https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipationI choose to believe it was MOSTLY The War to Free the Slaves.
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!
https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipationI choose to believe it was MOSTLY The War to Free the Slaves.
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.
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.
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 choose to believe it was MOSTLY The War to Free the Slaves.
I did research on the civil war as an undergraduate and believe differently.
What was so tyrannical? More to the point, what was Britain doing to force Christians to violate their conscience?
i'm not convinced.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.
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.
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.
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?
He didn't fight for their freedom.the yankees freed the slaves, LINCOLN WAS RIGHT to fight for their freedom.
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....
He didn't fight for their freedom.
And the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery.
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.