revolutionists and the police. Finally... we blame the police after they shoot at us. It is also very hard to see the American Revoluation purely as a defensive struggle when those in rebellion against the crown killed their loyalist neighbors and burned their farms to the ground. Or how it was defensive when the rebels invaded Canada during the revolution?

Those colonists who rebelled against the crown had no problem seizing (stealing) their neighbors food, goods and livestock when they needed it during the war... or of taking over any home (sounds familiar doesn't it) that they needed. Over 100,000 colonists who remained loyal to the British Crown were killed and banished during and after the war (murder and persecution). And we are going to justify this in light of taxes that were only 10% of what we pay today? I think a great many pastors in New England that assisted in stirring up the troubles in America spent far too much time discussing political problems and social action solutions than abiding in their calling to 'seek first the kingdom of God' (Matthew 6:33). The Christians calling is not to overthrow the tyranny of Caesar, but to pray 'for kings and all those who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.' (1 Timothy 2:2).

I think too many of us justifiy rebellion and anarchy because of nationalisn and pragmatism, instead of asking 'What does God command me to do?' Our calling remains the gospel... not the rebels gun.[/size:0f1cf47aa2]
 
To conquer us?

How does a nation conquer itself? A country doesn't get to be an independent state by merely declaring itself to be one. Surely you understand that, from the British perspective, the colonies were in rebellion, in effect committing political parricide. All I am contending is that, in this perspective, they weren't entirely wrong. It still hasn't been shown that British rule in the colonies was adequately tyrannical to warrant wholesale rebellion and war, either for some much-adduced but never quite articulated biblical reason or otherwise.

If this thread shows us anything it is that the chapter of the WCF on the Civil Magistrate is open to various interpretations.

I do not contend that there are [i:9bcac563ad]never[/i:9bcac563ad] any grounds for rebellion against the state. I merely contend that there isn't any specifically biblical mandate to rebel against any state no matter how tyrannical.

Having said that, may I please beg all of your pardons, but especially that of Sastark for, in the course of this conversation, indulging in excessive bombast, condescension and rudeness?

A good, fairly recent book on the subject is [u:9bcac563ad]"A Few Bloody Noses"[/u:9bcac563ad] by Robert Harvey. Harvey, a British journalist draws his title from the words of George III, [i:9bcac563ad]"We meant well to the Americans, just to punish them with a few bloody noses, and then to make laws for the happiness of both countries."[/i:9bcac563ad], The book is well-written from the British perspective and while it does show that the received images of the US in the war are mostly propaganda, he also shows that Cornwallis was largely inept, that King Goerge didn't really understand the colonists and makes several other points indicative of an effort to be fair in his presentation.

It's a good read.
 
[quote:c4db5d6b85]How were the 'Founders' fighting a war of defense when the majority of the colonists were opposed to their rebellion?[/quote:c4db5d6b85]

By means of propaganda and spin, in blowing up events like the "Boston Massacre" and the Tea Party into huge articulations of American rage at British tyranny, they were, after many years, able to sway at least the majority of the urban population and then, as today, the rural people didn't really count for much, majority or no.

We need to remember that Paine, Revere, Jefferson et al were masters of propaganda. I don't particularly attribute any macchiavellian motives to them. They ardently believed in what they were saying and overblown, rabidly jingoistic prosey defenses and (not to say [i:c4db5d6b85]completely[/i:c4db5d6b85] dishonest) justifications of one's opinion or position were the order of the day in Europe as much as in America.
 
The arguments made by those on this thread in defense of the right of a tyrant to abuse his citizens without resistance from Christians, and the characterization of the British Crown's actions toward American colonists leading up to the 1776 Declaration of Independence as 'not tyrannical' are truly shocking.

Steadfast at one point above claimed that "Scripture does not countenance the violent overthrow of any constituted authority" but later claims "I do not contend that there are never any grounds for rebellion against the state." One cannot legitimately hold to both views. If Scripture does not permit one to fight back against a tyrant, then there can never be grounds to resist the state.

