Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Did U.S. War of Independence Contradict the Bible?

* * * * * 1 votes America Scripture Founding Fathers Historical Context FUD

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
92 replies to this topic

#1
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,464 posts
I would like to discuss peacefully and logically the following quote...


The Founding Father’s of America violated Scripture and the nation was conceived in sin.



The backing for such a statement is Romans 13.

I believe this statement to be FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. This statement does not consider the historical context of the American Revolution.

I'm not saying America is perfect but I do not believe the Founding Father's in America violated Scripture. I intend to give evidence of this claim being the promotion of FUD.


Were the Colonies in rebellion? Was the revolution justifiable? I beleive the answer is yes.

Let us first consider some of the acts passed by British Parliamant leading up to the American Revolution.

Second let us look at the reasons for the Revolution.


I hope this discussion brings to light the truth and is fruitful to all.

God bless,
GE

#2
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,464 posts
First - Acts 1764-1775 Passed By British Parliamant Following the End of the French and Indian War in 1763

Some of the key reasons the American colonists rebelled against England were because of the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act, the Declaratory Act, the Coercive Acts, and Prohibitory Act. These acts were passed from 1764 to 1775.

These acts were passed by Great Britain to primarily assist with payment for the French and Indian War which ended in 1763.

A. The Sugar Act of 1764*
This act was passed not to simply regulate trade but also increase revenue. The most important act was lumber that the act declared could only be exported by the Colonies to the Great Britain. An already depressed economy was taxed further.

The preamble to the act stated: "It is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this Kingdom ... and ... it is just and necessary that a revenue should be raised ... for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same." (Miller, John C. Origins of the American Revolution. Page 101. 1943)

B. The Stamp Act of 1765*
The act determined that printed materials in the Colonies be printed on paper produced in Great Britain. This included magazines, newspapers, legal documents, etc. used and sold in the Colonies.

C. The Declaratory Act (or The American Colonies Act) of 1766*
The Act repealed the Stamp Act of 1765 as boycotts were hurting British trade and some say used primarily to save face. This act stated that British Parliament had the same authority in America as in Britain. The act further declared that British Parliament had the right to pass laws that were binding on the American Colonies while providing no representation for the colonies.

D. The Coercive Acts (Also known as the Intolerable Acts)

D1. The Boston Port Act of 1774* – punishing all Boston citizens for the few who engaged in the famous “Boston Tea Party”. This was corporal punishment instead of finding the individual culprits.

D2. The Massachusetts Government Act of 1774* – Limited town meetings by Colonists to once a year and replaced a majority of the colonial government in Massachusetts with appointments by the British Governor or the King. This showed the Colonies that their government could by a swift legislation of Parliament be taken over by the Crown.

D3. The Administration of Justice Act of 1774* – allowed trials of royal officials to be moved by the Governor to another colony or even back to Great Britain. Few colonists could afford to travel to other colonies much less to Great Britain to testify;

D4. Quartering Act of 1774* – Applied to all colonies allowed for housing of British troops in the Colonies. This act or amendment to the 1765 act granted the governor the power to house British troops in colonial homes and buildings. This directly contradicted the British law Parliament had passed entitled the Mutiny Act (Of 1689 and 1718) that prohibited British troops to be housed in the home of private British citizens against their will.

E. Prohibitory Act of 1775*
Blockade by England on American trade ships. “All manner of trade and commerce” would be prohibited, and any Colonial ship that was found trading “shall be forfeited to his Majesty, as if the same were the ships and effects of open enemies.”

*All data below is found on the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia. This was written in my own words for simplification and clarification.

#3
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,464 posts
Second let us look at the reasons for the Revolution.

1. King George abdicated his protection on the Colonies and waged war on the Colonists

The relationship of each colony to the King was one of allegiance to him in exchange for his protection.

"He {King George} has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us." ---- Declaration of Independence

When the Christian hears "revolution today", he thinks in terms of "Communist Revolution" and equates this with the "American Revolution". False equation. There was no Communist-style revolution to Birth America. Textbooks further teach that our forefathers wanted to break from the cover of the Crown and be separate. They, therefore, revolted to bring forth their desires, a new nation. Such teachings are not the best interpretation of facts.


2. Charters of the Colonies

Charters were contracts between proprietors and companies and the King of England. Parliament was not a party to these contracts or charters. The charters granted the founder executive, legislative and judicial authority. The King had only restraining authority. David Ramsey writes in his Prelude to the American Revolution, 1765-1775.: "They (founders) looked upon their charters as a voluntary compact, between their sovereign and themselves, by which they were bound neither to be subject to, nor seek protection from any other prince: nor to make any laws repugnant to those of England: but did not consider them as inferring an obligation of obedience to a parliament, in which they were unrepresented."2

As an example of many possible examples, the Charter of Maryland given to Lord Baltimore in June, 1632, and his heirs contains this clause: "free, full and absolute Power...to ordain, Make, and Enact LAWS of what kindsoever, according to their sound Discretion."

Colonial America was self-governed people. The Encyclopedia Britannica says: "The Crown delegated rights of settlement and subordinate rights of government to proprietors...The patentees governed the colonists, and the Crown only interfered at intervals to adjust matters."4

As an example of the independence the Colonial Assemblies had of internal British control, only 5% of the thousands of laws colonial legislatures passed between 1691 and 1763 were vetoed by Britain.5


3. Revolution and Rebellion?

Revolution and rebellion are harmful states of mind. Christians need to learn that America did not want to be independent of England; it was forced upon her. Before 1776, she made numerous Godly appeals to the Crown for reconciliation to her pre-1763 relationship with England, but without success. Actually, England declared war upon America and granted her independence on 22 December 1775.

