Did America sin declaring independance from Britain?

[HankD]

That Lincoln said he would preserve the union without freeing a single slave,.... or what

he preserved the union and freed the slaves.

 

[Alcott]

he preserved the union and freed the slaves.

But you're not "convinced" that he said as he has been oft quoted, that if he could preserve the union (as it was) without freeing a single slave, that he would do it?

 

[Aaron]

Again I agree with John Macarthur on Romans 13. The historical believers, Jesus, and the apostles were oppressed by rulers but willingly submitted to their authority to the point of death. Romans 13 and these clear examples show that authority granted by God Our Father is not to be circumvented. Our witness is not our rebellion but instead our witness to suffer and die for our faith and conscience.

You didn't answer the questions.

 

[Reformed1689]

What was so tyrannical? More to the point, what was Britain doing to force Christians to violate their conscience?

As someone else said, read the full Declaration of Independence. Taxation without representation was actually a MINOR point for the Revolution. Not the main point as they try to teach in history today.

 

[1689Dave]

The revolutionary war is one of several examples where "Christians" killed "Christians" over money and power they were to renounce in the basics.

 

[MartyF]

The revolutionary war is one of several examples where "Christians" killed "Christians" over money and power they were to renounce in the basics.

This is a perfect example of a "Christian" lying about other "Christians" he doesn't agree with.

 

[1689Dave]

This is a perfect example of a "Christian" lying about other "Christians" he doesn't agree with.

Not at all. WWI and WWII had "christians" killing "Christians" over money and territory. The Same with the American Revolution, the American Civil War. Today "christians" are killing "Christians" in the Middle East by supporting Israel. Or by dropping bombs.

 

[MartyF]

The historical believers, Jesus, and the apostles were oppressed by rulers but willingly submitted to their authority to the point of death.

No.

At no point did Jesus submit to earthly authorities. Jesus submitted to the Father when he was crucified - not to Pilot. This is why Jesus prays to the Father to find another way and doesn't pray to the Father to protect him from Pilot and the Sadducees. At no point does Jesus submit to the authorities of the world.

It is a common misconception that the Christians were continually persecuted by the Roman government. This is wrong. Persecutions which did occur were sporadic, unorganized, and short. For an understanding of what Roman life and rule was like, I would recommend the letters of Pliny the Younger.

The persecution under the Romans was so light, efforts were made the early church to prevent believers from chasing down martyrdom by stabbing the nearest Roman Soldier. Augustine briefly discusses this he describes a woman carrying around the holy object of a false martyr.

I was told growing up that the apostles all died for their faith except for Judas of course. In truth, we don't know for sure what happened to most of the apostles. In fact, by tradition, Thomas were bludgeoned to death by a Jewish mob and this obviously had nothing to do with submitting to the "appointed" ruler.

Paul actually used the Roman government for protection and might have faced the same fate of Thomas if he hadn't. Although the Romans had bad Caesars, the government was far from tyrannical and was probably the best on the planet at the time. Even Jesus saw a way of working with the Romans peacefully.

Luke 19:42-44 NLT
“How I wish today that you of all people would understand the way to peace. But now it is too late, and peace is hidden from your eyes. [43] Before long your enemies will build ramparts against your walls and encircle you and close in on you from every side. [44] They will crush you into the ground, and your children with you. Your enemies will not leave a single stone in place, because you did not recognize it when God visited you. ”

Paul was very specific about what type of rulers the Romans were and why working with them was the best path. One of the biggest misinterpretations of the letter to the Romans is that it is the letter to the Romans - not the letter to the North American Colonists.

On addition, rulers change and if a new ruler comes to power, who is to say that God did not bring the end of the rule of one ruler for another?

 

[robycop3]

Anyone who says the American colonists sinned by revolting is simply full of baloney. The USA was destined to become the greatest Christian nation of all, as it's plain to see in history. We twice bailed our former master Britain outta deep doodoo. If not for us, London's official language would be German.

Britain was Divinely blessed & protected for years before the USA was formed. How else but thru the power of God could one little nation occupying half an island have forged the greatest empire of all time, ruling far more people than any other empite, ever.

And, of course, same as ancient Israel successfully revolting against foreign rulers stronger than herself, Britain was able to subdue larger nations overseas, such as India.

But God limited the exapnsion of both the USA & Britain. For example, Britain was not able to subdue & rule France, & the USA failed to take over Canada.

Yes, GOD IS IN CONTROL of the nations, & the revolt & formation of the USA was part of His plans. It was no more a sin than any other colonial revolt elsewhere in the world. If it wasn't in God's will, it woulda failed, as it should have anyway, given the differences between the colonial & the British militaries. And remember, there were a great many "Tories" who didn't want the colonies separate from Britain, as they had many lucrative trade works, as well as protection from French and Spanish incursions.

 

[1689Dave]

Anyone who says the American colonists sinned by revolting is simply full of baloney. The USA was destined to become the greatest Christian nation of all, as it's plain to see in history. We twice bailed our former master Britain outta deep doodoo. If not for us, London's official language would be German.

Britain was Divinely blessed & protected for years before the USA was formed. How else but thru the power of God could one little nation occupying half an island have forged the greatest empire of all time, ruling far more people than any other empite, ever.

And, of course, same as ancient Israel successfully revolting against foreign rulers stronger than herself, Britain was able to subdue larger nations overseas, such as India.

But God limited the exapnsion of both the USA & Britain. For example, Britain was not able to subdue & rule France, & the USA failed to take over Canada.

Yes, GOD IS IN CONTROL of the nations, & the revolt & formation of the USA was part of His plans. It was no more a sin than any other colonial revolt elsewhere in the world. If it wasn't in God's will, it woulda failed, as it should have anyway, given the differences between the colonial & the British militaries. And remember, there were a great many "Tories" who didn't want the colonies separate from Britain, as they had many lucrative trade works, as well as protection from French and Spanish incursions.

God rules over all of satan's domain. But that does not change the fact that the whole world is under appointment to Satan.

 

[canadyjd]

As I've seen this debate over the years, many anti-Independence folks do not take into consideration some factors.

• They fail to see the conflict in a continuum dating back to the English Civil War through the Glorious Revolution.
• They fail to see the initial Contientlal position as just seeking their rights as free-born Englishmen.
• They fail to see London's ham-handedness in the years leading up to the Revolution.

With respect, I don't see any of those reasons listed as exceptions to the command in Romans not to rebel.

Peace to you

 

[Calminian]

The Earth is spherical and the moon landing was genuine.
Actually research Old Abe's own words, and you will find he would have left the slaves in their chains in order to "preserve the Union".
If that was achieved without the freeing of slaves, it would have been so. He stated so himself on numerous occasions.
Had a Southern State laid down arms (even after the Proclamation) they would have kept their slaves.

Therefore:
1.) Freeing slaves was not his purpose
2.) Later Political measures had to be taken in order to actually abolish slavery.

Two things can easily be deduced from this:
1.) Lincoln did not fight "TO free the slaves"
2.) The EP did not free them.....later measures were required to do so.

Those are facts, rather you want to make snarky juvenile swipes or not.

You misunderstood. The moon landing guys are sincere in the "evidence" they latch onto. Those disparaging their country claiming the civil war was not about slavery have much less credibility. It's not that they can't believe. They just won't.

 

[HankD]

With respect, I don't see any of those reasons listed as exceptions to the command in Romans not to rebel.

Peace to you

OK SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM!?

WE ARE A NATION OF REBELS

WHATCHA GONNA DO ABOUT IT!?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You misunderstood. The moon landing guys are sincere in the "evidence" they latch onto. Those disparaging their country claiming the civil war was not about slavery have much less credibility. It's not that they can't believe. They just won't.

