Mulligan's 8

A new blogger friend of mine, Fida Abbott, tagged me about a week ago. I'm sorry, Fida, that it has taken me so long to respond to your tag! But thank you for tagging me. I welcome the invitation.

Here are the rules for the homework she assigned me:

1. Post the rules of the homework in your Blog (OK, I've done that)
2. Write 8 habits or the reality about yourself (choose randomly)
3. In the end of your writing, write 8 names of your friends who you want to do the same homework
4. Don't forget to tell them so they can read your posting of your homework so they can do the same thing easily
5. Smile as the sign of your satisfied after you are done

OK, now for step #2: Write 8 habits or the reality about yourself (choose randomly) :

1. I love to write, research, decorate, and design. That is why blogging is right up my alley. Blogging is the way I can not only write, do and present research, and creatively design and organize, but can make these things available on the Internet to be of benefit and enjoyment to others.

2. I love music. I mean, I love real music. I'm not much for contemporary ear-blasters, but I enjoy good Christian productions by Delirious, Hillsongs, Twila Paris, Mercy Me and Stephen Curtis Chapman. However, I have a particular fondness for classical/instrumental music. Bach, Beethoven, and Handel are some of my favorites. In the old days, people sure did know how to write music!

3. I love the outdoors. Though I tend to be somewhat sedentary because of my studies, too much of anything is not good for me. There is a time to study, and a time to simply enjoy the great outdoors. And since I live in beautiful central upstate New York, which is largely rural, that comes easily. I believe that the Mohawk Valley is truly one of the most naturally beautiful places in the country. Ordinarily, there are no blizzards, no flash floods, no tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions or earthquakes. Our only pestilence is taxation and constant oppression by politicians. But I am grateful for the life I have had here. It is certainly a much easier one than that of many other ordinary Americans.


4. I hope to write at least two books some day. I will probably write more, but I plan to write a book on Alexander Hamilton, whose writings I have studied for a period of several years. In fact, the name of "Hammy," and his words of wisdom and wit have become household sayings in my family, rivaling that of the oft-quoted Ben Franklin. The second book I plan to write is a biography of Samuel Kirkland, who is a local figure in my area of significant state and national importance. To my knowledge, he has no biography around today, and since I live in his old mission field, and near Hamilton College which he founded, I intent to take the matter into my own hands. I think that it is time that a native of the Mohawk Valley and life-long citizen of New York (whose ancestors were Kirkland's contemporaries) should see to it that his life and legacy do not go to waste. If I write any more books after those two, it will probably be something that goes along with the subject matter of this blog.

5. I like learning about people from different backgrounds and different countries. That is why I am friends with Fida Abbott, who grew up in Indonesia, and a reader (of the many) of KimC's entertaining and exciting blog, Life in a Shoe. It is nice to learn about them, how they live, how they think, and what is important to them. I hope that I will meet more people like that in the future.

6. I tend to be very quiet and thoughtful. I am not very expressive, and I am probably not much for company, especially with new people. I usually communicate rather poorly one-on-one, but I think I can communicate well through writing. I tend to be quiet and attentive in personal settings like group discussion or in a classroom, but I can be very interactive in written discussion. Again, blogging falls right into this niche of mine.

7. (*almost done!*) I am currently reading The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell. I have been reading several books on the case concerning the truth of Christianity lately, and I think I will soon post on my blog Herculean Reflections my thoughts on my readings. I continue to study this subject and to study the Bible. I think that every Christian, especially in the free world, should make this study an important part of their life and their education.

8. I hope to visit another country someday (or the least I could wish for is to visit another state, which I've only done once in my life!). If I had to choose which country, I would probably choose Scotland. Several of my ancestors came from Scotland, and it is a country rich with history and natural beauty and grandeur. If I had another opportunity, I might visit a land where the events of the Bible took place. I guess I'd have to pack lots of sun lotion for that kind of a trip, though!

And now for step 3: In the end of your writing, write 8 names of your friends who you want to do the same homework.

Eight friends? OK, let's see...

1. Our Founding Truth
2. Rob Scott at The Hamiltonian Federalist Forum
3. Brian Tubbs at Defending Christianity
4. HH at Adventures in the life of Upstate New York (hasn't blogged in a while; maybe she won't mind this "homework"!)

I can't think of anyone else! I guess I really do not have great extensions over the "blogosphere" yet! Oh well.

