No Third American War of Independence

Wouldn't reccomend you take any wagers on that.

My disagreement is due in part to an understanding of human nature and optimism regarding the ability of America to rebound from the ravages of what I percieve to be a form of Dictator in Chief.

There are still more than 5oo,ooo 'Nam Vets in this country, many of us are simply not willing to watch the current Dictator in Chief take this nation down the tubes.

When the Second Amendment is fully under attack will be the test. How many will give up without a whimper.

On the other hand, I have a hope in Yeshua Messiah and a knowledge that this is all just temporary, and doesn't matter a hill of beans.

I mean no disrespect for the honorable warriors that have fought and continue to fight for this country.

The quote from John Adams caused me to think why he would say such a thing. Consider the historical record. What nation has ever recovered having lost its liberty and prosperity? There is a reason that a man like Obama could be elected President. Our people have lost what it means to be free. Freedom requires responsibility, and they had rather have dependency.

How do we change their mind? How do we regain the attitude of Patrick Henry among a majority of our people? I suggest to you that what made our Founding generation so great was their theology. I changed mind must start with a change in the way we think about God. This can only happen in a revival of Biblical Christianity as in the Great Awakening.

A case can be made that without the Great Awakening there would have been no war of Independence. So it could be said that there will not be another war of Independence unless there is another Awakening and a return to a love of truth that results in a love of liberty.

I hope I am wrong, but that old sermon I found convinced me that wrath is already here and judgment is approaching. So the perspective that Peter gives in 2 Peter 3, especially verses 11 to the end of his words, means much more to me these days.

What are you trying to say? Are you not overreacting a bit?

The Scriptures present the Lord as the Savor of His people. What is common in the display of His wrath is that it comes against men and nations for their persecution of His church. So the righteous become subject to increased trial and temptation as His wrath comes in degrees. Not until the day that judgment falls, does He physically deliver them from the destruction. Until then grace and justice abounds for ‘the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment’ [2 Peter 2:9].

God reveals His view of history through the apostle that His Anointed will work in and through the church to accomplish His will…

‘And [God] put all things under [Christ’s] feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. [Ephesians 1:22-23]

To be sure, no revolt, other than political, is in the offing.
One of the few remaining reliable students of revolution very likely would agree with you. Irby nichols at North Texas State U. studied revolution for many years. He was convinced that revolutions have a DNA, that they have seeds and growing patterns that can be identified cogently.
You have postulated the one element that implies and infers all of the others. And no religious zeal of any pervasive significance exists.
From a common spiritual notation come considerations of an identifiable majority culture, manageable population and a harmonious core leadership with power and resources. Arguably, none of these ingredients exists in the collective contemporary colonies.
I for one thank God that this is true. I have seen a life time of Revoluccione in Mexico and the American Indian Nations.
Though I am adverse to every threat from Obama, i have confidence that our institutions will survive the onslaught. Only fools happily start revolutions. Revolutionary violence cannot be managed or contained.
I was interested in your choosing to study John Adams. John Adams unlike Samuel was a reluctant revolutionary from the beginning. No more than 45 per cent of the two and a half million Americans supported the Declaration of Independence and fewer agreed with the inferencres of the constitution. In "Loyalism and Neutrality", inckluded in " A Companion to The American Revolution" by Jack Greene and J.R. Pole, you will find some startling stats about the character of the "American" reaction to the idea of revolt.
Even if the elements of revolt existed, history weighs against the probability. Irby found that meaningful revolutions are almost impossible to plan, nurture and execute.

I understand there will be a larger percentage of Americans interested in who wins American(s are)Idol(ators) than those interested in saving this nation.
But it has never required a majority of any nation to transform a nation. Witness the Idiocracy of Obama and how few the actual adherents of the true Socialist cause.

The reality is likely to be a splintering off of one state from the Union in a relatively peaceful fashion if they are allowed to do it that way. And less peacefully if needed.

Thanks for this input. These things are of great interest.

