tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post7721175216164616866..comments2023-05-02T09:50:43.941-05:00Comments on Reformed Baptist Blog: The American Revolution: Was it Biblical?Keith Throophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-80493453756854390242014-04-12T10:52:57.555-05:002014-04-12T10:52:57.555-05:00As for your further arguments about the Prohibitor...As for your further arguments about the Prohibitory Act of 1775, they are simply beside the point if, in fact, the colonists were still English citizens, which they were. Thus the British government was not a foreign government at all, and, even if this government acted unjustly toward its citizens, the question is still whether or not the Bible allows Christians to rebel against a God ordained government, whether or not that government is just. And the answer to that question must be, "No, it does not allow such rebellion in any case." <br /><br />Now, this is not to say that all instances of self defense would be wrong. It is simply to acknowledge that rebellion against a governmental authority would be wrong. As I said in my article, "As I consider this notion in the context of Romans 13, I can't help but wonder why the early Church did not avail herself of such an argument, especially when one considers just how unjust the Roman government could often be in its use of force." The Apostle Paul clearly said, "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. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves" (Rom. 13:1-2). Paul wrote this to Christians in Rome, Christians who lived under a typically oppressive and unjust government, especially toward those who were not actually awarded the status of Roman citizens even though they lived under Roman rule. But Paul wanted them to know that resisting even such a government as this would be wrong for a Christian. How can we be in doubt about what he would have written to a colonist and citizen of England in the 18th century? Does he not clearly assert that "every soul” must be subject to the governing authorities, that there is “no authority” that has not come from God, and that all the “authorities that exist are appointed by God” (vs. 1). Does he not further clearly assert that “whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God” (vs. 2). How on earth can this be read not to include the governmental authorities over the English people? <br /><br />You may think that my position "speaks more to the rather pitiful level of education that is current in the USA in our day," but I think I have demonstrated enough knowledge of the issue to be able to establish that the colonists were indeed English citizens. I can also assure you that I have had a pretty good education in Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, and I will remind you again that my article is about whether or not the American Revolution was Biblical. So, again, I think it behooves you to offer some Biblical arguments for your case, yet you really haven't offered any Biblical argumentation at all.Keith Throophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-48012932156346525452014-04-12T10:49:54.602-05:002014-04-12T10:49:54.602-05:00These prospective colonists were clearly still reg...These prospective colonists were clearly still regarded as a part of "our Realm of England," and they were even required to maintain a council to represent them in England after the colony was established. The charter further states:<br /><br />"Also we do, for Us, our Heirs, and Successors, DECLARE, by these Presents, that all and every the Persons being our Subjects, which shall dwell and inhabit within every or any of the said several Colonies and Plantations, and every of their children, which shall happen to be born within any of the Limits and Precincts of the said several Colonies and Plantations, shall HAVE and enjoy all Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities, within any of our other Dominions, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born, within this our Realm of England, or any other of our said Dominions."<br /><br />It couldn't be much clearer that these people were still regarded as English citizens in the very charter to which they agreed to be bound. If anything, the charter seeks to make it clear that, despite their establishment of the colony and a governing body there, they and their descendants were still to be regarded in every way as a part of the Realm of England. So, this important charter, at least, would seem to undermine your entire argument. <br /><br />You can read the charter in its entirety here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/va01.asp<br /><br />(Continued below)Keith Throophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-89447919298208399102014-04-12T10:48:50.943-05:002014-04-12T10:48:50.943-05:00Well, I could have made the connection clearer in ...Well, I could have made the connection clearer in my article, but I think I did answer the self-defense the argument <i>as set forth by Barton</i>, since I dealt with the Scriptural claims he made, all of which appealed to Old Testament examples that I argued were not applicable to the Church for the Biblical reasons that I cited. And Paul was, after all, speaking to the Church in Romans 13. And he was speaking in about as universally binding a fashion as one can find for a Biblical command.