Up to Discussions in The American Experiment - Tour 10
21,093 Views 23 Replies Last post: Aug 29, 2010 6:37 PM by ksg RSS 1 2 Previous Next
TTPAdmin1 Focus Employee
TTPAdmin1
389 posts since
Sep 8, 2008
Currently Being Moderated

Nov 24, 2008 8:23 AM

American Revolution Discussion on Civil Disobedience

 

Editor's Note: This was one of the longest and most popular threads on the Old Forum, not least because this is the only place I'm aware of that Dr. Del Tackett personally posted on the Forum to answer questions! It also contains one of the most relevant and intense ethical discussions.

 

 

Jiifigment:

Ok.  The question I've always wanted answered (hopefully I've found the right place to ask it)... Undecided

If governments are instituted by God, and we are to give to "Caesar" what is Caesar's, were the founding fathers morally RIGHT when they rebelled against and usurped the power of their government?

Is it ever RIGHT for the citizens to revolt?

If so, are there conditions (Biblically) that make it right or wrong?



MJB:

Great question, jiifigment!

There were two views at the time of the Revolution, which determined whether you joined the Revolution or remained a Loyalist.  Colonists fought on both sides.  The issue is still debated today.

In his book Christian Ethics: Options and Issues, Dr. Norman Geisler takes the position that Christians are to obey the governing authorities that God has ordained.  Martyrdom if necessary to keep the faith is fine, rebellion is wrong.  Hence the founding fathers were not heroes, they were traitors.

Dr. Francis Schaeffer takes the opposing view, that there is a three way covenantal relationship between God, government, and the people.  If the government breaks its covenant under God by breaking His higher law than the people have the duty to stand against the government, up to and including removing it by force.  Dr. Shaeffer maintains that to obey the government unquestioningly is to give it the ultimate allegiance that we owe only to God. In his arguments he refers to Samuel Rutherford’s book Lex, Rex, or the Law and the Prince: A Dispute for the Just Prerogative of King and People, which was published around 1640.  Lex Rex laid the philosophical foundation for both the English Civil War, 1642 – 1666, and the American Revolution.

To get a handle on the debate I would recommend reading Dr. Geisler’s book and How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, and A Christian Manifesto by Dr. Schaeffer.  Dr. Geisler refers to Schaeffer’s position, but sets up a straw man in doing so – so it is important to read both sides.

Your question is important because if the founding fathers were wrong, we should not treat them as heroes.  But if they were right, we should be willing to stand for what is true – whatever the cost.



Jiifigment:

MJB -

Wow!  You've obviously read a lot on the subject, and I appreciate the list of resources!  I'll be honest, though, it never occurred to me to think the founding fathers shouldn't be treated as heroes, and unless someone can show me Biblically a strong condemnation (ie: I hate people who try to effect positive change, says the Lord), I don't think it's possible to change my mind on that one.  I'm not sure my reasoning holds water, but here it is:

1) God Blessed what they did.  They were the underdogs and won...and by that I don't just mean in the revolution!  Much before, and after that had providence as a determining factor!  I often wonder, going back to the defeat of the Spanish Armada (and even before that), if God wasn't already setting the stage for America.

2) Their leaders were Christian men, who deeply desired to follow His will, and used Biblical principles to govern.  I am always amazed by the determination, wisdom and reverence of the founders.  They were truly men who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor!

3) I have benefitted so greatly from their sacrifice!  The freedoms I enjoy today, are as a result of their willingness to stand for what was right, at any cost...and it cost them greatly!   John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.  What honor do I owe them for this reason alone?!

I definitely WILL read what you've recommended, along with some other books recommended by the truth project (I'm sensing an upcoming cocoon here).  However, I will always honor men who have fought for the freedom of others at great personal cost, as heroes.  (Should I add clarity here by stating that I am the daughter of a veteran? LOL!)

Thanks!



MJB:

jiifigment -

I agree with your observations, but we must also remember that there were men who were Loyalists because of their Christian convictions.  The debate as framed between Drs. Geisler and Schaeffer go back to the Biblical base. 

As I mentioned before it is a very important issue to understand because it affects how we act toward our governing authorities.  What I have found in most churches is the founding fathers are held up as heroes, but when it comes to standing up to our governing authorities they hold to Dr. Geisler's position of no civil disobedience allowed.  This is why it is refreshing to see Dr. Geisler bring his principle back to the founders.  Dr. Schaeffer was also consistent, the founders were heroes and we need to stand for what is true if our government is wrong, including civil disobedience.

We need to be consistent on this issue - Heroes & resistance or Traitors & submission.  That is why it requires looking carefully at both sides, and after all is said and done, realizing that there will be Christians on both sides.

(For clarity – I am a Navy Veteran and past participant in Operation Rescue.)



Jiifigment:

First of all, THANK-YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!  (Picture a saluting smiley here, since they don't have one above.)

Reading your arguments, I felt like we were discussing the CIVIL war!  I guess I hadn't thought about the similarities in this light.  However, the governments (NOT the people choosing sides), in this case, were substantially different.

I guess before I start down a new rabbit trail, I need to go do some reading.  !i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif|src=i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif|border=0!  This may take awhile!

Thanks again!



MJB:

You are welcome!

In many ways the Revolution was indeed a civil war.

Post again as you study!





    


                            


                              
                        

                         
                    

                    
                

                





                

                

                


                


                    

                        
                        


                                
                    
                TTPAdmin1
                Focus Employee 
                                

                                

TTPAdmin1                                

                                389 posts since 
Sep 8, 2008

                        


                        

                            


                                
Currently Being Moderated

                                

                                    1.
                                Jul 10, 2009 10:17 AM

                                    
in response to:                                     TTPAdmin1

                                



                                
                                
                                 Re: American Revolution Discussion on Civil Disobedience




                            

                            

                                
Truthteller:
I have to say I have thoroughly enjoyed this exchange and agree with the reading suggestion by MJB. I would only add that the colonist who were engaged in the revolution had the cry, "no king but King Jesus" they weren't against government, just corrupt government! I would also add to the list of recommended reading the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. The Declaration starts out with... "When in the Course of human Events,  it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another,  and to assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. WE hold these Truths to be self-evident..." Emphasis mine Thanks for the question and the exchange. Happy reading!
Berean:
 
Great discussion indeed.  I have enjoyed reading what little I have available of Dr. Schaeffer.  This exchange has motivated me to read more from these two (Schaeffer and Geisler).  I'd also love to hear more from Dr. Tackett on this subject since he seems to have a keen interest on this subject. Did you read his 4th of July blog entry?
 
http://deltackett.com/2007/07/04/reflections-on-the-fourth/
 
His comments here help us to remember that we are all servants to the King of Kings - even the civil magistrate, and God can certainly use ANYONE to reveal that Truth to those blinded by lies.
 
That reminds me of King David - I would think we could take his life and apply it to this discussion.  He seemed to be conflicted between these two ideas as well.  Any thoughts on that?
Truthteller:
 
Wow... that is another good question. I have been participating in another small group that is going through the book and video "Bait of Satan" by John Beveere. It is not speaking about government but in the study they go through King David's life and how he would "not touch God's anointed" even though he had already been anointed by the prophet Samuel himself. David had plenty of opportunity to take out the corrupt King Saul but did not use any of them. He waited on the Lord and King Saul was dealt with eventually. I wonder if this is because it was on a personal (one on one) rather than corporate basis?
 
That said I have always leaned more to the Schaeffer side to the debate personally. My father is a Pastor and he always taught us to never submit to any human authority when they are going against God's higher laws.
 
I must admit you all have me thinking.
 
I had not read Dr. Tackett's blog entry so I just finished. I posted a comment to him regarding our discussion; let's see if he has anything to add to ours!
 
Also, I wanted to add a hearty THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE to MJB and to jiifignment’s family for theirs as well! I appreciate the type of person willing to lay down their lives for their brother! (My hubby is a Sergeant for our local Police dept.)
MJB:
 
Actually David's actions when pursued by King Saul fall in line with Dr. Geisler's approach to dealing with tyranny - obey the law, honor the king, flee if you can, patiently endure suffering.
 
The main point of Dr. Geisler's view is that Christians can only disobey civil authority when they are commanded to disobey God.  Hence it was right for the Hebrew midwives to disobey the command to murder all the male Hebrew babies, but Christians are not permitted to block an abortion mill because the government is not ordering the murder of the preborn babies, just permitting it.  Another example he gives of permissible disobedience was the saving of Jews during the holocaust, the German government commanded the killing.  Dr. Geisler doesn't address slavery, but using his parameters the Underground Railroad was illegitimate since the government didn't command that everyone had to own slaves, it was just permitted.  In any case, the use of force against the government is not allowed.  If civil disobedience is legitimate, Christians must be willing to accept the punishment.
 
The difference between Drs. Schaeffer and Geisler can be illustrated by how they treat the legality of abortion.  Dr. Geisler says that Scripture does not support civil disobedience to prevent legal abortion.  Dr. Schaeffer would say that no government has the authority to legalize abortion, and any attempt to do so makes the government illegitimate at that point.
 
This is why I emphasized the importance of understanding the two positions of Drs. Schaeffer and Geisler.  If Dr. Geisler is correct than the history we must examine is more than just the Revolutionary War, because we treat many as heroes who were in fact villains.  But we can rest assured that we are acting properly in not standing up to corrupt authority.  On the other hand, if Dr. Schaeffer is correct, then those who participated in the Revolutionary War and ran the Underground Railroad were heroes.  But then we have an obligation to stand against evil permitted by our government.
Jiifigment:
 
Thanks for the new input, all!
 
Wait a minute, though.  The government didn't order people to OWN slaves, but they did order them to RETURN runaway slaves, KNOWING that in many cases those returned slaves would be treated inhumanely or even killed.  What is the difference, really, between the underground railroad, and the underground Germans protecting Jews during WWII (ie: What Corrie ten Boom's family did)?
 
Slaves in the US during the Civil War, hadn't been acquired Biblically (ie: to repay a debt), nor were they promised freedom Biblically (ie: freed after 7 years).  Anyone seen Amistad or read JQA's thoughts on the subject?
 
The line between permitting evil and ordering evil can get awfully blurred.  Certainly it becomes encouraging evil at the very least!
 
If the government "orders" health care professionals to perform abortions who know it's murder, what's that?
 
I haven't even read any of Geisler's books yet, and my blood's already boiling!  I had to order the books, and should have them in a few days.  In the meantime, I'm reading a book on the signers of the Constitution...  Anyone want to define Deist for me?  Apparently there were 3 who signed the Constitution (out of 55 men).  Only two others were possibly not Christians, and even the Deists spent MUCH time reading and studying the Bible.
 
Speaking of which, we went to Monticello a couple years ago, and the lady who took us on the tour said Thomas Jefferson (a deist) spent hours every day reading his Bible.  His household servants were even taught not to disturb him during this time!
MJB:
 
jiifigment,
 
Very good points!
 
I would limit Geisler's problem with the Underground Railroad to the movement of slaves from the south to freedom.  The U.R. was more than a series of safe stops, there were conductors who brought the slaves out of the south.  As such they were stealing another person's legal property and interfering with his right to own slaves.  Just as Operation Rescue interfered with a woman's right to legally kill her preborn child.  The crux of the question is whether the state has the authority to declare any person the property of another, and if it does so what is the Christian response?
 
