-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The American Revolution/Rebellion
- Thread starter No Deceit
- Start date
First I did not admit to anything, and secondly, I am not and would not support rebellion against the governing authorities. You Ken are the one making that argument.
Ken, are you being serious here or are you playing dumb?
al
[ January 20, 2004, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: No Deceit ]
KenH
Well-Known Member
You said in reply to my question about whether you have ever rebelled against the governing authorities and received a traffic ticket as evidence: "Ken, one need not be perfect and sinless to expose the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph 5:11)."
Therefore, I ask you again, have you ever rebelled against the governing authorities and received a traffic ticket such as for speeding, illegal parking, etc.?
If you haven't just say, "no". If you must answer "yes" in order to be truthful, then how do you justify your rebellion?
Yes, Ken, I have had one ticket in my life for turning right on red. I should have come to a complete stop first.
Do I advocate breaking laws? No. Do I advocate rebelling against the authority no. Did the forefathers justify their rebellion? Yes. Does Ken, and fromtheright, yes.
You show from the Word of God that this it is justified.
al
Do I advocate breaking laws? No. Do I advocate rebelling against the authority no. Did the forefathers justify their rebellion? Yes. Does Ken, and fromtheright, yes.
You show from the Word of God that this it is justified.
al
KenH
Well-Known Member
There is no book, chapter, and verse to point to that specifically justifies this, anymore than there is book, chapter, and verse to point to that specifically justifies me getting 8 hours of sleep per night instead of 7 hours.
We must deal with this imperfect world and our interactions as fallen human beings as best we can. I value liberty and I believe political, economic, and personal liberty are gifts from God. You do not. Therefore, we have chosen different paths as to how we view governments and God's will concerning their appointment.
Since God was going to replace the government of the colonies with one severed from England, He used human beings to do this. You may not like God's will in this matter, but it is the government He appointed to be set up in the 13 colonies.
We must deal with this imperfect world and our interactions as fallen human beings as best we can. I value liberty and I believe political, economic, and personal liberty are gifts from God. You do not. Therefore, we have chosen different paths as to how we view governments and God's will concerning their appointment.
Since God was going to replace the government of the colonies with one severed from England, He used human beings to do this. You may not like God's will in this matter, but it is the government He appointed to be set up in the 13 colonies.
Of course God used these men to set up this country. I did not argue against this, but supported this concept. The point is that although God made this happened, what the men did was sin. What God did was righteous, is always righteous, what the men did was sin and evil.
al
al
Hebrew word for rebellion is "bitterness". I don't see how that verse could relate to the American revolution.
Bitterness and stubbornness are not hallmarks of the DoI. </font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word in question is "meri" (1 Samuel 15:23). The KJV, NKJV, and NIV translate this word one time as "bitter" in Job 23:2. The NAS translates Job 23:2 as "rebellion." Every other time the word is found it is translated rebellion (rebels, etc), because that is what the word means (see Numbers 17:10; Deuteronomy 31:27; Nehemiah 9:17 [see NAS footnote; Proverbs 17:11; Isaiah 30:9; Ezekiel 2:5-8; 3:9, 26-27; 12:2-3, 9, 25; 17:12;24:3; 44:6). Moreover, the context of 1 Samuel 15:23 is rebellion against the direct command of God. Bitterness is nowhere in the context.
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
ND,
I guess this means that despite your stated willingness to answer questions raised you will continue to duck those raised by Major B and myself earlier.
I guess this means that despite your stated willingness to answer questions raised you will continue to duck those raised by Major B and myself earlier.
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
The points/questions have already been asked and are there for you to read; nevertheless, I'll do your job for you:
December 31:
--You should probably look farther back at the history that the Founders looked to, including Algernon Sidney's Discourses Concerning Government which relies on both Scripture and classical history in refuting the claim of the divine right of kings, as well as John Locke's Treatises Concerning Government, especially the first one which relies more specifically on the Bible.
--Your statement that God gave us Hitler and by implication such evils as communism and abortion is frighteningly evil.
January 1:
--(from Major B) Since the rights of Englishmen had been settled by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and since the king and his ministers had been violating those rights, the colonists had a perfect right, not to rebel against legal government, but to arise against a usurper who was violating those rights.
