Happy Independence Day!

[Apologiaphoenix]

Enjoy your day!

Link

[KingsGambit]

I know everybody here will be furious with me, but as a Christian, I don't see how Independence Day isn't celebrating sin. According to Romans 13, the British authorities were appointed by God, and Independence Day is a celebration of rebellion against those authorities.

[Cow Poke]

I know everybody here will be furious with me, but as a Christian, I don't see how Independence Day isn't celebrating sin. According to Romans 13, the British authorities were appointed by God, and Independence Day is a celebration of rebellion against those authorities.

I won't be the least bit upset with you.

A) This is the USofA where we can freely express our opinions.
2) You're my brother!

(not necessarily in that order)

[Sparko]

I know everybody here will be furious with me, but as a Christian, I don't see how Independence Day isn't celebrating sin. According to Romans 13, the British authorities were appointed by God, and Independence Day is a celebration of rebellion against those authorities.

We just did Brexit first.

[Faber]

I know everybody here will be furious with me, but as a Christian, I don't see how Independence Day isn't celebrating sin. According to Romans 13, the British authorities were appointed by God, and Independence Day is a celebration of rebellion against those authorities.

I wrote an essay in a college English class, stating that if we had not rebelled against England, slavery would have been abolished by 1800. I added Scripture, "Fear God, Honor the King" and "Obey every ordinance of men for the Lord's sake", etc. When I walked into the class the next week, he remarked before the class that "Fear God, Honor the king" was a quote from the Crusades, not from the Bible. I had to correct him in front of the class.

[Cow Poke]

I wrote an essay in a college English class, stating that if we had not rebelled against England, slavery would have been abolished by 1800. I added Scripture, "Fear God, Honor the King" and "Obey every ordinance of men for the Lord's sake", etc. When I walked into the class the next week, he remarked before the class that "Fear God, Honor the king" was a quote from the Crusades, not from the Bible. I had to correct him in front of the class.

Laughing.... I had a similar experience with an English Professor who "corrected" me that the "house divided" principle came from Abraham Lincoln, not from the Bible.

[Adrift]

I know everybody here will be furious with me, but as a Christian, I don't see how Independence Day isn't celebrating sin. According to Romans 13, the British authorities were appointed by God, and Independence Day is a celebration of rebellion against those authorities.

This a topic I'd like to explore a bit more when I have more time, but a a couple thoughts occur at the outset. First the passage in question:



Romans 13 says to be subject to, or to submit to governing authorities, and obedience normally comes through submission, but there's a fine distinction between obedience, and submission, certainly between mindless obedience and submission. I think there's something to that. Another thought, Romans 13 states that all authority has been established by God, but it doesn't say that all authority is Godly, or God ordained. Another fine line distinction that may have more to do with God's sovereignty over all, even those who are set against his people. To add to this, it also seems to be a suggestion that authority that provides law and order itself is something that is established by God. That is, it's good for a society to have order, because God is a God of order, and not of chaos and confusion, and so, in that sense, lawful authority is to be preferred over crazy town. Third thought, the passage says that those who will resist the authorities that God has appointed will incur judgment, but judgment isn't necessarily the same as condemnation. Perhaps when judgment passes, the rebel has been shown to be justified. 4th thought, God's people have rebelled against authorities in the past with God's consent, rebelling against Pharaoh leading up to the Exodus, or against the will of Nebuchadnezzar when commanded to bow before his image. So, there do seem to be times that God approves of, even demands that we rebel against the authorities that he has established.

Anyhow, I imagine this should be split off into it's own thread, since it's a bit off topic.