You are also correct in your observation about the blurred line between permitting and ordering evil.  If you take Dr. Geisler's position, deciding a proper reaction to any issue becomes problematic, such as your questions about other aspects of what to do with slaves who had escaped.
 
As I understand the term deist, it is the belief that God started everything and then took His hands off, letting everything proceed under natural law.  Hence, there were no miracles and you have Thomas Jefferson editing them out of his version of the New Testament.
 
I think Amistad is one of the most powerful movies ever made!  Speilberg did an excellent job of showing the different motivations and approaches of those fighting for the freedom of the slaves, from valuing the dignity of each person to using them as pawns in the greater struggle.
Truthteller:
 
Hi everyone! In response to:
As I understand the term deist, it is the belief that God started everything and then took His hands off, letting everything proceed under natural law.  Hence, there were no miracles and you have Thomas Jefferson editing them out of his version of the New Testament.
 
I agree with the way you describe the term deist. Those who were deist thought that God just watched from afar and was not directly involved in human affairs. Benjamin Franklin, one of the so called deist was the one who stood up in the Congressional Congress and said, “I have lived sir, a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see, that God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, can an empire rise without his aide…” (You must forgive my sloppy quote, this may not be exact, did it from memory as I have loaned out the books to a friend where I can find the exact quote) My point is many described Franklin as a deist and some of his own words sound like he was ‘metamorphing” to another view.
It was on Jefferson's seal that it read, "Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God."
As far as Jefferson cutting up the Bible I read in a Dave Barton article that he actually took only the words of Christ and put them together so he could study them. Another good quote form Jefferson:  Thomas Jefferson:  "I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure which have ever been preached to man."  "I consider myself a Christian, that is a student of Jesus Christ."
Anyhow no matter how you slice it even the so-called "deist" among the founders when one reads their writings they can sound more Christian than some of those among us now, who are not considered deist! I'm not saying they were or weren't, just well educated students of the Bible.
 
The more I listen and learn from your conversation the more my blood has boiled at the Giesler side of the debate. However, so far we have named two specific times in HIStory where God seemed to use each approach. i.e. King David and the Revolutionary war... why do you think they were both blessed? Or were they? Do you think it has to do with God looking upon our hearts?
 
I always understood the scenarios you used like the midwives who disobeyed, the underground railroad, etc and even the wise men who did not report back to King Herod where legitimate acts of civil disobedience because no earthly law or man is above God's higher law. What say you?
 
Anyway, thanks for all your insight on this and I guess I will have some more reading to do. I am familiar with Lex Rex but have not read Giesler. Am not sure if I want to. How many cocoons can you do at one time??
jiifigment:
 
Truthteller -
 
You hit it right on the head!  Doesn't God ALWAYS look upon the heart?  I have to believe the reason God blessed the American revolution and did not bless the French Revolution (for example), is because He looked on the hearts (motivations) of the initiators.  God does indeed govern in the affairs of men!
 
My problem, and it sounds as though I'm in good company, is finding the line between civil disobedience and revolution from a Biblical stand point.  I guess, to be honest, I'm also having a hard time applying what I am finding to be true with CONSISTANCY.
 
If I take the view that permitting evil leads to encouraging evil which leads to ordering evil, where on that continuum should word become deed?  I have the funny feeling that in spite of my great desire for some algebraic formula, knowing when to act requires much more spiritual sensitivity than that.
 
Speaking of multiple cocoons, truthteller, I'm with you!
Truthteller:
 
jiifigment-
 
Yes, I am tracking with you as well. I was thinking the same about how God blessed the American revolution as opposed to the French revolution.
 
One thing that also bothers me is the lack of respect for authority in our nation today. Any authority. My hubby being a police Sergeant has experienced this, and I have as a volunteer at our local Christian school. I have seen it in the church as well and hear it on the news day in, day out. On this line I think we need to be careful to respect the office and the person who is the office holder as a person created in God’s image. Unfortunately today respect is lacking within our social institutions and has even crept into the church. (i.e. having "roast" Pastor for lunch)
 
The founders I believe were blessed in their pursuits because they were prayerful, men of honor, respect and integrity. They listed their grievances and pursued their path carefully... they didn't just rebel recklessly. I have even read that the Colonists actually paid for the tea they dumped in Boston harbor before they dumped it as a protest!
 
I believe there is a delicate line between respecting authority, the office God has ordained and not submitting to tyranny! Scripture says there is a "time and a purpose" for everything, a time to weep and time to rejoice, time for peace and a time to fight... (My paraphrase)
 
Really appreciate you asking the question at the beginning because it has lain on my heart as well. We had a message given on “honor” in our church that I totally agreed with except one comment. The speaker made the comment during presentation that our nation was illegitimate because we started in rebellion and they likened that to the scripture that said, "rebellion is the sin of witchcraft" This about sent me over the edge with the boil-o-meter!  Angry However, the rest of what they said was scriptural and edifying, they just did not know correct HIStory regarding the American Revolution! I gently expressed my agreement with everything except that point and this person is signing on to be part of our next Truth Project group starting in August!


    




                                
                                

                            


                                
                                

                                        
                                	
                                

                                
                        



                                
                    

                

                

                

                





                

                

                


                


                    

                        
                        


                                
                    
                TTPAdmin1
                Focus Employee 
                                

                                

TTPAdmin1                                

                                389 posts since 
Sep 8, 2008

                        


                        

                            


                                
Currently Being Moderated

                                

                                    2.
                                Nov 24, 2008 9:26 AM

                                    
in response to:                                     TTPAdmin1

                                



                                
                                
                                 Re: American Revolution Discussion on Civil Disobedience




                            

                            

                                


Del Tackett:

The Administrator called my attention to this thread and I have enjoyed reading your discussion.

Let me offer something for you to "chew" on as you pursue this issue (again remembering that we always go back to God's nature and His Word for our primary truth).

Would we consider Moses a "traitor"? Why or why not?

Did Moses act in accordance with God's direction in requesting "independence" for the Jews and then engaging in a "war" against Pharaoh (God & Moses versus Pharaoh) until Pharaoh surrendered and capitulated? If so, was this sinful?

In the case where David did not lift a hand against the king, was he still in rebellion against him otherwise? If so, how? Is there any indication that his actions were condoned or condemned by God?

In tying David's refusal to lift a hand against the king to the American war for independence, did the colonists raise a hand against King George, try to overthrow him, or simply flee his authority or "throw off" his authority?
 
Soli Deo Gloria!
 
Del



Truthteller:

Shocked Eureka! Thanks, Del for your thought-provoking comments. Feel better already!
I am going to reread the whole story of King David to see what I have missed or what God will reveal to me this time. I will also read Dr. Gielser's point of view although I believe mine will stay contrary to his.

I have one more question to add. I volunteer with our local Christian policy group that is in contact with Focus Action. We stand for righteousness in the public policy arena. I get several viewpoints on this very topic from Christians all over our state. I hear debates on how to handle the steady decay of our culture- anywhere from no involvement in public policy all the way to resisting an illegitimate government. Personally I never advocate no involvement since that does not comply with our Lord's attributes, on the other hand, we have nowhere else to run... Does anyone have any comments regarding how we now handle our State that has gotten too big for it's britches?  

The only thing I can think of is to stand, stand, stand. Any thoughts?



MJB:

truthteller – Assuming that we are all agreeing with Dr. Schaeffer’s view that it is the Christian’s duty to stand against government when it acts contrary to God’s law I have some observations on your last question.

First, I think it is shameful that the church has allowed the government to censure it.  I realize that when Senator Lyndon Johnson pushed the legislation that barred churches from an active role in politics (1950’s) the evangelical church was not involved anyway, so it did not react.  But that is no excuse for our inaction now. 

As I see it there are two actions that can be taken: one political the second legal.  On the political side the church should work through our representatives to have the law changed back so the church is free to speak.  The legal move is to change a church’s legal status from a C3 to a C4 non-profit organization.  The difference between C3 & C4 is that a C4 is not tax exempt so contributions made to it are not tax deductible.  The question is which is more important to our Lord; the church’s speaking the truth in every sphere or its tax-exempt status?

Secondly, as a veteran of Operation Rescue I witnessed some amazing things.  The most important was seeing women change their minds about aborting their babies.

When O.R. was just starting and people in the press were writing about their initial reactions, a columnist for the Long Island Newsday wrote an interesting piece.  He wondered what had taken the pro-life movement so long to act, since abortion was considered murder.  O.R. was compared to the moral necessity of someone living near a concentration camp in Germany helping a Jewish person escape, given the opportunity.  He noted that he was not pro-life.

There were some unique witnessing situations that resulted from rescuing.  When we ended up in jail the other prisoners wanted to know why we were there.  Their reaction to our explanation was astonishment that we were arrested. Since we were fellow prisoners, and that because we did something ‘good’, they were open to the gospel message.

Unfortunately, with only a small number of participants O.R. was eventually crushed.  One of the reasons for the small turnout was lack of support from pastors who took Dr. Geisler’s position (for present day Christians) and so we come back to the original discussion.



Truthteller:

MJB-

Thank you for your comments.

This whole discussion has hit home with several things I have encountered and this is really helping me sort it out- or- work it out in a cocoon type of way.

While in the church my Dad  was the Pastor, I was encouraged to speak out on the issues of the day if I felt the Lord's leading, he allowed me to do a study called "Red Sky in the Morning" by Campus Crusade for Christ that goes through HIStory and advocated for Christians to be involved in public policy. He allowed me to sign petitions, voter registration etc.

Without going into whole story, that church closed 3 years ago and we have started attending a larger, denominational church. Great church, great people and leaders. The same year we started attending I got more involved helping on the public policy side by helping with our states marriage amendment. I thought it would be a no-brainer, but soon learned that quite a few of the people I thought I was representing didn't want to even sign their name on a petition. I was told that politics was dirty business and we needed to be holy... I always responded cheerfully that we were to be IN NOT OF the world and that we were told to OCCUPY until He comes, not run & hide until He comes!

Mind you, I have been a source of tension sometimes, but I have been able to give my Pastor's and several members books on our Christian Heritage and I gave everyone on our staff last year a copy of Francis Schaeffer's DVD a Christina Manifesto. God has used me to expose truth and as a source of irritation sometime. 

As I am going through this class on the John Beveere book mentioned earlier in the discussion I am definitely identifying a mindset that is within the corporate church. I think the Bible refers to them as strongholds! If there was ever a time to pray this is it! 

By the way, before I fell asleep last night I wiggled through some of the events between David and King Saul when Saul was pursuing him. I ran across something I never noticed before, in reading from the Amplified version I noticed three separate times when scripture said that David returned to the stronghold, this being after he had a chance to kill King Saul. I Samuel 23:14, 29 & 24:22. Made me think a little, although I am not sure of the implications and will have to look further. Any thoughts?

Also, in regards to the church, what I see is a focus on "growing the church", like growing a business. The only thing is that we know that "Unless the Lord build the church, they labor in vain who build it." [Psalm 127:1]  Instead of focusing on numbers (which David was corrected for) we need a larger focus on our Lord and the bigger picture. To sum it up, while reading Oswald Chambers yesterday morning it read, "The church ceases to be a spiritual society when it is on the look-out for the development of its own organization. The rehabilitation of the human race on Jesus Christ's plan means the realization of Jesus Christ in corporate life as well as in individual life..."