--Another problem with your argument is the inescapable implication that tyranny is equal in God's eyes to freedom, which also implies that right = wrong, which itself means there is neither.
--Do you see a parallel between ours and the French Revolution which was straightforwardly atheistic while our Founders were at least partially inspired by their preachers? Please then also square your answer with the point I earlier raised, that your argument implies an equation between freedom and tyranny in the mind of God.
--Ours and the British systems are ones of popular sovereignty. Jean Bodin, in the 14th century wrote “Only he is absolutely sovereign who, after God, acknowledges no one greater than himself.” which to me perfectly squares Romans 13 with what No Deceit sees as disobedience by the colonists, and by implication the Glorious Revolution.
--ND's argument implies that we must now accept the Supreme Court as our new robed masters. I must admit I accept their authority under my view that judicial review is valid, at least to an extent, but I absolutely reject any inference that their opinions are Constitutionally correct. If the Supreme Court makes pronouncements contrary to the Constitution are we not to surrender to their authority on all things constitutional? By ND's arguments, though the Court has usurped power, or actually because they have done so, we have no choice but to acquiesce in, and hold as correct, that judicial tyranny.
My January 1 thanks for your response was simply being gracious. Your response ignored the above points.
January 1:
--In response to your statement that "All things are of God." I asked
-Is abortion of God?
-Is pornography of God?
-Were Saddam's rape cells of God?
-Were Hitler (since you said God put him there)'s gas chambers of God?
-Is the Ku Klux Klan of God?
-If this is your God, then there isn't much left for Satan to do, is there? Are these things of a holy God? I just gotta know, who teaches such a warped theology?
--You stated on January 1 that "Parliament agreed to tax the colonists." I asked with whom Parliament agreed, if not itself.
--Your argument more than implies that our founders or their descendants should have repented of the Revolution, surrendered to the mother country, and paid reparations for the cost of the war.
January 2
--(Major B) Our founders were merely doing what the Brits had themselves done, which is, to oppose executive tyranny and increase the cause of popular sovereignty.
--It is clearly an inference from your argument, however, that because our nation was founded on rebellion, that the nation is therefore illegitimate. Or, is political power, once usurped, legitimate? If so, your argument is a contradition in terms.
January 18:
--OK, No Deceit, yes or no, is monarchy of itself a holy form of government? Is a republic or democratic system of government therefore evil?
--Our forefathers' desire was not simply opposition to taxes but opposition to illegitimate taxation in contravention of long-established custom and law.
OK, here they are, all in one place. Do you want to answer them or not?
December 31:
--You should probably look farther back at the history that the Founders looked to, including Algernon Sidney's Discourses Concerning Government which relies on both Scripture and classical history in refuting the claim of the divine right of kings, as well as John Locke's Treatises Concerning Government, especially the first one which relies more specifically on the Bible.
--Your statement that God gave us Hitler and by implication such evils as communism and abortion is frighteningly evil.
January 1:
--(from Major B) Since the rights of Englishmen had been settled by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and since the king and his ministers had been violating those rights, the colonists had a perfect right, not to rebel against legal government, but to arise against a usurper who was violating those rights.
--Another problem with your argument is the inescapable implication that tyranny is equal in God's eyes to freedom, which also implies that right = wrong, which itself means there is neither.
--Do you see a parallel between ours and the French Revolution which was straightforwardly atheistic while our Founders were at least partially inspired by their preachers? Please then also square your answer with the point I earlier raised, that your argument implies an equation between freedom and tyranny in the mind of God.
--Ours and the British systems are ones of popular sovereignty. Jean Bodin, in the 14th century wrote “Only he is absolutely sovereign who, after God, acknowledges no one greater than himself.” which to me perfectly squares Romans 13 with what No Deceit sees as disobedience by the colonists, and by implication the Glorious Revolution.
--ND's argument implies that we must now accept the Supreme Court as our new robed masters. I must admit I accept their authority under my view that judicial review is valid, at least to an extent, but I absolutely reject any inference that their opinions are Constitutionally correct. If the Supreme Court makes pronouncements contrary to the Constitution are we not to surrender to their authority on all things constitutional? By ND's arguments, though the Court has usurped power, or actually because they have done so, we have no choice but to acquiesce in, and hold as correct, that judicial tyranny.
