SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : American Revolution

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
IWantAnguish
Member



Joined: 2006/6/15
Posts: 343
VCU @ Richmond, VA

 Re:

I grew up in public schools and never really learned anything about the Constitution... the origins of the Christian worldview behind the scheme of the foundations of America... and also that 'freedom of religion' meant freedom of protestant Christianity to those in colonial America.

Only recently have I begun to understand the founding fathers and their theology / worldview... George Whitefield supported the American Revolution even though he was English...

Interesting tidbit... Those who went to fight against England in Massachusetts went to the grave of Whitefield (who had been decomposing for some time)... opened the tomb and each took a piece of his clerical robe with them into battle, because of the preaching / theology and faith of Whitefield that encouraged them for the fight against tyranny.


_________________
Sam Yoon

 2010/3/12 12:08Profile
IWantAnguish
Member



Joined: 2006/6/15
Posts: 343
VCU @ Richmond, VA

 Re:

Quote:
I lost my rights at the cross, and this isn't my home.



You seem to differ in your understanding of public rights / Christianity from Apostle Paul...

Acts 22:24-29

24The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him.

25And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?

26When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.

27Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.

28And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.

29Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.

=======

Paul knew HIS rights as a ROMAN citizen.

I know my rights as an American.

The American Constitution explicitly states that all people are born under the authority of God, with the freedom to express Christian religion.

This is my right as an American... I cannot say the same about somebody born in another nation. Thus I will hold onto my American rights of freedom in Christ under God.


_________________
Sam Yoon

 2010/3/12 12:26Profile
hoohoou
Member



Joined: 2009/12/11
Posts: 212
Texas

 Re:

Quote:
Paul knew HIS rights as a ROMAN citizen. I know my rights as an American. The American Constitution explicitly states that all people are born under the authority of God, with the freedom to express Christian religion. This is my right as an American... I cannot say the same about somebody born in another nation. Thus I will hold onto my American rights of freedom in Christ under God.



True, Paul knew his rights as a Roman citizen. He simply had to state what he was a Roman citizen and they stopped, for the time being. But the topic of conversation is revolution, and armed revolution at that. The Apostle Paul offered no resistance, but only spoke to them. The only place you find a Believer in Christ using a sword is Peter in the garden. He was rebuked.


_________________
Matt Smith

 2010/3/13 8:23Profile









 Re: Jesus carried no sword.

"So far we have read about Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington. Both men have had much written and said about their faith from those who want to establish it and those who want to disprove it."
maryjane



George Washington was also an avid Mason; no doubt a secret society rooted in Paganism... [ Note the mystical seeing eye and pyramid on the 1$ bill....a tribute to Masonry some say???] Jefferson was a Deist; a far cry from a born again believer.


Both were upper class intelligentsia and political leaders , and the reason for their commitment to armed revolution was more on moral grounds, than spiritual. They were just fed up with being vassals to England's whims and graft, and figured out that they had a good chance to overthrow their dominion over the colonies.


They did a very good job constructing the modus operandi ....the method that the government operates in; the Constitution. However, as far as a born again believer participating in armed revolt....? consider the life of Paul the apostle, or the first martyr Stephen.....mowing down the Roman armies with his hand held machine gun, just like Rambo.


I don't think so. You must be killed by the sword, if you live by it. Jesus has another way...."RESIST NOT EVIL!", and overcoming evil with love and goodness. When the Romans came to capture Jesus, Peter decided to stand for the injustice, and drew his sword, and attacked...[ about a thousand men...no coward...]"MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD!"....Jesus said.


Liberty has morphed into gross permissiveness, and our rights have turned to laws that protect our immorality. Democracy is not necessarily the Christian way. The will of the people; by the people and for the people can become but a polite mob rule. Sodom was a democracy. The majority of the people decided it was good sport to rape any stranger they wanted to. It became legal and accepted as tolerable.


"UNLESS THE LORD BUILD THE HOUSE, THOSE WHO LABOR , LABOR IN VAIN!"


Our kingdom is of Heaven, where our King dwells also. He didn't carry a sword.

 2010/3/13 10:21









 Re:

Quote:
The Apostle Paul offered no resistance, but only spoke to them. The only place you find a Believer in Christ using a sword is Peter in the garden. He was rebuked.

This sounds like an argument for total pacifism. Actually it may be more like two or three arguments all in one.

1. The Apostle Paul didn't physically defend himself against Rome in the book of Acts. (Therefore Christians should never defend themselves against any government?)

2. The Lord told Peter not to use his sword to defend him (Jesus) from arrest. (Therefore no Christian should ever use force to defend someone?)

3. There are no stories of Christians in combat or using force. (Therefore it is forbidden?)

If I understand these arguments correctly, they don't seem logical.

1. Paul was appointed by the Lord to preach to kings. ("he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" - Acts 9:15) Appealing to Caesar may have been more of an evangelistic tactic than a self-defense tactic. Also, if I understand the chronology correctly, it seems the Holy Spirit had already prophesied that Paul would be delivered to the Gentiles by the Jews (Acts 21:11). I don't see how this could be used as proof that revolution is always immoral.

2. The Lord's arrest is another situation where it had been prophesied before hand what would happen. Jesus willingly laid down his life as a sacrifice for our sins. He did not want anyone to defend him and had authority from God to give up his life in this way. I don't see how this would apply to revolution.

3. when you say there are no other stories of "Believers in Christ" using swords, I assume you are limiting yourself to the New Testament books. The Old Testament is full of believers in the Messiah killing other people. The Old Testament, however, contains a lot of history: generational histories, and the history of the nation of Israel. It makes sense that you find stories of combat in such an immense history of generations and nations. On the other hand, the New Testament books are not generational or national histories like the OT. They are four little gospels which cover three years of preaching, the books of Acts which focuses on the preaching of the gospel, a bunch of letters, and one prophecy. The New Testament is more of a history of evangelism than a history of generations or nations. It makes sense that you would find stories of combat in the OT but not in the NT. The NT is so short and focused on preaching. So I don't see how the absence of NT combat stories would show revolution to be always wrong.

