Was the American Revolution sinful?

Presbyterian is the operative word here, as the American Revolution was a Calvinist/Presbyterian project. The 13 colonies were founded and/or dominated by non-conformist Reformation sects, who a century before had murdered their annointed king. Their ecclesial preoccupations with self-sufficiency and independence heavily colored their political views and continue to trouble us to this day. Anglo America is liberal in its DNA, as are most members of this forum as soon as they scratch the surface.

On the surface some of the leadership was Presbyterian, but there were others of other denominations in the leadership as well. As usual, one must get into the details of following the money and influence. Ultimately one finds that it's a few with a lot of influence who are heavy on political activism and influence, and have the backing of monied powers, while being not so "heavy" into strict aherence to the Word of God. While they were professing Christians seen to be "pillars of the community", the leadership of the revolution was largely those heavily concerned with political activism. If one honestly researches the details one finds other "pillars" in the Presbyterian community that applied Scripture more uniformly in their words and deeds, and were typically more "reactive supporters" once the revolution process was a fait accompli. Once the bullets start flying, and your community is actually uder attack, of course the Scriptural right of self defense of one's home and hearth from attack applies.

I found the same effect when I perused the list of those who signed the execution order for Charles I; there were a few no votes on the actual execution from those who did not fit the purely political activist mold. It's the "men of action" in rebellions that are the real movers and shakers.

This is a complex subject which this article only scratches the surface of and gets a few things very wrong. For example there is a gross error of omission of the Scriptural concept of God placing wicked kings over those who he chastises, and the Bible teaching that submission to such kings is called for except in the case of not submitting to unscriptural edicts or laws issuing from such a king. Also, we see that God overthrows the wicked, even though he does not direct the righteous to take this upon themselves. David did NOT kill Saul, who was ALSO God's annointed, even when David had the opportunity in Saul's camp.

Proverbs 12:7 "The wicked are overthrown, and are not: but the house of the righteous shall stand."

Proverbs 21:12 "The righteous man wisely considereth the house of the wicked: but God overthroweth the wicked for their wickedness."

Amos 4:11 "I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord."

Psalm 140
"11 Let not an evil speaker be established in the earth: evil shall hunt the violent man to overthrow him.
12 I know that the Lord will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and the right of the poor."

2 Peter 2:6 "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;"

We see a clear pattern that God overthrows and preserves, according to his will. He hears the cries of what I constantly refer to as the "sheeple", the "little people" who just work away and pay taxes and have no real control over anything save their own humble households. God wants his people to look to Him alone to care for, provide for and protect them. God chastises his children when they continually go farther and farther astray from his commandments. If they place their faith in governments of sinful men, small wonder they get what they asked for as chastisement.

The real turning point of the argument in terms of Romans 13 is the question of whether a government has actually reversed it's role in regards to verses 3 and 4 of Romans 13, and actually become a terror to the good and a friend to evil:

Romans 13

"13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Purely "taxes too high", taken at face value, clearly is not a role reversal. Clearly, if a revolution is engineered by wicked financial elites in order that they should have a new, weak, disorganized government inside of which they can greatly increase their control and power, that's an ulterior motive. What we actually have in the American Revolution was more along those lines and therefore we went from being ruled by one government that was controlled by evil elites behind the scenes to one that was soon due to become the same thing.

But for a season, we had such blessing of freedom that we scarcely could recognize the vulnerability of our new "throneless" nation's government to the financial elites who quietly backed its "enlightened" beginnings, providing the "philosophy" and a little nudge here and there.

The primary rationalization of the American Revolution was not Christian doctrine, and the Declaration of Independence wording is decidedly unscriptural. I quote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

While one could construct a Scriptural argument for a right given by God to life and liberty (which I'll defer), there is no Scriptural basis for the idea that whenever the government interferes with a "right to the pursuit of happiness", such a government can legitimately be overthrown. Every statement in that paragraph contradicts Biblical doctrine; everyone should study the Bible and learn what the contradictions are.

The "enlightment" thinking of the time was largely guided by the writings of men like John Locke who, although they were nominally Presbyterian or some other Protestant denomination, were literally in up to their eyeballs with the financial elites of money and power in the UK in their day. No one ever mentions much of those connections in historical accounts. Lock, for example, was Secretary to the Board of Trade and Plantations, and most of the influence on his thinking came not from the Bible but from the "free thinking" "enlightenment" thinkers such as Spinoza.

What we see in our modern histories of early America is cloaking of elite finance's "enlightenment" philosophy in false, yet subtly so, Biblical interpretation. Both the Roman Catholic and Protestant denominations have always had big problems with elites concerned with money and power both using the Church and at the same time influencing it. The descendants of the early Puritans of the northeast over the generations turned their back on the Bible and God. The descendants of few of the wealthiest of these families came to not only reject God outright, but they became the "old money", espionage and godless hubris that forms the backbone of American new world order.

