Quote:
Originally Posted by rbcbob  David,
May I just say that you, as I once did, read your Bible through 21st century American lenses. Notice your words that I highlighted in red. Step away from the stars and stripes for a moment and look at the passage from the standpoint of a citizen of heaven and a subject of King Jesus. The text says that rebellion qua rebellion is the same as witchcraft.
Cromwell thought, as do all revolutionaries, that his circumstances were extraordinary and therefore provided an exception to the rules which rightfully bind others. He professed to be a Christian and, though there may be evidence to call such a profession into question, there is yet indication that he desired to obey God. He was familiar with his bible and sought to order his life by its precepts. He seems not to have understood the apostle Paul who asked and why not say, let us do evil that goood may come? as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.
As one of Cromwell's biographers noted:
No doubt there are errors [in Cromwell] 'It is lawful for the lesser party, when in the right to force the majority, Cromwell says. But where is the lesser party the minority, that does not think it is right? |
I think it is funny that am accused as being blinded by the starts and stripes; particularly because I am extremely critical of my country and the policies they create and exactly where my tax money goes. I wouldn’t say am reading the Bible through 21 century but a combination of two lens. The first one being the initial application of the test within redemptive history and the second is how does this relate within God’s Law and Gospel; this does not mean I don’t read it through a 20 century lens at times. Ok, so let us step back and look at it as a citizen of heaven and as Jesus as the King. If we were in heaven and we went directly against the clear word of God on a matter then yes we would be in violation of God’s law. However, does scripture clearly teach that even if it is legal within your law to rebel against a ruling nation across an ocean that you shouldn’t rebel for the betterment of society? Remember there were pastor for and against that preached the subject of independence and was probably why churches like The Cathedral of Kingston were burned down. The English during the time of the rebellion were not exactly civil and did not always show partiality on who they killed and why.
I think it is a mistake to try to equate the American Revolution to the life’s work of Oliver Cromwell. First of all the American Revolution did not seek to destory the Monarchy, just to have freedom to govern themselves. Second, Cromwell’s war with the Irish went further then just protecting the Protestant, but was fueled probably with his hatred of the Roman Catholic theological system. No such fueling existed with the American Revolution against the crown directly. Another major difference between Cromwell and the American Revolution is also the distribution of fame and power, which Cromwell had to much of. And I think the practices Cromwell/parliament and the founding fathers were also quite different with the form of government and who was to be the successor. So I do not think its completely a fair comparisons. And regards to criticisms of his theology, let face we can do the same to just about anyone then, today, even our church fathers when it comes to biblical interpretation.
I still do not see a clear cut passage that condemns the revolution. I think that at this point it is an issue of conscience and liberty that God has not granted to vast majority of governments and empires, for most within their own laws do not allow for the legal right to rebel if the citizens rights were not being upheld.