What's step #4? Don't forget to tell them so they can read your posting of your homework so they can do the same thing easily.

OK, will do.

Step 5: Smile as the sign of your satisfied after you are done.

--> :) <--

See? I smiled. :)

Well, Fida, I hope that this post was satisfactory! I know I didn't tag exactly 8 people; sorry! Hopefully, if I ever get another tag, I will have more people to tag!

AHI Inaugural Colloquium on Gerrit Smith and George Fitzhugh

Hello dear readers. Obviously, I have not been blogging for a while, but I trust I will resume within several weeks. Life during this part of the year is typically busy for me, as with other bloggers. Believe me, I am very far from running out of posts!

But in the mean time, I would like to share with my readers a four-part video series of the first day (er, evening) of the Inaugural Colloquium of the Alexander Hamilton Institute, which took place on April 10th, 2008, which is based in Clinton, New York. It was a great privilege and honor for me to attend this particular gathering, as a guest of Professor Robert Paquette, and to witness the workings of this new but wonderful organization directly. I will post more extensively on this event, but in the mean time, you may enjoy the following videos, and read a descriptive blog post by my blogger friend, Mrs. Mecomber, who also attended the event, and shot some beautiful photos.

Adblock

Inaug. Colloq. - Pt 1 from Alexander Hamilton Institute on Vimeo.

Adblock

Inaug. Colloq. - Pt 2 from Alexander Hamilton Institute on Vimeo.

Adblock

Inaug. Colloq. - Pt 3 from Alexander Hamilton Institute on Vimeo.

Adblock

Inaug. Colloq. - Pt 4 from Alexander Hamilton Institute on Vimeo.

I am very much looking forward to reading the correspondence between Smith and Fitzhugh once it is published. This discussion sparked many questions, which ignited interest. Maybe I will blog on my reading of that too when it comes out (and when I attack the other numerous items on my reading list!)

You can learn more about the Alexander Hamilton Institute, the colloquium, and their past and upcoming events here. I have blogged about the founding of the Institute on another blog of mine here.

UPDATE: The audio sessions of the remainder of this colloquium (which lasted for several days) are now available in mp3 format at the website of the Alexander Hamilton Institute. I encourage my readers to listen to these stimulating discussions. I will blog about them more extensively later.

Good News for Homeschoolers...

After not having blogged in a while (but don't worry; Hercules Mulligan will be back and at it soon!), I have a special announcement to make!

The BlogNetNews Homeschool page is up! My good friend Dana of Principled Discovery did a great job with it! You can learn more about this page and network here and here on her blog.

I am humbled and honored that four of my blogs are a part of this fabulous network! I guess this means I need to update them a little bit more frequently, which I will do when I have some spare time.

If you are a homeschooler, and would like to connect with other homeschoolers, or find educational links for homeschooling purposes, this is a prime place to go! Have a blast!

Thoughts on Theocracy and America

In the debate surrounding the issue of America as a Christian nation, those opposing the Christian nation thesis, or those who desire a separation of the influence of Christians over the institutes of the state, have accused the "anti-separationists" (those who oppose the contemporary view of "separation of church and state" and advocate that the Founders established this nation as a Christian nation) of proposing a theocracy.

This term theocracy is indeed thrown around very often, so let us examine what it means, and how its real definition applies to the view of America that our Founding Fathers originally had in mind when they founded this country. Many people, when they think of "theocracy," probably remember the Catholic dominance over the kingdoms of medieval Europe. Others who have more knowledge of Biblical history will probably picture the government that the ancient Hebrews had when Moses led them out of Egypt. They will remember that he gave God's instructions, especially the Ten Commandments, to the Hebrews. Those skeptical of Christianity, and therefore of Christian pastors and leaders, would definitely be skeptical of such a government -- in which the clergy dominate the government of a nation, claiming to get their instructions from God, as political representatives of God on earth. Many people term such governments "theocracies," because they loosely fit into the mold of "a government by God" -- the literal definition of "theocracy."

I am skeptical of the justice of the Catholic dominance of Europe, not because I am skeptical of Christianity, but rather of the truth of the Catholics' claims that they were the mouthpieces of God. May I also point out that many in the so-called "Christian nation crowd" are also skeptical of such a government. We instead assert that this nation was founded upon Biblical presuppositions (that man is inherently selfish, and needs restraint; that law, which exists for the purpose of restraining man's selfish tendencies and preserving justice and order, must therefore come from a super-human source, namely GOD, the Creator).