IrishCalvinist seems to argue that no one may legitimately resist a tyrant under any circumstances because to do so would violate Romans 13. He assumes that my argument in favor of the right of a Christian to resist a tyrant under the authority of a God-honoring lesser civil magistrate means that I am in favor of killing my neighbors to avoid paying a few shillings. I reject that mischaracterization of my view and I find it offensive in the highest degree. The Scottish Covenanters, according to IrishCalvinists' view, should be condemned for resisting King Charles II. On the contrary, they understood that the citizens owed a higher loyalty to King Jesus than to King Charles. Today in China, the one-child policy requires families to abort any additional children or face punishment by the state. This tyrannical law and other modern examples like it ought to be resisted. The Nazis who were prosecuted at Nuremburg gave as their defense that they were just following orders. In other words, they could not resist the civil magistrate, but had to obey. The Westminster Confession, on the contrary, teaches that we are to obey magistrates' lawful commands. This implies, and the Bible is replete with examples which have been cited above, that unlawful commands or laws may and should be resisted. I have quoted this before, but I pray that our mindset as Christians would be that of Peter who said "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5.29). That is our Biblical mandate which requires resistance to tyranny.
 
I'm listening to your reasoning, but first you need to define what a tyrant is then you need to tell me how the Bible says to deal with that tyrant.

In the context of Acts 5:29, the civil authorities barred apostles from preaching. Maybe I'm pathetic, liberal, unChristian tofu, but I see that as a far cry from paying a small tax.

Just because I believe the biblical principle is to submit to the civil authority whenever possible, doesn't mean resistance is never the godly thing to do.

Are you saying every black Christian should have done what Rosa Parks did? What are you doing to resist the current government? How does this break down for you?
 
Nazi Germany and British Rule in the Thirteen Colonies...

[size=16:dec125d291]Dear Andrew:

Let me start by saying that I apologize if I offended you or mischaracterized your views. I just do not understand how you can justify rebellion against the British Government for the reasons you provided. None of your reasons seemed all that 'tyranical' to me or to some of the others in this thread. Outside of taxes and providing a spare room... what other atrocities are we speaking about? You have yet to provide ample evidence to support your theory of tyranny.

To be clear.. Christians are not to commit sin, idolatry and murder because the civil magistrate orders it. They are to obey King Jesus rather than man... but they are also not to plot the overthrow of their civil magistrate through conspiracies, plots and rebellions.

You make the comparison between Nazi Germany and British rule in the thirteen colonies. (Is this really a fair comparison?) But to continue your line of thought... A Christian living in Nazi Germany should NOT have obeyed any command to murder innocent men, women and children... but neither should he have killed policemen and blown up bridges. He should have given Caeser (Hitler) what belonged to Hitler... work, taxes, etc. and given to God what belongs to God through a life of obedience to His Word. If these two obligations came into conflict... he obviously must obey God rather than man. (This is very different from lifting up the sword to kill.) The Christian should have prayed for Hitler and hoped that God would grant the man repentance for his evil (if God willed so). But it runs contrary to God's Word for a German citizen to just start killing all the postal workers and policemen that he can find... simply because they are servants of the civil magistrate.

Once again the Bible calls us in Romans 13:1-2 'Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.' Unquestionably the Roman Government at the time of Paul was far more wicked than the British Government in 1775... and yet Christians are told to be 'subject' unto them.

Do you advocate overthrowing the American government today because they allow and promote abortion, homosexuality, lewdness, alchohol, etc. etc.? I remember someone saying that there has been 30 million abortions since Roe Vs. Wade... Do 30 million murders justify rebellion today against the American Goverment? Do you promote such a goal? Than why is money and taxes a legitimate justification to kill the civil magistrate?[/size:dec125d291]
 
... and [i:7ac1668b0b]Today[/i:7ac1668b0b] I think... (just kidding--I can't change my vote anyway)

Trust me, we're [u:7ac1668b0b]all[/u:7ac1668b0b] doing a bit of revisionism here. I would think that [i:7ac1668b0b]any[/i:7ac1668b0b] challenge to the official, unabashed pro-Revolutionary dicta that most of us were fed in school (Public, Christian, or other) is the most obvious form of it. I think it's laudable when we are open to new information that we integrate into our understanding (based on deeper, unchanging committments) rather than forcing the new data to fit the pre-ordered mold we may love.

Steadfast, I tried not to label you, or anybody who puts economics at the top of the motivations list, a Marxist. I merely wanted to make sure the door to non-economic motivations was forcibly opened (because Marxian reductionism is still with us in many forms). We might not agree 100%, but that's OK. I've appreciated your comments, and suppose we agree much more than we differ.
[end of comment meant particularly for one person]

I even concur with the judgment that more than a few of the leaders of the rebellion did have some economic motivations, although mercenary considerations don't seem to [u:7ac1668b0b]me[/u:7ac1668b0b] to be sufficient or even principal incentive to risk literally everything. Recall the mordant words of Franklin, "Gentlemen, we must all hang together, or we will alll hang, seperately."

