Was the American Revolution a sin?

[Quid est Veritas?]

If both the founding people and the native Americans were people without God in their lives, it would be as pagans fighting pagans which Christians shouldn't really have anything to do with. And for people without Christ and His Father in their lives, they may not know any difference between kill and murder.

While most indigenious people would not know the difference between kill and murder, God is smart in that He gave the world the definition of both and it is only through His definition that a person can know the difference between right and wrong. Most people have to pay monies to schools in order to get to know the differences in the meanings of kill and murder. God was so advanced then that only now are we catching up to His definitions. But better is the man, who without knowledge, keeps his tongue than the man, who with knowledge, does wickedly.

Not really, for the question has nothing to do with its foundation, but with Christians during the Revolution at which point their government is established and their duties clear.

 

[delaD3]

Not really, for the question has nothing to do with its foundation, but with Christians during the Revolution at which point their government is established and their duties clear.

So were the Christians which went to war during the Revolution sin-ing? I can't speak for them.

 

[Open Heart]

The first permanent English settlement was Jamestown in Virginia but there were a few failed attempts before this, most notably Roanoke Island.

CROATOAN!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So were the Christians which went to war during the Revolution sin-ing? I can't speak for them.

You don't have to speak for them.
You would be in trouble if you did.

 

[Rick Otto]

You don't have to speak for them.
You would be in trouble if you did.

Yeah,... I'm beginning to see agendas behind the question.
I'm reminded of what God had to say about monarchs after Israel told Sammuel that they wanted a king:

1] And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
[12] And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
[13] And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
[14] And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
[15] And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
[16] And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
[17] He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
[18] And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
[19] Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
[20] That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

 

[delaD3]

CROATOAN!

And another fact is that there is a distinguishing between the 'virgin' daughters of Israel and the Gates of Zion.

 

[SpreadTheWordOfGod]

No, it was not.

 

[Yarddog]

So I ask you, was the United States born in an act of Sin?

IMHO, yes.

Can the American Revolution be justified theologically at all?

I haven't ever read a worthy argument which does.

 

[Rick Otto]

I think that it was a sin is not a conclusion without merit however, I see it not unlike asking, " Was the crucifixion a sin?"
Of course it was, and thank God it happened, as incomplete as the Treaty of Paris rendered it.

 

[Suggestion Box]

My opinion is that the creator of the thread makes a compelling case: that rebellion, even against the basest of tyrants, is sinful. Frankly, I want to resurrect this thread to stir up some rebuttals. I have a hard time believing that no one has one. The only good rebuttal I have seen is found in replies to this older thread: in short, how do you know who really is the rightful authority?

I want to spend some time on this rebuttal, which I think is significant, though incorrect. First I want to see if I can adequately state it. I think this comes from John Locke, the philosopher who inspired many of the founding fathers. If everyone starts out on equal footing, none having any innate ideas, and therefore none having any birthright, then any one of them has just as much a right to authority as any other. This is where we get the notion of "consent of the governed" in the Declaration of Independence.

In essence, the Christian argument for the American Revolution is that it was no revolt at all. It argues that the person claiming authority really didn't have authority; that a false king invaded a land that wasn't his, and that land defended itself.

I think a rebuttal to this rebuttal is needed.

Firstly, some background. Locke's foundational argument was that there are no innate ideas. He used this basis to discern human authority, but he also used this same foundational argument to support a heterodox view on how to discern the word of God. As Christians, we know that God appoints men to authority. So if we are wrong about how to know when God is truly speaking, then we will also be wrong about which authority he appoints. According to Locke, the word of God trumps the reasoning of man, but how do you know what really is the word of God? Starting from no innate ideas, you have no basis whence to tell if a vision or a testimony really came from God, or if it actually came from passionate emotion, or from some other spirit masquerading as God. He then uses reason to validate anything known by faith. To him, reason does include scripture, but he believes that reason checks faith.

The Lockean idea that reason validates faith is only half true. True half: If a man claims that God has spoken to him, we must validate what he says with scripture. If what he says goes against scripture, then we can say he is a liar or perhaps misguided. Furthermore, there is general revelation: believing there is a God by sensing nature, and reasoning. There is also special revelation: no innate ideas means we can't know Jesus unless someone tells us - how will they believe if no one preaches to them? False half: reason does not check faith; rather, faith is the basis of reason, and only then can reason validate the testimony of men. We know Jesus because his Father has revealed him to us. The Father draws people to his Son. No one can know the Father except through the Son. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit enables us to understand scripture in the first place; without God's initiative, we could not reason from scripture. We first believe God (not innately, but when he reveals Jesus to us), and that gives us a starting place whence to reason. We can then reason from the Word of God to validate the testimony of men. But even little children can believe in Jesus, and they are called first in the kingdom of heaven. This is a faith that precedes reason. Locke goes to great lengths to attempt to prove God through reason, and this reasoning does not include the Trinitarian means described above, nor is it the kind of reasoning available to a little child. Locke's way of figuring out what God is trying to tell us was heterodox. This same heterodox interpretation of scripture formed the context in which the Declaration of Independence was written, and the basis for the Revolution.