Our government was founded upon the laws of God. Now, this does not mean that our Constitution is a direct enforcement of the Ten Commandments, but rather that in order for the form of government established by the Constitution to be preserved, the Ten Commandments must be respected and observed by the American populous. Our Founding Truth wrote two posts dealing with this subject concisely but thoroughly; I encourage my readers to peruse these articles.

But since our government is based upon God's laws, and they are recognized as supreme over man's laws, can we not say that America is, in the literal sense of the word, a "theocracy"? Since theocracy is the rule of God, and God's laws are the foundation of our government (remember that the Declaration of Independence appealed to the "laws of nature and of nature's God"), we are a government under God's law. God may not send a prophet, as he did in the Old Testament times, saying, "Thou shalt war on Such-and-such a nation," or "Thou shalt pass such-and-such a law," but we are a theocracy in the New Testament sense. In other words, God does not speak to us primarily in lighting bolts or in divine messengers (although He continues to do so from time to time), but rather, as the New Testament book of Hebrews explains:

"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the worlds." (Hebrews 1:1-2)

And who is "His Son"? It is Jesus Christ, who, according to John 1:1&14 is "the Word of God ... [who] became flesh." This means that Jesus is the law of God manifested in human form, in the form not only of a person, but of a human being, because Jesus is the fulfillment of the law. He walked the walk.

The summary of all this is that God does not need to give a long list of do's and don'ts, as He did in Old Testament times; the New Testament makes it clear that the Old Covenant was fulfilled, and that the New Covenant is in place. God freely gives to us of His Spirit when we are born again, so that we no longer have the natural inclination to sin and walk contrary to the law of God, but rather have the inclination to do what pleases Him and accords with His law, and such involves more than going to church and wearing Christian T-shirts -- it involves the development of a holy and virtuous lifestyle motivated by the love and fear of God.

Our Founding Fathers acknowledged their dependence upon this concept in their writings and in their speeches. First of all, they acknowledged the supremacy of God's law over any laws of man, and they recognized the importance of electing genuine Christians to office.

John Quincy Adams, the famed son of John and Abigail Adams, and the sixth President of the United States made it very clear that the Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of a government built upon Christian principles. In a public speech he made to commemorate the 61st anniversary of American Independence (July 4, 1837), he declared:

Why is it, Friends and Fellow Citizens, that you are here assembled? ... Is it not, that in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission on earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?" (1)

John Jay noted the importance of Christians being elected to office, as well that this nation was a "Christian nation," in a letter to John Murray, Jr., on October 12, 1816:

Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others ... Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. [emphasis original] (2)

John Adams also wrote concerning the founding of America, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813:

The GENERAL PRINCIPLES on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were those GENERAL PRINCIPLES? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects [the Roman Catholics, Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, and Universalists] were united, and the GENERAL PRINCIPLES of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. (3)

The Founding Fathers believed that the laws of God were so vital that they believed that Americans should understand and respect them from their youth. Noah Webster was a Founding Father, who served as a soldier during the American Revolution, and who directly influenced the Constitution in some areas by writing letters to the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and discussing issues with them outside of the Convention. His most well-known contribution to America was his authorship of the first American-English dictionary in 1828, which gave English words standardized American meaning and spelling. He was heavily involved in the education of youth, believing that education in American principles was vital to the survival of the new republic. He once wrote:

Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New testament, or, the Christian religion. (4)

Since our nation relies upon God's laws to preserve virtue, and since virtue is what makes republican government possible, the Founding Fathers stressed not only virtue, but the true source of virtue: Christianity. Benjamin Rush, who was a very influential Founder and active educator and social reformer wrote:

The only foundation for ... a Republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. (5)

John Adams, during his presidency declared:

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (6)

Alexander Hamilton, in preparing Washington's Farewell Address upon Washington's request, expressed this truth this way:

In all those dispositions which promote political happiness, religion and morality are essential props. In vain does he claim the praise of patriotism, who labors to subvert or undermine these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest foundations of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public happiness.

Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of moral and religious obligation deserts the oaths which are administered in courts of justice? Nor ought we to flatter ourselves that morality can be separated from religion. Concede as much as may be asked to the effect of refined education in minds of peculiar structure, can we believe, can we in prudence suppose, that national morality can be maintained in exclusion of religious principles? Does it not require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative religion?

