[moved]The American Revolution was a sin. Agree or not ?

[mindlight]

Smartass brits ...

The American revolution was a sin, ergo it is not possible to be both an American patriot and a Christian.

This is the point of this thread.

Romans 13:1-7 would imply it was a sin. George III was a lot better than the Roman empire and Paul had no representative in the Roman senate.

But there was a good deal of sinning going on in Britain also to do with aristocratic pride, vanity and greed for instance. These very same sins would be the death of many European monarchs just a couple of decades after the American revolution and the bourbons would not live to regret supporting the revolutionary impulse that would lead them to the guillotine.

2 wrongs do not make a right of course so I prefer to view this as a part of a Divine plan by the Sovereign Lord that would bless both Britain and America and through them the world. While Spain lost its empire Britains grew and provided the framework in which the abolition of slavery and democracy would ultimately flourish. The wisdom we learnt from defeat probably saved us from revolution at home, helped us defeat Napoleon and ultimately The Kaiser and Hitler also with American support.

Also can we point a finger at all Americans today as rooted in sin when the 13 colonies represent only a fraction of America today and the bulk of its citizens are descended from refugees and immigrants who arrived after we left.

That said American solutions to the problems of religious conflicts from centuries ago have undoubtedly secularised them to the point where absurd and immoral decisions are now justified in terms of secular principles e.g gay marriage and abortion.

So I see good and evil in what America has achieved it is both a City on a hill and a cess pit of liberal, racist or greedy immorality.

I believe God meant Americans to be free and the British are mainly happy to have America as its closest ally today.

 

[fi11222]

that works fine for some. but not all rulers are godly rulers, as we have seen throughout history.

Indeed. And neither the Sanhedrin nor Rome were godly rulers. Yet Jesus made it clear (and Paul reminds us as quoted above) that rebellion is never warranted against worldy authorities.

Peaceful disobedience in matters of faith (refusing pagan sacrifice, confessiong Christ even if forbidden) is warranted but nothing else. Raising an army to fight your King over matters of taxes and political representation is clearly against God's word.

 

[Albion]

Romans 13:1-7 would imply it was a sin.

I don't think that's what Romans implies at all, but regardless, I wonder how many people who want to stand by that claim (that America was cursed because it rebelled against British misrule), would also agree that the same applies to the various efforts to overthrow Hitler. In other words, people like fi11222 would, to be consistent, be saying that it was morally wrong to try to stop the Holocaust or the War itself and that God would exact punishment upon their descendants because of it. (??)

 

[mindlight]

I don't think that's what Romans implies at all, but regardless, I wonder how many people who want to stand by that claim (that America was cursed because it rebelled against British misrule), would also agree that the same applies to the various efforts to overthrow Hitler.

Bonhoeffer was a liberal in my view and the attempts to assassinate Hitler immoral. Hitler was no worse than Nero, Domitian or Caligula for instance. I take it however you only read the first 2 lines of my post as usual.

 

[Albion]

Bonhoeffer was a liberal in my view and the attempts to assassinate Hitler immoral. Hitler was no worse than Nero, Domitian or Caligula for instance. I take it however you only read the first 2 lines of my post as usual.

If you ramble, that's not my fault. If I quote the part that I intend to comment on, that's nothing special. Try to get over feeling slighted. BTW, you are WAY wrong if you think Hitler's regime was on the order of another Nero.

 

[fi11222]

In other words, people like fi11222 would, to be consistent, be saying that it was morally wrong to try to stop the Holocaust or the War itself and that God would exact punishment upon their descendants because of it. (??)

Jesus never said that violence is wrong. He said that rebellion is.

In other words, if you want to stop the Holocaust, you can be an allied soldier fighting the Nazis. Jesus never said that soldiers should not obey orders. Or if you are a German, you can desert and/or work for the allies. Or you can publicly oppose Hitler (peacefully) and confess Jesus. Then you will be a martyr like the White Rose people were.

 

[Tallguy88]

I don't think that's what Romans implies at all, but regardless, I wonder how many people who want to stand by that claim (that America was cursed because it rebelled against British misrule), would also agree that the same applies to the various efforts to overthrow Hitler. In other words, people like fi11222 would, to be consistent, be saying that it was morally wrong to try to stop the Holocaust or the War itself and that God would exact punishment upon their descendants because of it. (??)

It's not a sin to support America now. The government of the USA is the legitimate government. It was sinful for the colonies to rebel against their rightful ruler. But God allowed it to succeed and I don't question His Providence in that.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The American revolution was a sin, ergo it is not possible to be both an American patriot and a Christian.

