Was 1776 a backsliding from Pilgrim era? Sources?

[Matthew1344]

PREFACE: I am probably the worst historian here on the board. So, if I am way off, please know that I am not trying to offend you or our country or violate the commandment "Honor your father and mother". I am just wanting to understand our countries history and theonomy a little better.

When the bible says Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords this implies that all countries on the Earth are to acknowledge that he is the King of that country. My pastor uses the phrase "Acknowledge the crown rights of King Jesus" when talking about this.

1st- From my understanding, the pilgrims came here believing that the government should be Christian.

2nd-By 1776, our country wrote the Declaration of Independence and did not acknowledge Christ as the head of our country.

Questions-
1-From the time Europeans arrived to the time the founding fathers wrote the D.O.I. were we backsliding as a forming nation?
2-I know we came here escaping a tyranical nation, but was do yall think that makes it ok not to announce Christ as the head of our newly found country?

My most important question-
3- Does anyone know any sermons, letters, or books written during that time that were warning/encouaging the new country to be sure to acknowledge Christ as king?

 

[arapahoepark]

Thomas Kidd's God of Liberty may help you.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

1-From the time Europeans arrived to the time the founding fathers wrote the D.O.I. were we backsliding as a forming nation?
2-I know we came here escaping a tyranical nation, but was do yall think that makes it ok not to announce Christ as the head of our newly found country?

1. Yes. But there are many aspects and dimensions to this. We should avoid the temptation of over-simplifying the matter.
2. I'm inclined ot answer in the negative. But what it means to "name Christ as the head of the country" would need to be clearly defined before I would say for sure (e.g. John 18:36).

 

[Minh]

I don't think it clear cut to judge historical events as ungodly or godly. Consider the American Civil War. There are professing Christians on both sides claiming the Providence of God on their sides against either the heathen abolitionists or the cruel slave masters. So which narrative is correct? With regards to the American War of Independence, it hard to say whether the founders wish to disregard the role of the Lord Christ in the role of the state. While the First Amendment forbid the establishment of religions by the federal government, it does allow the states to impose their own religions. If the desire to curtail the influence of Christianity was so vigorous in all founders, then I guess the bible should not have been America first textbook [1].

This does not mean, of course, that there aren't un-Christian influences in the Revolution. But like other poster said, it's best not to over-simplify the matter.

-----------------
[1]http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=4

 

[Matthew1344]

can you expand on your comment on the first amendment and state imposing religions?

 

[Matthew1344]

Thomas Kidd's God of Liberty may help you.

thanks! ill check it out!

 

[Matthew1344]

1. Yes. But there are many aspects and dimensions to this. We should avoid the temptation of over-simplifying the matter.
2. I'm inclined ot answer in the negative. But what it means to "name Christ as the head of the country" would need to be clearly defined before I would say for sure (e.g. John 18:36).

Thanks for your answers!

2. my definition is that the country/state would put in its founding documents that it acknowledges Christ as the true king of their country and that all public servants and private members are surrendered to his as good statesmen and citizens.

and if you would like to discuss the mentioned scripture I would be happy to in another thread if you start one! It is an interesting topic that I have just, in the last 2 years, have come to embrace. So I am still learning and chewing on many many many things. I just don't want to derail this post into a theonomy debate because I really am hoping to find sources of sermons warning the civil magistrate to "kiss the Son, lest we perrish."

 

[Ed Walsh]

PREFACE: I am probably the worst historian here on the board. So, if I am way off, please know that I am not trying to offend you or our country or violate the commandment "Honor your father and mother". I am just wanting to understand our countries history and theonomy a little better.

When the bible says Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords this implies that all countries on the Earth are to acknowledge that he is the King of that country. My pastor uses the phrase "Acknowledge the crown rights of King Jesus" when talking about this.

1st- From my understanding, the pilgrims came here believing that the government should be Christian.

2nd-By 1776, our country wrote the Declaration of Independence and did not acknowledge Christ as the head of our country.

For me, the clincher is in the Sixth Article on the US Constitution

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.​

Thus outlawing Christianity as the Law of the Land at the Federal level.

