Quote:
Originally Posted by rbcbob  Quote:
Originally Posted by John Lanier Yes. I believe it was wrong to rebel against those who had been placed in authority over us. Neither Paul nor Peter encouraged men to rebel against the authority placed over them and they had way more persecution facing them than "no taxation without representation" (I know that wasn't the only reason that was given for the Revolution). Instead we find verses like the ones that you cited above. I know I am probably in the minority here. Even if we had been slaves to England, the teaching of Scripture was not to rebel but to submit to your master (Eph.6:5-8). If we had been given the opportunity for independence, then it would have been fine but to rebel was wrong. | Josh,
Thanks for participating! I have researched this subject rather extensively and your answer is far and away the most common. I have been compelled to acquiesce to an opposite conclusion base on my reading of primary sources of the period vis-a-vis the scriptures referenced.
One further question: Would you say that the magistrates were themselves to submit to the king? |
Although I am not Josh (and I am sure he can answer it better) . . . Lesser magistrates are to submit to higher magistrates just as individuals are to submit to the civil rulers. However the Bible does not teach unconditional submission to any earthly ruler, be he king, parent or pastor. Christ is head over all things according to Ephesians 1. To give unconditional submission (in past known as the divine right of kings theory in the political realm) to any earthly ruler is idolatry. The reformation put to rest this false teaching which as of late is being resurrected.
Biblically speaking, the question that needs to be answered is where does submission to human authority end?