[Cow Poke]

This a topic I'd like to explore a bit more when I have more time, but a a couple thoughts occur at the outset. First the passage in question:



Romans 13 says to be subject to, or to submit to governing authorities, and obedience normally comes through submission, but there's a fine distinction between obedience, and submission, certainly between mindless obedience and submission. I think there's something to that. Another thought, Romans 13 states that all authority has been established by God, but it doesn't say that all authority is Godly, or God ordained. Another fine line distinction that may have more to do with God's sovereignty over all, even those who are set against his people. To add to this, it also seems to be a suggestion that authority that provides law and order itself is something that is established by God. That is, it's good for a society to have order, because God is a God of order, and not of chaos and confusion, and so, in that sense, lawful authority is to be preferred over crazy town. Third thought, the passage says that those who will resist the authorities that God has appointed will incur judgment, but judgment isn't necessarily the same as condemnation. Perhaps when judgment passes, the rebel has been shown to be justified. 4th thought, God's people have rebelled against authorities in the past with God's consent, rebelling against Pharaoh leading up to the Exodus, or against the will of Nebuchadnezzar when commanded to bow before his image. So, there do seem to be times that God approves of, even demands that we rebel against the authorities that he has established.

Anyhow, I imagine this should be split off into it's own thread, since it's a bit off topic.

If it needs its own thread, this post can go along wherever.

The same argument has pretty much been used in the old days when we smuggled Bibles into the Soviet Union. Those Russian (and other Soviet) Christians knew they were disobeying their government, but they were still subject to it's power, knowing that, if they got caught, there were proscribed penalties that would come into play.

[Sparko]

I think the unspoken message in Romans 13 is that the authorities established by God are supposed to do his will. If they are God's servants they should obey God. If they don't, then they are not his servants, but themselves are rebelling against God and we have no obligation to follow them in their rebellion.

[KingsGambit]

This a topic I'd like to explore a bit more when I have more time, but a a couple thoughts occur at the outset. First the passage in question:



Romans 13 says to be subject to, or to submit to governing authorities, and obedience normally comes through submission, but there's a fine distinction between obedience, and submission, certainly between mindless obedience and submission. I think there's something to that. Another thought, Romans 13 states that all authority has been established by God, but it doesn't say that all authority is Godly, or God ordained. Another fine line distinction that may have more to do with God's sovereignty over all, even those who are set against his people. To add to this, it also seems to be a suggestion that authority that provides law and order itself is something that is established by God. That is, it's good for a society to have order, because God is a God of order, and not of chaos and confusion, and so, in that sense, lawful authority is to be preferred over crazy town. Third thought, the passage says that those who will resist the authorities that God has appointed will incur judgment, but judgment isn't necessarily the same as condemnation. Perhaps when judgment passes, the rebel has been shown to be justified. 4th thought, God's people have rebelled against authorities in the past with God's consent, rebelling against Pharaoh leading up to the Exodus, or against the will of Nebuchadnezzar when commanded to bow before his image. So, there do seem to be times that God approves of, even demands that we rebel against the authorities that he has established.

Anyhow, I imagine this should be split off into it's own thread, since it's a bit off topic.

I'm aware of the interpretation that it refers either to a pragmatic reminder that rebelling against the Romans will get you crucified, or to a pragmatic decision not to bring unnecessary shame on Christianity at the moment. The former seems acontextual (and completely ignores verse 5), and the latter is more plausible, but I don't think it alone can account for the appeal to conscience in verse 5.

The burden of proof would still remain on the person who wishes to celebrate the American Revolution to demonstrate that the revolution remains justified in light of these verses. I had a back and forth with an apologist friend on Facebook who argued that there exists an unspoken rule that revolutions are justified if the rulers are bad and do not obey God, and that the British triggered this rule with their taxes. Frankly, I think this argument is ridiculous. Their taxes pale in comparison to the taxes we pay today (yet few Christians call for an armed rebellion against the government today), and if Paul didn't think the pagan emperors were bad enough to rebel against then, why would King George have been worse?

[Cow Poke]

... Their taxes pale in comparison to the taxes we pay today (yet few Christians call for an armed rebellion against the government today), and if Paul didn't think the pagan emperors were bad enough to rebel against then, why would King George have been worse?

On that part, it could be argued that the taxes the British extracted were not used for the common good of the people in the New World, but for the benefit of the Crown. (If, in fact, that's an argument)

[KingsGambit]

On that part, it could be argued that the taxes the British extracted were not used for the common good of the people in the New World, but for the benefit of the Crown. (If, in fact, that's an argument)

Yeah, but Jesus said to render to Caesar because the taxes were Caesar's, not because Caesar would or wouldn't provide good services for the people (and I doubt Caesar was going to be spending a lot on the people of an empire backwater like Syria).