4. The French and Indian War and Britain’s Debt

After the ending of the French and Indian War in 1763, Great Britain was left with a large debt. From this point, serious interference by Parliament into the lives of colonists began. Parliament passed a series of famous acts beginning with The Sugar Act (5 April 1764) and ending with the Prohibitory Act (22 December 1775) to raise money to pay war debts and to control the Colonial Assemblies. The Colonial Assemblies resisted Parliament on grounds that the Charters did not grant her legislative power over them.

Additionally, the colonists were not represented in Parliament, hence the cry "taxation without representation." The leaders in the colonies understood the Colonial Assemblies to be the lawmakers of the colonists and Parliament her counterpart of the English people. Parliament and the Assemblies were co-equal. Both legislatures reported to the King representing their separate peoples. Parliament was outside the colonial relationship with the King per Charters.



5. Reconciliation was Rebuked

During the ensuing years of 1763 to 1776, the colonists made several attempts of reconciliation. They desired to retain their independence that existed prior to 1763, being free of internal British control. They were not striving to gain independence, but to preserve it. Parliament was attempting to erode it by usurping the legislative authority of Assemblies. After the war had begun on 19 April 1775 (Lexington and Concord), the Continental Congress voted to make one last effort to reconcile with England. The outcome of this vote was the Olive Branch Petition (8 July 1775). It was a petition to express loyalty to the King and seek a change of heart by England. In quoting from a portion of the Petition, does it sound of an attitude of rebellion and revolution? This was a Godly appeal.


Source: http://www.israelect...Revolution.html

#4
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,464 posts

what are the Biblical reasons given for revolution?


I’m glad you asked regarding the Biblical reasons...

5. Reconciliation was Rebuked

During the ensuing years of 1763 to 1776, the colonists made several attempts of reconciliation. They desired to retain their independence that existed prior to 1763, being free of internal British control. They were not striving to gain independence, but to preserve it. Parliament was attempting to erode it by usurping the legislative authority of Assemblies. After the war had begun on 19 April 1775 (Lexington and Concord), the Continental Congress voted to make one last effort to reconcile with England. The outcome of this vote was the Olive Branch Petition (8 July 1775). It was a petition to express loyalty to the King and seek a change of heart by England. In quoting from a portion of the Petition, does it sound of an attitude of rebellion and revolution? This was a Godly appeal.

Source: http://www.israelect...Revolution.html


Sorry realized I didn’t include the quote:

That your faithful subject on this continent request...that the wished for opportunity would soon be restored to them, of evincing the sincerity of their professions by every testimony of devotion becoming the most dutiful subjects and the most affectionate colonists. Gene Fisher & Glen Chambers, THE REVOLUTION MYTH. (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1981 ), p. 34.

This was the final colonial attempt to appeal to the King to return to the pre-1763 days of independence. The King refused to respond to this Petition.

On 6 July 1775, the Continental Congress issued the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms. The Continental Congress felt that it was necessary to state why the colonies were taking up arms against England. Notice in the following quote from that Declaration that the delegates did NOT desire to separate from England. This indicates a responsible act of self-defense.

We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great Britain, and establishing independent states. We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attached by unprovoked enemies. Gene Fisher & Glen Chambers, THE REVOLUTION MYTH. (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1981 ), p. 35.


Source: http://www.israelect...Revolution.html

This was in keeping with Matt. 18:15-19 regarding discipline and prayer as the King of the British Empire was a brother in Christ to those in the Colonies. This is the correct way to deal with discipline is it not? When two or three of us agree in Christ we are to act are we not?

Matt. 18:15-19
Discipline and Prayer

15 “If your brother sins
[k], go and [l]show him his fault [m]in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every [n]fact may be confirmed. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as [o]a Gentile and [p]a tax collector. 18 Truly I say to you, whatever you [q]bind on earth [r]shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you [s]loose on earth [t]shall have been loosed in heaven.

19
Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them [u]by My Father who is in heaven. 20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

It’s not like the decision wasn’t grievous to the Founding Father’s of America. It was a very hard realization to come to understanding that the King no longer viewed the Colonies as equal citizens under the British Empire don’t you think?

If the United States based on the above was not supposed to become independent would God have blessed George Washington and his troops with victory? An interesting question to ponder.

#5
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,464 posts

what are the Biblical reasons given for revolution?


Re: Revolution

Why is it important to reexamine, in a Christian publication, the founding of America? Because the prevailing view of the birth of America is stilted. This stilted view has led Christians into rebellion. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft (11 Samuel 15:23) which is always judged by God.

Were there no Prohibitory Act, there would be some justification to defend an American rebellion; but with it, none. Since, in fact, our Christian forefathers did not rebel against the King of England, Christians can no longer use our founding fathers as an example and excuse to rebel today. Rebellion is a dangerous attitude and response to any action. It is condemned by the Word of God: "An evil man seeketh only rebellion: therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him" (Pro. 17:11).