The controversy among the colonial Calvinists was the justification for rebellion given the Romans 13 doctrine that all authority is from God, therefore ‘he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God’. The view that gained support was that the civil magistrate was a ‘minister of God for good’, and ‘rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil’. Therefore, they saw King George as an unlawful authority. Cromwell had already fought this battle, so it was not as though they were breaking new ground.

The other controversy was whether the injustices had risen to the level to provoke open rebellion. That’s why the Declaration goes to great lengths to document the abuses against them.

I would like to hear Mr. Nichols expound on what he sees as the differences between the Bloodless Revolution in England and the American War of Independence compared with the French Revolution. My take is again based on theology. Do you know the history of the Huguenots?

Klem, how do we discuss these things without being labeled anti-Catholic? That’s why I think Levin’s Natural Law approach in his new book will be of general use. That is my hope.

The battle of sovereign states was lost at the Second War of Independence mistakenly called a civil war. The South had no interest in taking over the Northern States.

History is what it is. As a catholic I know some of our history is not good. I'm interested in what people have to say regarding this topic. In short, put aside your fear of labels.

I'll jump in and "engage" if teachings start to get twisted. Be at peace my dear friend.

The battle previous may have been lost, but the war isn't over yet.

because,

1. Romans 13 is completely at odds with the idea that people could have the right to overthrow their gov't

2. Citing the declaration of independence is citing the writings of a deist who did not believe in the supernatural nature of Jesus. That Jefferson wrote this with other sources in mind is entirely possible

You touched on a persistent academic nemesis.

I do appreciate a sense of humor. To be sure, i am an authority on the Huguenots; and to be equally sure, i know nothing of the Huguenots.

Any of my esteemed professors will attest that i have slogged across the histories of Francis I and Henry IV, and Louis XIV. One professor condemns my questioning of the Hugues burning churches, killing clerics and nuns, destroying sacred Catholic relics and exhuming the bodies of saints to be burned. Then another goes ballistic when i am unnerved by the graphic descriptions of thousands of Calvinists slaughtered when they accepted an invitation to attend a royal wedding. All those entrails of Calvinists left in the streets of Paris disturbed me. Conversely, i doubted that Calvinism spurred the blood bath that accompanied the Huguenot's almost comedic leaping from one contender for the French Throne to another. How many "Wars of religion"? Of course, I have always questioned the "religion" aspect of the incredible violence.

Then the Huguenots came to East Anglia with their fantastic skills, personal discipline and productive proclivities. My forebears owe them a debt of gratitude. They came when our England desperately needed their immeasurable mercantile spirit.

I continue to believe that I will visit Walloon sites in Cambridgeshire, particularly the Thorney Abbey.

As you know, this history of the Holy Roman Empire, The See, The Bourbons, Richelieu and The Three Musqueteers never ends. Thankfully.

Your question spurred a long overdue restatement. I am a little rusty, i fear.

Klem, thanks for reply.

It is one of those ironies of history that Calvin dedicated his Institutes to Francis I before the persecutions began. A 100 years after the massacre at St. Bartholomew, Protestant worship was completely suppressed. Huguenot children were to be raised as RCs. The Huguenots fled the country. Louis XIV got his national Catholic orthodoxy in 1685. In another 100 years came the rotten fruit of the French Revolution.

I would argue that the absence of the Calvinists allowed the humanism to putrefy the French culture. This is the real difference between the English and American Revolutions compared with what happened in France.

If the Prophet Jeremiah were resurrected from the dead and living in 21st century America I imagine him focusing his righteous rage on the unprecedented growth of government power and thundering the following warning to the people, the Congress and President Obama:

'By the Immutable Law of God, the Holy Law of right and wrong and reason; the Law of historical progress in morality and freedom, America is about to tragically learn that God is not government or politicians high priests. And those who deify government and raise it to the sky, who ignore the commandment: "Before me you shall have no other gods" will be struck down by His mighty hand blown away like dust from the places of power!'