 2010/3/13 12:02









 Re:

Quote:
the reason for their commitment to armed revolution was more on moral grounds, than spiritual

What do you mean?

Quote:
as far as a born again believer participating in armed revolt....? consider the life of Paul the apostle, or the first martyr Stephen.....mowing down the Roman armies with his hand held machine gun, just like Rambo.

haha Rambo. People seem to think that martyrdom refutes the idea of revolution. Why is that? In the Old Testament God called people both to take lives and to lay down their own lives. Why would it be a contradiction now if it wasn't one back then?

Quote:
I don't think so. You must be killed by the sword, if you live by it.

"those who live by the sword" seems to be an expression that is not from the Bible.

Aren't there lots of saints who took up swords who did not die by the sword?

Quote:
Jesus has another way...."RESIST NOT EVIL!",

This was not said in the context of revolution or even in the context of mortal danger. I thought the context was face slaps, petty theft, and things like that.

Quote:
and overcoming evil with love and goodness.

This is also an Old Testament teaching.

Quote:
When the Romans came to capture Jesus, Peter decided to stand for the injustice, and drew his sword, and attacked...[ about a thousand men...no coward...]

A thousand? Nice. I never noticed that.

I like how the gospel of Mark doesn't even say anything about it. Peter cuts off the guys ear and Jesus starts talking to the mob. What impression would people have gotten from the gospel of Mark?

Quote:
"MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD!"....Jesus said.

I thought Jesus said that later to Pilate? He also said that about himself in his particular situation with his people the Jews. It don't see how it could mean that we are not to participate in any kingdoms of the earth.

Quote:
Liberty has morphed into gross permissiveness, and our rights have turned to laws that protect our immorality.

I agree.

Quote:
Democracy is not necessarily the Christian way.

I agree. I think different forms of government are more or less suitable depending on the overall morality and needs of the people. I have friends from the former USSR who saw democracy settle in a little too quickly and saw some people suffer from more freedom than they were ready to handle responsibly.

Quote:
The will of the people; by the people and for the people can become but a polite mob rule.

True. I would say it already has.

Quote:
Sodom was a democracy. The majority of the people decided it was good sport to rape any stranger they wanted to. It became legal and accepted as tolerable.

That could happen under a monarchy as well couldn't it? Were they really democratic?

Quote:
"UNLESS THE LORD BUILD THE HOUSE, THOSE WHO LABOR , LABOR IN VAIN!"

I agree. A revolution that God was against would backfire on the participants either in this life or the next.

Quote:
Our kingdom is of Heaven, where our King dwells also.

I agree.

Quote:
He didn't carry a sword.

He used a custom made whip though.

He also didn't take a wife. That doesn't mean that marriage is forbidden to all Christians.

Also, people seem to assume that Jesus was a pacifist because he was a martyr, but how do we know he never used force in defense of another? We only have record of three years or so of his life. I think, hypothetically, he could have used force to defend a helpless person. I see no reason to think he couldn't have done that.

 2010/3/13 12:46
hoohoou
Member



Joined: 2009/12/11
Posts: 212
Texas

 Re:

I think Bro. Frank is correct. Nothing good will come of this. People will only argue, so I had to delete my latest post.

Because of Christ, Matt


_________________
Matt Smith

 2010/3/13 13:28Profile









 Re: No Peace for the revolutionary?

"This sounds like an argument for total pacifism. Actually it may be more like two or three arguments all in one."

No Benjoseph, it isn't an argument at all,[ in the contentious sense..] but simply my opinion. It is simply some thoughts that I hold to about Americanism, and armed revolution as a offshoot that compliments Christian behavior.


I really wasn't trying, or will I, to prove a point. As far as "total pacifism", I see the Christian walk as something close to that. Turn the other cheek, overcome evil with good, and see to it that we are not "Brawlers"..to fight for our rights. As Paul the Apostle admonishes us, that we would;

"To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men."

Titus 3:2

"Also, people seem to assume that Jesus was a pacifist because he was a martyr, but how do we know he never used force in defense of another? We only have record of three years or so of his life. I think, hypothetically, he could have used force to defend a helpless person. I see no reason to think he couldn't have done that."
Benjoseph.

This comment is so brazenly foolish it astounds me, and shows me that you really don't have much of a grasp on WHO Jesus is, and His character.

Possibly because you have little comprehension on who "The Lamb of God" IS, you substitute aggression and combativeness in your reactions to vent. Knowing that this will surely offend you, I apologize in advance, but I must say that you are not my enemy.

Back to the subject. Christians involved in armed revolution. No.

I don't condemn anyone for their choices, for it is not my walk with God that another does. I realize that there are many, many Christians in the Armed services who may disagree with me. I respect our armed forces.

Revelation 13:10
"If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints."

Meditate on this.


I think our brother Appolus was acting in a prophetic sense "smelling" the capacity for this thread buzz up...and he may be right, but armed Revolution?

Know Jesus; know Peace.


 2010/3/13 14:40









 Re:

Quote:
I think Bro. Frank is correct. Nothing good will come of this. People will only argue, so I had to delete my latest post.

?

 2010/3/13 14:46
MaryJane
Member



Joined: 2006/7/31
Posts: 3057


 Re:


Quote:
I think Bro. Frank is correct. Nothing good will come of this. People will only argue, so I had to delete my latest post.


__________________________________________________

After praying about this I have to agree with Frank.

God Bless
mj

 2010/3/13 15:10Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy