Do you believe that the American Revolution was biblically justified?

Was the War for Independence biblical?

  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brian Withnell said:
That is not what the colonists themselves said in the declaration of independence. They fully comprehended they were British subjects, but understood the crown to have broken the laws of England and nature. The magistrates then severed the relationship.

That is the DoI ... written by the colonists. They were "alter[ing] their former Systems of Government." They were establishing rule other than by England.
Click to expand...

Hey, Brian, long time no si! Oh, I agree with everyone that many of the colonists were British subjects, but they they were British people squatting on a piece of land that was not a nation. There were a few colonies which had Britain born people living in them and that made them and Britain think they owned the land they were on. Meanwhile, other countries stated they had a claim to vast amounts of the New World. In short, no country could legally claim it as part of their sovereign nation. They only got smart when they figured out they actually owned the land as independent settlers and formed a nation which didn’t include every other nation being apart of the new nation.
 
C. M. Sheffield said:
You have no love for the land of your birth?
Click to expand...

I'm thankful for the freedoms I (still) have, and think we live in a wonderful land that has a lot of resources.

But, our government(s) are very ungodly, and we are for the most part a godless nation, even though many of our laws are rooted in Biblical morals - although that is changing quickly.
 
Whether it was justified or not, we are better off. Most of my friends have hordes of guns and thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammo. In Britain you will get arrested for having a butterknife.
 
The gun thing culture in America is so foreign to me, as a Canadian. The idea of a regular citizen carrying a concealed handgun is troubling. I'm not saying it is immoral, it is just a bit scary, tbh. And I come from the countryside, where the farmers have lots of guns.
 
In his Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, John Milton includes a variety of quotations from the greatest Reformers on the issue of resistance to unlawful authority. It is worth considering these statements in addition to others made by deeply Calvinist men such as George Buchanan, Samuel Rutherford and John Witherspoon. Even Calvin, who argued for submission to government in the Institutes, appeared to come around to Knox's position later in life after seeing the persecution of the Huguenots in France. Of course, even in the Institutes Calvin did grant that lesser magistrates could resist tyrants even if he nonetheless rejected Lockean social contract-esque theories about popular resistance to government.

Martin Luther:

"Neither is Caesar to make war as head of Christendom, protector of the church, defender of the faith; these titles being false and windy, and most kings being the greatest enemies to religion.” Lib. de Bello contra Turcas, apud Sleid. l. 14. What hinders then, but that we may depose or punish them?"

Huldrich Zwingli:

“When kings reign perfidiously, and against the rule of Christ, they may according to the word of God be deposed.”

“I know not how it comes to pass, that kings reign by succession, unless it be with consent of the whole people.”

“But when by suffrage and consent of the whole people, or the better part of them, a tyrant is deposed or put to death, God is the chief leader in that action.”

“Now that we are so lukewarm in upholding public justice, we endure the vices of tyrants to reign now-a-days with impunity; justly therefore by them we are trod underfoot, and shall at length with them be punished. Yet ways are not wanting by which tyrants may be removed, but there wants public justice.”

“Beware, ye tyrants! for now the gospel of Jesus Christ, spreading far and wide will renew the lives of many to love innocence and justice; which if ye also shall do, ye shall be honoured. But if ye shall go on to rage and do violence, ye shall be trampled on by all men.”

“When the Roman empire, or any other, shall begin to oppress religion, and we negligently suffer it, we are as much guilty of religion so violated, as the oppressors themselves.”

John Calvin:

On Daniel 4:25 — “Now-a-days monarchs pretend always in their titles, to be kings by the grace of God: but how many of them to this end only pretend it, that they may reign without control! for to what purpose is the grace of God mentioned in the title of kings, but that they may acknowledge no superior? In the mean while God, whose name they use to support themselves, they willingly would tread under their feet. It is therefore a mere cheat, when they boast to reign by the grace of God.”

On Daniel 6:22 — “Earthly princes depose themselves, while they rise against God; yea they are unworthy to be numbered among men: rather it behoves us to spit upon their heads, than to obey them.”