<br /><br />As for your apparent attempts to argue that the charters of the colonies granted them a kind of independence from the laws passed by Parliament, as though they were no longer considered English citizens with the same rights and responsibilities as other English citizens still living in England, I couldn't disagree more. To begin with, when the King of England granted charters, he did so as one who was himself circumscribed in his authority by Parliament in certain respects, and I seriously doubt that you could even begin to prove that he had the right to make a deal with any English citizens that would relieve them of either their rights or responsibilities as English citizens under English law. After all, the King, too, was under English law at least in this regard. As for the specific language contained in the charters, one counterexample will have to suffice, and it comes from the The First Charter of Virginia, April 10, 1606. Here are a couple of pertinent portions:<br /><br />"And we do also ordain, establish, and agree, for Us, our Heirs, and Successors, that each of the said Colonies shall have a Council, which shall govern and order all Matters-and Causes, which shall arise, grow, or happen, to or within the same several Colonies, according to such Laws, Ordinances, and Instructions, as shall be, in that behalf, given and signed with Our Hand or Sign Manual, and pass under the Privy Seal of our Realm of England; Each of which Councils shall consist of thirteen Persons, to be ordained, made, and removed, from time to time, according as shall be directed and comprised in the same instructions; And shall have a several Seal, for all Matters that shall pass or concern the same several Councils; Each of which Seals, shall have the King's Arms engraver on the one Side thereof, and his Portraiture on the other; And that the Seal for the Council of the said first Colony shall have engraver round about, on the one Side, these Words; Sigillum Regis Magne Britanniae, Franciae, & Hiberniae; on the other Side this Inscription round about; Pro Concilio primae Coloniae Virginiae. And the Seal for the Council of the said second Colony shall also have engraven, round about the one Side thereof, the aforesaid Words; Sigillum Regis Magne Britanniae, Franciae, & Hiberniae; and on the other Side; Pro Concilio primae Coloniae Virginiae: <br /><br />"And that also there shall be a Council, established here in England, which shall, in like manner, consist of thirteen Persons, to be for that Purpose, appointed by Us, our Heirs and Successors, which shall be called our Council of Virginia; And shall, from time to time, have the superior Managing and Direction, only of and for all Matters that shall or may concern the Government, as well of the said several Colonies, as of and for any other Part or Place, within the aforesaid Precincts of four and thirty and five and forty Degrees abovementioned; Which Council shall, in like manner, have a Seal, for matters concerning the Council or Colonies, with the like Arms and Portraiture, as aforesaid, with this inscription, engraver round about on the one Side; Sigillum Regis Magne Britanniae, Franciae, & Hiberniae; and round about on the other Side, Pro Concilio fuo Virginiae."<br /><br />(Continued below)Keith Throophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-48703557171561556042014-04-11T12:21:30.837-05:002014-04-11T12:21:30.837-05:00Well, I can only say that assertions are not argum...Well, I can only say that <i>assertions</i> are not <i>arguments</i>. And good arguments offer supporting evidence for their assertions, especially when those assertions are set forth as such a sweeping generalization. I seriously doubt that you could prove the validity of such a strong generalization as "the vast majority (if not all)" of the "Reformed pastors and theologians of the Revolution era" would argue the way you have said. However, even if you could prove its validity, it still wouldn't amount to a Scriptural argument. And, since the question under discussion in the article is whether or not the American Revolution was <i>Biblical</i>, I think it behooves you make your arguments <i>from the Bible</i>.Keith Throophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-52307629386352718792014-04-05T01:25:59.106-05:002014-04-05T01:25:59.106-05:00You say that "this seems to fly right in the ...You say that "this seems to fly right in the face of just about every history book on the subject I have ever read." That speaks more to the rather pitiful level of education that is current in the USA in our day. I take it you've never heard of the Prohibitory Act of 1775, then? That was the de facto declaration of war by the British government against the American colonies at least 6 months before the Declaration of Independence was signed. The "justification" for the Prohibitory Act speaks to the level of misinformation, double-speak, and factual revision that was governing the British Parliament at this time.<br />They claimed that:<br />1) The colonies were staging a rebellion against the authority of King and Parliament. In reality, the reverse was true. The colonists were defending the written law of their colonies against an overreaching overseas government that had no legal right to interfere.<br />2) They had raised an army and engaged his majesty's soldiers. This was true -- yet only after the British military had illegally occupied Boston and was engaged in the theft of private property throughout Massachusetts.<br />3) They had illegally taken over the powers of government. This is the most revisionist of all -- the complete opposite was true, as it was the king and Parliament who had taken over the powers which legally belonged to the colonists alone.