It is important to remove the curse of misapplying what our forefathers did during the Revolutionary War era. These words of Solomon come to mind: "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he." (Pro. 23:7). When Christians hold in their heart the deceptive teaching of "revolution/rebellion", the implication upon personal lives is obvious.


The Passage of the Prohibitory Act meant that the colonies were free of English rule as of 22 December, and the subsequent Declaration of Independence was announcing that independence. It states in the Declaration: "He (King George) has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us." The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of American in Congress, 4 July 1776 (Declaration of Independence), was announcing that which had already happened months ago. This Declaration gave reasons why reconciliation with Britain would not be possible.

Quoting from the Notes of Proceeding: "That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists. That as to the people or parliament of England, we had always been independent of them...That as for the King, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was dissolved by his assent to the late act (Prohibitory) of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, by his levying way on us, a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection; it being a certain position in law that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn." - Gene Fisher & Glen Chambers, THE REVOLUTION MYTH. (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1981 ), p. 50

http://www.israelect...Revolution.html

#6
JustinM

JustinM

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,401 posts
Great information GE, I appreciate a good history lesson. I guess calls for revolution against the US Government are a little premature, as we should petition the Church to act more like Christ, then petition God for His help with changing our government.

#7
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,464 posts

Great information GE, I appreciate a good history lesson. I guess calls for revolution against the US Government are a little premature, as we should petition the Church to act more like Christ, then petition God for His help with changing our government.


I agree in bold. :)

I'm not super big into end times studies but let's remember too that things are going to get worse before they get better. But the great news is Christ will return.

As American individuals in less than 300 years we have enjoyed more freedom than most citizens of nations/empires/cultures enjoyed in over 1000 plus years. Yet as a nation we seem so discontent. I've lived in third world countries. Even the poorest person here in America lives kings and queens with often such luxuries as AC, TV, electricity, cell phones, running water, internet, computers, ample reliable transportation (personal cars and public transportation), etc.

Perhpas we're more blessed than we want to believe? Perhaps the cup is half full not half empty?

Persecution is a part of the Christian walk. If we're not being persecuted perhaps we're not being enough of a witness for Christ in standing up for the truth of the Good News in love, accepting that Christ was persecuted and we're His servants, and in general disrupting our enemy's (Satan and the other fallen angels) efforts to thwart God.

Some thoughts to consider.

Just my 2 cents.

God bless,
GE

#8
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,886 posts

goldeneagle, funny but when I first wrote about this a number of years ago I did not know it was such an ongoing controversy. Most of the articles I read today claim it was a violation, those that did not had to follow a lot of twisted logic to "prove" their point (as well as fudging on some historical facts), as did the colonists who duly considered Romans13 and the seriousness of what they were doing. Rationalization and justifications, yet they convinced themselves their cause was just. (What was also curious to me is that those who defended the actions as biblical, all started off with a comment about liberals.) Did you know that John Wesley spoke for a pacifist stance? There are numerous examples of civil disobedience in the OT.

1Peter2:13 “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority . . .,”

Romans13 was written under Nero; hard to find just cause to rebel with those words coming while he reigned. And no rebellion by the Early Church during persecution or under the succeeding reigns of Claudius, Caligula, and Tacitus. We see in Psalm75:7 and Daniel2:21 that every ruler has their power by the sovereign will of God. I see no biblical case for the American Revolution and ample biblical evidence it missed the mark.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. All the historical facts and inuendo do not change Him.


Yet Paul stood in direct rebellion against the Roman Empire, in particular, the imperial cult, which stood as the law of the land in the Roman empire. Paul was martyred as an enemy of the state, as well as Peter.

Their crime was calling Jesus, "Lord." According to Roman law, the only "lord" was Caesar. For anyone to declare another Lord other than Caesar was punishible by death.

What about the Christians who defied the Roman government's demand that they sacrifice to Caesar?? Were they inviolation of Scripture??? Should Christians obey the government and submit to its statutes if those statutes require us to compromise the statutes and principles of Scripture???

Your approach to this issue is foolishness. Paul, for those using God-given commonsense is saying that we are not resist the government where the laws of our governing authorities are rightful and reasonable. We are to pay our taxes, obey those laws that are meant to keep the peace and promote the welfare and good of our communities. We are not, however, required to submit to governing authorities when those laws put us crossways with the Bible and we are forced to choose between our government and our God.

Paul's admonition is not meant to be understood that we obey the government,no questions asked, no matter what they demand.

#9
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,886 posts

The American Revolution, as is plain, does not qualify as the proper response to government as demonstrated in the Bible.

But the American Revolution was not an impulsive, hair trigger reaction to the injustices being imposed on the colonies by England. From the Declaratino of Independence:

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

Patriot, Patrick Henry echoed the same sentiments:

"Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!"

Attacking (resisting/rebelling) against the government is strictly forbidden and non-violent civil disobedience can be see as the opposite: a willing sacrifice of self for the truth of God's Word. Killing others for one's best interest, that is for fairer taxes and representation as in the American Revolution, is far from what God would have us do.



But that only demonstratres your lack of understanding about why the Revolution was fault. Here again, from the Declaration of Independence are the reasons why we sought indedpendence the King of England and why we were willing to fight and die for it:
  • He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
  • He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
  • He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
  • He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
  • He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
  • He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
  • He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
  • He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
  • He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
  • He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
  • He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
  • He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
  • He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
  • For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
  • For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
  • For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
  • For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
  • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
  • For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
  • For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
  • For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
  • For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
  • He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
  • He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
  • He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
  • He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
  • He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Further, and this just occurred to me to add, what distinguishes us as belonging to Christ is our love for the brethren and this love does NO HARM. The British were predominantly Christian. The colonists killed the brethren for worldly goods and worldly expectations of freedom.