No matter the fine details of who, what and when that manuevered the beginnings of the U.S., in its earliest times, American leaders made various proclamations of covenants with God Almighty, America has been truly blessed by God as evidenced by many wonderful blessings, and at the same time America as a nation continues to increasingly turn away from and mock God as a nation, under the shadowy influences and temptations of the ever-present godless financial elites.

Today we need not wonder why our nation turns away from God - the founding documents are based on enlightenment "reasoning" and they do not explicitly reference Scripture as the foundation of our nation and our nation's government and laws. America is becoming what its founding documents left room for it to become.

Lawyers, legislators and judges have always been free to twist and contort legal reasoning by simply using the latitude and ambiguity of the founding documents.

If the Bible was specifically referenced as our ultimate founding document, and our founding documents simply stated that the government had to be obedient to it, we would have an unchanging guide to hold our legislative, executive and judicial branches of government accountable to - at the the national, state and local level. While the Church would have no ability to enforce anything in the civil government realm, the Church could and should exhort the government to do its duty in a Biblical manner, thus the yardstick would always be there, and the whole nation would be faced with the comparison of Bible and our civil government at all times - and the legal requirement that the government contain itself to ONLY that which is within its purview, Scripturally, would be legally actionable. Likewise, if the Church wass "falling down on the job", government leaders could and should exhort the Church to do its duty in a Biblical manner.

There are many right here on FR who when you pin them don’t will tell you ...

Perhaps a bit more caffeine as this grammar does not scan.

And it is "House of Windsor", not Winsor. Given that the current Prince of Wales is, by patrimony, a descendent from the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and his mother's original patrimony of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, it is a good thing that this change was made in 1917 (WW1) AND that the Brits never adopted the Hispanic naming systems. That would be a bit much when added to royal titles, peerages and the such. [grin]

The passage much abused today (Romans 13:) is discussed in On the Right to Rebel by Samuel West,1776 sermon.when the government begins to call evil good and good evil our obligation to support and obey it ceases —Instead of being the instrument of God for Good it becomes the instrument of Satan and as such our obligations to it cease.

I am gobsmacked (to use a expression of the British monarchy!) to find out so many strange beliefs on FR - and a lot among Christians. Sad day for me. I’ve lived in a cocoon most of my life, it seems.

Let us not forget that they reason that George was king was because of a previous rebellion against James II.

I did read the article and I’m not persuaded by the arguments that the founding fathers did not sin by rebelling against their king. I liked Romulus’ succinct comments in post 11. Rebellion breeds rebels.

Might makes Right. Always has, always will.

Someone ought to post a thread about the (British) Whig party and Whig history. Americans left and right are almost all the captives of their political myths.

Of course it was about taxes; when they says it’s not the money, it’s usually the money.

“How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”

To be contrary, I think they were very worried about this. There were many different pastors of many different denominations who discussed this at all levels. The idea is what started the discussion of natural versus God-given rights; state religion, etc.

None of the Founding Fathers were deficient in their knowledge of the Bible, or their knowledge of the history of Europe. The different discussions going on publicly and privately show the great amount of thought, discussion and prayer which preceded the Declaration and the Constitution.

I did read the article and I’m not persuaded by the arguments...

Well, that is a well-reasoned dissent.

Bump for later.

So you honestly think that if they thought it was a sin that we’d be British subjects today? Insanity.

Yes.

Well, that is a well-reasoned dissent. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

Unlawful orders—even of duly constituted authority—may never lawfully be followed. E.g., in the case of the Sanhedrin’s ordering of the apostles to cease preaching Christ, their response was, “We must obey God rather than men.”

The Americans' rebellion from their lawful king was not in order to preach the gospel. Note that the apostles did not take up arms to overthrow the Romans or the Jews and Gentiles they had appointed to authority. The Zealots did try to overthrow the government. I suppose if someone really believes that scripture, rather than misinterpreting it to excuse rebellion, one would go North Korea or Iran and start preaching now.

Or, if one truly believes the USA is founded on ungodly motivations and anti-Biblical principles, they would renounce their citizenship and make themselves subject again to the monarch of England.

Or, if one truly believes the USA is founded on ungodly motivations and anti-Biblical principles, they would renounce their citizenship and make themselves subject again to the monarch of England.

I don't see an apostolic example of that line of thought; have to conclude that would be erroneous as well. I can see how it could lead rebels to advocate taking up arms against their government even now, repeating the same ungodly errors over and over again. Rebellion breeds rebels and they imagine they are doing the LORD's work.