’T is essentially true that virtue or morality is a main and necessary spring of popular or republican governments. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to all free governments. Who that is a prudent and sincere friend to them, can look with indifference on the ravages which are making in the foundation of the fabric—religion? The uncommon means which of late have been directed to this fatal end, seem to make it in a particular manner the duty of a retiring chief of a nation to warn his country against tasting of the poisonous draught [sic]. (7)

And George Washington expressed those words similarly in his revised version of the Farewell Address.

Alexander Hamilton had earlier written quite emphatically:

The politician who loves liberty ... knows that morality overthrown (and morality must fall with religion), the terrors of despotism alone can curb the impetuous passions of man, and confine him within the bounds of social duty. (emphasis original) (8)

Our nation is not a theocracy to be governed by men, but is a theocracy in the truest sense, so long as we as a nation govern ourselves by the laws of God.

I will add as an interesting postscript, that while today, many citizens are thinking of adding amendments to the Constitution granting to people the rights to free healthcare and free Internet service, Americans of the 1840s were petitioning Congress to make an official recognition of Jesus Christ as the "ruler of the nation" in the Constitution (these petitions were presented to Congress by U.S. Representative John Quincy Adams). These motions were never actually carried out, and were probably thought unnecessary, since the evidence of our being a Christian nation comes from those who have the most governing authority in this nation: the people and their respective state and local governments.

Also, a petition of citizens of Perry and Muskingum counties, State of Ohio, praying an amendment of the constitution, by which the Sovereign of the universe shall be acknowledged as the God of the nation; also, that the Lord Jesus Christ may be acknowledged as the ruler of the nation. (9)

Mr. [John Quincy] Adams offered to present a petition of inhabitants of western Pennsylvania and Ohio, praying an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, so that it shall contain a clear and explicit acknowledgment of the Sovereign of the universe as the God of this nation; an entire and avowed submission to the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler of this nation; an unreserved reception of his revealed will contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the law paramount, by which all the affairs of this republic shall be regulated--all conflicting State laws being regarded as perfectly null and void; and entreating Congress to rescind all enactments whereby a violation of God's law is authorized, whether by running the mail-stage on his Sabbath, or otherwise. (10)

Also, a memorial of citizens of Licking county, State of Ohio, praying that the Sovereign of the universe may be acknowledged as the God of this nation, and that the Lord Jesus Christ may be acknowledged as the supreme ruler of the nation. (11)

And I'm Back!

Hello readers. I must apologize for my long delay in writing. My schedule has not allowed me to do much writing (which requires research and concentration) at the present.

But now that my schedule is somewhat relaxed now, I would just like tell my readers to keep their ears (or rather eyes) perked for an upcoming post on theocracy and American government, which I will be posting soon.

Thanks to all my loyal readers for their patience.

Why I Support Ron Paul for President

Ron Paul is a firm and a strict Constitutionalist.

Ron Paul is pro-family, and pro-life.

Ron Paul's stance on the issues is impeccable.

Ron Paul is NOT a God-hating liberal.

Ron Paul is NOT a Christian-hating liberal.

Ron Paul is NOT a member of the Council of Foreign Relations.

Ron Paul is NOT supported by the mainstream media.

Ron Paul is AGAINST the government tagging its citizens.

Ron Paul FIGHTS government fraud and corruption.

Ron Paul supports US SOVEREIGNTY.

Ron Paul OPPOSES the anti-"Patriot Act."

Ron Paul OPPOSES the North American Union.

Ron Paul is NOT a friend of the Clinton and Bush dynasties.

HAPPY REFORMATION DAY!

Happy Reformation Day! Or, you may call it the "Ninety-five Theses Day" if you wish. The "New Every Morning" online daily devotional by Coral Ridge Ministries has a fitting entry for this day. Check it out!

Friends of Liberty Blogroll

Among Christians and true patriots alike, there is a great need for Virtue and Truth in these present times that try men's souls.

In the spirit of Samuel Adams, the Father of the American Revolution, and the Committees of Correspondence, Adams' great work among the Colonies, we agree that people of Virtue and Truth are the truest friends of Liberty:

He therefore is the truest Friend to the Liberty of his country who tries most to promote its Virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man... The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a Virtuous People.

The Friends of Liberty Blogroll is a network of blogs dedicated to promoting Virtue and Truth. We invite people from all walks of life and countries to join the Friends of Liberty Blogroll. Here are the requirements:

1. You understand the concepts of the words Virtue and Truth as primarily and traditionally defined by Jesus Christ in the Holy Scriptures.

