• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Did America sin declaring independance from Britain?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
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. ...

And that is the problem in the USA today - the Feds are usurping the COTUS. The First, Second and especially the 10th amendment are not
being adhered to.
 

Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
And that is the problem in the USA today - the Feds are usurping the COTUS. The First, Second and especially the 10th amendment are not
being adhered to.

I would concur and encourage every American to read the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence and mark how many of those apply to us today.

I run a small farm and the amount of grief I get from government agents for daring to run a small farm is insane.

The government once told me that since my business name contains the word "happy" I may need to change all my signage because the government cant prove that my livestock on pasture is "happy". Good grief!

Leave me alone and let me work the soil....sheesh.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Oh, Salty, most of the stuff in your link is old hat. Indiana used to be big on Lincoln. He lived as a boy in southern Indiana after being born in Kentucky, as you know. He was a very strong man from doing so much heavy labor in his childhood. When the civil war broke out, Indiana Governor Morton, a close friend of Abraham Lincoln, was able to borrow money from Lanier in Madison, Indiana, and rush soldiers and money to DC.

Once again America is a house divided against itself.
 

Steven Yeadon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I believe JMac is right and applies Romans 13 well.

This interview, while an hour long, is a great introduction to JMac's stances on politics.

 

Noah Hirsch

Active Member
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.

How authority is from God? All. Paul used as his reason for why we ought to be subject to the higher authorities that there is no authority except what is from God. He is very clear that this principle applies to all governments and authorities by both saying that “...there is no power but of God;” and that “...the powers that be are ordained of God.” (Romans 13:1 ASV) Paul in the original context was writing to Christians who lived in Rome. Many scholars suppose that the emperor was none other than Nero when Paul wrote Romans. Regardless who was emperor when Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans it is evident that he was not a just ruler. History makes this evident, yet Paul still tells them to be subject to the governing authorities.
 

Noah Hirsch

Active Member
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.

The Roman government under which the Christians Paul originally wrote to in Romans 13 was an unjust and tyrannical government. Regardless what Caesar was on the throne we know from history that he was not just.
 

Alcott

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I choose to believe it was MOSTLY The War to Free the Slaves.

That's highly questionable since Lincoln said if he could preserve the union without freeing a single slave he would do so.
As to the latter reason, consider the 10th Amendment to the constitution.
 

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
The founding fathers in the U.S. clearly violated scripture when they rebelled, raised an army and defeated the British for independence and self-government.

But, that's not unusual in Christian history. We often offer excuses for ignoring the scriptures we find inconvienent to our secular lives.

Peace to you.
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What was so tyrannical? More to the point, what was Britain doing to force Christians to violate their conscience?

I think at the very least we can admit they were practicing imperialism (globalism). Was that God's plan at Babel, for imperialist nations to reach across the globe and lay stake to lands and place them under central authority? I don't think so, which is why I believe declaring independence from an overseas government is fair game.
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That's highly questionable since Lincoln said if he could preserve the union without freeing a single slave he would do so.
As to the latter reason, consider the 10th Amendment to the constitution.
i'm not convinced.
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
How authority is from God? All. Paul used as his reason for why we ought to be subject to the higher authorities that there is no authority except what is from God. He is very clear that this principle applies to all governments and authorities by both saying that “...there is no power but of God;” and that “...the powers that be are ordained of God.” (Romans 13:1 ASV) Paul in the original context was writing to Christians who lived in Rome. Many scholars suppose that the emperor was none other than Nero when Paul wrote Romans. Regardless who was emperor when Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans it is evident that he was not a just ruler. History makes this evident, yet Paul still tells them to be subject to the governing authorities.

But in my defense, I never made the argument that America had the right to declare independence because Britain was unjust.
 

Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The war was about slavery. Period. It was the underlying reason for the rift in the union to begin with.

Was the Civil War About Slavery?


The civil war combat veteran buried in the cemetery on my family's land ontop of a ridge on the banks of the New River, whom never owned slaves, would be surprised to know that he wasn't fighting to defend his homeland from a yankee invasion, but rather was fighting and died to enslave black people.

The War between the states was fought for a myriad of reasons piled into large, dry pile of brush. Slavery was just the spark that fell on the brush pile, but slavery wasn't the brush pile itself.
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The civil war combat veteran buried in the cemetery on my family's land ontop of a ridge on the banks of the New River, whom never owned slaves, would be surprised to know that he wasn't fighting to defend his homeland from a yankee invasion, but rather was fighting and died to enslave black people....

This is exactly the question the video addresses. "It must not have been about slavery, because my ancestor wouldn't have fought for that!" The argument is illogical and totally debunked. It was about slavery. It's matter of record.

It's like saying that WWII wasn't about Hitler's aggression because my german ancestor wouldn't have fought for that. Sorry, it's a matter of record.
 

Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is exactly the question the video addresses. "It must not have been about slavery, because my ancestor wouldn't have fought for that!" The argument is illogical and totally debunked. It was about slavery. It's matter of record.

It's like saying that WWII wasn't about Hitler's aggression because my german ancestor wouldn't have fought for that. Sorry, it's a matter of record.

You're visiting a house of someone whose politics you don't like. While there somebody tries to break in and you join the person in fighting the intruder off together.

Does that mean that you suddenly support his politics? No. It means that at that moment, defending yourself was more important than arguing over a hill of beans.

So to boil the Civil War down to "For/against" slavery is not reflective of the complexities of either. The Civil War was caused by a combination of tyranny from the North over slavery, economic inequality in the U.S, defense of one's family once the North invaded our homeland, and more.

What you can say is the implementation of changes to slavery sparked the beginning of the war.

What you can't say is that the whole war was fought over slavery.

That would be like saying the Hatfields and mccoys were fighting over pigs. It's a lot more complex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top