Either way, I appreciate everyone’s comments and being able to air this out as I come through this cocoon! We have been speaking of issues I do not feel comfortable bringing up as we have in this manner, in my church. It is good to be able to voice this and get feedback.

May I add that Dr. Del your comments really helped put things back into perspective for me. I am not sure I can yet answer the David question, whether "his actions were condoned or condemned by God",at this time but will keep digging.



Jiifigment:

Hi again all.

I haven't worked through Del's questions yet.  I'm in the middle of reading Geisler's book.  It's a little long.  I'm sure he believes he's covering all angles, not just his own.

Interestingly, I was listening to Mr. Sproul's broadcast yesterday, and he was talking about prayer, and gave me a little bit of a new perspective on Geisler.

Sproul said that one of the problems we (as Americans) have with prayer is that we think we should be able to change God's mind to meet with ours.  Because of the way our government is run (majority rule) we have this deep-seated idea that our voice should be heard, and should matter.  Therefore, we think God should hear our opinion BEFORE he makes a final decision.

Sproul's point was that our government, and our majority rule concept, have become a stumbling block between us and God!  We now have a national morality that believes we can amend the 10 commandments by popular vote!

To put it in Truth Project Terms - God's design for the State, was that it reflect His character.  That means the ideal form of Government would be an old testament theocracy...God, Human leader(King,Priest,Prophet, Judge, or other title), and citizens in the sphere.  The human leader SUBMITS to God, the citizens OBEY their human leader.  The human leader is appointed and anointed by God.

What the American Experiment has done, is REVERSE an arrow in the sphere.  Instead of the citizens obeying the human leader, we've tried to create a government where the leadership obeys the citizens!  I understand where the idea came from, and why.  The pathologies that our fallen world has in this area are just like any other sphere.  But I can also see that our governmental system only worked when the majority of our leaders and the citizens had a Biblical worldview!

To quote John Adams - "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Hmm...  However, since any form of government will eventually distort the image of God stamped on his design, does it really matter which form the government takes?  Is one really any worse than another?  In a monarchy, the character of God is distorted because the leader becomes greedy, self-obsessed, and stops submitting to God.  In a democracy (which, we seem to be becoming, leaving the republic our fore fathers conceived), the people become greedy, self-obsessed, and disrespectful of authority.

Sorry - thinking out loud.  

I don't think this cocoon I'm in has a quick fix button.



    




                                
                                

                            


                                
                                

                                        
                                	
                                

                                
                        



                                
                    

                

                

                

                





                

                

                


                


                    

                        
                        


                                
                    
                TTPAdmin1
                Focus Employee 
                                

                                

TTPAdmin1                                

                                389 posts since 
Sep 8, 2008

                        


                        

                            


                                
Currently Being Moderated

                                

                                    3.
                                Nov 24, 2008 9:36 AM

                                    
in response to:                                     TTPAdmin1

                                



                                
                                
                                 Re: American Revolution Discussion on Civil Disobedience




                            

                            

                                



MJB:


Great link Berean!

Two comments -
Although the discussion was limited to civil disobedience relating to abortion it is the same debate that was been going on at the time of the Revolution, so it does relate to the general discussion.  Beckwith would probably have joined the Revolution and Feinberg would have been a Loyalist.

An interesting point that was not fully addressed is that almost all jurisdictions in the U.S. have what are known as Good Samaritan laws.  Their purpose is to protect individuals who break a law such as tresspassing while performing a higher duty, such as saving a drowning child in a backyard swimming pool.  The fact that these laws exist shows that the government recognizes that there is a hierarchy within the law, some actions such as saving a life trump tresspassing on private property.  The problem is that the government does not acknowledge that a life is being saved when an abortion is averted.
I think this tilts the debate in Beckwith's favor.



Clark412:


The Northeren renassiance in the German speaking lands lead to the reformation or rebellion against the Catholic Church and more importantly the Catholic supported governments. This leads us to a sticky situation since following the above thread we should not have persued the reformation since it lead to rebellion, open warfare and Luthers famous statement about the Pesants,"kill them all". Although the northern reformation was done in the name of returing the church to a more pure state I must submit that we are still feeling the effects of this unrightous revolution vis a via the division of the Church. Yet as Romans states, God uses all things for the good of those who believe in him.

The southern Renessiance in Italy and France did not focus on God but on the nature of superior man.
Humanisim was the order of the day and it was Lady Reason who was carried aloft as the Goddess of the French reveloution, a revolution that was the direct result of the humanist renessiance of the south.

In other words God blessed the American revolution because it was based on the ideas of having a state in which God could be safely worshipped and on the ideals put in place by the northern reneassiance. As opposed to the French revolution in which God is declared un needed and Humanisim superior and based on the humanistic southern renessiance.

I apologise this is not the greatest post since I am writing from work and late at night



MJB:


Good thoughts clark412!  The relationship between the church and state spheres has an interesting history.  Would you (or anyone else in this discussion) like to discuss this in a new thread in Lesson 9 - The State: Whose Law?

Editor's Note:
 This became Tour 9's discussion, titled "Church-State Relationships Through History"





    




                                
                                

                            


                                
                                

                                        
                                	
                                

                                
                        



                                
                    

                

                

                

                





                

                

                


                


                    

                        
                        


                                
                    
                TTPAdmin1
                Focus Employee 
                                

                                

TTPAdmin1                                

                                389 posts since 
Sep 8, 2008

                        


                        

                            


                                
Currently Being Moderated

                                

                                    4.
                                Nov 24, 2008 9:50 AM

                                    
in response to:                                     TTPAdmin1

                                



                                
                                
                                 Re: American Revolution Discussion on Civil Disobedience




                            

                            

                                
Berean:

I ran across this article today and thought I would post it here.  The article is entitled, "Operation Rescue: Debating the Ethics of Civil Disobedience.  Two Opposing Views" by Francis J. Beckwith and Paul Feinberg:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0197a.html

The reason for the civil disobedience (abortion) is different than what we've been discussing. but the main thrust of the article and the views expressed appear to be on target with several comments that have been made.



WyattK:

Definition of Deist
I have read this thread.  I found it very interesting.  It touches on issues that have crossed my mind also.  So I will submit some things here that I hope are beneficial to our common understanding.

Definition of Deist:  One who believes in the existence of a God or Supreme Being but denies ALL revealed religions, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason.  The Deist believes that God has no interaction with creation.  The God of the deist created and then abandoned His creation.  For the deist God is like a child who winds up His new toy and then watches it go bumping about the room. 

A deist does not believe in or use the Bible.  The Deist does not partake of ANY holy book!  Why, because for them God does NOT interact with His creation and revelation is interaction.  Mankind is to be guided by the reality of God’s creation, and the force of rational thought.   Deists are NOT atheists!  They believe that God exist.  A deist believes that God doesn’t concern Himself with the creation.
http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/DEISM.HTM

The understanding presented touches at the foundation of my understanding and research of how Christian hearts and minds were in concert with the will of God during the formation of this country.  This is not a unique understanding of our spiritual heritage, as the U.S. Supreme Court (1892) in “Holy Trinity Church v. U.S.” as a finding of fact stated “this is a Christian country”; meaning that the foundation of this country is uniquely and fundamentally Christian.  This finding of fact is now ignored by the secularists and atheists.  We have a very, very rich spiritual heritage.  It is being stolen because we allow secularists and atheists to interpret our history.  From such we should NOT expect truth, but an affirmation of their agendas. 

The understanding presented also indicates my response to those who repeat the lie that the founding fathers were deists.  Perhaps the best argument against that falsehood is a retelling of an event within the constitutional convention.  It uniquely and definitively illustrates our spiritual heritage.

The convention was about to disband WITHOUT completing a constitution.  Bickering over parochial interests had brought progress to a standstill.  The venerable elder gentleman, Benjamin Franklin addressed the delegates.  His short speech was a paraphrase of biblical doctrine.  Mr. Franklin asked the delegates why they had not called upon God to illuminate their minds.  He reminded them that from the beginning of the War of Independence daily prayers were lifted up in their meeting room asking for God’s protection.  He also reminded them that not one of them could say he had not seen God’s hand in the formation of this country.

Deists do not CALL upon God.  Deists do not PRAY to God, and the God of the deist does not take a HAND in human events.

Dr. Franklin asked that ministers open the sessions with prayer.  The delegates felt their financial resources would not support this.  Their ultimate response was to have ministers come into the convention and preach the word of God for three days straight.  Yes, three whole days not three minutes or three hours.  Deists would not listen to the revealed word of God, because they do not believe that it exists.  Yet, the founding fathers engaged in the drafting of our constitution stopped their deliberations at the most critical time, and such illumination from the God of heaven.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin.htm

The claim that the founding fathers were deists is a lie from the Father of Lies.  This can be ably demonstrated by quoting them:  Thomas Jefferson believed he was a Christian.  These words written by his own hand reveal the fallacy of relying upon secularist to interpret or reliably relate the history of these United States; “…I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus …” [Letter to Charles Thomson January 9, 1816]
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_thomson.html

As we discuss Christian doctrine and precepts we need to look to our rich spiritual heritage.  It is easy to overlook because many voices that attempt to dim our spiritual eyes and deafen our spiritual ears.

Question:  What responses do you provide when your told founding fathers were deists?

Please Lord Jesus, in humility, keep me near the CROSS



Steve Neal:

I have always enjoyed reading the writings of our Founding Fathers this has led to less opinion and to more fact. We have had them demonized as money hungry, people bent of the destruction of the Native Americans, liars, thieves, and never but never could they have been a people of conviction. While I'm not a great fan of Yahoo here is a search for you, Type "Source Documents" you"ll find a site titled From Revolution to Reconstruction, Documents", the web site is odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D. this site covers anything from the Magna Carta to the present and is in the writings of those who actually lived it, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin,Lincoln, Madison, Adams and many others. What were they thinking, did they believe that God was in fact blessing them inspite of hardships, how did they perseverve, why has our country been so sucessful until recently, read their writings then you'll know. The 12 Apostles didn't they also set about a revolution and defy the will of men in favor of God? Could it be that as Jefferson said Freedom and perhaps service to God must occassionally be bathed in the blood of Patriots and of Martyrs who in the belief that God wanted all men to be free and that they were to carry His message unto the uttermost parts of the earth set about doing so. Perhaps not all at once but most assuredly more so than any other nation on the face of the earth led by imperfect men in the pursuit of pleasing their God.

"To God be the Glory great things he has done"

Steve



Truthteller:

Wyatt K and Steve Neal-

Thanks for your comments.

Wyatt really appreciate the depth you went into in appreciating whether the founders were "deist" or not. Like I mentioned earlier the reason Jefferson pulled certain scripture out of his Bible was to study the words of Jesus more closely. Does a Diest do that? ha

Anyhow, appreciate what you have both added to this discussion and thanks for the links.



Hawg:

American "Revolution" is unfortunate and misleading terminology as it implies rebellion, which is not at all what the the American War for Independence was.  The correct term is "interposition", which is where one level of government "interposes" itself between the people and another level of government in order to protect the God-given rights of the people.  This principle of law extends at least as far back as the Magna Carta of 1215 and was well established and understood in the mid-18th century.