<br />4) They had stopped trade with the mother country. It's worth mentioning that the colonies had every right under their law to do so. It's also worth mentioning that the Act prohibited Britain to engage in trade with the American colonies.<br />The Act declared all Americans to be outlaws beyond the king’s protection even while conservative American leaders were working with their British counterparts to craft a settlement to present to the King and Parliament that would end the fighting between colonial and royal forces, protect the colonists from unconstitutional parliamentary legislation while at the same time stopping short of a declaration of independence. The Prohibitory Act effectively ended any chance for reconciliation -- and also de facto declared the Americans to no longer be British subjects, since the Act declared them to be "open enemies".<br />Over and over again the Americans sought peace, and over and over again the British government and monarchy flaunted the law to the point of making war upon them I repeat my previous point: Unless the New Covenant denies men the right of self-defense, and/or might makes right and the powers that be can be a law unto themselves, the American colonists were perfectly justified in their resistance to an invasion by an unlawfully-acting British government. John Stott was correct -- if we hold to the theory of a Just War, then by logical extension we must also accept the theory of a Just Revolution under the same principle of self-defense. The American War for Independence easily falls under that category.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-43303693994330475012014-04-05T01:25:39.070-05:002014-04-05T01:25:39.070-05:00Actually, you didn't deal with Barton's cl...Actually, you didn't deal with Barton's claim that the Revolution was a defensive revolution in nature -- you devoted two sentences to it and said it was up for debate. If Barton was correct (and I say he was), then the argument against the justification of the Revolution gets a lot more difficult.<br />Why do I think Barton's claim is correct? Basic to our understanding of the American Revolution is the belief of the American colonists that they were NOT under the supreme authority of the British Parliament, but only owed allegiance to the King of England. The colonial charters were contracts between the founders of the colonies and the King. Parliament was not involved. If these charters had been mere grants and not contracts, then the colonists were deliberately deceived, any legal ties were void, and the colonists were absolved of allegiance to the King the moment they landed in the new world. It must be remembered that (unlike the French and Spanish colonies) 12 of the English colonies were settled by individuals without any aid from the Crown or Parliament. The founders of Georgia had received some aid, and perhaps New York received funds -- but only for overthrowing the Dutch. Because of the actions of the British government, by 1776 the colonists could charge English foreign policy with ingratitude as honestly as England could charge them with being ungrateful. All the charters, particularly those of the New England colonies, granted companies and proprietors full executive, legislative, and judicial authority. Parliament was not involved and the King only had restraining power -- if that, since the Rhode Island and Connecticut charters did not even involve the King.<br />In short, the charters of each colony laid down in the written law that the colonies had full (not partial) control over their own executive, legislative, and judicial affairs. When Stephen Hopkins (Baptist governor of Rhode Island during the French and Indian War) said "The King and Parliament had no more right to make laws for us than the Mohawks", he was merely quoting the common written law throughout the colonies. This is significant, because it defines Parliament's actions in levying taxes against the colonies as being definitively illegal, and defeats your argument that the British government was "an authority that had the right to quell opposition by means of force.". Parliament and the King were overthrowing and rebelling against the law, not the Americans. The Americans, then, were merely defending their property against an aggressive thief.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-64263411672890281642014-04-05T00:17:45.085-05:002014-04-05T00:17:45.085-05:00Granted. Yet the Reformers (including the Reformed...Granted. Yet the Reformers (including the Reformed pastors and theologians of the Revolution era) also held to Sola Scriptura, and the vast majority (if not all) of them came to the opposite understanding of Romans 13 that you have. Something has to give.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-61662335767943384272014-02-27T20:34:16.636-06:002014-02-27T20:34:16.636-06:00Supposing you are correct, which I doubt, this arg...Supposing you are correct, which I doubt, this argument would only have any real force if my ultimate authority was "Reformed ... interpretation." I established my arguments on Scripture precisely because Scripture is my ultimate authority.Keith Throophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-91589132834247664552014-02-27T20:30:23.808-06:002014-02-27T20:30:23.808-06:00I find that I have been making my way through some...I find that I have been making my way through some fairly lengthy comments only to be left with the impression that those writing the comments didn't actually read most of what I wrote in the article. This is true particularly with regard to your second and third arguments, both of which were directly addressed in my post. For example, I dealt with Barton's argument that the revolution was simply self-defense in the article. I also dealt with the issue of civil disobedience, both in the article and in the comments above. I shall not, therefore, repeat my responses again here. I shall simply direct your attention to what I have written and ask that, if you are going to object, perhaps you could actually interact with what I have written instead of simply repeating arguments already addressed.