And as we get down below the leaders to the volunteers in the ranks, I think economics becomes an even less reasonable explanation. I think that attributing all (or most) of the rank-and-file motivation to the propagandistic, and irreligious or deistic spin-meisters is also giving too much credit to one group. The colonists on the whole reasoned at a significantly higher level as a society than we do today (exhibit A: Federalist/Anti-federalist Papers [which closely post-date the war], written as common newpaper articles, now considered suitable for college-level reading). So yes, the propaganda was writen at a higher level, but it also demanded greater rational input to persuade. I believe that probably more people were motivated from prior convictions than new ones, and from pulpits (whether they were being misused or not). But, I may be totally wrong. There is just so much we can only guess at...

As for the claims/counterclaims that more people supported this side or that side--everybody is simply making guesses (educated or otherwise). No one took Gallup polls back then. Parretto's Law rules! At best, only around 20% of any group is motivated enough to take action. I have no statistics, but my (unscientific guess) is that about 20% of the people could have been called Patriots, 20% were hard-core Tories (who either joined the Regulars or fled to Canada, mostly the latter) who lacked the leadership--legitimate, unofficial, or charismatic--to split the 13 break-away colonies. The other 60% were middle of the roaders, who may have had inclinations one way or the other, but were not going to do much other than duck. (For a real-world example of this behavior in action see exhibit B: Iraq.)

The argument about the biblical propriety of the war comes down to a question of whether rebellion is EVER justified. If you say no, then of course the American Rebellion was unjustified. If you say yes, then you have NEXT to ask if the Colonies were [i:7ac1668b0b]justified[/i:7ac1668b0b] to rebel against the Crown. We have to try to do two things at once: 1) biblically and objectively (as far as possible) define legitimate opposition and illegitimate rule--neither which I suggest will yield a nice, cut-and-dried truthtest; and then 2) adopt a colonial worldview and make or reject the case for rebellion from within it.

The question is not so much were they justified [i:7ac1668b0b]in our eyes[/i:7ac1668b0b] to rebel (although we may have an opinion on that), but were they justified according to their knowledge of the Bible's timeless, unchanging standard and their own ability to apply it. And I think it is possible to have the same or a different opinion on both questions.

Don't suppose I'm advocating a subtle "situation-ethic" here. I'm advocating [b:7ac1668b0b][i:7ac1668b0b]not[/i:7ac1668b0b][/b:7ac1668b0b] reasoning anachronistically. We need an absence of sympathy in looking at the biblical data and historical facts. We need a specific kind of sympathy to get inside their heads, to understand (if we can) what truth, hermeneutic, information, beliefs, and errors led them to make the choices they did. God judges according to the heart--the motivation--as well as maintaining an objective standard. Whether they sinned or not in rebelling is partly a function of their inner convictions, if you believe as I do that rebellion is sometimes justified.

War is horrible. It brings out the worst in us. I'm not sure if there has ever been a purely justified war ever, outside of the conquest of Caanan. It's the true Devil's workshop. It's consistently a form of Judgment on all parties involved. And Romans 8:28 is the one unchanging hope Christians have to cling to in the midst of it.
 
Responding to Wymer:

Your question as to what a tyrant is and how the Bible teaches one to deal with a tyrant is very open-ended. A tyrant, simply put, is a ruler who usurps or abuses or exceeds his God-given authority to serve the people under him for their well-being "in the Lord." The Bible does not specify every situation for dealing with tyrants, but it certainly does authorize or compel us to resist unlawful commands by tyrants in order that we might obey God. Tyrants may be obeyed in things lawful, but not in things unlawful without sin on the part of the citizenry.

You ask whether every black Christian in America should have followed the example of Rosa Parks. In my earlier posts I have repeatedly argued that resistance to tyranny must take place under the authority of a lesser civil magistrate in order to be reckoned as lawful resistance as opposed to rebellion. In her case, I am not aware of this condition being met. Nor would I characterize her stand on where to sit on a bus as being of such great import as to resist the civil magistrate on an individual basis, although a direct command by a Chinese civil magistrate to kill my child, I think, might be lawfully resisted on an individual basis.

You also asked what I personally am doing to resist the present government. I am not inclined to discuss my personal activities in this forum. I am weary of the personal attacks that I have received. I do feel compelled to defend our founding fathers against the slander of the sin of rebellion in the context of the War of Independence. The principle they fought for was a just one and is still relevant today.
 