The American War for Independence was NOT a revolt or open rebellion against lawful authority.  It was not mob rule or anti-government activity.  Rather, it was the lawful interposition by the duly authorized existing governments of the 13 colonies against the unlawful transgressions of a despotic king who had forfeited his right to rule by violating the rights of free Englishmen, contrary to his duty under the Magna Carta and English common law.  Remember the cry "no taxation without representation"?  That hearkens all the way back to the Magna Carta in which the king agreed (among other things) to not tax free Englishmen without their consent.  King George III had imposed a multitude of taxes on the free Englishmen of the American colonies without their consent (as well as violating their rights under English law in numerous other ways).  By so doing, he abdicated his right to rule in America and indeed became to America a foreign king.  Only after years of fruitless appeal for redress did the 13 lawful American governments (not the people at large, nor individuals, nor mobs) reluctantly decide to interpose themselves between the American people and the king of England in order to protect and secure the God-given rights of their citizens.  In other words they were doing exactly what God had ordained them to do in Holy Writ (not to mention their duty under established English common law).  So you see, Geisler and Schaeffer are both wrong.  Americans were not "rebelling" against a God-ordained lawful government as Geisler says and neither was this a case of "civil disobedience" as Schaeffer would say.  Instead, the already existing American governments were simply doing their job of protecting the people under their jurisdiction. 

The same principle of interposition (sans the English traditions) applies to the German reformation that one writer brought up.  Again, this was a case of German princes protecting the rights of their subjects (in this case freedom of religion) against the two pronged attack from a despotic emperor and an even more despotic pope.  Luther did not whip up any mob frenzy to overthrow any existing civil government.  Instead, he was protected, yea encouraged,  by his government.  By the way, Luther's reference regarding "the peasants" needs to be placed in context.  He was not referring to some innocent peasants minding their own business down on the farm (although some unfortunate bystanders were undoubtedly punished along with criminals).  These were rioting radical Anabaptist mobs led by apocalyptic leaders seeking to usher in "the last days" via murder and mayhem.  Unfortunately for themselves it did turn out to be their own "last days".  Luther spoke forcefully against these mobs and affirmed that the civil government was within its rights to put down their particular brand of "civil disobedience".  Although he recognized that governmental action was needed, it's doubtful he took any delight in the deaths of these misguided miscreants.

As for our Constitutionally established representative form of government being somehow contrary to the old testament Mosaic law, nothing could be further from the truth.  In Deut 1:9-18, Moses tells the Israelites "Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you" in order that these representatives might judge the Israelites by tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands, according to their tribes.  That is the basis of our own representative government, apportioned among our States.  The OT also tells us that God alone is King, Judge, and Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22) all wrapped up in one.  This understanding is what led our founding fathers to establish the 3 branches of government (Executive, Judicial, and Legislative).  If God alone is the only one that can be trusted to exercise all three of those functions by Himself, then we'd better keep them well separated from one another when they are administered by fallen man.

We need to give our founders a lot more credit than either Geisler or Schaeffer do.  Much better sources regarding the motivations and the proper standing of our founders would be authors such as Gary DeMar, Marshall Foster, David Barton, Verna Hall and Rosalie Slater.



Truthteller:

Hawg-
WOW! That was a mouthful! Thank you! I have quite a bit from Barton and some from Gary DeMar but am unfamiliar with the others you listed, so thanks for the heads up.

Was familiar with the passage in Deut and Isaiah as well. I have more inside than I can actually type and/or articulate.

Thanks for pointing out that neither Schaeffer or Geisler had it right on. Usually we all don't.

Am still conflicted on the question Del posed. Maybe someone can help me sort that one out.
Do you think that God condemned or condoned the way David handled Saul? Or neither? Anyone have a good answer that will help sort that one out?  Huh

Hey jiifigment-

Have you finished your reading yet? Haven't heard from you for awhile. 



    




                                
                                

                            


                                
                                

                                        
                                	
                                

                                
                        



                                
                    

                

                

                

                





                

                

                


                


                    

                        
                        


                                
                    
                TTPAdmin1
                Focus Employee 
                                

                                

TTPAdmin1                                

                                389 posts since 
Sep 8, 2008

                        


                        

                            


                                
Currently Being Moderated

                                

                                    5.
                                Nov 24, 2008 10:02 AM

                                    
in response to:                                     TTPAdmin1

                                



                                
                                
                                 Re: American Revolution Discussion on Civil Disobedience




                            

                            

                                
Hawg:

Marshall Foster heads up the Mayflower Institute and is the author of "The American Covenant" and gives Christian History tours.  His ministry goes back to the 1970's.  Verna Hall and Rosalie Slater are the spiritual great grandmas of all the rest of them.  Their groundbreaking research and compilations of original source material was released in the 1960's when everyone else didn't yet have a clue.  They are best known for their "Principle Approach" to education.

God had Samuel anoint David as King long before Saul died.  But yet David never sought to overthrow Saul in any way.  Neither did he suggest to anyone else that Saul should be removed from power.  Basically all David did was flee for his life when Saul sought to kill him.  It seems like quite a stretch to suggest that running for your life is the same as "rebellion". 

There is a parallel between Christ and David:  Both were the superior anointed kings, but neither sought to overtly displace the existing structure, choosing instead to speak the truth in love.  Both were hated by the leaders of their society who also sought to have them killed, but neither fought back or physically counterattacked.  And both waited on God to vindicate them and eventually received their respective kingdoms.  David handled Saul in much the same way that Christ handled his enemies.  So how do you think God views that?



Truthteller:

Hawg-
Thanks for the info on those other people, will look them up. Do you have any specific books you recommend?

Knowing that "David was a man after God's own heart" I think God was pleased with how David handled himself in that situation. As you pointed out he waited for God to do the delivering. The discussion we were having was centered around the Schaeffer vs Geisler thing... if you read all the way back. Geisler being of the position that you should never take it in your own hands and be submissive.- Schaeffer that you only bow to King Jesus not to a man. I guess where I am struggling is how to merge both views. I believe that I can serve men with my hands but I only bow my knee to the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. Sorry if something gets lost in the typing translation, but the question that Del posed has haunted me a little. I do not know if I have a firm grasp on any type of solution.

Yes, I know that we didn't try to usurp Britain’s kingdom... but what I was hearing of the Giesler point of view was that he would view the Revolution as unholy or rebellious (as some have stated) therefore the founders were actually traitors. I do not subscribe to that thinking. I believe they were brave men of God who understood the proper order for the sphere of government.

The dilemma came for me in comparing King David and how he handled Saul with the Revolution... I am beginning to wonder if they should be compared at all, because they are different situations.

I was wondering if you saw the movie "Luther" and if so, what did you think of it?



Hawg:

I did see "Luther".  I first saw it in the movie theater when it came out.  Later we rented the DVD and showed it to our home Bible study group.  A tremendous film, very well done and historically very accurate.

David/Saul and the American experience are indeed very different situations.  In 1 Samuel 8:5 the leaders of Israel said to Samuel: "...make us a king to judge us like all the nations."  In reply to this God said "...they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them."  Samuel went on to describe the tyranny they would have to suffer under as punishment for choosing to serve a human king rather than the King of kings.  In contradistinction to this, the American colonists tell us "Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace..." (The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England).  In other words, the colonists left England and her King so that they could better serve the true Lord and King, Christ Jesus.  The battle cry of the Americans was "No king but King Jesus!"  The OT Israelites chose to serve man rather than God and were judged for it.  The American founders chose to serve God rather than man and were blessed for it. 

David, as godly as he was, still was not attempting to lead the Israelites back to the original representative form of government established by God in Deut 1:9-18.  He was under the judgment form of government that the Israelites called down upon themselves and as such was obliged to not seek the overthrow of the king whom God Himself had chosen.  He instead had to bide his time until such time as God removed Saul.  The American colonists were under no such restrictions.  For one thing, they already sought to serve God as their true King.  Because of that, the king of England, who didn't like the competition, wanted to get rid of them.  Having them come over here was thought to be a good way to do that.  For another, they had their own forms of government once here and therefore they were already independently governed by their own representatives.  Only after George III totally trampled on their recognized rights as both free Englishmen and independently governed colonists did they finally divorce themselves completely from their abusive parent in order to cling wholly and completely to their Lord God (Luke 14:26).

In Acts 4, Peter and John said it is better to serve God rather than man, but that should not be construed as carte blanche for any individual to decide on their own when to disobey human institutions just because in their own opinion there is conflict between man's law and God's Law.  As individuals, we're on shaky ground when we decide to "take matters into our own hands."  That's why the founders didn't do that.  They instead relied upon established forms of government (the 13 colonies) and were submissive to that government.  That government interposed itself to protect the colonists and they in turn were submissive to that government by fighting to defend it and themselves.  The guiding principle is interposition, not rebellion, not treason, not revolution.

"The American Covenant: The Untold Story" by Marshall Foster (mayflowerinstitute.com) is an outstanding introduction.  It's out of print now, but you should be able to find a used copy on the internet.  Try addall.com to search for any book you're interested in, it's a fantastic search engine to find books for sale.  Gary DeMar (AmericanVision.Org) and David Barton (wallbuilders.com) have tons of wonderful books and resources, more than I could possibly list here.  Verna Hall's "Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America" (www.facebookstore.net) is a great compilation of original source documents.



Truthteller:

Hawg-

Thanks! I think you nailed it! I agree that they are two different events that really can't be compared to closely. I really appreciate you bringing out that God's original intent for Israel was Representative form of government, and that by choosing a king, He felt rejected. That shows us more of who God is and how He views the role of government!

I think that we are in a similar situation in our nation today- spiritually speaking. With the amount of deception that is within our culture we are slowly turning back to bondage and away from freedom. Freedom spiritual or physical has to be maintained. Pray for revival- not only for America but the world over!  Smiley

Have you ever read "America's Providential History" by Mark A. Beliles & Stephen K. Mc Dowell?

Comment on the movie Luther, I really liked how they portrayed the "spiritual battle" that was going on within his mind. We all need to remember to wear our helmets.  



Brett:

Interesting discussion.  Let me stir the pot a little...

It seems to me that the underlying issue here is one of authority and submission.  Dr. Tackett refers to "sphere sovereignty" where an "authority" does not have authority outside of its sphere.  This would apply to civil government as well as church government and the family.  Each sphere has its own roles and responsibilities and its own God-given authority structure.

Let's examine our thoughts and attitudes toward the institutions of the family and the church.  When a husband abuses his authority and becomes physically abusive of his wife and children, do we advocate that the wife and children remain in such a situation or do we advocate them fleeing that situation and essentially "throwing off the authority" of the husband in his God-ordained role?  When church leaders abuse their authority, violate Scripture, and refuse to repent, do we advocate members remaining in such a situation, or do we encourage them to find another church home, essentially "throwing off the authority" of God-ordained elders?

Most Christians would counsel the woman to leave with her children and would counsel church members to seek another church.  However, many of those same Christians will advocate "unlimited submission" to a civil authority abusing its God-given authority in the same ways or even worse.  Why is that?  Why is there such an inconsistency among Christians in dealing with authority across the spheres of family, church, and state?

I would offer that the inconsistency arises out of fear, not conviction of principle.  While an abusive husband is certainly to be feared, in the end, the woman can usually be persuaded that he is only one man and that there are those (including, hopefully, the civil authorities) that will protect her and her children from him.  There is very little fear of elders of the church.  Christians generally feel free to change churches (and thus their God-ordained spiritual overseers) on a whim, even for something as minor as not liking the preacher's speaking style.  On the other hand, Christians greatly fear the civil authorities because they wield the sword and can typically inflict much greater pain and suffering.