Virtue as in "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength" and "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt. 22:37-40). Truth as in "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (Jn. 14:6) and "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (II Tim 3:16)

"To promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the subtance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to do. ... The magistrate (or ruling part of any society) ought to encourage piety ... [and] make it an object of public esteem. Those who are vested with civil authority ought ... to promote religion and good morals among all their government." John Witherspoon

2. You must post a Friends of Liberty Blogroll button somewhere on your blog, and link the button back to this page, or have a text link linking back to this page. See below for button images and html codes.

3. You must agree with the tenets outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. These documents are not "living, breathing" documents that change with the times or every whim of man.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." James Madison

“The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare, nor should this Court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought of as a general haven for reform movements.” Chief Justice John Marshall

4. You pledge to encourage the godly values of Virtue and Truth in your own life and in your blog.

"The only foundation for... a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." Benjamin Rush

"Good government generally begins in the family, and if the moral character of a people once degenerate, their political character must soon follow." Elias Boudinot

5. You recognize that the United States has its inalienable rights from God, not from the state or from man. You recognize that the United States form of government and its culture stems from the Christian values of the Old and New Testament, and that the present problems in our government and culture are because the nation has abandoned these values.

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evil men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." Noah Webster

"[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion." Noah Webster

6. You cannot be an atheist or a humanist.

"Shun, as a contagious pestilence, ... those especially whom you perceive to be infected with the principles of infidelity or enemies to the power of religion. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country." John Witherspoon

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." Charles Carroll

"... And thus be our motto "In God We Trust." Francis Scott Key

"An oath is an appeal to God, the Searcher of hearts, for the truth of what we say and always expresses or supposes an imprecation of His judgment upon us if we prevaricate. An oath, therefore, implies a belief in God and His Providence and indeed is an act of worship. ... Persons entering on public offices are also often obliged to make oath that they will faithfully execute their trust. ... In vows, there is no party but God and the person himself who makes the vow." John Witherspoon

Ready to join? Just leave a comment with your blog's URL. I will add you to the blogroll as soon as possible.

Here are the buttons and codes. Feel free to download the buttons for yourself and link back to this post. Please be sure to have the button or text link back to this blogroll. Thanks!

Large Button

Image Source: http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd192/CatoofUtica/FriendofLiberty.jpg
Link back to: http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/2007/10/friends-of-liberty-blogroll.html

Small Button

Image Source: http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd192/CatoofUtica/FriendofLiberty_small.jpg
Link back to: http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/2007/10/friends-of-liberty-blogroll.html



Tiny Button

Image Source: http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd192/CatoofUtica/FriendLibertyTinyButton.png
Link back to: http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/2007/10/friends-of-liberty-blogroll.html

FRIENDS OF LIBERTY BLOGROLL

Adventures in the Life of Upstate NY
The Foundation Forum
Meet the Founding Fathers
Alexander Hamilton Patriot
New York Traveler
Our Founding Truth
Brainbiter
Principled Discovery
New York Traveler (website)
The Cause of Liberty New Member!
New York Renovator New Member!
Mrs. Mecomber's Scrapbook New Member!

Please keep in mind that comments are solely for joining the blogroll.

Part Two: An Un-Biblical Revolution?

Before we discuss the text of the Constitution, the intent behind the text, and the testimony of the Founders themselves upon whether or not our nation was a Christian one, we must understand why our government began in the first place.

Any ordinary schoolchild can tell you (with today's public indoctrination camps, let me say that hopefully can tell you) that the whole history of the United States Constitution began when our nation, in particular our Founding Fathers, decided to become a nation independent of the government and laws of Great Britain. But was the motive, or even the very act of revolting from England -- an act of blatant civil disobedience -- in accordance with Scripture? What about the Romans 13 passage, that says to be subject to civil authorities?

Of course, in both the Christian and non-Christian sphere, there are those who oppose the idea that the Revolution was biblically justified. This opposition is based upon several erroneous presuppositions.

The most notable of these erroneous presuppositions is that the Romans 13 passage establishes the doctrine of the "divine right of kings." This heretical doctrine is not only absurd, but it is clearly unbiblical. God never once told the prophets of the Old Testament to keep quiet or to "be subject" to the wicked decrees of kings and queens; God often harshly rebuked these kings through the prophets for their unjust acts. Because Israel had such an enormous problem with many evil kings, the Old Testament is filled with accounts of such rebukes and punishments. Such Old Testament passages, and even the Romans 13 passage itself, disprove the idea that God established the "divine right of kings." Let us examine the Romans passage more closely:

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due; taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs are due, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor" (Romans 13:1-7; NKJV).