Responding to IrishCalvinist:

Thank you for your apology. I also appreciate your allowance that it is lawful to resist the civil magistrate in some situations. Although our threshold of what constitutes an unlawful command from a civil magistrate which may be resisted may differ, your acknowledgment that some commands by the magistrate may be resisted is an important concession.

In colonial America, people were not completely free to worship as they saw fit. In certain colonies, such as Virginia, there was an established church, the Anglican church, which taxed all citizens in the colony whether their conscience permitted this or not. Dissenters were punished by the civil magistrate. Frances Makemie, the father of Presbyterianism in America, was punished for his dissent in several colonies. This scenario seems very much to me like that described in Acts 5.29. On this basis alone, I believe the colonists had a right to resist the ecclesiastical tyranny of the British Crown (remember the King of England claimed to be the head of the Church, which was the whole reason the Scottish Covenanters would not swear loyalty to him and for this cause they were put to death, because they believed King Jesus to be head of the Church).

Much has been made of the fact that taxes are higher today than they were when the colonists complained about "no taxation without representation." But we have representation today, whereas the colonists did not. We can throw the bums out of office and vote for lower taxes anytime we want, but the colonists could not. The colonists believed that a fundamental right to representation had been taken away. They had financial concerns certainly, but there was a principle involved which we take for granted. Earlier you raised the issue of an American soldier stationed in Guam who supposedly pays income taxes but can't vote. Well, any American soldier stationed overseas is allowed to vote. But Guam, Puerto Rico and other American territories have all been given the opportunity to hold referendums as to whether to become a state or not. In most cases that I know of, their preference has been to trade certain benefits for the lack of representation in Congress. That's their choice. In Ulster, where I have spent some time, I know that many Protestants want to maintain their union with Great Britain. That's their choice. Canada some time ago chose to separate from Great Britain. That was her choice. The point is, every group of people has an inherent right to self-determination. To say otherwise, is to argue on behalf of slavery.

The complaint against British soldiers being quartered or billeted amongst the colonists has been mocked as being of little account. It has even been argued that the soldiers were sent to defend the colonists and thus implied that the colonists should have been grateful. These soldiers often helped themselves to the goods of the house. Many colonists did not want them there. In some cases, soldiers abused, taunted and even raped people in those houses. This was not a benevolent act by the Crown, but an effort at intimidation.

Life in colonial America was far from being the idyllic peaceful place that defenders of the Crown have argued. Torys were the ones in authority before 1776 and patriots suffered at their hands in many ways, by imprisonment, confiscation of goods and property, and the threat or actual punishment of death or forcible return to England.

You asked whether the killing of 30 million (I think it may be closer to 40 million) babies in America since Roe v. Wade justifies "rebellion" to the current government. This killing is truly a Holocaust, and every Christian ought to resist this form of tyranny according to their place and station. As to whether Americans should fight against the civil magistrate to do so, I believe I have already answered this question above. If the appropriate lesser civil magistrate stands up to murder sanctioned by the state or federal government, then I believe there is warrant for individuals to stand with him in resisting the shedding of innocent blood. There is little difference that I can see in resisting abortion today from resisting Nazism 60 years ago.
 
PLO, IRA, ETA, and other terrorist organizations...

[size=16:b3b0682b25]Andrew:

* Just to be clear, I never suggested that we have a right to 'resist' the civil magistrate through force of arms. But we may refuse commands from the state when they conflict with the commands of Scripture.

* Before the American rebellion there were 'state' churches in Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia. Most of these states continued to have established state churches after the adoption of the Constitution and after the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Some of them had state churches well into the 19th century. Did this justifiy rebellion against the US Government in the early 1800's?

* An American Soldier who was BORN and raised in Guam does not have the right to vote for President... although he still pays Federal Income Taxes. Guam has never had a referendum for independence and is occupied by an inordinate number of American troops all over the island. Would such a Soldier (in your view) be justified in conspiring to overthrow the American Governement?

* You claim that 'In some cases, soldiers abused, taunted and even raped people in those houses. This was not a benevolent act by the Crown, but an effort at intimidation.' Can you provide a reference of some kind for this charge? Could you also provide proof that if such a thing ever happened that it was looked on approvingly by the British government?

* Just to be absolutely clear. Are you saying that if your towncouncil votes to overthrow the federal government and drafts you into their local militia... that you would be justified in shooting police, firefighters and soldiers?