So, is it the fear of reprisal that drives Christians' attitudes toward authority, or is it a firm conviction based on Biblical principle?



Berean:

Great question Brett - fear of reprisal (justified or unfounded) drives many to fold and compromise Biblical principles for even the smallest threat.  Yet we see and hear many examples also of just the opposite as people in nations hostile to Christianity are persecuted every day.  What is the critical "component" here?



    




                                
                                

                            


                                
                                

                                        
                                	
                                

                                
                        



                                
                    

                

                

                

                





                

                

                


                


                    

                        
                        


                                
                    
                TTPAdmin1
                Focus Employee 
                                

                                

TTPAdmin1                                

                                389 posts since 
Sep 8, 2008

                        


                        

                            


                                
Currently Being Moderated

                                

                                    6.
                                Nov 25, 2008 6:49 AM

                                    
in response to:                                     TTPAdmin1

                                



                                
                                
                                 Re: American Revolution Discussion on Civil Disobedience




                            

                            

                                
Brett:

The critical "component"?  Not sure exactly what you're looking for here, but I would venture to say that it is our modern American culture and our weak church that has been influenced by that culture. 

As you mentioned, there are Christians elsewhere around the world who brave many hostile threats every day, even to the point of death in physically resisting their corrupt civil authorities.

I do not think that Christians in America today, if they were to find themselves in the same circumstances as the colonists, would make the same decision as they did.

An interesting point to remember is that the colonists' primary complaint against Great Britain was NOT one of religious persecution, which many people believe.  It was one of abuse of authority.  They were not being forced to bow down to false gods.  They were not told that they could not preach the Gospel.  They were not prohibited from meeting together for worship.

The signatories of the Declaration stated that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."  Among those causes which they listed, there is not one that can be construed as "religious persecution", which is the ONLY reason that most Christians in America today would cite as justification for civil disobedience or resisting civil authority -- not to mention such ugly terms "rebellion" or "revolution".

The early Christians in this country were willing to die to "throw off", "rebel", or "revolt" against a God-given authority that had become corrupt.  They believed that Biblical principles of authority demanded that they do so.  To not rebel against such abuse of authority would be a sin.  Granted, not all Christians thought that way, but many did.

If they understood some Biblical principles of authority that we have long neglected, then we are just ignorant and fearful today.  If they were wrong and we are more enlightened today, then we should not honor their sinful actions by celebrating Independence Day and calling for a return to their values.



Brett:

Which brings up another interesting set of questions...

If the American government was established out of sinful actions (rebellion), at what point did the colonists owe their allegience to the new American government and not the government of Great Britain?

What constitutes legitimate authority? 

If a band of criminals can successfully overthrow a government, are they now the new God-ordained authority?

In obeying their civil government, are Christians obligated to defend that civil government against the attack of another God-ordained government?  To which God-ordained government does a Christian owe his allegience?  Or must he wait to see who the victor will be?

If governments can "steal" and "murder", as Dr. Tackett suggests, can they also be guilty of rebelling against another God-ordained government?



Steve Neal:

Brett, If I may. I certainly will not be addressing all of your points but I do have one. If the American experiment were not divinely blessed by God, how could it be that for the first 150 years we were the shining city upon the hill? It has only been in the last 50 or so years that we have turned away from God and lost His blessing. Additionally how could such a small rag-tag army of irregulars have defeated a world power such a Britian was at the time. Additionally I do differ on your statement that they weren't made to bow down before false gods,  in so much as there was a state religion, that religion chosen by and institutued by men, a very imperfect system full of vice and avarice. We are not called to be Episopalian, Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant or any other religious sect, we are however called to be Christians or "little Christs". Wasn't the very concept of a monarch that of God on earth, that the king was Gods earthly representative and as such spoke for Him?

In Christ
Steve



Brett:

Hi Steve,

Granted, God's hand is evident in this nation's founding.  However, must we wait until the consequences of our actions are evident before we can determine if they were right or wrong?  How did the colonists know that their actions would be successful?  They acted on principle -- prinicples that they gleaned from the Scriptures.  What were those principles?  Why aren't those principles being taught from our pulpits today?  If those principles were Scriptural then, are they not Scriptural today?  How many Christians today would take up arms and fight their government for the exact same reasons that the colonists listed in the Declaration?  I would say VERY FEW!

Yes, there was essentially a "state religion" in Great Britain, but not in America.  In fact, there were many different denominations which worshipped freely in America.  Again, if Christians in America thought they were being forced to bow down to the state religion, then why didn't they list that SOMEWHERE in the Declaration?  It didn't seem to be much of a concern to them when they were listing their grievances.

Nor were Christians concerned that they served under a monarch.  Had that monarch not abused his authority, they would have happily submitted to his authority.  Even the ridiculous concepts of the "divine right of kings" and "hereditary succession" was not sufficient to drive the colonists to rebellion.  It was the king's abuse of authority, not that he was deluded into thinking that he had a divine right to the throne.



Truthteller:

Hi all,

I don't know if this has come up in any of your groups... the last group we did when we came to this lesson people were very intent and I could sense the Lord dealing with folks. After our discussion one gentleman came up and asked me "why wasn't the church doing something?" in regards to the abuse of authority our government is engaged in now. To be honest the only thing I could say is that the church (corporate) in America is not healthy enough and he agreed. Actually, not only is the church not healthy enough the public education system largely misinforms people in the area of government to say nothing of "sphere sovereignty". I find when speaking to people in the church they don't know the first thing about how our government was originally designed to function, nor do they even understand that God institutes government, they just think it is "worldly" and "evil", nor do they understand sphere sovereignty- everything had been kinda smeared together in their thinking. Any thoughts on how to deal with this? 

Appreciate all the wise comments today.



    




                                
                                

                            


                                
                                

                                        
                                	
                                

                                
                        



                                
                    

                

                

                

                





                

                

                


                


                    

                        
                        


                                
                    
                TTPAdmin1
                Focus Employee 
                                

                                

TTPAdmin1                                

                                389 posts since 
Sep 8, 2008

                        


                        

                            


                                
Currently Being Moderated

                                

                                    7.
                                Nov 26, 2008 5:17 AM

                                    
in response to:                                     TTPAdmin1

                                



                                
                                
                                 Re: American Revolution Discussion on Civil Disobedience




                            

                            

                                
Brett:

How to deal with the situation?

I would suggest that it must start with our church leaders.  I have YET to find a pastor who is willing to even discuss the issue of civil government and a Christian's response to it from a Biblical perspective.  One of my previous pastors will not even answer my emails!  This is a shame!

Surely God has addressed these issues in His Word!

In my opinion, here is the root of the problem: American Christians (including our pastors) have bought the lie of "separation of church and state".  The state has convinced them that government and politics is outside the realm of the church and should be left alone.  As a result, American Christians have become ignorant of these Biblical principles and have completely lost their salt and light influence.  Further, our church leaders have accepted the 501c3 bribe from the government whereby the government coerces churches to remain silent on issues/candidates that it considers a threat.  And, for the love of money, our church leaders have happily acquiesced.  We now have several generations of pastors who have ignored Biblical principles in this vital area and flock which is abhorently ignorant as a result.

Beyond the fact that our pastors have failed us in this area, it is also true that discussing such topics can get very uncomfortable.  When it comes to taking a principled stand against your government which may involve your death and the death of your loved ones, it becomes more than just a philosophical discussion.  No one ever wants to be in such a situation, but by ignoring the Biblical principles on the issue for so long, we may have well created the situation for ourselves -- or very close to it.  In a society that is defined by comfort and a "go along to get along" attitude, this may be the toughest part of all, even if our pastors were to "come around".



Brett:

truthteller,

Perhaps a starting point for those in your groups would be reading the sermons of several preachers during the period leading up to the Revolution and studying their arguments (both for and against the war) and the Bible references they provide.  There is an excellent compilation of such sermons in a book entitled "Political Sermons of the American Founding Era" edited by a man named Ellis Sandoz.  This book can be found online at:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1878&Itemid=27 (Actually, there are a lot of great resources at this site.)  Each Christian must be "fully persuaded in his own mind", but these sermons will give Christians a clear view of both sides of the issue.  Not only that, but it will give us a clearer view into the minds of Christians during the Revolution and help us understand the Biblical principles of civil govt by which they lived and died.

I have encountered the same kind of responses in our groups as you have in yours.  It is a very uncomfortable position for most Christians because it goes counter to what they've been taught by our churches.  Everybody is quick to acknowledge that our civil government has effectively removed God from the public square and that that is the source of so many of our problems.  They are even quick to admit (those that are informed) that Americas founders had no such interpretation of the "separation of church and state".  However, that's about as far as most Christians are willing to go.



Brett:

Quote from: Del on July 11, 2007, 09:26:30 AM
Let me offer something for you to "chew" on as you pursue this issue (again remembering that we always go back to God's nature and His Word for our primary truth).

Would we consider Moses a "traitor"? Why or why not?

Did Moses act in accordance with God's direction in requesting "independence" for the Jews and then engaging in a "war" against Pharaoh (God & Moses versus Pharaoh) until Pharaoh surrendered and capitulated? If so, was this sinful?

In the case where David did not lift a hand against the king, was he still in rebellion against him otherwise? If so, how? Is there any indication that his actions were condoned or condemned by God?

In tying David's refusal to lift a hand against the king to the American war for independence, did the colonists raise a hand against King George, try to overthrow him, or simply flee his authority or "throw off" his authority?


Dr. Tackett,

Thank you for responding to this thread.  I certainly value your thoughts on the subject and always consider myself in need of instruction.  I agree completely that we need to "go back to God's nature and His Word for our primary truth".

I struggle with your comparison of the American Revolution to the situations of Moses and David.  First, Moses and David both received direct revelations from God concerning their course of action.  The colonists did not have this benefit, but rather had to discern God's will from his revealed Word, applying the principles they found there to their unique situation.

Second, the colonists DID raise a hand against King George.  When David was pursued by Saul, he did not raise a hand against him (except for joining the Philistines).  When the colonists were pursued by King George, they took up arms and killed members of the king's army.  They not only disobeyed the king's orders, but they truly "rebelled" and "revolted" by taking up arms.  This is irrespective of whether their cause was right or Biblically justified.

Third, while the colonists might not have tried to "overthrow" King George, they certainly sought to "throw off" his authority.  The Declaration states that they sought to "alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".  This is rebellion against the authority that God placed over them.

So, the real question is NOT whether the colonists raised a hand against King George, or whether they tried to "throw off" his authority.  It is evident from their own words and actions that they did.  The question is whether they had Biblical justification for doing so.  And, as far as I can tell, that justification CANNOT be derived from the situations of Moses and David.  Please let me know if I'm missing something here.

I know that you want us to think these things through ourselves and "chew" on them, but can you please tell us plainly where YOU stand on this issue and why?  Perhaps your rationale would help us navigate this difficult issue.

Thanks for all you do!  To God alone be all the glory!
Brett



Truthteller:

Brett,
Wow! Thanks for all the thoughtful comments and especially for the book recommendation and the link! I will check that one out. I have used Dave Barton videos "America's Godly Heritage" and "Pastor's and the Revolution" (am unsure if I am recalling exact names- they are out on loan right now) I also loan out Dr. Francis Schaeffer DVD of "A Christian Manifesto" to several that wanted more information on this topic. I always tell folks to check out the recommended reading in our lesson plan as well.

