You have misunderstood my post.
I'm sorry about that. I was trying to understand, but I think we are coming from such different places we are miscommunicating. I believe you mean different things by your word choices that I am understanding.
I was not arguing against God owing anyone anything, but rather that we were entitled the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But the words "owed" and "entitled" are not that far apart. The presupposition of both of those words is that merit is involved in our status as a moral agent.
I was thinking of the citizen and the government and these rights that are supposedly endowed by God.
Since the government is not God, and God allows human authorities and organizations to provide for human flourishing, we understand that we owe both God and government ("Caesar" in New Testament terms) their proper due. But Jesus pointed out that we are to give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's. The two have authority in different spheres, with Caesar deriving his/its authority from God. Historically, when Caesar claimed to be God and demanded worship, Christians defied that demand ("Jesus is Lord"), since Caesar was not to usurp God. Christians paid a heavy penalty for choosing to be faithful to God in Jesus Christ.
Looking at it in the direction you've provided, I guess my question would be where the idea that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights, among which are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You seem to think of "rights" in the non-historical, very modern sense that "rights" are granted by human governments, and that rights are privileges or entitlements bestowed on people who are recognized by the government. But rights are actually rooted in the nature of human existence as created beings, and based upon our God-given responsibilities to serve Him, serve one another, and be caretakers of the world as revealed in the creation story of Genesis.
(1) God gives humankind life (not Caesar)
(2) God gives humankind the ability to act as a moral agent. They were to have dominion and exercise authority, and only had one prohibition - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As moral agents, they had the capacity to perform good works and to perform evil, but the creation was relentlessly oriented toward good except for the single opportunity to be disobedient to God. Since that disobedience, our world is relentlessly oriented toward evil, except for the Christ-empowered opportunities to be obedient to God. But whether we do good or evil, God has granted that ability to us, and the civil authorities only have the ability to deal with things in the realm of the physical - not in the internal attitudes and orientation of our souls.
(3) The "pursuit of happiness" is an enlightenment concept that runs parallel to the biblical ideas (just described) that humankind should work to be good stewards of their life, to reach their potential, and provide for human flourishing. However, the concept often gets corrupted into blatant self-interest, although a careful reading of the thinkers of the era and the founders of the United States would demonstrate that a government based on blatant self-interest could not endure for long.
Based on these three insights and the hard lessons of human history, we understand that the power of the state (Caesar) is limited. While the state could use the power of the sword to demand conformity of expression and outward worship, it is powerless to change how people really think and to create sincere, faithful and loving disciples of Jesus (or any other religious system). Therefore, Baptists - from the very beginning - have demanded that the government not use the power of the sword to coerce expression of ideas, force conformity to religious practices (such as infant baptism) or stated beliefs. Historically, the Roman Catholic Church became entangled with the governments of Europe and violated the consciences of Europeans by forcing infant baptism if a child was going to have any sort of citizenship on earth or heaven, and persecuting reformers who called out the corruption in the system. As a result, Baptists called for complete religious liberty through the separation of the church and the state. Roger Williams (a Baptist) was the first person to inaugurate a government with separation of church and state in the colony of Rhode Island, and discovered that religious life flourished. Through a long series of events, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison introduced a bill for religious liberty in the Virginia colony, and then (through the urging of Baptists and other Christians) wrote and argued for the First Amendment to the Constitution (the leading right of the Bill of Rights) to be adopted as part of the new nation's constitution.
Yes, God created us to be moral agents. But God Himself disrupts this activity as He deprives men of life (we die).
It is God's prerogative to determine whether we live or die. For those who die, they die because they have followed in Adam's sin. For those who are in Christ, they possess eternal life and will be resurrected at the end of the age.
Furthermore, Christ, the Apostles, and the early church did not take upon themselves the fight against secular government for depriving men of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You are correct, they did not. They worked for the Kingdom of God. As citizens of a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, we find ourselves in the historically unusual position of being both a subject of Caesar as well as a part of Caesar. Since we have a voice in government, shouldn't we be advocates for everyone's God-given natures, responsibilities and rights? That is part of the gospel calling to love our neighbor, and even our enemies.