Secondly, let's look at the claims of the Revolutionaries themselves, in the Declaration of Independence. They claim as one of their self-evident truths that governments derive their powers from "consent of the governed". As I have shown above, scripture disproves this. Governments derive their powers from the appointment of God. If the consent of the governed were informed by the Holy Spirit, then one could begin to use reason to validate the testimony of those saying they heard from God, and perhaps argue that God himself had appointed the leader by inspiring the governed to consent to a particular person; but no one even claims that this is happening. They claim that God entitles them to separation from their political bands, but they do not claim that God has appointed any particular authority.

Another claim is that, "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government...." Here, they are not defending an existing nation against foreign attack. There is no vacancy of power. This is not a situation where everyone is starting with a clean slate, on equal footing, all having just as much a right to authority as anyone else. There is already a clear authority over them, and they even acknowledge it. They show that they have, up to the point of the Declaration, given their consent. Consent of the governed has been established, and is now being revoked. They are throwing off government and establishing a new nation. This alone would debunk the theory that the Americans had never recognized British rule to begin with. To further the point, they also say, "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." Not only do they clearly affirm the existence of a reigning authority, they even identify that authority: it is the nation of Great Britain, and it is specifically the present King of that nation.

There was no confusion over who the authority was at the time of the American Revolution. Everyone agreed it was King George III of Great Britain. Even the Revolutionaries acknowledge this. God appoints human authorities, and tyranny does not qualify as a reason to throw off government.

Oh, and by the way: happy Independence Day weekend! (September 3rd 1783 was the Treaty of Paris, in which the rightful King actually ceded his rule over the colonies and recognized the United States of America, thereby granting our nation legitimacy under God.)

 

[RDKirk]

There is a current thread tangential to this topic:

America is a Civil Religion of Deism, not a Christian nation | Christian Forums

 

[Ray Glenn]

The Boston massacre , the quartering act , King George lll head of the Church , taxation without representation , were we represented in Parlement ?

George Washington may not have been led by cloud or fire but in my opinion he experienced many miraculous events that led to improbable victory against England .. He even Chaplained his own Army at times ... I was taught in school that he wasn't even a Christian , after researching myself I conclude he was the greatest Christian and leader of all time in America .. I also think he downplayed his denomination so that he would not influence or risk his popularity being a factor in people not choosing their own religion ..

We all have opinions and mine is that America was born to be the superpower on Earth to support Israel's return to the Land of Judea in 1948 ... Like a big strong fullback we've drug tacklers 3 yards at a time going for it in spite of opposition both internal and external .. I would love to be a pulling guard with Jesus at fullback , talk about 3 yards and a cloud of dust !!!

 

[Ray Glenn]

A majority of the first colonies were those that escaped religious oppression in Europe. If the Colonies were used to escape religious persecution in Europe, then how can anyone be justified in claiming that the formation of the colonies were not rooted in Chrisitianity? George Washington was not and is not a Deist. That claim doesn't arise until 1960-1990 from one single professor located on the east coast. No where else does that claim exist. That professor claimed that he found a reference from George Washington's Pastor that Washington never took communion. Considering communion included wine .....maybe Washington didn't like the wine served. As such, the pastor considered Washington to be a a possible Deist. Until the day he died, he began each day the same ....several hours reading his Bible, prayer and breakfast in private. His personal Bible covered with thoughts and writings on the pages. Washington formed the Clergy Corps in his command....No profanity was used in the ranks. Each soldier required to be in uniform and at service each Sunday. Slavery survived in the US by one vote. 13 colonies 7-6, the final vote. A Deist would hardley be a part of that ....

Thomas Jefferson could be considered a Deist. After all, he rewrote his version of the Bible and didn't consider devine intervention into the war.

When you actually read about Deism ...it was a cult belief delveing in nothing more than a thought that God didn't interfer in the daily activities on earth. What exactly makes that criminal in the eyes of the Christian? The belief was God is devine as the creator ....but he doesn't interfer with the daily interventions. Nothing considered God to be dead or not the final judge of humanity. ....In my view ...claims about Deism is nothing more than an excuse ....

The Declaration of Independence is full of reference to God. Thomas Jefferson's insult to England was removed from the later pages. He admonished the King and England for their forced hand in introducing slavery to the colonies. The group that signed tje Declaration was not the group that signed the Constitution. Several of the original signers lost their lives during the war. So offended, by the thought of slavery, the colonies implemented a law immediately. The colonies built ships faster than England, as such, a law was passed making it illegal for the colonies (now states) to build ships meant for the slave trade.