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, but Jesus said to render to Caesar because the taxes were Caesar's, not because Caesar would or wouldn't provide good services for the people (and I doubt Caesar was going to be spending a lot on the people of an empire backwater like Syria).

Meh, I don't know... Rome was pretty good at building roads and infrastructure in their colonies and protectorates....

[Adrift]

I'm aware of the interpretation that it refers either to a pragmatic reminder that rebelling against the Romans will get you crucified, or to a pragmatic decision not to bring unnecessary shame on Christianity at the moment. The former seems acontextual (and completely ignores verse 5), and the latter is more plausible, but I don't think it alone can account for the appeal to conscience in verse 5.

The burden of proof would still remain on the person who wishes to celebrate the American Revolution to demonstrate that the revolution remains justified in light of these verses. I had a back and forth with an apologist friend on Facebook who argued that there exists an unspoken rule that revolutions are justified if the rulers are bad and do not obey God, and that the British triggered this rule with their taxes. Frankly, I think this argument is ridiculous. Their taxes pale in comparison to the taxes we pay today (yet few Christians call for an armed rebellion against the government today), and if Paul didn't think the pagan emperors were bad enough to rebel against then, why would King George have been worse?

I don't think the open questions I asked really deal with any of those arguments (certainly not the one your friend made).

[Sparko]

I'm aware of the interpretation that it refers either to a pragmatic reminder that rebelling against the Romans will get you crucified, or to a pragmatic decision not to bring unnecessary shame on Christianity at the moment. The former seems acontextual (and completely ignores verse 5), and the latter is more plausible, but I don't think it alone can account for the appeal to conscience in verse 5.

The burden of proof would still remain on the person who wishes to celebrate the American Revolution to demonstrate that the revolution remains justified in light of these verses. I had a back and forth with an apologist friend on Facebook who argued that there exists an unspoken rule that revolutions are justified if the rulers are bad and do not obey God, and that the British triggered this rule with their taxes. Frankly, I think this argument is ridiculous. Their taxes pale in comparison to the taxes we pay today (yet few Christians call for an armed rebellion against the government today), and if Paul didn't think the pagan emperors were bad enough to rebel against then, why would King George have been worse?

it wasn't about the amount of taxes, it was taxation without representation. And there were other issues such as the quartering act where they had to house British soldiers in their own homes. The first continental congress sent a list of grievances to England which you can find here:

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroo...ln/rights.html and http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...@lit(jc00132))

Declaration of Rights and Grievances, October 14 1774

When the First Continental Congress met in September and October 1774, the delegates made several major decisions. Among those was to send King George III a Declaration of Rights and Grievances. In the excerpts from the Declaration that follow, what grievances did the Continental Congress include? What solutions did the delegates suggest to these issues? How does this declaration compare with the Declaration of Independence two years later?

View the original document from the Journals of the Continental Congress in A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation. [If you view the original document, you will discover that two drafts of the Declaration are shown at once. The revised version, shown in part below, is separated by the second bullet in each section of the text.] Use your browser's Back Button to return to this point.

Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of America, by statute in all cases whatsoever, hath in some acts expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various pretences, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies, established a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of courts of Admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county.

And whereas, in consequence of other statutes, judges, who before held only estates at will in their offices, have been made dependant on the Crown alone for their salaries, and standing armies kept in times of peace:

And it has lately been resolved in Parliament, that by force of a statute, made in the thirty-fifth year of the reign of king Henry the eighth, colonists may be transported to England, and tried there upon accusations for treasons, and misprisions, or concealment of treasons committed in the colonies; and by a late statute, such trials have been directed in cases therein mentioned.

And whereas, in the last session of parliament, three statutes were made; "one, intituled An act to discontinue, in such manner and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading, or shipping of goods, wares & merchandise, at the town, and within the harbour of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts-bay, in North-America;" another, intituled "An act for the better regulating the government of the province of the Massachusetts-bay in New-England;" and "another, intituled An act for the impartial administration of justice, in the cases of persons questioned for any act done by them in the execution of the law, or for the suppression of riots and tumults, in the province of the Massachusetts-bay, in New-England." And another statute was then made, "for making more effectual provision for the government of the province of Quebec, &c." All which statutes are impolitic, unjust, and cruel, as well as unconstitutional, and most dangerous and destructive of American rights.

And whereas, Assemblies have been frequently dissolved, contrary to the rights of the people, when they attempted to deliberate on grievances; and their dutiful, humble, loyal, & reasonable petitions to the crown for redress, have been repeatedly treated with contempt, by his majesty's ministers of state:

The good people people of the several Colonies of New-hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode-island and Providence plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Newcastle, Kent and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, justly alarmed at these arbitrary proceeding of parliament and administration, have severally elected, constituted, and appointed deputies to meet and sit in general congress, in the city of Philadelphia, in order to obtain such establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties may not be subverted:

Whereupon the deputies so appointed being now assembled, in a full and free representation of these Colonies, taking into their most serious consideration, the best means of attaining the ends aforesaid, do, in the first place, as Englishmen, their ancestors in like cases have usually done, for asserting and vindicating their rights and liberties, declare,

That the inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following Rights:

Resolved, N. C. D. 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty, & property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.

Resolved, N. C. D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England.

Resolved, N. C. D. 3. That by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy.

Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, cannot properly be represented in the British parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts of the British parliament, as are bona fide, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country, and the commercial benefits of its respective members; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or external, for raising a revenue on the subjects in America, without their consent.

Resolved, N. C. D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.

Resolved, 6. That they are entituled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization; and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several local and other circumstances.

Resolved, N. C. D. 7. That those, his majesty's colonies, are likewise entitled to all the immunities and privileges granted & confirmed to them by royal charters, or secured by their several codes of provincial laws.

Resolved, N. C. D. 8. That they have a right peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the King; and that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations, and commitments for the same, are illegal.

Resolved, N. C. D. 9. That the keeping a Standing army in these colonies, in times of peace, without the consent of the legislature of that colony, in which such army is kept, is against law.

Resolved, N. C. D. 10. It is indispensably necessary to good government, and rendered essential by the English constitution, that the constituent branches of the legislature be independent of each other; that, therefore, the exercise of legislative power in several colonies, by a council appointed, during pleasure, by the crown, is unconstitutional, dangerous, and destructive to the freedom of American legislation.

All and each of which the afore-said deputies, in behalf of themselves and their constituents, do claim, demand, and insist on, as their indubitable rights and liberties; which cannot be legally taken from them, altered or abridged by any power whatever, without their own consent, by their representatives in their several provincial legislatures.

In the course of our inquiry, we find many infringements and violations of the foregoing rights, which, from an ardent desire, that harmony and mutual intercourse of affection and interest may be restored, we pass over for the present, and proceed to state such acts and measures as have been adopted since the last war, which demonstrate a system formed to enslave America.

Resolved, N. C. D. That the following acts of Parliament are infringements and violations of the rights of the colonists; and that the repeal of them is essentially necessary in order to restore harmony between Great-Britain and the American colonies, viz: [a list of these acts appears on page 71].

To these grievous acts and measures, Americans cannot submit, but in hopes that their fellow subjects in Great-Britain will, on a revision of them, restore us to that state in which both countries found happiness and prosperity, we have for the present only resolved to pursue the following peaceable measures:

Resolved, unanimously, That from and after the first day of December next, there be no importation into British America, from Great Britain or Ireland of any goods, wares or merchandize whatsoever, or from any other place of any such goods, wares or merchandize [this paragraph was deleted from the final draft].

1st. To enter into a non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement or association.

2. To prepare an address to the people of Great-Britain, and a memorial to the inhabitants of British America, &

3. To prepare a loyal address to his Majesty; agreeable to Resolutions already entered into.