There are several things that needed to be pointed out in this passage. First of all, Paul gives the definition of true authority. Authority, which is the essence of government, is ultimately derived from God -- in other words, the institution of government has been created by God for the purpose of controlling mankind from devouring one another due to their sinful and selfish nature. Because the institution of government is created by God, those in government are accountable to God for the way in which they relate to the supreme authority of God's law (revealed in the Scriptures). Second, the Apostle Paul qualifies who true rulers are -- a terror not to good works but to evil; who "bears the sword" to punish evildoers.

To read this passage with the assumption that Paul said to blindly obey whatever the government should decree is erroneous. The early Christians, and Paul himself, often practiced civil disobedience when the decrees of the Roman emperors or the commands of the Jewish leaders contradicted the laws and commandments of God. In one such case, the Apostle Peter (the same Apostle who wrote "fear God, honor the king" in 1 Peter 2:17) boldly declared to the Jewish priests "Whether is it right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:19-20). As to the letter that Peter wrote years later, when he said "Fear God. Honor the king," notice that he said "Fear God" first. Godly fear is the first priority. And why shouldn't it be? God created mankind, and when the first man sinned and passed on to the human race a corrupted human nature, God created the institution of government. Therefore, all governments and all rulers owe their own authority and allegiance to God, and are expected to rule justly according to God's commandments. When rulers and governments scorn and spurn God's law, than those under the authority of such rulers have the obligation before God to commit civil disobedience, and obey God rather than man.

How then do we "honor the king," as the Bible commands us? In the same passage that Peter wrote those words, he wrote these words, which echo the theme of the Romans 13 passage:

"Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men -- as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king" (1 Peter 2:13-17; emphasis added).

Peter's words simply mean that we are to show respect to authority by "obeying every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake." If, therefore, the king or ruler should declare an ordinance contrary to God's law, we do not observe that ordinance for the Lord's sake. But because government is an institution created by God, and rulers have a great responsibility, we are obligated to observe and obey their decrees, so long as those decrees to not require a transgression of God's law on our part.

The second most notable erroneous supposition which leads people to view the American Revolution as being unbiblical is a great misunderstanding of why we separated from Great Britain and became our own nation. Most Americans have been and are being brought up with the great deception that the feud between America and Great Britain began with Parliament's issuance of the Stamp Act in 1765. The Americans are portrayed as having a problem with being taxed to the hilt, and therefore, they decided that their government was tyrannical. After the course of several years, the Americans decided to become independent, and form a democratic form of government in which everyone was given an equal say in the affairs of government. But a look into the writings of the Founding Fathers themselves, and the Founding Documents themselves, disproves this common view of the American Revolution.

Alexander Hamilton himself refuted this presupposition:

"That they have an invincible aversion to common-sense is apparent in many respects ... even that our contest with Britain is founded entirely upon the petty duty of three pence per pound on East India tea, whereas the whole world knows it is built upon this interesting question, whether the inhabitants of Great Britain have a right to dispose of the lives and properties of the inhabitants of America, or not. ... But some people try to make you believe we [American patriots] are disputing about the foolish trifle of three pence duty upon tea. They may as well tell you that black is white. Surely you can judge for yourselves. Is a dispute, whether the Parliament of Great Britain shall make what laws and impose what taxes they please upon us, or not; I say, is this a dispute about three pence duty upon tea? The man that affirms it deserves to be laughed at." (1)

Hamilton continues:

"It is true, we are denying to pay the duty upon tea; but it is not for the value of the thing itself. It is because we cannot submit to that without acknowledging the principle upon which it is founded; and that principle is, a right to tax us in all cases whatsoever.

"You [Americans] have heretofore experienced the benefit of being taxed by your own Assemblies only. Your burdens are so light that you scarcely feel them. You’d soon find the difference, if you were once to let the Parliament have the management of these matters."