* Does the PLO, IRA, ETA, and other terrorist organizations have the right to kill because they claim to represent subjugated peoples? (They claim religious, cultural and political persecution.)

Interested in your thoughts...[/size:b3b0682b25]
 
Responding to IrishCalvinist:

I am deeply disappointed in your continued efforts to paint me as someone who approves of killing police officers, firefighters and others at random and seeks to overthrow the government. Your last question about whether I support terrorist groups is again offensive in the extreme. I will not engage in further debate with you. I believe that you have crossed a line with your continued hostile portrayal of my views. I pray that the Lord would grant you grace.
 
[quote:9fc2330d66]The arguments made by those on this thread in defense of the right of a tyrant to abuse his citizens without resistance from Christians, and the characterization of the British Crown's actions toward American colonists leading up to the 1776 Declaration of Independence as 'not tyrannical' are truly shocking.[/quote:9fc2330d66]

And yet, and yet, your being shocked is shocking. How can you be shocked by blithe refusal to go postal over received notions of what those horrid Redcoats did to us, when, in actual fact, they did very little.

What exactly is shocking to you? That no one has been able to adduce a single scrap of evidence to the point that the British government was 'abusing it's citizenry' with all out tyranny and that some of us here are not particularly interested in pretending that they did?

Once for all, Huguenot, show us where the King or Parliament abused Americans. Show us where the King or Parliament practiced a regime of actual tyranny. Not isolated or rare instances of excess, but an actual program of abuse and oppression. First of all this was not a foreign power which had invaded a sovereign nation to impose it's will on them. The colonists were, by and large, Englishmen committed to English principles of government and social order. At the time there were a great number of egalitarian ideas 'in the air' many of which had been imbibed by Americans and while it may be a bit simplistic to attribute it all to Freemasonry, I don't think it can be seriously denied that Deistic and Rationalist notions provided much of the religious and philosophical underpinning for the political ideas that came to full fruit here in America as well as half a generation later in France. [i:9fc2330d66]"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"[/i:9fc2330d66] Really? Where does the Bible support any of that? And to show that the framers didn't really even believe the sentiments expressed here they refused to apply them to black slaves, even the ones Jefferson, the primary author owned and, it may be presumed must, by your standards, have 'tyrannized' mercilessly. To argue that the ideas were Christian is, to put it frankly, nonsense.

I will be the first to admit that the American colonies were economically beneficial to the British government and people. But other areas were far more so, the West Indies were far more lucrative colonially speaking and later, India even moreso. But neither of these areas had really been 'colonized' in a residential sense. The Englishmen who colonized America were, as we know, mostly dissenters from the established church, but the furthest thought from any of their minds was any secession from their ties to English government much less to being English. The idea that the American Colonies should be a separate nation from England has very very little to do with Christianity and a great deal to do with a rising and increasingly wordly Bourgeoisie concerned with keeping American custom American. Deism, Rationalism, Febronianism, Egalitarianism etc. were but the excuse, the frosting on the cake as my Dad would say.

[quote:9fc2330d66]Steadfast at one point above claimed that "Scripture does not countenance the violent overthrow of any constituted authority" but later claims "I do not contend that there are never any grounds for rebellion against the state." One cannot legitimately hold to both views. If Scripture does not permit one to fight back against a tyrant, then there can never be grounds to resist the state. [/quote:9fc2330d66]

Yes, one can legitimately hold both views if one is Amillennarian and thus non-Theonomic. One can legitimately hold both views if one is not a slave to notions regarding the necessity of explicit biblical justification for what ultimately non-religious entities (states, cultures, societies) actually do in history. One can legitimately hold both views if one accepts that God used the pagan Assyrians to scourge Israel and that He continues to use what are essentially Godless entities to effect His Providential plan. One can legitimately hold both views if one regards human beings as fallen in nature and prone to sin and understands that this plays itself out in politics as much as anywhere else and that sometimes the law of unintended consequences takes effect in very striking ways. One can legitimately hold both views if one accepts that not explicitly requiring the overthow of tyrants needn't necessarily equate to not ever permitting it.
 
Thank God for the grace that covers all of our sins...