Martin Bucer:

"If a sovereign prince endeavour by arms to defend transgressors, to subvert those things which are taught in the word of God, they, who are in authority under him, ought first to dissuade him; if they prevail not, and that he now bears himself not as a prince but as an enemy, and seeks to violate privileges and rights granted to inferior magistrates, or commonalties, it is the part of pious magistrates, imploring first the assistance of God, rather to try all ways and means, than to betray the flock of Christ to such an enemy of God: for they also are to this end ordained, that they may defend the people of God, and maintain those things which are good and just. For to have supreme power lessens not the evil committed by that power, but makes it the less tolerable, by how much the more generally hurtful. Then certainly the less tolerable, the more unpardonably to be punished.”

John Knox:

Wrote an entire book about this ("The Appellation of John Knox") and discusses it at length in "The Second Blast of the Trumpet"

Thomas Cartwright:

“Kings have their authority of the people, who may upon occasion reassume it to themselves.”

“The people may kill wicked princes as monsters and cruel beasts.”

Christopher Goodman:

“When kings or rulers become blasphemers of God, oppressors and murderers of their subjects, they ought no more to be accounted kings or lawful magistrates, but as private men to be examined, accused, and condemned and punished by the law of God; and being convicted and punished by that law, it is not man’s but God’s doing.”

“When magistrates cease to do their duty, the people are as it were without magistrates, yea, worse, and then God giveth the sword into the people’s hand, and he himself is become immediately their head.”

“If princes do right, and keep promise with you, then do you owe to them all humble obedience; if not, ye are discharged, and your study ought to be in this case how ye may depose and punish according to the law such rebels against God, and oppressors of their country.”
 
De Jager said:
The gun thing culture in America is so foreign to me, as a Canadian. The idea of a regular citizen carrying a concealed handgun is troubling. I'm not saying it is immoral, it is just a bit scary, tbh. And I come from the countryside, where the farmers have lots of guns.
Click to expand...

I used to carry a concealed gun when I traveled. I don't anymore because the paperwork is a nightmare. And it is hard to hide a big .45 revolver in Louisiana in the summertime.
 
De Jager said:
The gun thing culture in America is so foreign to me, as a Canadian. The idea of a regular citizen carrying a concealed handgun is troubling. I'm not saying it is immoral, it is just a bit scary, tbh. And I come from the countryside, where the farmers have lots of guns.
Click to expand...

Two quotes from Jefferson are appropriate...

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”—Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”—Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book​
 
C. M. Sheffield said:
Two quotes from Jefferson are appropriate...

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”—Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”—Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book​
Click to expand...

I mean, I see the logic in his arguments.

But as someone who has never carried a weapon I have never really felt threatened, or enslaved by anyone. Maybe those quotes are fitting in a time of war or revolution, but those have no relevance in a setting such as my own.

Our country was established by a peaceful transition of power from the crown to the people in Canada, so there has never really been a need here to carry weapons.

In Canada (where it is illegal to carry a handgun) we have a murder rate of 1.8 per 100,000 people.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510006801

In the US (where in many places it is legal to carry a handgun), there is a murder rate of 5.1 per 100,000 people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

So while one might feel safer, the stats don't back it up.
 
I think the situation prior to, and during the War for Independence was a complicated. Part of the problem was that Britain was governed by singularly incompetent prime ministers as well as having a king, while a decent man, and probably a Christian, was stubborn and incompetent as well. They meant one things by their actions and Americans interpreted it in quite another. Americans felt that their liberties, which they had long enjoyed in the colonies, was being threatened by Parliament. The link that the colonies had with Britain was through the king, not parliament, and when parliament starting trying to legislate over the colonies, the colonists grew alarmed and ultimately, felt that they had no choice but leave. They felt that Britain had broken their covenant with America.

If you want to really a good book on what happened I recommend Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly.
 
De Jager said:
I mean, I see the logic in his arguments.