 

[RDKirk]

A majority of the first colonies were those that escaped religious oppression in Europe.

That can only be claimed for half the colonies, at best. Not the majority. Half of them were happily Anglican.

And one of those non-Anglican colonies, Rhode Island, was set up specifically as a totally non-religiously aligned colony. That was its explicit reason for being organized.

 

[Ray Glenn]

That can only be claimed for half the colonies, at best. Not the majority. Half of them were happily Anglican.

And one of those non-Anglican colonies, Rhode Island, was set up specifically as a totally non-religiously aligned colony. That was its explicit reason for being organized.

True ...however, it doesn't begin to delve into the decit of the supposed Deist claims made. There is no evidence that the majority of the Founders were Deists. No writings, no dictation, no records ....nothing. While the cult existed ....no evidence supports the claims made by those who wish to rewrite history in their image and no based on fact.
Franklin, Jefferson, Washington left nothing behind to support this mythical claim ....I don't read trash, I search for the answers based on the writings of the individuals involved.

 

[RDKirk]

True ...however, it doesn't begin to delve into the decit of the supposed Deist claims made. There is no evidence that the majority of the Founders were Deists. No writings, no dictation, no records ....nothing. While the cult existed ....no evidence supports the claims made by those who wish to rewrite history in their image and no based on fact.
Franklin, Jefferson, Washington left nothing behind to support this mythical claim ....I don't read trash, I search for the answers based on the writings of the individuals involved.

For the argument of the OP, that's irrelevant. Rebelling against God's established temporal authority is not ameliorated if the rebels are actually believers...it's even worse when those who are disobedient are actually believers.

There was no religious reason for the rebellion. Those who had come to the US to avoid religious persecution in the New World were fully enjoying that freedom. Britain was not exerting religions persecution on any of the colonists in the Americas. The rebellion was caused by the direct British taxation of the colonists that began in the 1760s, and for no other reason.

The bible describes one tax revolt: When the northern kingdom of Israel split from Judah. And we know how that eventually turned out. If anything, that is our biblical example.

 

[ViaCrucis]

True ...however, it doesn't begin to delve into the decit of the supposed Deist claims made. There is no evidence that the majority of the Founders were Deists. No writings, no dictation, no records ....nothing. While the cult existed ....no evidence supports the claims made by those who wish to rewrite history in their image and no based on fact.
Franklin, Jefferson, Washington left nothing behind to support this mythical claim ....I don't read trash, I search for the answers based on the writings of the individuals involved.

From his own writings, Jefferson was not a believer. Jefferson saw Jesus as the greatest moral philosopher who ever lived, but regarded Jesus' divinity, the miraculous, His atoning death, His resurrection, etc as being a fiction which was forced upon Jesus by later men. And thus put forward a work which he initially referred to as "the Philosophy of Jesus extracted from the text of the Evangelists.", concerning which he writes,

"I made, for my own satisfaction, an Extract from the Evangelists of the texts of his morals, selecting those only whose style and spirit proved them genuine, and his own: and they are as distinguishable from the matter in which they are imbedded as diamonds in dunghills. a more precious morsel of ethics was never seen. it was too hastily done however, being the work of one or two evenings only, while I lived at Washington, overwhelmed with other business: and it is my intention to go over it again at more leisure. this shall be the work of the ensuing winter. I gave it the title of ‘the Philosophy of Jesus extracted from the text of the Evangelists.’ to this Syllabus and Extract, if a history of his life can be added, written with the same view of the subject, the world will see, after the fogs shall be dispelled, in which for 14. centuries he has been inveloped by Jugglers to make money of him, when the genuine character shall be exhibited, which they have dressed up in the rags of an Impostor, the world, I say, will at length see the immortal merit of this first of human Sages." - Thomas Jefferson to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, April 25th, 1816

He refers to the work of the Four Evangelists when they write of Jesus' miracles, of His atoning death and resurrection, His virgin birth as "dunghills", and that he was extracting the "diamonds" (what he saw as the pure moral philosophy of Jesus) as "diamonds" imbedded in the "dunghills". And refers to the whole history of the Christian religion by speaking of "Jugglers" who "make money of him". And believes that the real teaching of Jesus can only be understood if one takes away all the things he considered to be fiction, and all is left is a pure moral philosophy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ray Glenn]

From his own writings, Jefferson was not a believer. Jefferson saw Jesus as the greatest moral philosopher who ever lived, but regarded Jesus' divinity, the miraculous, His atoning death, His resurrection, etc as being a fiction which was forced upon Jesus by later men. And thus put forward a work which he initially referred to as "the Philosophy of Jesus extracted from the text of the Evangelists.", concerning which he writes,