[size=16:16ccb7f3e8]Dear Andrew:

Again I am sorry you were offended... but I do not find my questions any more offensive than your justification for the many British soldiers, loyalists and their families who were murdered by rebels in the colonies. They may only be statistics in the history book for some... but they were fathers, sons, brothers, mothers, sisters and children of someone. Many of them also were reformed christians who chose to seek the Kingdom of God, rather than a Kingdom in this world. Truly... Thank God for the grace that covers all of our sins.[/size:16ccb7f3e8]
 
[quote:9de86feef7]A tyrant, simply put, is a ruler who usurps or abuses or exceeds his God-given authority to serve the people under him for their well-being "in the Lord." [/quote:9de86feef7]

And where is this idea that Kings exist to serve their people to be found in Scripture? God's rebuke through Samuel when the elders of Israel wanted a King like their neighbors certainly doesn't take any such idea into account. (see 1 Sam. 8, esp. v. 10ff)

[quote:9de86feef7]The Bible does not specify every situation for dealing with tyrants, but it certainly does authorize or compel us to resist unlawful commands by tyrants in order that we might obey God. Tyrants may be obeyed in things lawful, but not in things unlawful without sin on the part of the citizenry. [/quote:9de86feef7]

Yes, the bible tells us that when God's law and man's law come into conflict, we are to obey the former. Many Christians have done so, however the vast majority throughout history died for having done so (see those who refused to worship the Beast in Revelation) . Never is this given as a reason for taking up arms against such 'tyrants'. Never.
 
It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! -- Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
 
Huguenot,
I tried to PM you but I lost the message. I am in a hurry now so I will make this short. To others beside Hugunot, please do not put the Scottish Covenanters in the same category as the IRA or any other national-terrrostic group. I do not know if it has been mentioned yet, but in Romans 13 there is another ethical obligation alongside that of obeying the Civil Magistrate, who is the civil magistrate to give an account to? If there is no ethical obligation for him, then he is a law unto himself and may do as he pleases. We are to render to Caesar what is Caesar's, but Whose image is found on Caesar? God's; then let Caesar render to God what belongs to God. Hence, who is to hold Caesar accountable? The lesser civil magistrate. The doctrine of interposition is not new to our day. Ambrose interposed himself against the emperor; Calvin articulated it eloquently, Knox fiercely. The French Huguenot Philip du Plisse Mornay set the standard in his book, [i:e62846cdf5]Vindicae Contra Tyrannus[/i:e62846cdf5]. By the way, John Adams said this book was a best seller in the colonies during the War for Independence.

In Ephesians 5 Paul exhorts men, women, slaves, to submit to the proper authorities, [i:e62846cdf5]as to the Lord[/i:e62846cdf5]. My question, does that command unqualified obdience? Surely not. When a superior commands that which is not of the Lord, obedience is to be denied to the utmost. "Earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are not reckoned to be counted among the sons of men. We ought rather to defy them than give them obedience." Interestingly enough, Calvin wrote that in his commentary on Daniel toward the end of his life, after he had been influenced by John Knox.

"It is not enough for me to say that black is not white and that man's tyranny is not God's perfect ordinance." ---John Knox.
 
[quote:f7b0471ae9]When a superior commands that which is not of the Lord, obedience is to be denied to the utmost.[/quote:f7b0471ae9]

Yes, and the question at hand is whether this denial, in some cases, [i:f7b0471ae9]necessarily requires [/i:f7b0471ae9]the taking up of arms against that superior. I say no, but accept that the axiom [i:f7b0471ae9]permits[/i:f7b0471ae9] rebellious action in certain cases. VirginiaHuguenot and others here, evidently, disagree.

The usual scenario goes like this:

"Burn the incense to Caesar, Christian!"

"No, my Lord has done nothing but good to me these many years, why should I repay Him with denial?"

"Then, it is to the lions with you!"

The scenario does not usually go like this:

"Burn the incense to Caesar, Christian!"

"No." (Christian sticks a knife in the Centurian's neck and runs away to gather other sicarii)
 
Here's an interesting, related item...

"œ"¦ much of the traditional account of the Boston Tea Party is wildly misleading. Consider the business about taxes. It is said the colonists feared the effect of British taxes on the economy. But in reality, the Tea Act REDUCED the duty on British tea imported to America. It was this reduction that caused the controversy. Historians say the cut in duty made British tea suddenly competitive with the tea smuggled into the colonies from Holland by American merchants like John Hancock. It was this "" the prospect of cheap British tea, not higher taxes "" that precipitated the Boston Tea Party. American smugglers wanted to save the lucrative American tea market for themselves. (Three-fourths of the tea sold in America was smuggled in.)"