But as someone who has never carried a weapon I have never really felt threatened, or enslaved by anyone. Maybe those quotes are fitting in a time of war or revolution, but those have no relevance in a setting such as my own.

Our country was established by a peaceful transition of power from the crown to the people in Canada, so there has never really been a need here to carry weapons.

In Canada (where it is illegal to carry a handgun) we have a murder rate of 1.8 per 100,000 people.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510006801

In the US (where in many places it is legal to carry a handgun), there is a murder rate of 5.1 per 100,000 people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

So while one might feel safer, the stats don't back it up.
Click to expand...
How do the states rack up? Many of our states are the size of countries and have their own gun laws. Generally, the more stringent the laws, the more crime, especially gun related. The opposite is also the case.
Look it up.
 
De Jager said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Murder rate/100,000

Texas 4.7
Arizona 4.5
Louisiana 10.3
Mississippi 8.7
Kentucky 4.7
Alaska 8.0
Click to expand...

The La. rate is a bit misleading. Cities like New Orleans are basically Chicago, and they wouldn't obey gun control laws anyway.

And the key stat isn't "murder rate," but "gun murder rate." In that case, the numbers go down. And Democrat-controlled DC is far worse. And take New Orleans out of the picture, and La.'s goes down.
 
Haeralis said:
In his Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, John Milton includes a variety of quotations from the greatest Reformers on the issue of resistance to unlawful authority. It is worth considering these statements in addition to others made by deeply Calvinist men such as George Buchanan, Samuel Rutherford and John Witherspoon. Even Calvin, who argued for submission to government in the Institutes, appeared to come around to Knox's position later in life after seeing the persecution of the Huguenots in France. Of course, even in the Institutes Calvin did grant that lesser magistrates could resist tyrants even if he nonetheless rejected Lockean social contract-esque theories about popular resistance to government.

Martin Luther:

"Neither is Caesar to make war as head of Christendom, protector of the church, defender of the faith; these titles being false and windy, and most kings being the greatest enemies to religion.” Lib. de Bello contra Turcas, apud Sleid. l. 14. What hinders then, but that we may depose or punish them?"

Huldrich Zwingli:

“When kings reign perfidiously, and against the rule of Christ, they may according to the word of God be deposed.”

“I know not how it comes to pass, that kings reign by succession, unless it be with consent of the whole people.”

“But when by suffrage and consent of the whole people, or the better part of them, a tyrant is deposed or put to death, God is the chief leader in that action.”

“Now that we are so lukewarm in upholding public justice, we endure the vices of tyrants to reign now-a-days with impunity; justly therefore by them we are trod underfoot, and shall at length with them be punished. Yet ways are not wanting by which tyrants may be removed, but there wants public justice.”

“Beware, ye tyrants! for now the gospel of Jesus Christ, spreading far and wide will renew the lives of many to love innocence and justice; which if ye also shall do, ye shall be honoured. But if ye shall go on to rage and do violence, ye shall be trampled on by all men.”

“When the Roman empire, or any other, shall begin to oppress religion, and we negligently suffer it, we are as much guilty of religion so violated, as the oppressors themselves.”

John Calvin:

On Daniel 4:25 — “Now-a-days monarchs pretend always in their titles, to be kings by the grace of God: but how many of them to this end only pretend it, that they may reign without control! for to what purpose is the grace of God mentioned in the title of kings, but that they may acknowledge no superior? In the mean while God, whose name they use to support themselves, they willingly would tread under their feet. It is therefore a mere cheat, when they boast to reign by the grace of God.”

On Daniel 6:22 — “Earthly princes depose themselves, while they rise against God; yea they are unworthy to be numbered among men: rather it behoves us to spit upon their heads, than to obey them.”