The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is a clause within Article VI, Clause 3. By its plain terms, no federal officeholder or employee can be required to adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine as a prerequisite to holding a federal office or a federal government job. It immediately follows a clause requiring all federal officeholders to take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. This clause contains the only explicit reference to religion in the original seven articles of the U.S. Constitution.

The ban on religious tests contained in this clause protects only federal officeholders and employees. It does not apply to the states, many of which imposed religious tests at the time of the nation's founding. State tests limited public offices to Christians or, in some states, only to Protestants. The national government, on the other hand, could not impose any religious test whatsoever. National offices would be open to everyone. No federal official has ever been subjected to a formal religious test for holding office.[1]

This clause is cited by advocates of separation of church and state as an example of the "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution to avoid any entanglement between church and state, or involving the government in any way as a determiner of religious beliefs or practices. This is significant because this clause represents the words of the original Framers, even prior to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.


Religious Tests and Oaths in State Constitutions, 1776-1784

Nine out of thirteen states had some sort of religious test requirement for officeholders in their constitutions. At the time, many believed religious oaths were supposed to guarantee honorable public service for fear of incurring the wrath of God. Public officials who violated their oaths might escape punishment here on earth but could not avoid punishment in the hereafter.
In Article VI among provisions that addressed matters of oaths and allegiance, there was a clause that stipulated that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public trust under the United States.” For many Americans it was difficult to imagine how, under the proposed Constitution, leaders could be virtuous without such an oath. These selections from state constitutions during the Revolutionary Period illustrate the historical background that influenced much of the debate during ratification over the Constitution’s prohibition of a religious test for officeholding.

Delaware, 1776
Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit: “I, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

Maryland, 1776
That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.

New Jersey, 1776
No Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature. . . .

Pennsylvania, 1776
I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

North Carolina, 1776
That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

Georgia, 1777
The representatives shall be . . . of the Protestent religion. . . .

Vermont, 1777
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, ” I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion.”

Massachusetts, 1780
Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration: “I . . . do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected.”

New Hampshire, 1784
Every member of the house of representatives shall be of the Protestant religion. . . . That no person shall be capable of being elected a senator who is not of the Protestant religion. . . . The President shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he . . . shall be of the protestant religion.

EDIT: You might be interested in:
An Abstract of the Laws of New England, as They Are Now Established. by John Cotton

CHAPTER VII. has always been of great interest to me.
Of Crimes. And first, of such as deserve capital punishment, or cutting off from a man’s people, whether by death or banishment.

 

[Matthew1344]

For me, the clincher is in the Sixth Article on the US Constitution

I read everything you wrote! This is great. I have never read this before.

I still am not sure which way you are clinched.

Did you believe it to be a backsliding on a federal lever and not a state level?

Or all in all a backsliding because it was only a matter of time?

Or not a backsliding at all on a federal level because the Federal level really thought all states would require acknowledgment of christian faith for office?

Thanks again Ed!

 

[RamistThomist]

It depends. Much of this depends on how we view "covenant" as a framework for connecting religion and politics, and not all New England Puritans were on the same page. Indeed, much of New England Puritanism was a disaster in the Halfway Covenant, which directly connected to politics.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I think it's fair to say that there had been great backsliding in the country since it's settlement to 1776. 1776 and the Constitution are fundamentally Liberal events influenced greatly by the Enlightenment. The root of these developments in America is really the same as that of the French Revolution. The difference lay in the character of the people and (I believe) in God's predestination. But the French and the Americans were of quite different stock: what produced tyranny and violence in France produced liberty, peace and prosperity in America. That is due to the people of these nations and the Lord's judgment of the one and His blessing of the other. But the Constitution was not a document born out of Christian piety and the Revolution was a violent, progressive act.

That is not to comment one way or another on its rightness. The fact is America became a truly great nation after those events but the resulting Federal and Constitutional absolutism did have a detrimental effect on the fabric and way of life of the nation, I believe. We are seeing today how ineffective these ideas and principles are in governing a people which has become as satanic and depraved as much of modern day America is. The civic nationalism which 1776 and the Constitution produced is not able to hold together a nation which is becoming more and more diverse and balkanised as America today. The Constitution was written for a moral, Christian people but it does not, in itself, produce such a people.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I read everything you wrote! This is great. I have never read this before.