The problem is that you are operating from a double-standard. They did us plenty of harm, but you only fault one side.

As for not doing harm, if someone tried to hurt my child or my spouse, you can bet I would do the evil-doer quite a bit of harm. How about you?? Would you fight to death to defend your child or spouse??? Or would you let them die so as to "do no harm?"

#10
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,464 posts

Goldeneagle, a lot of great history, thank you for that, but you were asked for biblical support for revolution/rebellion and you gave none. You wisely pointed out where Scripture considers rebellion as sin. Mt18:15-19 is not a call to or excuse for rebellion.
Also, no support for FUD.


Really? I'm so glad you wanted more. Let us dig a little deeper and consider the Bible passages that deal with civil disobedience and obeying God rather than men then...

Fear - Our country (the U.S.) was founded on rebellious and sinful principles... (Not true)
Uncertainty - So do we deserve what is coming down on us? (We don't deserve anything. God's mercy and grace is sufficient)
Doubt - So since our Founding Fathers were wrong is being involved with politics today worldliness and against the Bible? (No it is not.)

The American Revolution, as is plain, does not qualify as the proper response to government as demonstrated in the Bible. Attacking (resisting/rebelling) against the government is strictly forbidden and non-violent civil disobedience can be see as the opposite: a willing sacrifice of self for the truth of God's Word. Killing others for one's best interest, that is for fairer taxes and representation as in the American Revolution, is far from what God would have us do.

Further, and this just occurred to me to add, what distinguishes us as belonging to Christ is our love for the brethren and this love does NO HARM. The British were predominantly Christian. The colonists killed the brethren for worldly goods and worldly expectations of freedom.



There are several famous characters in the Bible including the “Heroes of the faith” in Hebrews 11 as well as in other passages where these servants of the King of Kings were given their special position of honor because they committed civil disobedience (e.g., Daniel's 3 friends, Daniel, the Hebrew midwives, Rahab, Samson, Moses, David, etc.; and the Apostles in Acts 4-5 also established their willingness to be civilly disobedient against tyrannical commands of civil and religious rulers).

Let's start with two examples: Daniel's Friends and Daniel

Daniel's three friends (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego) disobeyed the King Nebuchadnezzar and did not worship the King as the Chaldeans had convinced the King into ordering all his subjects to do. The King even promoted the three young men. Civil disobedience? Yes. Obeying the laws of God over the laws of men? Yes.

Daniel 3:8-30

Daniel’s Friends Disobey the King

8 Therefore at that time certain Chaldeans came forward and accused the Jews. 9 They spoke and said to King Nebuchadnezzar, “O king, live forever! 10 You, O king, have made a decree that everyone who hears the sound of the horn, flute, harp, lyre, and psaltery, in symphony with all kinds of music, shall fall down and worship the gold image; 11 and whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. 12 There are certain Jews whom you have set over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego; these men, O king, have not paid due regard to you. They do not serve your gods or worship the gold image which you have set up.”
13 Then Nebuchadnezzar, in rage and fury, gave the command to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego. So they brought these men before the king. 14 Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying to them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the gold image which I have set up? 15 Now if you are ready at the time you hear the sound of the horn, flute, harp, lyre, and psaltery, in symphony with all kinds of music, and you fall down and worship the image which I have made, good! But if you do not worship, you shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you from my hands?”
16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. 18 But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.”

Saved in Fiery Trial

19 Then Nebuchadnezzar was full of fury, and the expression on his face changed toward Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego. He spoke and commanded that they heat the furnace seven times more than it was usually heated. 20 And he commanded certain mighty men of valor who were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, and cast them into the burning fiery furnace. 21 Then these men were bound in their coats, their trousers, their turbans, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. 22 Therefore, because the king’s command was urgent, and the furnace exceedingly hot, the flame of the fire killed those men who took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego. 23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
24 Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished; and he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, “Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?”
They answered and said to the king, “True, O king.”
25 “Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”[a]

Nebuchadnezzar Praises God

26 Then Nebuchadnezzar went near the mouth of the burning fiery furnace and spoke, saying, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, servants of the Most High God, come out, and come here.” Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego came from the midst of the fire. 27 And the satraps, administrators, governors, and the king’s counselors gathered together, and they saw these men on whose bodies the fire had no power; the hair of their head was not singed nor were their garments affected, and the smell of fire was not on them.
28 Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, who sent His Angel and delivered His servants who trusted in Him, and they have frustrated the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they should not serve nor worship any god except their own God! 29 Therefore I make a decree that any people, nation, or language which speaks anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made an ash heap; because there is no other God who can deliver like this.”

[b]30 Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego in the province of Babylon.

#11
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,464 posts

Goldeneagle, a lot of great history, thank you for that, but you were asked for biblical support for revolution/rebellion and you gave none. You wisely pointed out where Scripture considers rebellion as sin. Mt18:15-19 is not a call to or excuse for rebellion.
Also, no support for FUD.