Martin Bucer:

"If a sovereign prince endeavour by arms to defend transgressors, to subvert those things which are taught in the word of God, they, who are in authority under him, ought first to dissuade him; if they prevail not, and that he now bears himself not as a prince but as an enemy, and seeks to violate privileges and rights granted to inferior magistrates, or commonalties, it is the part of pious magistrates, imploring first the assistance of God, rather to try all ways and means, than to betray the flock of Christ to such an enemy of God: for they also are to this end ordained, that they may defend the people of God, and maintain those things which are good and just. For to have supreme power lessens not the evil committed by that power, but makes it the less tolerable, by how much the more generally hurtful. Then certainly the less tolerable, the more unpardonably to be punished.”

John Knox:

Wrote an entire book about this ("The Appellation of John Knox") and discusses it at length in "The Second Blast of the Trumpet"

Thomas Cartwright:

“Kings have their authority of the people, who may upon occasion reassume it to themselves.”

“The people may kill wicked princes as monsters and cruel beasts.”

Christopher Goodman:

“When kings or rulers become blasphemers of God, oppressors and murderers of their subjects, they ought no more to be accounted kings or lawful magistrates, but as private men to be examined, accused, and condemned and punished by the law of God; and being convicted and punished by that law, it is not man’s but God’s doing.”

“When magistrates cease to do their duty, the people are as it were without magistrates, yea, worse, and then God giveth the sword into the people’s hand, and he himself is become immediately their head.”

“If princes do right, and keep promise with you, then do you owe to them all humble obedience; if not, ye are discharged, and your study ought to be in this case how ye may depose and punish according to the law such rebels against God, and oppressors of their country.”
Click to expand...

These are great quotations. But they have nothing to do with George III or the British Parliament.

The Huguenots' mitary reisistance was justified. Men, women and children were being murdered for confessing the true faith.

The Dutch resistance to the Spanish in the Eighty Years' War was justified. They were being slaightered in the tens of thousands by a truly tyrannical regime.

The Covenanters' struggle was justified. They were fighting to preserve the true religion against idolatry.

But how is the revolt in the Thirteen Colonies like any of these? The colonists were mad over taxation, lack of representation, and resticted westward expansion. Where are the rebels against God in this scenario?
 
@De Jager,

Here's one Canadian who thinks the right to bear arms is quite a fundamental freedom.

I look at it two ways, basically:

1. The state has no right to tell me I can't ptotect myself or my family.

2. The state military should not be the only "gun owner". They'll be able to impose whatever they want.

I might start another thread when I can snatch a moment.
 
De Jager said:
The gun thing culture in America is so foreign to me, as a Canadian. The idea of a regular citizen carrying a concealed handgun is troubling. I'm not saying it is immoral, it is just a bit scary, tbh. And I come from the countryside, where the farmers have lots of guns.
Click to expand...
So you’re an open carry guy? :)
 
De Jager said:
Our country was established by a peaceful transition of power from the crown to the people in Canada, so there has never really been a need here to carry weapons.
Click to expand...

This is not quite true. Canada's had its share of frontier wars and rebellions. Historically it was very normal for a family to own a musket. It proved handy when the Yankees tried invading. Still many Canadians own guns (they really are a necessity for many people) but they're not treated kindly for it by the government or the media (liberal élite).

De Jager said:
In Canada (where it is illegal to carry a handgun) we have a murder rate of 1.8 per 100,000 people.
Click to expand...

De Jager said:
In the US (where in many places it is legal to carry a handgun), there is a murder rate of 5.1 per 100,000 people.
Click to expand...

These stats do not show at all precisely that guns are the problem. There are almost certainly other issues at play (ie. drugs, gangs and other crime, not to mention nihilistic atheism).
 
Interesting question given that the context of Jesus' ministry was during foreign occupation and that taxation was one of the major components of division.
 
OPC'n said:
Hey, Brian, long time no si! Oh, I agree with everyone that many of the colonists were British subjects, but they they were British people squatting on a piece of land that was not a nation. There were a few colonies which had Britain born people living in them and that made them and Britain think they owned the land they were on. Meanwhile, other countries stated they had a claim to vast amounts of the New World. In short, no country could legally claim it as part of their sovereign nation. They only got smart when they figured out they actually owned the land as independent settlers and formed a nation which didn’t include every other nation being apart of the new nation.
Click to expand...
Puerto Rico is akin to a colony ... it is not a state, it is a territory of the U.S. It is very much like a colony in that the people there are American Citizens (they vote for our president and are covered by our constitution and federal laws).

England had claimed it, and fought a war over it as well. Part of the grievances of the colonies were because England had levied taxes that disproportionately were charging the colonies for the costs of that war. The colonies (justly) felt that the costs of England defending English citizens ought be born equally by all English subjects. England was continually thinking the colonies would be a source of revenue, not a cost center. The only other major country that had a claim to the British colonies would have been France, and they were turned back from that claim by the above mentioned war.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
The La. rate is a bit misleading. Cities like New Orleans are basically Chicago, and they wouldn't obey gun control laws anyway.

And the key stat isn't "murder rate," but "gun murder rate." In that case, the numbers go down. And Democrat-controlled DC is far worse. And take New Orleans out of the picture, and La.'s goes down.
Click to expand...
If you take the high gun control cities out of the numbers and they are obviously the cause of most of the deaths. If you compare densely populated cities with little or not gun control, they have lower rates than those with strict gun control.

(I leave finding the data as an exercise for the student.)
 
This is, as such historical questions often are, a fairly complex matter and does not admit of a simple answer.

Certainly, Protestants, especially of our stripe, have historically developed resistance theory. I think that such is biblically defensible. Koty has quoted a number of figures who espouse such. In the case of the War for Independence, however, such was not ordinarily adduced (though it certainly was by some Presbyterians, especially Covenanters, in support of the War).

Bernard Bailyn is correct that the primary intellectual justification on the part of most of the American Founders was a combination of French and English natural rights theorist, John Locke perhaps most prominently. Colonists also hearkened back especially to the Glorious Revolution (of 1688) for arguments for their revolution (a side issue: were any of the 17th c. Puritan revolts in Scotland and England properly warranted?).

One great difference between the American situation of the 18th c. and the English of the 17th (as well as the French Revolution) is that the American War for Independence was just that: it was not an overthrow of local rule but a throwing off the yoke of what had come to be regarded as foreign rule (by England's claimed tyranny--again disputable, but not so breezily dealt with as some here suggest). Those who were colonial leaders before the War were still leaders afterwards: this was no revolution about "who shall rule at home" but rather a war for "home rule." The typical context for resistance theory was otherwise: local rebellion, not colonial revolt, which only now came into existence.

Brian Withnell's points have also not been answered, particularly his proper assertion that this was a revolt of the lower magistrates and the colonial citizenry had little recourse in the matter (except to resist and/or flee to Canada as my wife's loyalist ancestors did). If lower magistrates may rightly revolt within a discrete state, surely they may in a colonial situation in a war for independence far at a remove from the motherland. Yes, I know that it must be biblically justified and that's the question before us.

That it can be biblically justified (it was by many Presbyterians in both lands at the time) does not mean that it truly is justified. Is some of the justification merely humanistic and unconvincing? Surely, as Enlightenment secularism began to exert itself. Does this mean that it others didn't have better reasons? No. Was it justifiable over all? Hard to say.

But I heartily join Jacob in being thankful that it happened. This is the way most of history works, by the way. Very little is simply good and nothing, nothing that has ever happened since the Fall, save the Incarnation, is unmixed.

Peace,
Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
It's Hard to Believe that Donald Grey Barnhouse was Reformed
Replies
6
Views
4K
Hamalas
Hamalas
D
  • Locked
What did you do while the board was down?
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
humble_soul
H
H
  • Locked
Do you believe it's a sin to smoke weed?
2
Replies
44
Views
9K
Unoriginalname
Unoriginalname
Semper Fidelis
  • Locked
Do you like that blinking mailbox thing?
Replies
18
Views
2K
VictorBravo
VictorBravo
B
  • Locked
Hard Proof that the North was Right!
Replies
16
Views
2K
No Longer A Libertine
No Longer A Libertine
Back
Top