As far as your comment-
Quote
I would suggest that it must start with our church leaders.  I have YET to find a pastor who is willing to even discuss the issue of civil government and a Christian's response to it from a Biblical perspective.  One of my previous pastors will not even answer my emails!  This is a shame!


I would like to answer that I know Pastors who are willing- one was my Dad. He addressed this in our church for over 17 years and allowed me to sign petitions, hold voter registration and joint letters to officials at our church. He would let me speak out from the pulpit on these types of things. Now that that church has closed, I am going to a larger denominational church.

I felt like you at first but as I have continued sending my Pastor information, prayed, bought him books on our founding, prayed, given him those above mentioned DVDs (all of them), prayed and I have seen him come around more and more. Oh, did I mention that I prayed?  Wink Actually, when we first started this discussion thread I was more concerned than I am now because he has made remarkable progress in this area!

As the Body of Christ we need to lift up our spiritual leaders and ask God to reveal His Truth to them. If they are true shepherd's they will heed His voice!

I understand that is not always the case and I am sorry to hear your one Pastor doesn't respond but don't give up! Pray and see if God will bend the man!

Thanks again for all our comments and I will wait to see if Del will respond.



Brett:

truthteller,

Thanks for your encouraging words.  You're right.  This is a spiritual battle that only the Lord can win.  I pray often that God would bring revival to our country because I am convinced that it is only his intervention that can save us from ourselves.  I pray primarily for the believers in this country.  As Dr. Tackett points out, we should not be surprised when the world acts and thinks like the world.  But I pray that God will work in the hearts of believers that we will see ALL of life through God's eyes and not abandon certain areas of life to the thinking of the world.

As I have grown older, I have become more aware of how many "sheep" there are and how few true "shepherds" there are.  I think that many who have been placed in the role of a shepherd do not understand the gravity of the role, nor their responsibility to provide spiritual leadership even in areas that are sticky or unpleasant.  Many today simply want to keep their church running as an efficient business and ensure the sheep get a steady diet of milk and fluff food that makes them feel good and keeps the coffers full, but does nothing for their health and growth.

I have heard of a few pastors around that are willing to address issues of civil govt from a Biblical perspective.  I'm glad to hear your father was one.  Chuck Baldwin is another one (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/).  But I have not had the privilege of serving under such men. 

I will continue to pray.  Thanks for the admonition!

Brett



Steve Neal:

Brett, In your mind "Is there ever a time when it's right to rebel?? God does use governments to chastise His people but He also gave them times and places where they were to throw off the yoke so to speak. The Phillistines, the Babylonian captivity, Egypt, etc. When David would not raise his hand against the Lord's annoited it was  only Saul, he (David) would not kill Saul even though he had ample opportunities to do so. So I disagree with your statement that they (the colonists) raised a hand against the King. You almost seem to confirm the idea the English monarchs had that they were God's direct representative on earth and therefor could do no wrong because of that.
I must beleive that there are times when God raises up a man to do what is right! To fight evil, not just in prayer but in action. There were Godly warriors in the Bible, David, Abraham, and others who not only fought to preserve their nation but also to right injustices. The Jews in 1948 fought to reestablish the nation of Israel even though 90% of the world was against their doing so. Was that wrong also? No brother there are times when a man must fight for what he believes, to be willing to die for a cause that is right, and to defend the principles God has set forth.  God uses men also, as well as governments. The Apostles went against the Emporer of Rome, not in violence but certainly against his wishes. This is a wonderful discussion, and is probably reminiscent of the very things the colonists discussed during that period!

Gods Blessings
Steve



Truthteller:

Brett-

I felt admonished with the same that I shared with you. Am glad you received it and will continue to pray. I pray a lot for the men of God and our spiritual leaders, I will add your shepherd to my prayers. After I typed my last entry I read this passage out of a book by Charles Spurgeon--- I think you will find it appropriate for our discussion, I did...
          "Blessed be His name; Jesus Christ is the same today as in apostolic days. Then He gave the fullness of the Spirit; then, "when he ascended up on high, he... gave gifts unto men" (Ephesians 4:8 )--- apostles, preachers, teachers of the Word (v.11). Do not think that we will never see days as good as the Day of Pentecost. He is the same Christ. He could just as readily convert three thousand after one sermon today as in Peter's time. His Holy Spirit is not exhausted, for "God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto [Christ]" (John 3:34).
           We ought to pray that God would raise up among us prominent men to proclaim the Gospel. We do not pray enough for the ministry. The ministry is the particular gift of the Ascension. When Jesus Christ ascended on high, He received gifts for men, and He gave what? Why, apostles, teachers, preachers. When we ask for salvation, we plead the blood of Jesus; why don't we ask for ministers and plead the Ascension? If we would do this more, we would see raised up among us more Whitefields and Wesleys, more Luthers and Calvins, more men of the apostolic kind. Then the church would be revived. Jesus Christ, being the same, is able to enrich His people with all spiritual gifts this year just as in the year when He ascended to His throne. He is "the same yesterday, and to day." (underline was mine)

When I read this, I took it as a confirmation from the Lord. I have seen this principle working in my Pastor's life. Let me share- will try to make it brief. When we first started attending this church, three years ago, our Pastor never addressed anything that was happening in the world. His sermons were definitely anointed but mostly of warm milk. I went through three (agonizing) years of praying... but also action in speaking a truth, praying, giving info, praying- like I said earlier.

This past year I have seen remarkable growth! I could say a lot but will limit it to the most recent event, which God deserves all praise and glory for!
My Pastor attended a district council meeting in Indiana. Delivered to his hotel room was a USA Today newspaper. As he was reading the paper a full-page ad (page 5A from August 6,2007 edition) caught his eye. It was a picture of a baby named Samuel that was operated on while still in his Mother's womb. (It has circulated on email, a lot- you may have seen it) Anyhow, the ad was full page, (expensive) had the picture, the testimonial from the photographer that took the picture and at the top it read, "A Lesson from Samuel, A Child or a Choice?" At the bottom was the name of the church that had paid to place the ad.

My Pastor toted that ad around with him for over 2 weeks. He finally called me into his office. He told me about the ad and showed it to me. He said that He felt the Lord telling him, "What are you doing about this?" He said he felt very convicted. Long story short he put me on the job and that very photographer will be speaking at our church on Sanctity of Human Life Sunday... he also desires to place a full page ad along the same lines. There's more than I can share right now and this is getting long.

You can go to http://www.michaelclancy.com/wordpress/ to check out the photo and to www.cofchurch.org to see the ad and a video clip from the Pastor that did make a stand. (Actually, their church just placed another full-page ad to get the Truth out.)


Our God's arm is not short if we commit our leaders to Him! 



Brett:

Hi Steve!

Thanks for the discussion.  I agree, this "is probably reminiscent of the very things the colonists discussed during that period!"

First, let me state that I'm not fully convinced one way or the other.  Therefore, sometimes it sounds as if I'm supporting rebellion and sometimes as if I'm supporting unlimited submission.  That's intentional.  I'm trying to elicit arguments on both sides of the issue that may shed some more light on the subject for me.  I play "devil's advocate" a lot because I'm hoping that someone will present a real eye-opening argument for me.

We must be careful when using Moses, David, Abraham and others as examples.  These men received direct revelation from God as to their course of action.  Such is not the case with us today, including the colonists.  We must derive our course of action from the principles of God's revealed will, the Bible.

As to the colonists not raising a hand against the King, you're right!  Instead they raised their muskets and cannon and bayonets!  Can anyone claim that the colonists were NOT in rebellion?  How did King George view their actions?  Did he consider it rebellion?  The REAL question is whether their rebellion was Biblically justified.

As to "English monarchs [being] God's direct representatives on earth", there is support for that in Rom 13.  Verse 4 says, "He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."  It DOES NOT say that he is only God's servant when he acts righteously, although I will grant that that implication exists.

As I mentioned in an earlier post here, this is really a more generic question of authority and submission and what Biblical principles apply.  We generally accept that a husband has authority over his wife UNTIL he becomes abusive.  A parent has authority over their child UNTIL they become abusive.  Is this Biblical?  Does this principle apply to civil authority as well?

If we look to the apostles, the early disciples, and even the example of Jesus himself, we see NO evidence that they tried to "throw off" the abusive authorities which they were under.  They refused to obey orders which directly opposed God's orders, but they did NOT attempt to declare independence or throw off their government as the colonists did.  Does this mean the principle does not exist?  I don't know.  I just know that we have NO example of such among Jesus or his followers.

Perhaps we have no such example because there were other factors at play.  Perhaps the early disciples WOULD have declared their independence or thrown off their government IF they had had the opportunity or the ability.

Help me out here!

Brett



    




                                
                                

                            


                                
                                

                                        
                                	
                                

                                
                        



                                
                    

                

                

                

                





                

                

                


                


                    

                        
                        


                                
                    
                TTPAdmin1
                Focus Employee 
                                

                                

TTPAdmin1                                

                                389 posts since 
Sep 8, 2008

                        


                        

                            


                                
Currently Being Moderated

                                

                                    8.
                                Nov 26, 2008 9:03 AM

                                    
in response to:                                     TTPAdmin1

                                



                                
                                
                                 Re: American Revolution Discussion on Civil Disobedience




                            

                            

                                
Steve Neal:

Brett, Part of the problem with the rejection of Christ as the messiah was there were two Messiahs prophesied. The conquering Messiah which the Jews desparately wanted and which is has been put forth as the reason that Judas did what he did, in order to force the Christ to be that conquering Messiah. But there was also a suffering Messiah as prophesied in Isaiah. This was the Messiah they got and because they (the Jews) wanted to throw off the yoke of Roman oppression they even though familiar with this also passage they (the Jews) refused to see Christ for who He was. Simon the Zealot would have gladly have participated in an open rebellion with Rome.

In Christ

Steve

P.S. Will continue the discourse on the rest because as a retired soldier I see these things as necessary at times. 



Brett:

Steve,

I'm sorry, but your last post was way off topic.  I disagree completely with the theological position you stated about there being two Messiahs, but I do not want to address that here.  If ANYTHING can be gleaned from the nature of the Messiah and his mission as it relates to our topic here, it has to be what he stated in John 18:36 where Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

I would like to stick to the topic of whether there are ever conditions under which Christians can be Biblically justified in an armed overthrow of their existing government.

In Christ,
Brett



Admin1:

Thanks for the comments. In Steve's defense, it is true that some first century Jews were confused about the two seemingly disparate portraits of the coming Messiah, leading some to speculate that perhaps there would be two Messiahs. Of course, Christ fulfilled the role completely, but not in the way many expected (at least initially). Brett. is right, however, in noting that this discussion is off topic to this thread, unless there is some relevance I'm missing.

Admin1



TRTurton:

I haven't read ALL the posts on this thread, so forgive me if someone else already mentioned it.
On the topic of whether it was right or not for the colonists to rebel against England, I have to chuckle to myself to recall a supposed comment from Ben Franklin...maybe someone can confirm or deny its veracity. I am recalling it from memory from one of my favorite movies, "1776".  The question of the legitimacy of rebelling against the mother country came up, and good ol' Ben said something to the effect of: "Rebellion is always considered legitimate in the first person as in 'Our rebellion', it is only illegitimate in the third person, as in 'Their rebellion'!"



Brett:

Yeah, I guess that stems from our proclivity to always try to justify ourselves.