I still am not sure which way you are clinched.

Did you believe it to be a backsliding on a federal level and not a state level?

Or all in all, a backsliding because it was only a matter of time?

Or not a backsliding at all on a federal level because the Federal level really thought all states would require acknowledgment of Christian faith for office?

"Clinched" in the sense that we became officially a non-Christian nation. And I think that is a bad thing.
I'm not sure I would call it backsliding. The Constitution just made it official that the Federal government, as such, decided against bowing the knee to The Lord of the whole earth.

Did you know that a number of the original 13 colonies had established churches? I.e., Government-supported. I think it was about 7 or 8 out of the 13, but I am not sure. As far as I know, other brands of Christianity were allowed but received no government support.

I don't know the answer to your last question.

 

[Rom]

PREFACE: I am probably the worst historian here on the board. So, if I am way off, please know that I am not trying to offend you or our country or violate the commandment "Honor your father and mother". I am just wanting to understand our countries history and theonomy a little better.

When the bible says Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords this implies that all countries on the Earth are to acknowledge that he is the King of that country. My pastor uses the phrase "Acknowledge the crown rights of King Jesus" when talking about this.

1st- From my understanding, the pilgrims came here believing that the government should be Christian.

2nd-By 1776, our country wrote the Declaration of Independence and did not acknowledge Christ as the head of our country.

Questions-
1-From the time Europeans arrived to the time the founding fathers wrote the D.O.I. were we backsliding as a forming nation?
2-I know we came here escaping a tyranical nation, but was do yall think that makes it ok not to announce Christ as the head of our newly found country?

My most important question-
3- Does anyone know any sermons, letters, or books written during that time that were warning/encouaging the new country to be sure to acknowledge Christ as king?

Read the works of the Reformed Presbyterians (Covenanters) in America. Their 1807 Testimony codified their dissent from the US Constitution:

Reformation Principles Exhibited ...

books.google.com

James Renwick Willson had several sermons concerning this (one of which caused him to be burned in effigy is my understanding):
https://www.crownandcovenant.com/Political_Danger_p/ch235.htm (I believe there are ebooks).

We even made it into a secular historian's work on this matter:
"Founding Sins: How a Group of Antislavery Radicals Fought to Put Christ into the Constitution":

Amazon.com: Founding Sins: How a Group of Antislavery Radicals Fought to Put Christ into the Constitution: 9780190269241: Moore, Joseph S.: Books

Amazon.com: Founding Sins: How a Group of Antislavery Radicals Fought to Put Christ into the Constitution: 9780190269241: Moore, Joseph S.: Books

www.amazon.com

 

[jwithnell]

Our nation's founding was by no means a foregone conclusion in 1607-1620. So when you ask if the nation was backsliding, the question is which nation? From the colonists' perspective their nation (England) was backsliding and had done so precipitously in matters of church (why the separatists took off) and in matters of state. The latter, for your question, is the most important.

These were British citizens and they sought to assert their rights granted under English law. They should have had the representation needed in parliament to protect their rights and interests protected, particularly when taxes were concerned. England extracted the colonies' wealth and greatly limited their ability to trade. None of this set well with free British subjects.

The use of the term Revolution for the war of 1775-83 is steeped in Enlightenment thinking. The colonies had no intention of trying to take out King James III or to try to overthrow parliament. When their rights as citizens were abrogated, they sought their independence. In many ways you can draw a straight line from the Magna Carta, to the Abstracts of the Laws of New England, to the Articles of Confederation, to the US Constitution. (A great read/study if you are so inclined.) The conflict is more properly called the War for Independence.

The transition of the colonial church through this era is significant and I can point you to none better than George Marsden, particularly in his work on Jonathan Edwards which covered the 1700s before the independence movement took hold.

 

[Knecht Christi]

I recommend the work "Conspiracy in Philadelphia" for an answer to your question. garynorth.com/philadelphia.pdf