Did America sin declaring independance from Britain?

[Calminian]

I've heard some good preachers say this. I believe MacArthur has said it based on his understanding of Romans 13. That said, I think MacArthur may be wrong on this. (note: normally, when I diverge from MacArthur, I recommend people give more weight to his opinion)

When a nation is practicing imperialism (which is in essence globalism), and trying to undo Babel, I believe local peoples have the right to rise up and declare independence if they are able. God divided the nations based on languages and territories (Gen. 10). He did it for our sake, that He might slowdown the spread of evil (Gen. 11). But what happens when kings attempt to gobble up these territories and build a global empire?

In instances of imperialism, such as what Britain was attempting in the past, and what Nazi Germany attempted last century, I don't believe they have the backing of Romans 13. If a king in another land lays stake to a far way land and cannot maintain control of that land, I don't believe he has a God-given right to it.

For example, when the Nazis invaded Poland and took control of it, were the Allies immediately then obligated, biblically, to leave them alone? I don't think it works like this, and I don't think England had a God-given right to every land it claimed.

 

[percho]

When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Maybe throughout the centuries the boundaries change relative to the above.

 

[Shoostie]

Britain didn't take over the US, so I don't see any analogy with the Nazis invading Poland.

I have conflicting views on this. I think people have a right to be free, even by force, and I think people have an obligation to obey authority (including Britain before the Revolutionary war). But, I've become generally anti-war and think America did sin in declaring Independence. Britain wasn't especially tyrannical. But, I think there can come a point when a government becomes so tyrannical that it's right to lift up arms, overthrow and behead the tyrant.

 

[Calminian]

Britain didn't take over the US, so I don't see any analogy with the Nazis invading Poland.

I have conflicting views on this. I think people have a right to be free, even by force, and I think people have an obligation to obey authority (including Britain before the Revolutionary war). But, I've become generally anti-war and think America did sin in declaring Independence. Britain wasn't especially tyrannical. But, I think there can come a point when a government becomes so tyrannical that it's right to lift up arms, overthrow and behead the tyrant.

I'm not saying Britain was like Hitler's Germany. It had it moments of sin, but not even close. I merely saying that imperialist movements are not in accordance with God's purpose for governments. God broke up the globalist movement at Babel and divided the people's of the earth by languages and lands. That is the context in which I read Romans 13.

I do believe in national sovereignty and taxes, customs, fear and honor to governments. But I don't believe God demands bowing to imperialist globalist movements. (at least at this point, as I'm thinking this through)

 

[Salty]

Britain didn't take over the US, so I don't see any analogy with the Nazis invading Poland.

I have conflicting views on this. I think people have a right to be free, even by force, and I think people have an obligation to obey authority (including Britain before the Revolutionary war). But, I've become generally anti-war and think America did sin in declaring Independence. Britain wasn't especially tyrannical. But, I think there can come a point when a government becomes so tyrannical that it's right to lift up arms, overthrow and behead the tyrant.

If you believed that the colonies sinned by rebelling against England - would you then say the the USA is still in sin?

 

[Shoostie]

If you believed that the colonies sinned by rebelling against England - would you then say the the USA is still in sin?

If declaring independence was a sin, it was just a sin of one generation. I feel not the slightest obligation to try to rejoin Britain.

 

[Salty]

If declaring independence was a sin, it was just a sin of one generation. I feel not the slightest obligation to try to rejoin Britain.

Thus that must have been the reason for the War of 1812???

So who was sinning in that war - the US or the UK?

 

[HankD]

Did America sin declaring independence from Britain?

No, it was a break from the tyranny of the British Crown.

 

[Salty]

Did America sin declaring independence from Britain?

No, it was a break from the tyranny of the British Crown.

Could the CSA say the same thing about the (North) USA?

and who determines what tyranny is and when tyranny begins

 

[Alcott]

Does Britain rightly belong to the Celts? or to the Iberians or others who may have been there before?
Does any land belong to any peoples?

 

[HankD]

Could the CSA say the same thing about the (North) USA?

the yankees freed the slaves, LINCOLN WAS RIGHT to fight for their freedom.

and who determines what tyranny is and when tyranny begins

First blood!

 

[Shoostie]

Did America sin declaring independence from Britain?

No, it was a break from the tyranny of the British Crown.

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

 

[HankD]

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

The Declaration of Independence: Full text

 

[agedman]

Did America sin declaring independence from Britain?

No, it was a break from the tyranny of the British Crown.

Could the CSA say the same thing about the (North) USA?

and who determines what tyranny is and when tyranny begins

the yankees freed the slaves, LINCOLN WAS RIGHT to fight for their freedom.

First blood!

It is assumed by many liberals that Lincoln was anti-slavery. He was not. He was anti-separation. Anti- slavery was a popular tool he used as a political advantage.

it is also assumed by many liberals that the Civil war was fought over slavery. Despite the popular media propaganda and liberal teachings, it was not. The war was specifically about state's rights.

The goal of the war was to establish who had final authority concerning the law of the land. Prior to the civil war, the states held the vast majority of power the the federal level was left with treaties, acquiring and keeping territory, and attempting to influence states, but no power to actually intervene in the laws of a state ( voting rights, citizenship, land owning, eminent domain...)

The North has no grandstand from which to proclaim righteous indignation toward the South. The North made no laws that supported the slaves and freedom, indeed, just the opposite. The North were the aggressors.

However, there are also great advantages from all wars.

When it comes to the American independence, had the British merely treated the colonies as true citizens rather than bad step children, there would have been no war. We would all be Canadians.

 

[Salty]

the yankees freed the slaves, LINCOLN WAS RIGHT to fight for their freedom.

First blood!

BUT - the War of Southern Independence was much more than that. In Fact, Lincoln was willing to end the war (without ending slavery) to preserve the union.
The famous Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the South - not the North.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

My interpretation is that Christian's and their government should adhere to their governing documents that all parties agreed to. When the government does not adhere to the governing documents or when government documents cause you to grieve the holy spirit then rebellion and resistance are necessary.

In Britains case they were not allowing us to have rightful representation in parliament breaking the ideas behind the magna carta.

In a modern sense today, we made an agreement with the government to adhere to the Constitution and its amendments. If our government breaks those governing documents then resistance is allowed.

I believe God does not like confusion. He likes justice and law. Therefore I don't believe we are supposed to follow any old government, but rather follow the government that the law (constitution) supplies.

 

[MB]

I believe the separation from England was over taxation.Now instead of double taxation we have so many different taxes it seems we all only work to support the nation. Not only this but they talk about there need for more taxes.
MB.

 

[church mouse guy]

The Brits were mean. They were jealous of our wealth. They sent savages to war against us. The Brits still don't have a Bill of Rights. Andrew Jackson whipped them real good at New Orleans in 1814.

 

[HankD]

BUT - the War of Southern Independence was much more than that. In Fact, Lincoln was willing to end the war (without ending slavery) to preserve the union.
The famous Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the South - not the North.

I choose to believe it was MOSTLY The War to Free the Slaves.

 

[Salty]

I believe the separation from England was over taxation.Now instead of double taxation we have so many different taxes it seems we all only work to support the nation. Not only this but they talk about there need for more taxes.
MB.

Actually that was # 14 on the list - lots of other things as well.