Continued... Are you familiar with the story of Daniel and the lions den? This was another case of evil people plotting against God's servant Daniel instead of his friends this time. Daniel was faithful to God in praying. The men wanted to "dethrone" Daniel from his position as governor How Daniel refused the ungodly lawful law of the kingdom of Darius and God delivered Daniel out of the mouths of the lions? So much so that Darius honored God and turned from his evil ways. Daniel prospered with God's guidance during the reign of Darius and Cyrus. Civil disobedience? Yes. Obeying the laws of God over the laws of men? Yes.

The Plot Against Daniel

6 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred and twenty satraps, to be over the whole kingdom;2 and over these, three governors, of whom Daniel was one, that the satraps might give account to them, so that the king would suffer no loss. 3 Then this Daniel distinguished himself above the governors and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king gave thought to setting him over the whole realm. 4 So the governors and satraps sought to find some charge against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find no charge or fault, because he was faithful; nor was there any error or fault found in him. 5 Then these men said, “We shall not find any charge against this Daniel unless we find it against him concerning the law of his God.”
6 So these governors and satraps thronged before the king, and said thus to him: “King Darius, live forever!7 All the governors of the kingdom, the administrators and satraps, the counselors and advisors, have consulted together to establish a royal statute and to make a firm decree, that whoever petitions any god or man for thirty days, except you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions. 8 Now, O king, establish the decree and sign the writing, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which does not alter.” 9 Therefore King Darius signed the written decree.

Daniel in the Lions’ Den

10 Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went home. And in his upper room, with his windows open toward Jerusalem, he knelt down on his knees three times that day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as was his custom since early days.
11 Then these men assembled and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God. 12 And they went before the king, and spoke concerning the king’s decree: “Have you not signed a decree that every man who petitions any god or man within thirty days, except you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions?”
The king answered and said, “The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which does not alter.”
13 So they answered and said before the king, “That Daniel, who is one of the captives[a] from Judah, does not show due regard for you, O king, or for the decree that you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day.”
14 And the king, when he heard these words, was greatly displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him; and he labored till the going down of the sun to deliver him. 15 Then these men approached the king, and said to the king, “Know, O king, that it is the law of the Medes and Persians that no decree or statute which the king establishes may be changed.”
16 So the king gave the command, and they brought Daniel and cast him into the den of lions. But the king spoke, saying to Daniel, “Your God, whom you serve continually, He will deliver you.” 17 Then a stone was brought and laid on the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with his own signet ring and with the signets of his lords, that the purpose concerning Daniel might not be changed.
Daniel Saved from the Lions

18 Now the king went to his palace and spent the night fasting; and no musicians[b] were brought before him. Also his sleep went from him. 19 Then the king arose very early in the morning and went in haste to the den of lions. 20 And when he came to the den, he cried out with a lamenting voice to Daniel. The king spoke, saying to Daniel, “Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?”
21 Then Daniel said to the king, “O king, live forever! 22 My God sent His angel and shut the lions’ mouths, so that they have not hurt me, because I was found innocent before Him; and also, O king, I have done no wrong before you.”
23 Now the king was exceedingly glad for him, and commanded that they should take Daniel up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no injury whatever was found on him, because he believed in his God.
Darius Honors God

24 And the king gave the command, and they brought those men who had accused Daniel, and they cast theminto the den of lions—them, their children, and their wives; and the lions overpowered them, and broke all their bones in pieces before they ever came to the bottom of the den.
25 Then King Darius wrote:


To all peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth:
Peace be multiplied to you.
26 I make a decree that in every dominion of my kingdom men must tremble and fear before the God of Daniel.


For He is the living God,
And steadfast forever;
His kingdom is the one which shall not be destroyed,
And His dominion shall endure to the end.
27 He delivers and rescues,
And He works signs and wonders
In heaven and on earth,
Who has delivered Daniel from the power of the lions.


28 So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

#12
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,464 posts
It's late. Let's start with these two and then we can discuss the others after these two.

God bless,
GE

#13
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,886 posts

First off, There is no double standard. Do not return evil for evil: both were equally wrong.

But you spend your energies condemning those who don't want to live under tyrranny, not the tyrants. Both are not equally wrong, though. That is just your moral equivlance. Standing up and resisting tyrranny is not returning evil for evil. Returning evil for evil would mean if someone murdered my child, I respond in kind, by murdering their child or another loved one. Returning evil for evil refers to taking revenge. Standing up to and resisting tyrannical despotic rulers is not evil nor is it returning evil for evil. You have a flawed and warped notion of what evil is.

When the Bible says do not return evil for evil, it was not addressing this issue. You are taking biblical precepts and applying them to an issue they were not meant to address. Nothing in the Scriptures forbids war, or resistance to tyrannical government.

Secondly, their so-called "reasons" for the revolution do not matter one wit. These are simply rationalizations and justifications to suit decisions already made and a work in progress. Paul wrote to submit to the governing authorities while Nero was on the throne. No provisos for tyranny or taxation without representation.

That is a pile of garbage. The reasons they listed are many and are not just about taxation. You probably ignored the list, becaue you lack the integrity to admit that no one could live under such tyrranny, nor should anyone have to. Pacificism is not a Christian moral concept. it is a secular concept and is not taught in the Bible. Sloppy, liberal theologians try to pencil pacificism into the Scriptures but the truth is that it is a secular, worldly concept.