<br /><br />As for your first argument, that the revolution wasn't really a revolution, this seems to fly right in the face of just about every history book on the subject I have ever read. As for whether Christians had no choice but to submit or separate along with their fellow countrymen, I guess that depends upon what choices you think the Christians assessing the situation should have seen as legitimate options in the first place. But, then, that is what the whole debate here is about, isn't it? Your point thus begs the question, since it assumes the very position that is seeks to prove. It assumes that they were right to choose to rebel since that was the only choice they had if they didn't want to submit to the government, but the validity of this very choice assumes the rightness of rebelling in the first place. Is this not what needs to be proven? It seems to me that it is, and it also seems to me that you haven't proven it. To be sure, you assumed that the mere fact that a government may be evil warrants such rebellion, but you haven't demonstrated from the Scriptures in question why this would be so. <br /><br />In addition, nothing in my article in any way denies that rulers are supposed to be God's ministers for good. I just don't see any indication anywhere in the text of Romans that their failure to be good warrants the Christian's involvement in overthrowing them, even if he must disobey them at any point where they may require him to disobey God. I direct your attention once again to the distinction between overthrow of the government and civil disobedience, a distinction that was clearly established in the article and backed up by Scripture.Keith Throophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-76800943409041700062014-02-27T18:42:37.069-06:002014-02-27T18:42:37.069-06:00Which is why, I might add, virtually no Reformed h...Which is why, I might add, virtually no Reformed held to that interpretation of Romans 13.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-54620433871618401832014-02-27T18:41:10.728-06:002014-02-27T18:41:10.728-06:00Kind of a side note: The American Revolution was m...Kind of a side note: The American Revolution was more a separation/secession than it was a revolution (in the truest sense). They weren't trying to overthrow the government in London, but rather to separate and form their own government after the king and the government in London began depriving them of their rights as Englishmen. If anything, actually, it was a counterrevolution to what the British government was perpetrating on them. After entreating the Brits time and again (seemingly following Matthew 18 in a secular situation) and being treated worse each passing time, the British government initiated war upon them and left them no real choice but to submit or separate. Obviously, they chose the latter.<br />Unless self-defense is not allowed under the New Covenant, I don't really see the problem. I would also say that I'm not convinced Romans 13 applies in this situation. Verse 4 tells us that government (as ordained by God) is "a minister of God to you for good." If a government is performing evil actions against its people (like initiating war on them, for instance), by definition that government cannot be defined as "a minister of God to you for good" since the Almighty does not sanction evil nor consider evil to be good. Had the British government been acting justly and in a definitely good manner (as per Romans 13:4), then the American Revolution would have been evil indeed. Seeing as the British government were acting sinfully and against God's intentions for civil government, Romans 13 isn't referring to that kind of government.<br />Last point: IF the article is correct on Romans 13, then even civil disobedience is wrong and condemned. Using this logic, there is no middle ground -- we MUST obey the civil magistrate in ALL things -- period -- IF that is what Romans 13 is trying to say. Obviously, there's a problem with that then, since a civil magistrate can hardly order us to follow another religion (for example) and desert the name of Christ and still be considered "a minister of God to you for good."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-69866455076898360972013-10-02T12:01:44.117-05:002013-10-02T12:01:44.117-05:00Justin, other than to point out that most of what ...Justin, other than to point out that most of what you discuss really hasn't much to do with the issue at hand, I would observe that you seem to miss the point of much of what I have written, and you mischaracterize it as well. For example, you state:<br /><br />"All that being said we must get our information from the true source. 'Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.'-Romans 13:1. This is much different from the penknifed version cited in this and many other such articles, and potentially sheds a whole new light on the issue."