From "œI Love Paul Revere, Whether He Rode or Not" by Richard Shenkman
 
[quote:47518d33c6="Steadfast"][quote:47518d33c6]When a superior commands that which is not of the Lord, obedience is to be denied to the utmost.[/quote:47518d33c6]

Yes, and the question at hand is whether this denial, in some cases, [i:47518d33c6]necessarily requires [/i:47518d33c6]the taking up of arms against that superior. I say no, but accept that the axiom [i:47518d33c6]permits[/i:47518d33c6] rebellious action in certain cases. VirginiaHuguenot and others here, evidently, disagree.

The usual scenario goes like this:

)[/quote:47518d33c6]

I don't think Huguenot or myself articulated it this way. For one, there is nothing mentioned of the lesser civil magistrate who derives his authority from the people in order that he may restore the social order. If you are going to critique Huguenot or myself, do so on those lines, not the one you mentioned. I do not doubt that many centurion's died like that. The thesis I am trying to put forth is one that [i:47518d33c6] for the sake of the social order[/i:47518d33c6] peace must be maintained in the realm.

WHen madmen rule, the people perish (read the book of proverbs). What kind of society would you rather have: a mad man who rules by arbitrary fiat, or a just government where rulers are accountable to other civil magistrates?
 
[quote:67a2b630f5]Upon the whole, I will beg leave to tell the House what is really my opinion. It is, that the Stamp Act be repealed absolutely, totally, and immediately; that the reason for the repeal should be assigned, because it was founded on an erroneous principle. At the same time, let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend every point of legislation whatsoever: that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power whatsoever - except that of taking money out of their pockets without their consent.[/quote:67a2b630f5]

William Pitt, Prime Minister of England on the Stamp Act, sometimes presented as the reason par excellence for the colonial rebellion, and on how the British Government should correct and respond.
 
And Finn, my point remains that given [i:bfe7e69931]any[/i:bfe7e69931] circumstances, open rebellion in the case of the American Colonies was unwarranted. If the criterion is that it be the work of lesser magistrates in the interest of 'restoring social order' the lesser magistracy in question, if we are referring to the Continental Congress was an illegal assembly and there was no order to restore. Society was just fine, not perfect but it was working very well, Americans were getting rich, people were getting married and having babies and the true religion was an adornment to the land, government was, largely unobtrusive and tolerant...

[quote:bfe7e69931]When madmen rule, the people perish (read the book of proverbs). What kind of society would you rather have: a mad man who rules by arbitrary fiat, or a just government where rulers are accountable to other civil magistrates?[/quote:bfe7e69931]

Though king George did eventually suffer from severe mental illness, it is not presented by any responsible historian that he was mad at the time of the war of American Independence, records indicate that he was not actually incapacitated until 1811. But even if he were, Great Britain was not a dictatorship but a constitutional republic governed by a hereditary monarch whose actual prerogatives while substantial were very far from absolute. Also, the commander in chief of the British land forces in the US, while ultimately answerable to George for his decisions, was his own master as far as the formulation of those decisions went.

It also bears repeating that when George did eventually go bonkers, he was sequestered and the Kingdom was ruled by a regent.

The quote I've given above should show adequately that some, even many, in Parliament were sympathetic to the Colonists grievances and eager to work them out. It is significant that the colonists were unwilling to see this sympathy mature but preferred precipitous action.

As an aside, has it ever occurred to you that Washington's father named him George in tribute to the King of England, a personage very much respected and revered in all the colonies right up to the time of open conflict?

As English Kings go, George III was very tolerant and benevolent and well meaning. He wasn't the baby-eating tyrant some would portray him to have been. He appears to have been very distressed at the idea of going to war with people he could only have conceived as Englishmen. Many have conjectured that it was was the loss of the colonies which formed the bulk of the stress which brought about his eventual mental illness and death.
 
I just think it bears noting that the English people at the time of the American Revolution were the most tolerant, successful, culturally advanced and colonially generous on earth and that the main reason they were this way is because they had the most unobtrusive, tolerant and generous government on earth. Things didn't really start going bad for them culturally until the so called Industrial Revolution some generations later. At the time Britain was poised on the cusp of Naval supremacy and generally Military greatness, cultural achievement unmatched by civilized people and a social tolerance unknown even in Europe much less the rest of the world.

There is a reason why, in "The Age of Revolution", Britain never had a revolution on her own shores.
 
The legitimacy of the 'Continental Congress'

[size=16:9af8d6ab49]Michael:

I agree with your point about the legitimacy of the 'Continental Congress.' Many Royal Governors who represented the legitimate lesser magistracy were overthrown by colonists in rebellion against Britain. So how does Andrew arrive at his conclusion that it was simply a matter of the lesser magistrate taking the greater magistrate to task about law and order? The argument does not hold up. I am certainly not trying to represent the British Government as a benevolent Christian entity... but it was the legitimate authority.