The question would really be whether it was the Crown or the colonies who were rebelling against the established law.

America existed as a society prior to the American Revolution. Ergo, it is possible to be an American patriot without approving of the American Revolution.

 

[fi11222]

The question would really be whether it was the Crown or the colonies who were rebelling against the established law.

Well ... I do not believe Jesus would like this kind of argument. The King of England is the King, i.e. "Caesar" even if he is dead wrong and the worst tyrant. So it is quite clear who is the rebel in this world. What will happen in the next is another matter. Maybe the King will be damned because he was a rebel against God. But that is not relevant to who is the rebel here and now.

America existed as a society prior to the American Revolution. Ergo, it is possible to be an American patriot without approving of the American Revolution.

America did not exist as a united whole. So you can be a Puritan patriot or a Virginian patriot. But not an American (i.e. US) patriot. Especially, the stars and stripes is off limits.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Well ... I do not believe Jesus would like this kind of argument. The King of England is the King, i.e. "Caesar" even if he is dead wrong and the worst tyrant.

King George III was far from the worst tyrant. However, in a constitutional monarchy, which 18th century Britain was, the authority of Caesar does not rest with the King alone. There are laws that even the King must submit to. Most of the Declaration of Independence is a list allegations as to when he was in violation of those laws. It was in fact the heart of the argument for the legality of American sucession.

America did not exist as a united whole.

The American colonies did have a common Anglo-Saxon culture. If they hadn't they wouldn't have been able to hove toghether to secede as they had.

But not an American (i.e. US) patriot. Especially, the stars and stripes is off limits.

America's independence was inevitable in any case. Canada ultimately became independent without a revolution. Even if you disapprove of the manner in which the US gained its independence, it's really water under the bridge now.

 

[South Bound]

Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" (Matt 22:21) This was in a context where the Pharisee opponents of Jesus were trying to trick Him into making a statement in favor of rebellion against Rome. The response given by Jesus made it clear that he did not support rebellion. He was no Barabbas, no zealot.

But what were doing the founders of the United states in 1776 and after, if not rebelling against their sovereign, i.e. their "Caesar". Is there a way to justifiy rebellion on a biblical basis in this particular case? It doesn't seem to me. The King of England was not a particular bad ruler at that time. Indeed he was better than most and, in particular, he had become much more tolerant of religious plurality than any monarch in Europe.

In any case, Jesus did not say "Render render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, provided he is a decent guy", he just said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" full stop. That is why in the 2nd and 3d centuries, christians preferred to be martyred rather than revolt.

I believe that if you look at the American Revolution as the sin I think it is, many things start to make much more sense. In particular, it becomes far easier to understand why the US is becoming increasingly secular today. The US was created by secular people, "secular humanists", we might almost say. Benjamin Franklin was a friend of Voltaire and most of the other founders were either deists or Freemasons or both. No wonder Americans are becoming increasinly faithless. For every sin, there is a price.

Thanks for demonstrating why we homeschool.

 

[mindlight]

King George III was far from the worst tyrant. However, in a constitutional monarchy, which 18th century Britain was, the authority of Caesar does not rest with the King alone. There are laws that even the King must submit to. Most of the Declaration of Independence is a list allegations as to when he was in violation of those laws. It was in fact the heart of the argument for the legality of American sucession.

The American colonies did have a common Anglo-Saxon culture. If they hadn't they wouldn't have been able to hove toghether to secede as they had.

America's independence was inevitable in any case. Canada ultimately became independent without a revolution. Even if you disapprove of the manner in which the US gained its independence, it's really water under the bridge now.

The American revolution was a secular echo of the more religious English civil war. In England the argument had been in effect divine right of the monarch versus the conscientious objection of those who served God first. King v Christian parliament - Catholic v Protestant. But the parliament ended up being just as corrupt and self serving as the monarchy and was deposed by a truly religious albeit rather narrow minded Lord Protector Cromwell.

While many Puritans emigrated to America e.g the Mayflower the American revolution 100 years later was not religious. It was about money and voting rights.

 

[Albion]

Jesus never said that violence is wrong. He said that rebellion is.

In other words, if you want to stop the Holocaust, you can be an allied soldier fighting the Nazis. Jesus never said that soldiers should not obey orders. Or if you are a German, you can desert and/or work for the allies. Or you can publicly oppose Hitler (peacefully) and confess Jesus. Then you will be a martyr like the White Rose people were.