Click my name and read my piece: Evidence of Divine Providence Supporting the Pro-Life Movement

caday5 writes:

I find this post odd because, 1. Romans 13 is completely at odds with the idea that people could have the right to overthrow their gov't


2. Citing the declaration of independence is citing the writings of a deist who did not believe in the supernatural nature of Jesus. That Jefferson wrote this with other sources in mind is entirely possible


ApolloSpeaks:

Romans 13 was written by a man of unconquerable faith who was confident that Christ would vanquish the Roman Empire without the need of revolutionary violence.

Jefferson believed in providence, that God interacted with this world and guided the course of events. Did he not say in one of this letters: God often brings good out of evil that we see? Jefferson's God was not indifferent to this world no more than most citizens of this country are indifferent to Him.

ValiantForTruth writes:

The quote from John Adams caused me to think why he would say such a thing. Consider the historical record. What nation has ever recovered having lost its liberty and prosperity? There is a reason that a man like Obama could be elected President. Our people have lost what it means to be free. Freedom requires responsibility, and they had rather have dependency.

ApolloSpeaks:

You got it exactly right: "Our people have lost what it means to be free." You ask: "How do we change their minds?" Answer? Obama is the key: By leading us into great and terrible peril and waking us up!

Actually, the text in Romans 13 gives no credence to your interpretation. Why Paul says we should be subject to the governing authorities is because such authorities have been put in place by God so that those who oppose such authorities oppose God.

With regards to Jefferson, you could put him in the same boat as the self-proclaimed Deist Benjamin Franklin. Believe in the general providence of God is not the same as believing that Jesus was both God and man, that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Jesus physically rose from the dead, and that Jesus performed miracles. Without believing in God's direct supernatural interaction, there is no Christian faith. Jefferson denied the supernatural in Jesus and his works

Yes, it was very cunning of Paul to ensure the rulers of Rome that Christians were good, law abiding Roman subjects and not dangerous subversives when in fact their religion was very radical and very subversive to Roman traditions, customs and beliefs.

Strict Deism goes back to Aristotle and denies that the First Cause is directing the course of human history in general or the lives of individual human beings in particular. Jews and Moslems deny the divinity of Jesus or that God is capable of becoming flesh. Does that make them Deists? I think not.

If you wish to read into the text, no one can stop you. But what results is not what Paul says but what Apollospeaks says.

And again, Jefferson explicitly denied the supernatural with regards to Jesus. He admired his personal ethic and emphasis on love, but he rejected Jesus's virgin birth and physical resurrection. Such beliefs removes him from being a Christian. But what made him a deist was his regard for the supernatural in general.

And btw, Deism is not the denial of the first cause. It is the denial of God interacting with the universe he made. Deism says that God allows the universe to operate independently of him.

Was Paul an Apostle of Christ? He was the greatest. And what was the Apostle's mission? The Christianizing of the Roman Empire. Was the replacing of the pagan pantheon with Christ not a subversive enterprise? Absolutely! The Roman emperors believed that their personal safety and well being and the security of the empire depended on worshipping the gods. You're way to literal in interpreting the text. Paul was a revolutionary, a smart and cunning revolutionary (be sly like serpents) who understood the risks and hazards of his mission and that of the church.

Where did I say that Deism was a denial of the First Cause? If you wish to read that into my words that's Cadayspeaks, not Apollo.

Paul was an apostle and an evangelist. He wasn't about Christianizing the Roman Empire, he was about winning people to Christ. And there is a difference. There were no indications in Paul's writings that he wanted to have a Christian dominated society--undo society. Paul was not about changing society from the bottom up so that laws could be written to control people's behavior. What Paul was about was to win people over to Christ and let them follow Christ.

Paul's view of authority was what he stated in Romans 13 and what Peter said as well. He wasn't holding cards that the empire could not see. He clearly states that God put those leaders in charge and thus we should obey them. He didn't say we should obey them for expediency's sake--which is what you are implying.

While you are saying I am being too literal, I am saying you are projecting traits you admire onto Paul. And the texts Paul writes tells us why he says what he says.

BTW, I misread what you wrote about first cause, my fault. But people like Jefferson and Franklin were deists as even Franklin said about himself.