<br /><br />Exactly how was my discussion of Romans 13:1 a "penknifed version"? What precisely do you mean by this? It seems that you are criticizing my citation of the text as perhaps being improperly reflective of the context ... or something like that, but since you offer no evidence for what you are talking about I cannot be sure. You go on to state:<br /><br />"Many people on the one side cite that Christ and Paul were both praised in the Bible for submitting even to one of the most evil governments ever to rule, while those on the other side cite how Gideon, Samson, and Ehud are praised by the Bible for 'rebellion', 'insurrection', and even assassinating a ruler. What I have yet to see is anyone citing the actual context of each example."<br /><br />What I have yet to see is <i>your</i> clear citation of the actual context of each example. I also don't see how you could have missed my having dealt with such things in my article, where I pointed out that there is a big difference between God commanding His people -- at that time constituted as a national entity among other nations -- to rebel against a foreign oppressor and our taking it upon ourselves to do so. For example, I dealt with Barton's arguments along this line when I argued, "As for Barton's allusion to Old Testament examples of rebellion against a governing authority, I would respond that, in my view, these cases were all instances of God's special revelation that such should be done or of His divine intervention on behalf of a people whose position was that of a national entity under His rule. Can we really apply such cases in the history of national Israel to the Church? I think not. I think this would fail to properly take into account the differences between the nature of the Old Covenant people of God as a nation among nations and the New Covenant people of God as a family of believers from among all nations. Under the Old Covenant the very nature of the case often required rebellion against foreign oppressors or the overthrow of wicked kings, and then only with Divine sanction and guidance. But the New Covenant Church is not such an entity."<br /><br />So, although I allowed your comments to be posted here, I have to say that they don't reflect a very good understanding of what I wrote, nor do they offer much that actually helps clarify the matter at all.Keith Throophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-40590039075012014332013-09-22T07:07:09.023-05:002013-09-22T07:07:09.023-05:00On one final note, persecution against Christians ...On one final note, persecution against Christians is not always divine punishment, nor is it always detrimental to God's plan. It causes some to take a more effective stand and causes others to flee, spreading the Gospel to more places. Compare the faith of early Christians to us today. They allowed themselves, their wives, and their children to be eaten by lions because they would not compromise their faith. Most of us lack the courage to reprove a co-worker or even a fellow Christian when they say or do something wrong. Sometimes what men mean for evil, God means for good, and sometimes adversity is better encouragement than any of the pep talks we get from certain preachers and pastors today.justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03555411633718657920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-69486448281576797012013-09-22T06:45:01.869-05:002013-09-22T06:45:01.869-05:00Continued from previous post.
Do you skip church...Continued from previous post. <br /><br />Do you skip church and other God-serving activities to watch sporting events or persue other hobbies? Or even when you're at church, do you talk more about hunting, sports and other hobbies, or about God and His Word? Do you skip church and other God-serving activies to work and provide yourself and your family with food and clothes and water and toys, all but the last of which God has explicitly promised to supply and provide if you put Him first? (Matthew 6:18-34 KJV) Do you delay or withold (in part or in whole) your tithes, which everyone can of us owes to God, for any of the above reasons or anything else that YOU deem necessary and appropriate? (Malachi 3:8 KJV) Do you look at things you shouldn't (like shampoo or weight loss commercials)? (Psalm 101:3 KJV) Do you listen to things you should not (like the commedy channel or certain radio stations, or the dialogue in most tv dramas, talk shows and especially late night shows)? (Proverbs 29:24 KJV) Do you say things that in any way displease God, or poorly represent Him to a lost world? (Ephesians 4:29 KJV) I present all of these above questions (and there are many more which I have not presented) under the presumption that the majority of readers are already professing Christians. "If MY people, which are called by MY name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." II Chronicles 7:14--KJV<br />We cannot expect a lost society understand or obey this message because it is meant for (in modern times) us as Christians. Every person is either a missionary or a mission field. Even if own your life checks out alright against the mirror of God's word (I doubt any do and I know I could stand a lot of improvement), odds are you know at least one fellow Christian who needs THIS message, or a lost person who needs the Gospel. If we who know the truth don't share it or apply it, who will? I do not intend to be harsh, but only to convey this message with the same conviction it stirs in me. I do not know, claim, or pretend to know everything there is to know. I only hope what I have found in my own search helps others come closer to finding the clarity we all seem to be seeking. The answers to Bible questions can only be found in the Bible, not in the writings, opinions, or practices of others past or present. True conviction comes only from