What a nonsensical argument. War is fine, so long as it's not against the country that already owns you? Good grief.

Anyway, this whole premise--which you are not alone in embracing--that it's a sin to rebel against a government that doesn't uphold its own laws, is not supported by Scripture. Period. It's nothing but a misunderstanding of one verse.

 

[mindlight]

If you ramble, that's not my fault. If I quote the part that I intend to comment on, that's nothing special.

Actually you proof text and miss the point repeatedly. But I am not here to teach you cotext and context.

BTW, you are WAY wrong if you think Hitler's regime was on the order of another Nero.

Now does this mean Nero was worse or Hitler?! Hitlers body bag count was higher. Nero was more personally evil. It is not clear what you mean or why. Are you a Praeterist who sees Nero as a type of AntiChrist? Either way Paul did not teach rebellion

 

[fi11222]

What a nonsensical argument.

1 Cor 1:21 "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe."

Indeed, what Jesus preached is nonsensical (folly) according to the world.

Anyway, this whole premise--which you are not alone in embracing--that it's a sin to rebel against a government that doesn't uphold its own laws, is not supported by Scripture. Period. It's nothing but a misunderstanding of one verse.

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Romans 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
Romans 13:4 for he is Godʼs servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out Godʼs wrath on the wrongdoer.
Romans 13:5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid Godʼs wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
Romans 13:6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
Romans 13:7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

I count seven verses, not one. And there is also the passage about rendering unto Caesar which appears in several Gospels.

Not supported by scripture, eh ?

 

[Albion]

Now does this mean Nero was worse or Hitler?!

In case you've forgotten your own words--

Hitler was no worse than Nero....

 

[Albion]

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

This is NOT a blank check from God for tyrants to enslave whomever they can get their hands on, unrestrained, and forever. NO reputable theologian would say that such is the meaning of the verse.

'Nuff said.

 

[fi11222]

This is NOT a blank check from God for tyrants to enslave whomever they can get their hands on, unrestrained, and forever. NO reputable theologian would say that such is the meaning of the verse.

'Nuff said.

This is so pathetic and so predictable.

You can capitalise NO and NOT all you want but what the verse means is quite clear and no amount of "reputable" sophistry will change that.

Of course tyrants do not get a blank check from God, but it is not our place to take justice in our own hands: Romans 12:19 "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

 

[Albion]

This is so pathetic and so predictable.

You're perplexed, eh? Why don't you just write something like "God is always right" or "Only those who trust the Lord will understand?"

 

[Wgw]

Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" (Matt 22:21) This was in a context where the Pharisee opponents of Jesus were trying to trick Him into making a statement in favor of rebellion against Rome. The response given by Jesus made it clear that he did not support rebellion. He was no Barabbas, no zealot.

But what were doing the founders of the United states in 1776 and after, if not rebelling against their sovereign, i.e. their "Caesar". Is there a way to justifiy rebellion on a biblical basis in this particular case? It doesn't seem to me. The King of England was not a particular bad ruler at that time. Indeed he was better than most and, in particular, he had become much more tolerant of religious plurality than any monarch in Europe.

In any case, Jesus did not say "Render render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, provided he is a decent guy", he just said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" full stop. That is why in the 2nd and 3d centuries, christians preferred to be martyred rather than revolt.

I believe that if you look at the American Revolution as the sin I think it is, many things start to make much more sense. In particular, it becomes far easier to understand why the US is becoming increasingly secular today. The US was created by secular people, "secular humanists", we might almost say. Benjamin Franklin was a friend of Voltaire and most of the other founders were either deists or Freemasons or both. No wonder Americans are becoming increasinly faithless. For every sin, there is a price.

I do not realistically think you can argue the American position was any more or less sinful than the British position. I am unaware of any extant countries which can be described as entirely unblemished bastions of the Christian faith; even my beloved Byzantine Empire was the direct heir to the nasty Roman regime which killed Christian children like St. Abanoub, and fed saints like St. Ignatius to lions.

So I think we might well regard "Render unto Caesar" as stressing the need to avoid creating civil disturbances in the name of Christianity, to avoid using the Christian faith as a justification to not pay taxes or otherwise thumb our noses at legitimate civil authorities, and to avoid, how shall ai put it, politicizing the faith to its detriment (this does not preclude the symphonia that existed between the Orthodox Church and the Byzantine Empire after the end of Iconoclasm in the 9th century, or Christian religiousmoeaders being involved in politics, for example, the Church of England bishops who sit in the House of Lords).