So from your perspective, no matter how evil the government is, no matter what the government does, no matter how they brutalize, rape, persecute, inhumanely they act, there is to be no resistance, no attempt to overthrow such tyranny is wrong???

Your approach to the Scriptures in this matter demonstrates sloppy theology and poor exegesis. In truth, it is enables despots, and tyrants. It dehumanizes the victims of genuine evil and leaves them helpless with no recourse. Sadly, that is not a biblical teaching, no matter how hard you try to pencil it into the Bible. Your view does not promote righteousness; your view enables evil people to impose their evil on innocent followers of Jesus Christ. Non genuine follower of Jesus should accept your views, as they do not orginate in Scriptures. They originate from an ungodly liberal theology that perverts the Scriptures.

#14
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,464 posts

Fear - Our country (the U.S.) was founded on rebellious and sinful principles... (Not true)
Uncertainty - So do we deserve what is coming down on us? (We don't deserve anything. God's mercy and grace is sufficient)
Doubt - So since our Founding Fathers were wrong is being involved with politics today worldliness and against the Bible? (No it is not.)

Whose Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt are you listing? It is not Fear but Scripture, as I read it, that makes this country in error. As far as Uncertainty goes, what you wrote has never even entered my mind. Doubt is so totally off base as pertains to me beliefs it is hard to respond. Not being involved in politics has nothing to do with America actions. For me, as you should know by now, it is a conviction I received and I believe Scripture fully supports. This FUD is yours, perhaps, because it isn't mine. Sorry, but that FUD is a strawman.

Why the cases for non-violent civil disobedience? I agree with this point. It has nothing to do with rebellion, with returning evil for evil, with the killing and the mayhem of an armed conflict.


So is that all your going to say regarding Daniel and his friends?

#15
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,464 posts

shiloh and goldeneagle, Perhaps this script from a weekly newspaper, "Straight Talk," by Tom Anderson, suits your views (goldeneagle I think you are familiar with this):


"Politics is a dirty business which Christians should not stoop to."

If politics is dirty - and it is - it's because too many clean people have abstained. Actually, Christians and all good citizens have a moral responsibility to influence public policy for the good; to register, vote, be informed, and to influence others. Abraham Lincoln said, "He who affects public sentiment does a far greater service to society than he who enacts statutes." Proverbs 29:2 tells us, "when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." How can the righteous get in authority if righteous people default and let Satan rule government?

<snip>


Pay particular attention to point #3. On a side note... You do realize if people have not fought for freedom in the U.S. you would not be able to call involvement in politics worldliness?

From: http://www.gotquesti...-Romans-13.html

Question: "Was the American Revolution a violation of Romans 13:1-7?"

Answer:
The American Revolutionary War was a pivotal event in world history, and the representative democracy that followed has produced the freest, most productive society ever. No one can deny that most of the Founding Fathers were religious men or that the liberty they fought for has benefitted millions of people, but was their revolt against England biblically justified? Specifically, was the American Revolution a violation ofRomans 13:1-7?

During the years before the Revolutionary War, the issue of justified rebellion was widely debated, with good men on both sides of the issue. Not surprisingly, most English preachers, such as John Wesley, urged restraint and pacifism on the part of the colonists; while most Colonial preachers, such as John Witherspoon and Jonathan Mayhew, fanned the flames of revolution.

Before we weigh the actions of the colonists, we must take a look at the Scripture they struggled with. Here’s a verse-by-verse summary of Romans 13:1-7:

The passage starts with a clear-cut command to submit to “the governing authorities” (v1a). Immediately following the command is the reason for it: namely, authorities are God-ordained (v1b). Therefore, resisting earthly authority is the same as resisting God (v2). Rulers are a deterrent to evil in society (v3); in fact, a ruler is “God’s servant,” bringing retribution to the wrongdoer (v4). Christians should submit to human authority not only to avoid punishment but also to maintain a clear conscience before God (v5). Specifically, Christians should pay their taxes (v6) and pay the proper respect and honor to “God’s servants” (v7).

The commands in Romans 13 are quite broad, aimed at “everyone,” with no exceptions listed. In fact, when Paul wrote these words, Nero was on the throne. If Romans 13 applies to the cruel and capricious Nero, it applies to all kings. The early church followed the principles of Romans 13 even during the wicked and oppressive reigns of Claudius, Caligula, and Tacitus. No qualifications or “outs” are given in the passage. Paul does not say “be subject to the king UNLESS he is oppressive” or “you must obey all rulers EXCEPT usurpers.” The plain teaching of Romans 13 is that all governments in all places are to be honored and obeyed. Every ruler holds power by the sovereign will of God (Psalm 75:7;Daniel 2:21). New Testament examples of believers paying proper obedience and respect towards government authority include Luke 2:1-5; 20:22-25; and Acts 24:10 (see also 1 Peter 2:13-17).

This is not to say that God approves of everything governments do or that kings are always right. On the contrary, Scripture has many examples of kings being held to account by God (e.g., Daniel 4). Furthermore, Romans 13 does not teach that Christians must always obey the governing authorities, no matter what. The one exception to the general rule of obedience is when man’s laws are in direct conflict with the plainly revealed law of God. Examples of God’s people practicing civil disobedience include Peter and John defying the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:19; 5:29), the Hebrew midwives refusing to practice infanticide (Exodus 1:15-17), Daniel ignoring the Persian law concerning prayer (Daniel 6:10), and Daniel’s friends refusing to bow to the king’s image (Daniel 3:14-18).