Hamilton subsequently brings the issue into focus, and his words make clear that the Americans did not risk all they owned in a war in which victory was not guaranteed merely because of heavy taxation (if such was the case, then Americans in the present generation should have revolted against our own government years ago). He brings to attention the fact that because the Parliament was imposing cruel and unjust acts upon the colonists, when the colonists had never consented to be subject to the decrees of Parliament in the first place, our basic human rights were now at stake. He writes:

"But being ruined by taxes is not the worst you have to fear. What security would you have for your lives? How can any of you be sure you would have the free enjoyment of your religion long? Would you put your religion in the power of any set of men living? Remember civil and religious liberty always go together: if the foundation of the one be sapped, the other will fall of course."

Indeed, the Americans had far greater troubles that confronted them than mere taxation. Taxation was heavy and unjust, and just as Hamilton said, the colonists resisted it, because Parliament was taking what did not belong to it, without the consent of the colonists.

But Jesus never commanded his disciples to resist the heavy, nay, unjust taxes of the Roman emperors, and start a new country. Was this action by the Americans unbiblical? Not in any way. Here is the true story of the beginning of the American Revolution.

When the first colonists landed upon the shores of America, they did acknowledge their allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and the charters of early America show that the early Americans did consent to be colonies of Great Britain. These charters delineated the relationship between the American colonies and the King of England. The colonists agreed to be British citizens, and in return, the King promised the colonists the protection of his army and navy. The charters allowed the colonists to be governed under the decrees of their own colonial governments, instead of the British Parliament. As was the case in most of the colonies, the colonial officials were confirmed or appointed by the British crown.

America had begun to make moves toward unifying into a single nation or confederation, but the sense of national unity never came until the French and Indian War broke out over a land dispute between Britain and France. Both countries claimed that the American colonies, or large parts of them, belonged to themselves. Of course, the American colonists sided with England, and during the course of the war, Americans were united like never before as they faced their common enemy: France. As history shows, the contest ended in success for Great Britain, and France grudgingly accepted defeat -- and the fact that they had lost Canadian territory, adjacent to northern New York State, to the British.

After the war ended, King George III came to power, and like several of his royal predecessors, he tried to take advantage of the colonies, and usurp more power and eliminate their self-government (the English Kings did have a fear that they would lose their American colonies, if enough colonists got the notion of forming an independent nation). Unlike most of the previous kings before him, George III decided to use Parliament as his weapon, instead of allowing that body to be his contestant. He bribed many of the members of Parliament into passing laws that would restrict the colonies from growing and prospering economically without direct intercourse with Britain (sounds eerily familiar). He sent his troops over to the colonies in droves, in order to plunder the people of their weapons; furthermore, these troops were given full permission by the British government to force to be housed in the homes of private Americans. If these troops acted disorderly, the homeowner was punished for complaining about the King's soldiers. The rights of trial by jury of one's peers was also stripped from the colonists. As there began to be mounting clout about what the British government was doing, Great Britain cast the last straw, by dissolving the colonial legislatures, and appointing all of the members itself!

The actions of the British government were a total violation of the charters that England and the colonies had agreed to. America did not decide then and there that we needed to become independent; all of English law and all of the legal precedent was on our side. In addition, there was extreme danger of declaring independence immediately. Great Britain was the only source of unity among the American colonies -- besides that, each colony had its own form of government (although the basic forms among all were generally the same), their own laws, which were made independently of other colonies, and their own currencies. So, for the initial years of struggle between America and the mother country; however, the King constantly postponed and then ignored whatever the colonial diplomats had to say. How could the colonists make their complaints known to the King if he wouldn't even listen? Furthermore, if he refused to listen, was it really worth trying to make their way into the King's Court?

Since the King would do nothing about the colonists' struggles with English government -- Parliament in particular, because Parliament had, according to the colonial charters, no right to pass acts binding upon the colonists, especially acts that allowed the English government to do anything whatever to the colonists -- the colonists decided to fend for themselves. The most famous act of self-defense against English tyranny that erupted during this time was the Boston Tea Party, a non-violent act of protest against the cruel acts of Parliament.

As may have been expected, the British government was furious when news of the "tea Party" reached London. George III declared the colonies to be in rebellion, and declared war on them. This fact is also extremely important in our understanding of the American Revolution. The American colonists never did anything to instigate the war. Great Britain started the War for Independence, not the American colonists. Therefore, as far as the Americans were concerned, the Revolution was a 100% defensive warfare. They were defending themselves from the "invaders," "intruders," and "conquerers." Oftentimes, General Washington would refuse offers by the British to surrender his forces (when the war actually began, of course), because such would mean that he would then bear the responsibility of making his countrymen vulnerable to the onslaughts of the "invaders." Defensive warfare is bi