1.) The question wasn't whether the civil war was about slavery.
2.) The question was why Lincoln fought it, and freeing slaves was not that reason.
3.) Maintaining that it wasn't "about slavery" in no way disparages the country.
4.) Arguing that the moon landing was faked absolutely does.
5.) Lincoln worship, which refuses to recognize his lifelong abject racism and (up until the E.P.) lack of concern for the plight of slaves is equally as close to simply refusing to believe facts as ignoring the importance of the slavery issue is.
6.) The question whether the War between the States was "about slavery" is simply too reductionist.
Technically, it wasn't the de facto reason, but no one can argue that it wasn't the de jure reason. It was over secession; period. But, the onus for secession was ostensibly preserving slavery, and if, the Union could be preserved while leaving the slaves in chains Lincoln would have done it, and had no intention of freeing them until well into the war.

 

[Calminian]

1.)...2.) The question was why Lincoln fought it, and freeing slaves was not that reason.

Exactly. It is a delusion, in the face of evidence.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

By the mid-1700s, the English had developed a strong tradition of rule by Parliament. In the case of the 13 colonies, this took the form of their colonial legislatures (e.g. the Virginia House of Burgesses). To my knowledge, no legislature took London's side in the conflict. So, I'm not ignoring Romans. I'm simply saying, in light of the previous hundred or so years of Anglo-American history, the question is not as clear cut as many in 2019 think it is.

With respect, I don't see any of those reasons listed as exceptions to the command in Romans not to rebel.

 

[Calminian]

By the mid-1700s, the English had developed a strong tradition of rule by Parliament. In the case of the 13 colonies, this took the form of their colonial legislatures (e.g. the Virginia House of Burgesses). To my knowledge, no legislature took London's side in the conflict. So, I'm not ignoring Romans. I'm simply saying, in light of the previous hundred or so years of Anglo-American history, the question is not as clear cut as many in 2019 think it is.

Just to play DA, what some will say is, it's irrelevant to Paul's command not to rebel against government. Rome was a model of injustice in many areas, yet Paul submitted, called himself a Roman citizen, appealed to Roman law, etc.

The follow up I would ask is, would Israel have been in sin if they had fought Rome and somehow regained their independence? Obviously they were overpowered, and conquered, but what if they acquired the ability to defend and govern themselves again? Does God always forbid this?

IOWs it's not clear to me that Paul was speaking of national matters of conquest and independence in Romans 13. I don't really see any hints of this. It seemed more directed to individuals in regard to law keeping.

 

[Dave G]

"Did America sin declaring independance from Britain?"

Yes.
It rebelled against it's rightful king, who had granted charters to his subjects to form colonies across the Atlantic.

After almost exactly 150 years, when they decided it was against their desires and outside of their willingness to obey a king that treated them differently than they wished to be treated, they invented all kinds of excuses to break away from his authority and establish their own, separate country governed by themselves.

While I thank God that I've been privileged to be born and live in a country that basically has religious freedom, rule by law and is at peace within its borders, as a student of history ( both world and the United States ) I see it for what it originated from...
Rebellion.

Mankind in all his glory.

 

[Calminian]

"Did America sin declaring independance from Britain?"

Yes.
It rebelled against it's rightful king...

And this is the part I wanted to focus on. You say, not just the king, but, rightful king. And why is that? What makes a king a rightful king, as opposed to a non-rightful king? Or is there even such a thing? Is a king rightful the minute he wages a successful conquest?

For instance, when Germany invaded Poland and took control, did Hitler, at that moment, become the rightful king? Why or why not?

 

[Dave G]

And this is the part I wanted to focus on. You say, not just the king, but, rightful king. And why is that? What makes a king a rightful king, as opposed to a non-rightful king? Or is there even such a thing. Is a king rightful the minute he wages a successful conquest?

The Lord tells us that the powers that be are ordained of God.
Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to the Lord what is the Lord's.

Obey magistrates, etc. and the ordinances of men.
What part of rebelling against a king is godly?

We're to pray for our leaders...not openly criticize and even rise up against them.
If there's a problem where we live, then leave.

For instance, when Germany invaded Poland and took control, did Hitler, at that moment, become the rightful king? Why or why not?

Not my world...I'm just passing through.