So, as a general rule, we are to obey the government; the lone exception is when obeying man’s law would force us to directly disobey God’s law.

Now, what about Romans 13 as it pertains to the American Revolutionary War? Was the war justified? First, it is important to understand that many of those who supported the Revolutionary War were deeply religious men who felt that they were biblically justified in rebelling against England. Here are some of the reasons for their perspective:

1) The colonists saw themselves not as anti-government but as anti-tyranny. That is, they were not promoting anarchy or the casting off of all restraint. They believed Romans 13 taught honor for the institution of government, but not necessarily for the individuals who ruled government. Therefore, since they supported God’s institution of government, the colonists believed that their actions against a specific oppressive regime were not a violation of the general principle of Romans 13.

2) The colonists pointed out that it was the king of England himself who was in violation of Scripture. No king who behaved so wickedly, they said, could be considered “God’s servant.” Therefore, it was a Christian’s duty to resist him. As Mayhew said in 1750, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

3) The colonists saw the war as a defensive action, not as an offensive war. And it is true that, in 1775 and 1776, the Americans had presented the king with formal appeals for reconciliation. These peaceful pleas were met with armed military force and several violations of British Common Law and the English Bill of Rights. In 1770, the British fired upon unarmed citizens in the Boston Massacre. At Lexington, the command was “Don’t fire unless fired upon.” The colonists, therefore, saw themselves as defending themselves after the conflict had been initiated by the British.

4) The colonists read 1 Peter 2:13, “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority . . .,” and saw the phrase “for the Lord’s sake” as a condition for obedience. The reasoning ran thus: if the authority was unrighteous and passed unrighteous laws, then following them could not be a righteous thing. In other words, one cannot obey a wicked law “for the Lord’s sake.”

5) The colonists saw Hebrews 11 as justification for resisting tyrants. Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jephthah are all listed as “heroes of faith,” and they were all involved in overthrowing oppressive governments.

It is safe to say that the American patriots who fought against England were fully convinced that they had biblical precedent and scriptural justification for their rebellion. Although their view of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 is a faulty interpretation (there are no provisos concerning obedience in those passages), it was the popular preaching of the day. At the same time, the self-defense argument (number 3, above) is a convincing and substantial rationale for war.

Even if the American Revolution was a violation of Romans 13, we know that the patriots acted in good faith in the name of Christian freedom, and we know that, in the ensuing years, God has brought about much good from the freedom that was won as a result.



#16
BlessedByTheBest

BlessedByTheBest

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 819 posts
interesting topic, GE.

forgive me for not commenting on the intricacies of the politics, or the history for that matter..
i find myself agreeing pretty much wholeheartedly with all that numenian has stated thus far..

i don't know if it is just me, but i have always thought this system..and world for that matter to be entirely corrupt and condemned awaiting for judgment..

as far as the founding fathers..if a rebellion is not sanctioned through prayer and the approved guidance of the Almighty....then i believe any such acts of violence are destined for failure..
let us be forever reminded that nothing is made manifest if it is not God's will..in this sense, i believe everything that has, is, or will occur is ultimately in accord with the grand scheme of the greatest story ever written: God's creation.

with that said, i am surprised a most relevant passage of Scripture has not been mentioned..

Matthew 5:37-41


37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.


love to you all, and God bless. :heart:

Edited by BlessedByTheBest, 23 November 2012 - 11:39 AM.


#17
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,464 posts



Fear - Our country (the U.S.) was founded on rebellious and sinful principles... (Not true)
Uncertainty - So do we deserve what is coming down on us? (We don't deserve anything. God's mercy and grace is sufficient)
Doubt - So since our Founding Fathers were wrong is being involved with politics today worldliness and against the Bible? (No it is not.)

Whose Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt are you listing? It is not Fear but Scripture, as I read it, that makes this country in error. As far as Uncertainty goes, what you wrote has never even entered my mind. Doubt is so totally off base as pertains to me beliefs it is hard to respond. Not being involved in politics has nothing to do with America actions. For me, as you should know by now, it is a conviction I received and I believe Scripture fully supports. This FUD is yours, perhaps, because it isn't mine. Sorry, but that FUD is a strawman.

Why the cases for non-violent civil disobedience? I agree with this point. It has nothing to do with rebellion, with returning evil for evil, with the killing and the mayhem of an armed conflict.


So is that all your going to say regarding Daniel and his friends?


This has been covered. I commented on Daniel and his friends: it is non-violent civil disobedience, not rebellion, and I agree for about the fifth time. I originally brought up Daniel; you can see it in earlier posts. Perhaps you shoud clearly state why you posted those particular scriptural verses.


They were involved with government and God blessed them. They were disobedient and God blessed them.

#18
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,464 posts

interesting topic, GE.

forgive me for not commenting on the intricacies of the politics, or the history for that matter..
i find myself agreeing pretty much wholeheartedly with all that numenian has stated thus far..

i don't know if it is just me, but i have always thought this system..and world for that matter to be entirely corrupt and condemned awaiting for judgment..

as far as the founding fathers..if a rebellion is not sanctioned through prayer and the approved guidance of the Almighty....then i believe any such acts of violence are destined for failure..
let us be forever reminded that nothing is made manifest if it is not God's will..in this sense, i believe everything that has, is, or will occur is ultimately in accord with the grand scheme of the greatest story ever written: God's creation.