How was Paul respecting Roman authority when he was violating Roman law by introducing the worship of a new God into Roman society? This was illegal! Only ancient religions century's old were tolerated in Rome. New gods and their cults were outlawed and ruthlessly suppressed. Paul was a lawbreaker, his Church was illegal, it was in danger from the start of being violently persecuted. If Paul had no intention of mass converting the Roman empire he wouldn't have traveled to its far corners preaching the faith. Paul's ambitions for the Church were unlimited and all inclusive including everyone from slaves to magistrates, governors, senators and the Emperor himself. Love all including the emporer, who knows we may reach his soul and save him. Paul's actions speak louder than his words.

The same way that Martin Luther King respected American law and authorities even when what they required was wrong. He didn't seek to overthrow or to incite hatred or rebellion. What he did was do what he thought was right and then respect those in authority who arrested him. In fact, he used those arrests as opportunities to preach the Gospel.

Now maybe I wasn't clear in my last note. I tried to distinguish between evangelizing the Roman empire, which Paul tried to do,l from Christianizing the Roman empire which would include changing laws that respect Christian values and that would push Christianity on others.

We must be reminded again that Thomas Jefferson was not the only author of the Declaration. It was drafted under committee including: Ben Franklin, Robert Livingston, John Adams and Roger Sherman.

The Reformed Christians outnumbered the deists by 3 to 2. Mr. Jefferson is credited as author because he was the wordsmith.

http://www.errantskeptics.org/Fifty_Five_Delegates.htm

Apollo, thanks for input, especially concerning your comment on Romans 13. I agree with you, but consider that the destruction of Rome was already written in Daniel’s prophecy.

‘And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed…it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever’ [Daniel 2:44].

I will look at your link this evening.


C5, based on your latest, will you answer this question? To what is the prophet Daniel referring in this passage?

“ I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him.
Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed”
[Daniel 7:13-14, from the vision of the Ancient of Days]

He certainly wasn't talking about now. Jesus has two comings. The first one when he came as a suffering servant and the second one is when he will come to rule. Until his second coming, we are commanded to imitate him in his first coming.

The American Revolution was in the cast of all English sociopolitical history. Burke was asked repeatedly why the English never joined in the demonic French Festival of Blood and Mayhem.

My best summation of his answer: Because the English are not French.

And since the Americans were English and not French, we can find no correspondence between the causes or the results of the American Revolution and the French. Incidentally, I have not forgotten your question about Irby Nichol's methodology in assessing the cogent aspects of "Revolution." I am organizing my thoughts.

Let me cut to my strange apostasy in the lists of defining The American; and, most assuredly, this has not been developed into a defensible rationale. You see I perceive that the events of the period between 1620 and 1901 were not just derivatives of the "English." Everything American was essentially "English." That has a seminal and pivotal significance to me. Abortive attempts have persisted in defining "The American" since the death of Victoria. Commage failed. Schlesinger failed. Not sufficient space, but perhaps my confessing that I am a hopeless Anglo monarchist devoted to Queen Victoria and Prince Albert will be helpful.

With that contumely riskily stated, I will proceed to develop my "American Revolution" and compare and contrast.

Thanks.

Happy Trails.

C5, thanks for your reply. Now I have a clue where you are coming from. Do you identify with the historic PreMils? I have never met one, just read about them.

Would you give us the Biblical support for your statement ‘we are commanded to imitate him in his first coming’?


John uses language very similar to the Daniel 7 passage as if he was quoting the prophet in fulfillment of the prophecy…

‘John, to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.

To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen’ [Revelation 1:4-6].


Now, the all important question that concerns us in the New Covenant: What scene is recorded for us in Revelation 5? And for what purpose?

Before you answer, please note carefully the words of Daniel 7…

‘One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days…There He was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion…And His kingdom…shall not be destroyed.’

I will give a fuller answer later but actually I am amillennial.

c5, you are unlike any amil to my knowledge. Please xplain.

What do you expect from Amils?

C5, don’t you know that it is improper in blogdom to answer a question with a question?

Seriously, before I answer you, will you answer what I called a most serious question for us in the New Covenant: What scene is described in Revelation 5?