My January 1 thanks for your response was simply being gracious. Your response ignored the above points.
January 1:
--In response to your statement that "All things are of God." I asked
-Is abortion of God?
-Is pornography of God?
-Were Saddam's rape cells of God?
-Were Hitler (since you said God put him there)'s gas chambers of God?
-Is the Ku Klux Klan of God?
-If this is your God, then there isn't much left for Satan to do, is there? Are these things of a holy God? I just gotta know, who teaches such a warped theology?
--You stated on January 1 that "Parliament agreed to tax the colonists." I asked with whom Parliament agreed, if not itself.
--Your argument more than implies that our founders or their descendants should have repented of the Revolution, surrendered to the mother country, and paid reparations for the cost of the war.
January 2
--(Major B) Our founders were merely doing what the Brits had themselves done, which is, to oppose executive tyranny and increase the cause of popular sovereignty.
--It is clearly an inference from your argument, however, that because our nation was founded on rebellion, that the nation is therefore illegitimate. Or, is political power, once usurped, legitimate? If so, your argument is a contradition in terms.
January 18:
--OK, No Deceit, yes or no, is monarchy of itself a holy form of government? Is a republic or democratic system of government therefore evil?
--Our forefathers' desire was not simply opposition to taxes but opposition to illegitimate taxation in contravention of long-established custom and law.
OK, here they are, all in one place. Do you want to answer them or not?
Well, you obviously agree with what they wrote, why don't you present the argument in your words.
But frighteningly true.
All governments are from God, be it evil or benevolent.
Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
Daniel 4
17"This decision is by the decree of the watchers,
And the sentence by the word of the holy ones,
In order that the living may know
That the Most High rules in the kingdom of men,
Gives it to whomever He will,
And sets over it the lowest of men.
Romans 9:
17For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."
The above verses should make it clear who sets up kingdoms and governments. The examples given were of evil governmnets. I would also suggest you read Daniel, because it is clear that God set up the kingdom of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar did not understand this truth either and was driven from men to eat grass because of this lack of understanding.
Not only that but God rules over these same kingdoms.
2 Chronicles 20
5Then Jehoshaphat stood in the assembly of Judah and Jerusalem, in the house of the LORD, before the new court, 6and said: "O LORD God of our fathers, are You not God in heaven, and do You not rule over all the kingdoms of the nations, and in Your hand is there not power and might, so that no one is able to withstand You? 7Are You not our God, who drove out the inhabitants of this land before Your people Israel, and gave it to the descendants of Abraham Your friend forever
The answer is yes God sets up all governments eve Hitlers government.
Support that Biblically.
The French Revolution was worse than our own.
And the absolute sovereign says to obey the earthly ones, not to rebell against them.
The Consititution is not our ruler, but those who intrepet it. If the authority decides to pass a law to take away the 2nd Amendment and no one is allowed to own a gun, we would have to obey that new law.
You use the word tyranny quite losely.
Yes, God moves people to sin. God gives people over to a debassed mind to do those things which are unfitting....they become homo's, murderers, liars etc (Romans 1:18f).
Are you a deist?
I never made the arguement that any government is holy. The argument is that God has set up all forms of government.
Enough questions answered. You need to do some explaining and supporting.
al
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
I don't need to support it Biblically, it's not my position but the implication of your own position. You're the one who said that God put Hitler in power. If God has no concern for tyranny vs. freedom, then the implication is that they are equal in his eyes. Is that your position?
Yes, God moves people to sin. God gives people over to a debassed mind to do those things which are unfitting....they become homo's, murderers, liars etc (Romans 1:18f).
If God moves people to sin, then why is there a Hell? Why is there eternal punishment if God moves us to the actions for which that punishment exists?
You use the word tyranny quite losely
Power usurped and used to oppress citizens is tyranny. How do you define it? Or does the concept of tyranny exist when God puts them all in power? If all governors are of God, then is there such thing as tyranny? And, if there is, is there such thing as illegitimate tyranny? When federal judges overthrow the Constitution, in whole or in part, to satisfy liberal political whims it is tyranny. But, for you, that's OK, because the Constitution is irrelevant. Is that your position? For you, Fidel Castro = Adolf Hitler = George Washington. I care not about your source, that is an evil viewpoint.