Finn:

I did not compare the Scottish Covenanters to the IRA (I did not even mention the Scottish Covenanters in any of my posts... please read again.) Neither do I think it is fair to compare the British Government in the 18th Century to Nazi Germany (as Andrew has done). Do you agree that this too is an unfair comparison?[/size:9af8d6ab49]
 
I believe it was I who drew the rather ironic distinction between the Covenanters who refused assistance to Cromwell in putting down a [i:a4c4814193]real[/i:a4c4814193] Tyrant and their progeny here who would acquit the political overthrow of what, by any standards was a really fairly benign and reformable government.
 
My church history professor whom I [u:0e9bbd0b68]greatly[/u:0e9bbd0b68] admired (he died in the middle of my seminary days), C.Gregg Singer, wrote the book [i:0e9bbd0b68]A Theological Interpretation of American History.[/i:0e9bbd0b68] Dr. Singer disapproved of the W.o.I., or at the very least thought it began in haste.


Yet, as a (wishy-washy) W.o.I. advocate, I still have some questions:

How much government is oppression? When does its aggrandizing tendency cross the line? Who gets to decide?
What is the standard? Is it totally objective?
Does what we think today equal the general opinion of the 1770s?
In the Colonies, vs. Great Britain? Or what [[i:0e9bbd0b68]should have been[/i:0e9bbd0b68] their opinion(s)? How would we know? Should the same standard be applied to both? Why or why not? What factors (temporal? spatial? historical? other? any?) should be considered in deciding that point?
Some colonies charters had been abrogated and their legislatures suspended. Governors had been replaced by Crown political appointees. Could these actions [i:0e9bbd0b68]ever[/i:0e9bbd0b68] be considered just grounds for a Declaration of Independence? What standard made the Continental Congress an illegal assembly? Was it a voluntary assembly of state/colony representatives, duly appointed by their governments? By the same standard was the Long Parliament an illegal assembly too?
Who has a duty to act? And when? Is there a neat, uncomplicated biblical rule to follow to decide this point?
How many breaches of rights/liberties, at what intensity, on whose severity-meter constitutes sufficient warrant for a lesser judicatory to act, if ever? Again: What is the standard?

I'm not claiming there are any easy answers. The ones who have it easiest answering are those who reject all resistance (I'm not sure if any of our posters are quite holding there). I am just pointing out that the poll being what it is [b:0e9bbd0b68][i:0e9bbd0b68]if one is going to take the other side to task[/i:0e9bbd0b68][/b:0e9bbd0b68] remember both sides have a "burden of proof," not just the [i:0e9bbd0b68]afirmo,[/i:0e9bbd0b68] as if this were a debate format. The no-votes side (when they affirm the general right to rebel at some point) is saying the tipping point wasn't reached. But where was that point? How do you know? And even though/if it wasn't, should that have been apparent to the colonists who took up arms and fought the Red-coats, and "coalition force" Hessians? Could a few, some, many, or most have been conscience-clear by a biblical standard they were supporting a just cause?

The yes-votes have tossed out some proofs, though some are calling them weak reeds: mostly claims drawn from the Declaration of Independence. That evidence has been pooh-poohed by the no-votes. But that has all been of the "says you" variety of rebuttal. Well, now, OK, if that's not enough, then what and how much is? Give the yes-votes your standard and let's see if it can be met!

... And ... to all ... don't hold your opinions too close to your egos. No one's questioning anyone's integrity here (or shouldn't be), even when you are accused of holding "dangerous thoughts" that might "s'port ter'rism". Just try and explain how that ain't so. This series has been pretty civil so far, as controversies go, In my humble opinion.
 
WOW I did not expect this deep of a discussion? The core question I am trying to answer is there a biblical argument for 1. National Religion 2. Patriotism
 
Bruce,

Thanks so much for your effort to return us to sanity...

:D

I entered this discussion upon seeing one comment by Authorized to the effect that the overthrow of tyrants was biblically mandated.

I consider the burden of proof to be on him and others here who agree with him to substantiate this claim and a corresponding implication of the discussion at hand:

1. that the overthrow of tyrants is biblically mandated, and

2.that the British were in actual fact sufficiently tyrannical to justify such an overthrow.

Neither question has been adequately answered at this point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top