God. The most any man can do is merely point us to Christ. All these things being said, I do not yet know which side I would have support had I lived in the colonies. Perhaps that is why I live now instead of then. And as for future decisions, I still cannot say what course of action I would be inclined toward, nor can I advise with any definite Bible authority a certain choice for anyone else. The one thing I can say for certain is that we should always consider and seek to do what is pleasing to God, what is most profitable to His business, even if it is costly to our own, and what is the best way we can represent Christ to a lost world. It may be a bold stand against evil, or humble submission even unto death. Anyone who is faithful could be the next martyr for Christ, or the next deliverer for His penitent people. One is just as honorable as the other. All each of us can do is to seek God's will in our own life, and go where He leads us, no matter who disagrees or opposes.<br />justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03555411633718657920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-71157866460708048852013-09-22T06:06:32.450-05:002013-09-22T06:06:32.450-05:00First of all I have to state that I myself am look...First of all I have to state that I myself am looking for clarity on the issue of submission to government from a Biblical perspective, as the more I research, the more confusing it all seems to become. The only way I can suggest to fing any personal clarity on the matter is to first humble one's self, even to the point of putting aside all self-will, then pray and ask that God would give wisdom, (James 1:5-KJV), then read the whole Bible line upon line, precept upon precept, as the WORD of God. Many things in the Bible--such as when one writer records a commandment but another part of the Bible praises an example of what seems to oppose that command--are viewed by the world and even as Christians as contradictions. I submit that they may in actuallity be contrasts for the sole purpose of preventing a person from taking one side of a debate out of context and to some radical extreme. All that being said we must get our information from the true source. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."-Romans 13:1. This is much different from the penknifed version cited in this and many other such articles, and potentially sheds a whole new light on the issue. First of all, if all power is from God, such as that which establishes individual governments, must we not accept also, (at the very least the possibility) that that which overthrows them also comes from God? And this is no contradiction as one commenter on this site suggested. God used many wicked rulers and nations to punish His people and to bring them back when they had turned away from Him. Many people on the one side cite that Christ and Paul were both praised in the Bible for submitting even to one of the most evil governments ever to rule, while those on the other side cite how Gideon, Samson, and Ehud are praised by the Bible for "rebellion", "insurrection", and even assassinating a ruler. What I have yet to see is anyone citing the actual context of each example. In the case of the Old Testament, the book of Judges and most of the rest of the OT display that the Jews followed a generational pattern. A Godly man led them and everything was good. The Godly man died, the people turned from God, and were thus given over by God to ungodly, tyrannical leaders to be oppressed. It was only when the people in mass recognized their sin, repented, and asked God for deliverance, that God sent deliverers such as Samson, Gideon, and Ehud to free them from oppression by overthrowing the very rulers the He Himself had previously established. Note also that every wicked nation God used to punish Israel were also in due time punished for their own misdeeds. In the case of Christ and Paul submitting to the Romans, the Roman government was established for the fulfillment of prophecy, as the willing, sacrificial, substitutionary death of Christ on the cross was His very purpose for coming into the world. And Paul, by submitting to arrest and torture, (even tough as a Roman citizen* he did not have to), was able to witness to several Roman officials and even Ceaser himself, influencing them in a way that possibly made life somewhat easier for other Christians for a time, considering that none of the top rulers found any fault and at least one was almost converted. I am not trying to condemn or justify either view absolutey. As I stated I am seeking clarity myself. One thing I do know with certainty is even if it is right under some circumstances to stand against an oppressive or corrupt government, we should first examine ourselves to see if perhaps we deserve such a government for the way we are choosing to live. It is true that God is the author of life and liberty, but seemingly contrary to the declaration of independence, God does on occassion authorize men, even tyrants, to take one or both, as is His right as God and Creator to do. And before anyone asks in what way we may have turned away from God, ask these questions in my next post.justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03555411633718657920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-7912531767314189032013-08-31T10:37:47.115-05:002013-08-31T10:37:47.115-05:00I seriously doubt the validity of such an argument...I seriously doubt the validity of such an argument, since everything I have read up to this point leads me to believe that the Colonists clearly saw themselves as English