The real question is: what standard are we using in our attempt?  Our own contrived standard?  Or God's immutable standard?  And are we applying it correctly?

Even the colonists said they were "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions".  The question is, could they claim justification from the Bible?



    




                                
                                

                            


                                
                                

                                        
                                	
                                

                                
                        



                                
                    

                

                

                

                





                

                

                


                


                    

                        
                        


                                
                    
                TTPAdmin1
                Focus Employee 
                                

                                

TTPAdmin1                                

                                389 posts since 
Sep 8, 2008

                        


                        

                            


                                
Currently Being Moderated

                                

                                    9.
                                Nov 26, 2008 9:19 AM

                                    
in response to:                                     TTPAdmin1

                                



                                
                                
                                 Re: American Revolution Discussion on Civil Disobedience




                            

                            

                                
Jiifigment:

Wow!  This has really gone on since I read it last!  Told you there wasn't a quick fix button on this one!  Cheesy

I want to go back to Del's question:
Would we consider Moses a "traitor"? Why or why not?

Did Moses act in accordance with God's direction in requesting "independence" for the Jews and then engaging in a "war" against Pharaoh (God & Moses versus Pharaoh) until Pharaoh surrendered and capitulated? If so, was this sinful?


First off - God initiated Moses' actions.  (by a burning bush as I recall)

Secondly what did Moses really do?  He threw down a stick, touched a stick to water,etc, and repeated some words God told him to say!

GOD DID THE REST!  The very first reference to why God was speaking to Moses at the Bush was:

Exodus 3:7 The Lord said, "I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. 8 So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land,

Who had come down to rescue them?  Moses?  They had been slaves for how long?  The first time a Hebrew was treated like a slave God sent an army to rescue him, right?  No, after many years of slavery, I don't know how long but over a hundred years of their time in Egypt is a good bet, God himself rescued them, using Moses and Aaron as little more than mouthpieces.  (we can debate another time what God's purpose was in the delay)

I don't think Moses led a rebellion.  I think God issued judgement!

Now that's a really scary thought in our current state.  God may VERY WELL issue judgement.  I look at the influence our country has on the world...the airwaves we pollute, the issues we muddy, the causes we support or don't, the murder we allow(in the name of choice), and the injustice we ignore and I wonder...how long can He withhold judgment!  His patience is amazing, but when it's done, his justice is SWIFT!

Hmmm....Did God issue something of a judgement through our founding fathers on Great Britain?  There I need some help, and to do more reading!

Still pondering....



Brett:

Jiifigment,
I think you captured the difference between Moses & Pharaoh and the Colonists & King George -- "God initiated Moses' actions."

I would refer you back to my response to Dr. Tackett's questions, Reply #43 on: October 02, 2007.

Even though we, as Christians, generally accept the rebellion of the colonists as justified, I have yet to have anyone provide such justification from Scriptural principles.  I'm not saying those principles don't exist, but no one (associated with the Truth Project, at least) has produced them.

It is not sufficient to take stories from the Bible as justification if the circumstances are not the same.  God spoke directly to Moses.  Moses did not have to glean and apply some text-bound principle to know that he was doing God's will.  The colonists did not have this luxury.  Nor do we.

Was Moses a "traitor"?  Yes, to Pharaoh and Egypt, but it was commanded by God.  It was not sinful, but obedient. 

Were the colonists "traitors"?  Yes, to King George and Great Britain, but did God command it?  Were they justified by Scripture?  Was it sinful?

Dr. Tackett implies that the colonists did not "raise a hand against King George", or "try to overthrow him", but "simply fled his authority".  The fact is, they DID raise a hand against King George.  As the Declaration of Independence states, they claimed "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government".  They took up arms against the God-ordained authority that God had placed over them and killed the King's men in rebellion.

The historical facts are indisputable.  The question remains, were they justified according to "God's nature and His Word for our primary truth"?


I don't think Moses led a rebellion.  I think God issued judgement!

Now that's a really scary thought in our current state.  God may VERY WELL issue judgement.  I look at the influence our country has on the world...the airwaves we pollute, the issues we muddy, the causes we support or don't, the murder we allow(in the name of choice), and the injustice we ignore and I wonder...how long can He withhold judgment!  His patience is amazing, but when it's done, his justice is SWIFT!

Hmmm....Did God issue something of a judgement through our founding fathers on Great Britain?

Let's suppose that God WAS issuing judgment on Great Britain... How did the colonists KNOW that God was using them as his instruments of judgment and how did they KNOW that their rebellion was God's will?  Did some of their leaders receive a special revelation from God, like Joseph Smith?  Or did they glean the principles of their justification from Scripture?

I am going to make a BOLD statement and challenge anyone to refute it:

Christians who honor the rebellion of the colonists and celebrate their actions every July 4th are HYPOCRITES, unless they can provide Scriptural evidence that their rebellion was justified.



Jiifigment:

Brett,
I am a poor student of the original Law.  Every time I begin reading the Old Testament, I get bogged down somewhere in Leviticus and end up skipping Numbers altogether. (picture an embarrassed emoticon here)  I have the feeling that some of the answers you seek are there to be found.

I also have in front of me a HUGE volume called "The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America" that I have not been diligent enough (yet) to wade through.  It contains a TON of the original writings and debates of the founding fathers.  As the preface states, our history has been taught with the hand of Providence removed from it for more than 100 years in this nation.  It's no wonder that we find ourselves asking the same questions our forefathers struggled through.  Their wisdom and the answers they found have NOT been passed down.  We must go through a deep and strenuous search to find them.

I have not yet found the complete answers I've been seeking, but I'm truly working on it, and I KNOW I'll find them.  The struggle (the cocoon?) will only make the answers that much more valuable to me once I find them.

That said, here is my semi-educated gut response to your question:

Not every specific situation is laid out for us in the Bible.  God never really wanted us to have step-by-step instructions on how to live our lives.  God wants us to be more dependent on Him than that.

How do I discern God's will for my life today?  How do I decide what job to take, whether to move or not, what church to attend, what school to attend, who to marry...  Certainly, I'm not meant to look for an exact pattern in the scriptures and do nothing until I find the instructions and can follow them to the letter!

I pray.  I read the scriptures.  I seek Godly counsel.  And then I proceed on what I believe to be the right course watching for confirmation from God that I've made the right choice.  When I have done it this way, I have ALWAYS had a sense that I did the right thing.  I'm not sure it would stand up in a court of law as physical evidence of God's will, but I know I have a sense of peace.

So, when the founding fathers came upon problems with Great Britain, what did they do?  Do we have evidence that they prayed and searched the scriptures?  Absolutely.  Did they seek Godly counsel?  They had pastors come and speak to them for 3 days!  They debated among themselves for many months!  Satisfies me!  Then they proceeded on what they believed was the best course of action, and God blessed it.  They did a better job of it, in fact, than I have ever done in my life!

I have absolutely NO doubt that the founders of our nation were courageous, wise, and Godly men.  I have NO doubt that they were worthy of honor.  The more I've read, the more convinced I've become.

I know this is a poor source, but that line from National Treasure 1, where Benjamin Gates interprets a part of the Declaration of Independence to mean when something is wrong, the people who have the ablility to do something have the RESPONSIBILITY to do something...I believe that with all my heart.

It's my responsibility, now, to learn WHY I believe what I believe, so in what little spare time I'm given, I'm studying and reading.  Honestly, I'm glad Del or someone else didn't just hand me the answers on a platter.  Right now, all I can say, is join me in my quest!



    




                                
                                

                            


                                
                                

                                        
                                	
                                

                                
                        



                                
                    

                

                

                

                





                

                

                


                


                    

                        
                        


                                
                    
                TTPAdmin1
                Focus Employee 
                                

                                

TTPAdmin1                                

                                389 posts since 
Sep 8, 2008

                        


                        

                            


                                
Currently Being Moderated

                                

                                    10.
                                Dec 2, 2008 1:07 AM

                                    
in response to:                                     TTPAdmin1

                                



                                
                                
                                 Re: American Revolution Discussion on Civil Disobedience




                            

                            

                                
Editor's Note:
There were some "new forum" posters who posted in this spot in this discussion.  Since I'm not quite finished posting all of the "old forum" discussion, I will be moving those posts to the end, once I'm done (which should happen today).
I don't mean to confuse anybody!  Just trying to maintain the coherence and order of the discussion.
Admin1


    




                                
                                

                            


                                
                                

                                        
                                	
                                

                                
                        



                                
                    

                

                

                

                





                

                

                


                


                    

                        
                        


                                
                    
                TTPAdmin1
                Focus Employee 
                                

                                

TTPAdmin1                                

                                389 posts since 
Sep 8, 2008

                        


                        

                            


                                
Currently Being Moderated

                                

                                    11.
                                Dec 2, 2008 1:09 AM

                                    
in response to:                                     TTPAdmin1

                                



                                
                                
                                 Re: American Revolution Discussion on Civil Disobedience




                            

                            

                                
 
Brett:


Jiifigment,

I'm glad to see that you took my challenge in the spirit it was intended.  Actually, we are all hypocritical to some degree in some areas, but no one likes that label!  It was meant to evoke some passion and thought, not offend any particular individual.

The fact is, we are hypocritical when we teach that we are not to rebel against the government and then turn around and celebrate those who did.

Just as MJB stated at the beginning of this thread, we need to be consistent.  If the colonists were wrong, then don't celebrate the 4th of July.  If they were right, then don't teach in our pulpits that it is wrong for us to do what they did.  Trying to have it both ways is being a hypocrite!

I agree that "not every specific situation is laid out for us in the Bible."  However, if a course of action violates clear commands or principles that God has revealed, we can be quite sure that it is not God's will.

It is generally taught in Christian circles that we are not to rebel -- even to the point of martyrdom.  This is taught as a clear command in Scripture.  However, those same individuals will celebrate the successful rebellion of men who "threw off" their God-ordained government for such "insignificant" reasons as lack of representation, too much tax, lack of respect for the law from the king, etc.

Read the Declaration.  Are these Godly reasons for "throwing off a Government"?  If they are, then what are we waiting for today???  If they aren't, then every Christian should cease from celebrating Independence Day every July 4th.



Jiifigment:



Are these Godly reasons for "throwing off a Government"?

Don't know the answer to that one yet.  Working on it.  For the reasons I've given, without further evidence my answer has to be yes.


If they are, then what are we waiting for today???

God!  God to awaken the church, God to call His people, God to manipulate the circumstances in such a way that it becomes obvious when we seek His will, that He is moving and we are to follow.



Truthteller:


Wow! This has certainly been an interesting thread.

Jiifigment- good to hear you are still at it!  !i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif|src=i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif|border=0!

As to your and Brett's quote:


If they are, then what are we waiting for today???

God!  God to awaken the church, God to call His people, God to manipulate the circumstances in such a way that it becomes obvious when we seek His will, that He is moving and we are to follow.