The Consititution is not our ruler, but those who intrepet it.
Does that mean that the Supreme Court is now our rulers and that the Constitution is irrelevant. The document being interpreted means nothing if the interpreters need not obey it or honor it.
No, I am certainly not a deist. If you infer that from what I have stated you have no idea what deism is or you haven't begun to understand what I've said.
You have my position. Rebellion was not justified. You need to show it was.
Romans 9:
Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this
Because He is God. You can read the ongoing thread "Essentials of the Faith" to get a full argument on this subject.
Tyranny:
The colonies were part of England, they were to obey the authority even though England may have "illegally" taxed them.
Israel was a conquered nation under Rome and Paul told Christians to obey and submit to that Government. Talk about tyranny, look at Roman history.
We are not commanded by God to submit to the Consitution but to the men who make laws from it (i.e. The three branches of government) If the federal government makes it a law that citizens could no longer bear arms, than we are to submit to the new law and not say "Tryanny! It is now justified to rebel because it goes against the Consititution". The authority can break its own laws and/or rewrite them. In essence they would have rewritten the law if they now say it is against the law to bear arms.
There is nothing in Scripture that says we must bear arms or we sin. That is the point. We obey the authorities until they ask us to disobey God. If they wish to break their own laws, that's on them. For believers it is neither here nor there if can or can not bear arms.
al
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
No Deceit,
Rebellion was not justified. You need to show it was.
The Founding Fathers showed that it was. And I'm glad they rebelled. That's all I need. Someone who says that God views tyranny and freedom equally would have a hard time understanding that. End of that discussion.
Israel was a conquered nation under Rome and Paul told Christians to obey and submit to that Government. Talk about tyranny, look at Roman history.
Do I understand you to say that the only tyranny is that which is imposed on a nation from outside? And, BTW, all of Roman history wasn't a history of tyranny.
And I'm not sure what your fixation on bearing arms is about. I haven't raised it, except in the implication of a lawful rebellion.
Rebellion was not justified. You need to show it was.
The Founding Fathers showed that it was. And I'm glad they rebelled. That's all I need. Someone who says that God views tyranny and freedom equally would have a hard time understanding that. End of that discussion.
Israel was a conquered nation under Rome and Paul told Christians to obey and submit to that Government. Talk about tyranny, look at Roman history.
Do I understand you to say that the only tyranny is that which is imposed on a nation from outside? And, BTW, all of Roman history wasn't a history of tyranny.
And I'm not sure what your fixation on bearing arms is about. I haven't raised it, except in the implication of a lawful rebellion.
I hope you will humor a new interloper on your "spirited" debate...
This is a question for everyone involved, though I'd love to hear from No Deceit.
What I cannot figure out about Romans 13 is how it ALL fits together. No Deceit, you seem to see the first part of it very straight forward: Everyone must submit to the governing authorities. Clearly, we can all agree this does not include disobeying God's commands.
The part I do not understand is the NEXT part, and how it works with the first:
Romans 13:3 - "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do ou want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good".
How can THIS part also be read in a straight forward manner? How does all of this work together? Here are just a few possible ways I could see reading 13:3 in light of the earlier verse:
1. Absolute Descriptive: ALL governments are included (none but what God has established), and ALL governments must therefore "hold no terror for those who do right". We may think that the world works differently (the Nazis seemed to us to hold terror to some who did right), but we are mistaken.
2. Absolute Normative: The only governments that count as "established by God" are ones that match the description given in Romans 13:3. Therefore, none of the earlier verses apply unless the government being obeyed holds no terror to those who do right.
3. General Descriptive: The IDEA or general concept of government is what is given in 13:3, more of an ideal than a practical absolute. This still doesn't answer it's relation to the first part.
4. General Normative: Kind of a loose version of 2, so more governments "qualify".
There are others I could think of, but my point is, I have not seen any recociliation of the two parts of these verses that makes any sense (none of the above do, for instance). This seems a crucial understanding in order to make sense of the American Revolution.
For the record, my "acting interpretation" is that one should never revolt against even the worst of governments in a violent manner, but should instead try to overcome these tyrannies by preaching the Word of God (including enumerating the sins of the tyranny, if called for), helping those hurt by it, and dying for the faith if necessary. Notice that the verse BEFORE Romans 13 is "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good".