subjects who did not doubt, for example, the right of Parliament to levy taxes on them. The issue over taxes was whether or not they were being fairly applied to the Colonists, who felt that they were not being treated with the same rights that other English subjects had. At least that has been my understanding. I would be interested in hearing some good evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />At any rate, as the article I have written demonstrates, the debate among Christians leading up to the Revolution was not about whether or not they were actually English citizens, but was about whether or not the Bible allowed them -- as English citizens -- to revolt against their sovereign. And I have concluded that the answer to this question is a resounding, "No!"Keith Throophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-82271599976585443442013-08-30T16:57:56.127-05:002013-08-30T16:57:56.127-05:00Not having read all the comments, I wanted to thro...Not having read all the comments, I wanted to throw this out there. At some point I was researching this and came across an argument I had not heard before. The original charters were between the King and the Colonists. Parliament imposed its will upon the Colonists with no actual authority to do so according to the charters. Six months prior to the Revolution, King George dissolved the charters he had with the Colonists in a rash decision. In reality, there was no rebellion since the King had annulled his covenant with the Colonists. I will look for that source again, but I did find that interesting as I too have wrestled with this topic.Chris Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14914045823505231114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-47843082936718025502013-02-06T14:17:12.534-06:002013-02-06T14:17:12.534-06:00Indeed you are confused, since you have misread or...Indeed you are confused, since you have misread or misunderstood some of my basic arguments. For example, I nowhere argued that a government is suspect simply because it has been adopted by men, as you have suggested. And I nowhere assumed that just because God sovereignly ordains all human authorities they are therefore all equally good. Nor do any of my arguments assume that Christians are never allowed to fight in behalf their respective countries, only that they are not allowed to rebel against them and attempt to overthrow them. As for whether or not they should fight in behalf of any particular country, that issue would have to be addressed in a separate discussion, although I can imagine that sometimes Christians will be able to do so and sometimes not. For example, if the Chinese government required a Christian serving in its military to attack and kill other Christians simply for exercising their Christian faith, then he would no doubt want to exercise civil disobedience and refuse to do so, even if it meant his own imprisonment or death. Yet as a member of the Chinese military he may be able to attack and kill pirates who disrupt Chinese shipping and kill his fellow Chinese citizens with no violation of his conscience.<br /><br />As for the deeper issue of the mystery concerning how God's sovereignty relates to human responsibility, I suggest you read my past blog post entitled "Is the 'God of Calvinism' the God of the Bible?" here:<br /><br />http://reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2007/09/god-of-calvinism-is-god-of-bible.htmlKeith Throophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-10889204738812465162013-02-06T13:57:43.843-06:002013-02-06T13:57:43.843-06:00Blake,
You are trying to make sense of what I thi...Blake,<br /><br />You are trying to make sense of what I think is a mystery for us, namely the ultimate relationship between God's sovereignty on the one hand and human responsibility on the other. My own position is that God is indeed sovereign even over evil, but in such a way that He is not responsible for the evil committed through second causes. I suggest you read this post on the subject:<br /><br />http://reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2007/09/god-of-calvinism-is-god-of-bible.html<br /><br />It is entitled "Is the 'God of Calvinism' the God of the Bible?" and in it I addressed the issue pretty directly.Keith Throophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-33180898043470121632012-12-02T12:14:44.899-06:002012-12-02T12:14:44.899-06:00Very confused here. If the government is adopted b...Very confused here. If the government is adopted by men and that makes it suspect, yet the authorities are approved and authorized by God are we not at an impasse? What constitutes good government? Where is military service in this mismash?Is not pacifism and a que sara sara mentality enjoined? If we fight within the law but it is only created by men and is therefore suspect where is the authority to fight for the proper interpretation of the law? If the authority for the state is God and He appoints it are we not obligated to fight for the state? If I am confused please unconfuse me. I am not on your level of expertise but it seems to me this is tantamount to passivity and pacifism. If so...it seems we should be uninvolved politically. We sin if we turn left. We sin if we turn right. clivesdadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05101588768194512859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-37301098156637473162012-11-30T12:18:24.673-06:002012-11-30T12:18:24.673-06:00This statement doesn't make any sense: "I...This statement doesn't make any sense: "I thank God that by His sovereign will I am a citizen of the United States of America", yet you declare that what the founders did was a sinful act of rebellion and disobedience to Romans 13:2. So it was God's will that His own law be broken??