Thanks for your comments and perspective BlessedByTheBest. I believe the historical context and the relevant political developments leading up to the American Revolution point to a different perspective regarding the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers, etc.


From: http://www.wallbuild...es.asp?id=24548

What did King James I due to more firmly establish his role as the head of the Church of England? He concocted two new “church” doctrines: (1) the Divine Right of Kings (that kings stand in the place of God, representing Him to the people), and (2) Complete Submission and Non-Resistance to Authority (that because kings have an allegedly Divine position, they are not to be resisted – ever, for any reason).

Founding Father James Otis explained that the only king who had a “Divine right” was God Himself; beyond that, God had ordained that power should rest with the people (c.f., Exodus 18:21, Deuteronomy 1:15-16, etc.):

Has it [government] any solid foundation? – any chief cornerstone. . . ? I think it has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God. . . . Government. . . . is by no means an arbitrary thing depending merely on compact or human will for its existence. . . . There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the law of nature and the grant of God Almighty, Who has given to all men a natural right to be free; and they have it ordinarily in their power to make themselves so if they please….If both those powers are retained in the hands of the many (where nature seems to have placed them originally), the government is a simple democracry, or a government of all over all. . . . [God is] the only monarch in the universe Who has a clear and indisputable right to absolute power because He is the only one Who is omniscient as well as omnipotent. 11

Founding Father John Dickinson (a signer of the Constitution) also affirmed that spiritual view:

Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness. . . . We claim them from a higher source – from the King of kings and Lord of all the earth. They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature. They are born with us, exist with us, and cannot be taken from us by any human power without taking our lives. 12

In fact, Samuel Adams (the “Father of the American Revolution” and a signer of the Declaration of Independence) specifically recommended a study of the Scriptures in order to understand the basis of America’s struggle against a tyrannical king, explaining that:

The Rights of the Colonists as Christians. . . . may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

Declaration signer Francis Hopkinson (also a church musician and choir leader) agreed:

Q. It has often been said, that America is in a state of rebellion. Tell me, therefore, what is Rebellion? A. It is when a great number of people, headed by one or more factious leaders, aim at deposing their lawful prince without any just cause of complaint in order to place another on his throne. Q. Is this the case of the Americans? A. Far otherwise. 16

#19
jasoncran

jasoncran

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,932 posts
your link lists the american revolution as civil unrest.

careful numeian. the faifthful that built america also is the church that is here now in sorts. the church drove all this stuff.

#20
BlessedByTheBest

BlessedByTheBest

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 819 posts


interesting topic, GE.

forgive me for not commenting on the intricacies of the politics, or the history for that matter..
i find myself agreeing pretty much wholeheartedly with all that numenian has stated thus far..

i don't know if it is just me, but i have always thought this system..and world for that matter to be entirely corrupt and condemned awaiting for judgment..

as far as the founding fathers..if a rebellion is not sanctioned through prayer and the approved guidance of the Almighty....then i believe any such acts of violence are destined for failure..
let us be forever reminded that nothing is made manifest if it is not God's will..in this sense, i believe everything that has, is, or will occur is ultimately in accord with the grand scheme of the greatest story ever written: God's creation.

with that said, i am surprised a most relevant passage of Scripture has not been mentioned..



Matthew 5:37-41
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.


love to you all, and God bless. :heart:


Thank you for that very pertinent verse. I fear that my views are resisted partly because of certain presuppositions about my motives and a label of liberal. Maybe hearing it from another Christian, who, from what I read, is a true follower of Christ, can help bring the discussion into a biblical and not a political light. God bless.


your welcome brother..btw a little resistance never hurt anybody, now rebellion on the other hand... :taped:

i will say that i see no issues with being patriotic, until that state of mind imposes on certain biblical foundations..

i am far too preoccupied with that which edifies. of course, there is nothing wrong with a little entertainment..(politics) :37:
anyways..i believe the faith of those whom chose to rebel may be in question. perhaps America failed her test, and has been paying the price of servitude ever since.

Luke 16:10-12
10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?



perhaps..no, we can be sure that the Great Deceiver was at work..
what really drops the hammer is when one finds that many of our "Founding Fathers" were practicing Freemasons, (Luciferians). hmmm.
unwittingly or not, one must wonder which "God" they were referring to in those originating documents which are now being so liberally(no pun intended) destroyed.
this in turn makes one wonder, exactly which "Church" we are referring to. hmmm..

so what's next on Satan's news? <-- think i'll add that to my sig.. :cool2:

personally, i find absolutely no shame in dying in the hands of God. <-- another sig worthy one. quote me by all means. :biggrin2:

if tyranny is what must come to pass in order for what is ordained to come to fruition, so be it. <-- i'm on a roll! :rofl:


i won't quote it...read this ladies and gents..
Revelation 18

am i digressing? there truly is nothing new under the sun..i apologize if my posts seem to be always leading towards this foreboding view concerning this country.
perhaps it's because of my overly optimistic perspective on what it will one day be transformed into.. those who love it can have it, imo.
i like the title, "Ambassador for Christ." that's about as righteous as it gets.


love to you all, and God bless. :heart:

Edited by BlessedByTheBest, 23 November 2012 - 03:29 PM.





Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network