I think that was hitting the nail on the head, Jiifigment. The church in America is weak and sick. We need God to awaken us again. Reminds me of David saying in the Psalms "He teaches my hands to war" (Psalm 18:34)- too often we have given up... on society altogether. How many Christians actually vote? How many are trying to influence the culture without the culture influencing them? How many pray for the leaders (physical and spiritual) that we have and for future ones as well? I know that there are Christians who do these things but many are too b-u-s-y with their lives or hiding out inside the four walls of the church like it is some sort of fort! Jesus said, "Occupy until I come" not "run and hide until I come"

To the original topic, I just finished viewing a conference that Dave Barton addressed Pastors and leaders... he went threw one HIStory lesson. (It was like drinking water from a fire hydrant) But what I got out of it was the amount of prayer, study, debate, etc. that DID actually go into the decisions whether to go to war with Great Britain or not. The pulpits of the time were ablaze with the fire of Truth. Two things that really struck me were:
1)   During the time of prayer and consideration on what the colonists should do it was reported that Sergeant Smith (changed name due to memory lapse) reported that he and his men actually captured two British forts. Normally we wouldn't think of anything but he elaborated that Sergeant Smith really meant that the local farmer and a few of his buddies captured a British fort because we didn't have an army at the time and in order for them to have any rank all they needed to do was get some friends to join and they were put in charge. They saw this as God's providence.

2)  The other thing that really struck me was the first Continental Congresses opening prayer... it went on for three full hours!

Let's see churches get folks out for three hours of prayer today! Who shows up for the prayer meetings?

Anyhow, I thought I would just add this to the discussion, as I just happened to be watching that. Sorry if my memory isn't the best in relating- as well as my typing.



Brett:



If they are, then what are we waiting for today???

God!  God to awaken the church, God to call His people, God to manipulate the circumstances in such a way that it becomes obvious when we seek His will, that He is moving and we are to follow.


I agree -- if God does not bring revival to the church, we will not see His people throw off the corrupt, abusive authority in this country.

It is interesting to note that many Christians during the Revolution believed they were not only justified (not guilty of wrong) in their rebellion, but that they were required/obligated by God to throw off this abusive government.  To NOT rebel would have been sin.  How many Christians today think that it would be sin to NOT rebel against our government?

BTW, how much of a consensus is required before the rebellion is viewed as "God's will"?  After all, there were many Christians who were opposed to the rebellion.  Like the story that Truthteller mentioned, it was only a "local farmer and a few of his buddies" that took it upon themselves to capture the British forts.  Hardly a majority.  Today, with the advantage of hindsight, we look at their actions as "providential" -- acts of righteousness.  I just wonder how many of their fellow Christians condemned them at the time for their rebellion against their God-ordained authority?  How did these few men know they were doing God's will when many Christians were telling them they were sinning?

Furthermore, how would Christians today view the colonists' actions had they been UNsuccessful?  I dare say that Christians today would say that their failure was evidence that Christians should never rebel against God-ordained authority. 



Truthteller:


Brett-

Your point is well taken on how many actually supported the colonists to who did not. Speaking as a current "culture warrior" I would estimate it at about 80/20... 80% being against doing anything and submitting to tyranny and 20% willing to take action. Don't know if I am correct in that assumption. I have a friend who portrays George Washington and Patrick Henry and is an American history buff... he says that the colonists who were willing to fight originally numbered around the 10% margin. If you take the idea that it is only 10% of the church that tithes or works that would make sense to me.

Back to the original question though- Is there a way to answer the question of when it is right to stand up to authority from a biblical perspective? We have the answers of the midwives who disobeyed and the wise men (maybe that is why they are called "wise men")--- but there have also been examples given to the contrary.

Personally, I would be in the 20% camp. I believe that there is no King but King Jesus and no man can usurp God's laws for his own wishes and expect to be obeyed by those who hold to a Biblical worldview.





    




                                
                                

                            


                                
                                

                                        
                                	
                                

                                
                        



                                
                    

                

                

                

                





                

                

                


                


                    

                        
                        


                                
                    
                TTPAdmin1
                Focus Employee 
                                

                                

TTPAdmin1                                

                                389 posts since 
Sep 8, 2008

                        


                        

                            


                                
Currently Being Moderated

                                

                                    12.
                                Dec 2, 2008 5:18 AM

                                    
in response to:                                     TTPAdmin1

                                



                                
                                
                                 Re: American Revolution Discussion on Civil Disobedience




                            

                            

                                
MJB:

Hi jiifigment,

I haven't posted anything here for a long time, but glad to see you are still working through this issue.  A while back you had the books by Dr. Scheaffer and Dr. Geisler and had started reading Geisler.  How far have you gotten?  Any comments on their opposing positions?

The adult Sunday school class that I help teach has been studying Church history for almost a year and a half now.  We got through the Revolutionary period a couple months ago and have just worked our way through the slavery question.  Interesting discussion when I gave a homework assignment to reconcile Romans 13:1-7 with the Declaration of Independance.  Being a patriotic group, most sided with the declaration - but not with well thought out opinions.

When we got to slavery I did the presentation on the Underground Railroad, another group of citizens who stood against their government and broke the law.  Same question, were they heroes or villains?  Follow up both times - if the revolutionaries and conductors were right, then it is our duty to stand against the government when it is wrong, if they were wrong let's revise our telling of our history.

For Brett and truthteller - the books I recommended to jiifigment by Drs. Schaeffer and Geisler present the biblical arguments for both sides of this issue.

Thought on today's church taking a stand - I was part of Operation Rescue back in the late '80's early '90's.  That was the opportunity for the church to take a stand - physical but non-violent resistance - where we blocked the entrances to abortion mills to give sidewalk counselors time to turn the hearts of abortion minded women to life.  The church stayed home!  On jiifigment's comments concerning judgment, I do not know that we will have a second chance.  



Brett:

I want to make a distinction between examples of civil disobedience that are often offered in these discussions and the "overthrow" of an existing government.

The Hebrew midwives' refusal to kill babies, Paul's refusal to stop preaching the Gospel, and blocking entrances to abortion mills are often used as examples of when we should "resist" civil authority.  But these examples are a FAR cry from the Revolutionary War where Christians participated in the violent overthrow of the government that God had placed over them.

Is there really any comparison?



MJB:

Actually yes.  The stance typified by Dr. Geisler rules out any civil disobedience unless you are ordered to do something such as the killing of the Hebrew babies or denying your faith.  Hence allowing an evil such as slavery or abortion, but not ordering you to keep slaves or have an abortion does not qualify for any type of civil disobedience.  Revolution is never allowed.

The opposite view is that when a government allows something that is contrary to God's law, and is not in the realm of authority that the government has - such as decreeing that black slaves and pre-born babies are not human - the government has overstepped its authority and acted illegally.  It is thus a tyranny at that point and it is the duty of Christians to disobey. Revolution is the ultimate civil disobedience and should only be resorted to in extreme cases.



Brett:

Revolution is the ultimate civil disobedience and should only be resorted to in extreme cases.


What constitutes an extreme case?



MJB:

From Dr. Schaeffer's A Christian Manifesto  -
"Rutherford offered suggestions concerning illegitimate acts of the state.  A ruler, he wrote, should not be deposed merely because he commits a single breach of the compact he has with the people.  Only when the magistrate acts in such a way that the governing structure of the country is being destroyed - that is, when he is attacking the fundamental structure of society - is he to be relieved of his power and authority."

Note that the works of John Knox and Samuel Rutherford were not only foundational for the American Revolution, but also for the English Civil War that started around 1640 and ended up with the King of England losing his head.  The Civil War was led by the same group, the Puritans, that would lead the American colonies to revolution.  In fact I remember reading that more Puritans returned to England to fight than immigrated to the colonies at that time.

I suggest that you read the books by Drs. Geisler and Schaeffer mentioned at the beginning of the thread, and if you want to dig into the original arguments Lex Rex by Samuel Rutherford (which I think you can find on the web).

Then it will be easier to discuss the pros and cons of each side.



    




                                
                                

                            


                                
                                

                                        
                                	
                                

                                
                        



                                
                    

                

                

                

                





                

                

                


                


                    

                        
                        


                                
                    
                TTPAdmin1
                Focus Employee 
                                

                                

TTPAdmin1                                

                                389 posts since 
Sep 8, 2008

                        


                        

                            


                                
Currently Being Moderated

                                

                                    13.
                                Dec 2, 2008 5:27 AM

                                    
in response to:                                     TTPAdmin1

                                



                                
                                
                                 Re: American Revolution Discussion on Civil Disobedience




                            

                            

                                
Chip (Minnesota):

I am a retired Naval Officer.  I have had the privilege of serving this great country of ours for 24 years.  How inadequately I served.  How ignorant I am of the principles on which this great country was founded.  I was defending and propagating the lie while not understanding the true concepts of our democracy.  God was an afterthought.  I swore an oath to the constitution while not realizing that God was the basis of its formation.  I served the law.  Though my intentions were noble they were misguided by the lie.  As I watched this journey, I shared Del’s same sinking feeling.  An anger came over me because of my misguided, empty servitude.   I am in my cocoon and I am struggling.

Thank you Del for initiating my reeducation and I pray that the Truth Project begins the cycle of repentance for our country before Jesus removes our lampstand.  It will only be through the enlightenment of the true Godly values that our country was founded upon shall we start to reverse the lie.  I pray that The Truth Project and, most importantly, those that hear the message may be stepping stones for others.

With this gauntlet that has been laid before me/us it bears upon us the need for civic involvement.  To do so otherwise is hiding the light of the lampstand that we have been given.  It is not enough to pass the torch but to light another’s torch.  By thinking globally while acting locally our torches will meet and then we shall have a blaze. 

P.S.  I wrote this prior to reading the preceding posts.  I feel very privileged to be with a group that has such a Godly passion and the armor of scripture and history.  



Truthteller:

Amen, Chip.

May I just say thank you sir, for your service to our country, in the Navy. May God bless you for keeping guard over the torch of freedom, even if in ignorance at the time.

I agree with your observation of Christians needing to be willing to be involved in the civic arena! For too long we have thought it only to be evil and vile but that is only because the Christians were somewhere else!

Blessings! 



    




                                
                                

                            


                                
                                

                                        
                                	
                                

                                
                        



                                
                    

                

                

                

                





                

                

                


                


                    

                        
                        


                                
                    
                Tina184445
                Community Member 
                                

                                

Tina184445                                

                                2 posts since 
Nov 27, 2008

                        


                        

                            


                                
Currently Being Moderated

                                

                                    14.
                                Dec 2, 2008 5:28 AM

                                    
in response to:                                     TTPAdmin1

                                



                                
                                
                                 Re: American Revolution Discussion on Civil Disobedience




                            

                            

                                
This is the first time that I am joining a discussion here on this forum, but this question if the american colonies were justified in rebelling against England or not really fascinated me and I thought about it alot. I've read through the Bible several times and can't find any scriptural evidence that the colonies were right in separating from England. But maybe we don't have to look to Scripture for the answer. I searched the internet and found out about a document called the American Prohibitory Act. Maybe the answer lies right here and it never was a rebellion, but by taking english protection away from the colonies King George pretty much declared them enemies and didn't leave the american colonies with any other choice.
Here is one of the websites I found about this document:
www.manhattanrarebooks-history.com/prohibitory_act.htm
I would like your opinion on this, especially since my class is doing the American Experience Tour this coming Wednesday.


    




                                
                                

                            


                                
                                

                                        
                                	
                                

                                
                        



                                
                    

                

                

                

                






                    
                    

                        


                            Go to original post

                            
                            
                                
                                        1
                                        2
                                
                                
                                        Previous
                                        Next
                                
                            
                            
                        

                    

                    



                        


            
            

            
		

    

    



    
    

        
        

        

    
    
    


            
            



    

        
More Like This

    

    

        
    
            
  • Retrieving data ...
    •