<br />Taken at face value, this would suggest that not only did God ordain a rebellious government to take the place of a righteous and justified one, but that God desired for the men who founded it to commit their sins in establishing it! <br />Moreover, due to the lust to dominate and the suggestion on the part of government that their power is absolute and everlasting, there is nearly no new government that is formed that does *not* usurp authority from a prior one, yet Romans 13:1 tells us that ALL government is ordained of God, which necessarily includes the ones which usurp authority from others! Under this given interpretation of this scripture, God has necessarily ordained a system under which His law will be continually broken and sin will be continually committed, and in every case the result is not death but God's total approval of the outcome!<br />Now, let's NOT hear this answered by saying that 'all things work together for good', as that doesn't apply here. God is responsible for ordaining, that is to say, designing and approving this system. And every government that is formed is ordained of God as well; that is to say, He intended for their creation to take place. This would have to mean that God intends for sinful acts to be committed in the creation of new governments. <br />And even beyond this matter of God contradicting and opposing Himself, there is STILL the issue that vexes fledgling Christians from growing in their faith until this very day: IF God has ordained all government, good or bad, and ALL rulers rule at His behest, has God set up tyrants and murderers to our detriment? God has CERTAINLY created a system under which, if all government is ordained of God irrespective of any other conditions, those who are willing to use force, commit murder, steal, lie, and every other crime kings and politicians OFTEN commit worldwide, more easily rise to power and dominate the peaceful and the righteous who believe they have no right to use force to affect their wishes in society or their desires concerning their neighbors. God would have to then be responsible, since this is the case, for the Third Reich, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Chey’s Cuba, Genghis Khan and Caligula. <br />And HOW then, could God, knowing the hearts of men and who would be righteous rulers and who would be evil, ever stand justified to cause the downfall of a ruler for their wickedness? Certainly I don’t believe this is still taking place today, where God plays an active role in passing judgment on nations in the earth. But it VERY certainly DID happen in the first century, because God speaks harshly about the Roman Empire and the judgment, ultimately destruction, He would bring to pass upon them in the book of Revelation! The beast which opposed Heaven and God and the lamb in Revelation WAS the Roman Empire, very clearly. And the destruction God promised the beast in the book of Revelation did ultimately come to fruition. Now let us ask: If God had chosen better more righteous rulers, say even a Christian, to rule Rome, would it have committee the unspeakable horrors that it would go on to commit against Christians and Jews throughout the hundreds of years following the life of Christ before it was completely destroyed? How then could God, having made the mess of the Empire by putting psychotic madmen in charge of it and sponsoring its authority with total approval, then turn and be angry about the consequences? <br />In all of these questions we have to ask ourselves: Is a God that would make the world adopt a system that necessarily elevates the wickedness and devices of man worth worshiping? Is this a just and loving God?<br />Looking forward to your response,<br />-Blake, Arkansas<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-11532723864043170672012-11-14T10:06:06.850-06:002012-11-14T10:06:06.850-06:00This discussion seems to gain currency with each e...This discussion seems to gain currency with each election. I very much appreciate your thoughtful, biblical and reasoned approach.Jailerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06169958029755773665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-3356809288635364792010-12-05T00:39:04.345-06:002010-12-05T00:39:04.345-06:00No, I don't think it would be a sin. I think t...No, I don't think it would be a sin. I think this would fall within the limits of acceptable civil disobedience described in my article.Keith Throophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-55651732489154042082010-12-04T23:39:15.848-06:002010-12-04T23:39:15.848-06:00Would this be sinful rebellion: Suppose you were l...Would this be sinful rebellion: Suppose you were living in Nazi occupied Europe and you hid Jews from the Nazi party authorities?horacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10524194181420604820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19532009.post-44739401774218674602010-10-20T21:08:02.115-05:002010-10-20T21:08:02.115-05:00No, I do not think this would be a sin, since it i...No, I do not think this would be a sin, since it is a process by which those who govern may impose a kind of discipline on others who govern, as, for example, when President Clinton was impeached.<br /><br />I also obviously do not think it would be a sin to vote someone out of office.Keith Throophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112617983370327521noreply@blogger.com