"I made, for my own satisfaction, an Extract from the Evangelists of the texts of his morals, selecting those only whose style and spirit proved them genuine, and his own: and they are as distinguishable from the matter in which they are imbedded as diamonds in dunghills. a more precious morsel of ethics was never seen. it was too hastily done however, being the work of one or two evenings only, while I lived at Washington, overwhelmed with other business: and it is my intention to go over it again at more leisure. this shall be the work of the ensuing winter. I gave it the title of ‘the Philosophy of Jesus extracted from the text of the Evangelists.’ to this Syllabus and Extract, if a history of his life can be added, written with the same view of the subject, the world will see, after the fogs shall be dispelled, in which for 14. centuries he has been inveloped by Jugglers to make money of him, when the genuine character shall be exhibited, which they have dressed up in the rags of an Impostor, the world, I say, will at length see the immortal merit of this first of human Sages." - Thomas Jefferson to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, April 25th, 1816

He refers to the work of the Four Evangelists when they write of Jesus' miracles, of His atoning death and resurrection, His virgin birth as "dunghills", and that he was extracting the "diamonds" (what he saw as the pure moral philosophy of Jesus) as "diamonds" imbedded in the "dunghills". And refers to the whole history of the Christian religion by speaking of "Jugglers" who "make money of him". And believes that the real teaching of Jesus can only be understood if one takes away all the things he considered to be fiction, and all is left is a pure moral philosophy.

-CryptoLutheran

That doesn't make Jefferson a Deist ...Jefferson also tore down the Quran ....However, Jefferson provided letters to churches that was hyjacked and forms the claim of "Separation of Church and State" used today. The letter stated no spearation other than "Congress shall make no laws" ...Every legal position Jefferson took incurred the devine presense of God ....Look at the "Declaration of Indepedence" God is all over that document .....Jefferson might not be a believer ....but he certainly uses it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That doesn't make Jefferson a Deist ...Jefferson also tore down the Quran ....However, Jefferson provided letters to churches that was hyjacked and forms the claim of "Separation of Church and State" used today. The letter stated no spearation other than "Congress shall make no laws" ...Every legal position Jefferson took incurred the devine presense of God ....Look at the "Declaration of Indepedence" God is all over that document .....Jefferson might not be a believer ....but he certainly uses it.

Jefferson had no problem with the philosopher's "God of providence" or "nature's God". But that isn't the God Christians confess, believe, and worship. We worship one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; and His only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, and who rose on the third day, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father and is coming again to judge the living and the dead; and the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-Giver, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.

Whether Jefferson was a Deist or Theist doesn't really matter. But he wasn't a Christian.

Christianity is not a belief in a generic god of providence. It's the bold and radical claim that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, our Lord who died for the sins of the world and who rose on the third day, and is enthroned at the right hand of the Father until He comes again in glory as judge of the living and the dead.

The mention of "God" in things like the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the Christian religion. And I'd argue that we entertain idolatry when we start to confuse the two.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ray Glenn]

Jefferson had no problem with the philosopher's "God of providence" or "nature's God". But that isn't the God Christians confess, believe, and worship. We worship one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; and His only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, and who rose on the third day, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father and is coming again to judge the living and the dead; and the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-Giver, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.

Whether Jefferson was a Deist or Theist doesn't really matter. But he wasn't a Christian.

Christianity is not a belief in a generic god of providence. It's the bold and radical claim that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, our Lord who died for the sins of the world and who rose on the third day, and is enthroned at the right hand of the Father until He comes again in glory as judge of the living and the dead.

The mention of "God" in things like the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the Christian religion. And I'd argue that we entertain idolatry when we start to confuse the two.

-CryptoLutheran

That is an opinion and not based on fact. In the 50's a book, conjured up by Jefferson was discovered by the Smithsonian. So revolutionary was the book, that copies were published and presented to every member of Congress. Jefferson proclaimed that he was the best Christian to be found. The book was a combination of cut and past verses of the Bible. Sayings that Jesus made during his ministry. Jefferson did not believe in the Trinity ....sounds like a Deist, did not believe in the resurrection ...sort of takes the meaning of Christians out the mix. Did not believe that Jesus was devine ....so why the work done to cut up six copies of the New Testament to create his own work? Yet in the endJefferson staunchley defends the position that the new country America is created by God and is a Christian based country. That is not the action of an athiest or a person that does not believe in God. Jefferson's letter to the Baptist Church defends the Constitution in it's stance protecting religion. Jefferson paid to have copis of the Quran shipped from England to his home. However, the copies he pursued were copies that were positioned to challenge Muslims using Christianity .....Why would Jefferson do that? If he wasn't some level of Christian?

When you look at one source and nothing outside that position ...you've painted yourself into a corner ...that quite frankly is impossible to defend. There are a lot of positions on Jefferson ....his actions provide a different point of view ...Contradiction appears to be second nature when trying to study Jefferson.