Replies

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.

“Anglo America is liberal in its DNA, as are most members of this forum as soon as they scratch the surface.”

Face palm...

Anglo America is liberal in its DNA ...

I would accept this IF you use the term 'Liberal' in its classic sense and definition; a political philosophy and ideology in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The transmogrification of the word 'liberal' is one of the great word crimes of the 1900s!

To illustrate; It would be niggardly of me if I were to gayly accept current liberal values as being protective of individual rights!

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.