fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
After the last thread, I am curious how many others share al Soto's perspective on the issue.
-
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!
The American Revolution: rebellion against God?
- Thread starter fromtheright
- Start date
Bro. James Reed
New Member
I guess I'm not a true Christian and will be going to hell because I feel that the founders were right. In fact, I would have fought with them in complete confidence that it was right. 
The Holy Bible is riddled with stories of peoples who fought oneanother over who was going to govern them and some at the direct command of God or through his appointed leaders. It seems these things were justified when they were for the greater good of mankind here on earth as opposed to individual personal gain or vengenance.
In our case, we fought to overcome tyranny and establish a nation with a republican democracy that would work for the benefit of the people rather than a small elite class of royalty. The record seems to show that there was much prayer to God Almighty for his blessings upon this new nation and that the founders clearly understood that all they did was subject to the final authority of Him.
We still need this same understanding and spirit today! In my opinion, we'd best find it again and restore it to the view of all least we loose the blessings of God we have enjoyed so long.
In our case, we fought to overcome tyranny and establish a nation with a republican democracy that would work for the benefit of the people rather than a small elite class of royalty. The record seems to show that there was much prayer to God Almighty for his blessings upon this new nation and that the founders clearly understood that all they did was subject to the final authority of Him.
We still need this same understanding and spirit today! In my opinion, we'd best find it again and restore it to the view of all least we loose the blessings of God we have enjoyed so long.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Bob,
Which side would you have fought for in the War of Northern Aggression?
Joseph Botwinick
Which side would you have fought for in the War of Northern Aggression?
Joseph Botwinick
D
DAVID P. BLACK
Guest
HEB 13:17 ;TITUS 3:1 TELL TRUE CHRISTAINS T
BEY THE MAGISTRATES ,THIS IS THE EXACT TERM USED BY MANY OF THE BRITISH OFFICALS AT THE TIME..THE SCRIPTURE TELLS CHRISTAINS IN 1 TIM 2:4 NOT TO ENTANGLETH OURSELVES WITH THE AFFAIRS OF THIS LIFE . 1COR 10:4 TELLS US THE WEAPONS OF OUR WARFARE ARE NOT CARNAL. JESUS TELLS CHRISTAINS THAT HIS KINGDOM (OUR) IS NOT OF THIS WORLD JOHN 18:36.. HEB 11:13 ; 1PETER 2 :11 TELLS USE ( CHRISTAINS )THAT WE ARE STRANGERS AND PILGRIMS IN THIS WORLD AND THAT WE ARE FELLOWCITIZENS AND HOME BOUND TO GLORY EPH 2:19 .THE BIBLE ALSO INFORMS USE THAT WE ARE AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST 11 COR 5:20 A "A REP " TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY ;MAKING CHRISTAINS NO MORE FOREIGNERS TO JESUS CHRIST AND HEAVEN EPH 2:19.. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE WE ARE SEATED IN HEAVENLY PLACES EPH 2:6 .THE BIBLE TELLS THE CHRISTAIN TO SET HIS EFFECTIONS ON THINGS ABOVE NOT THINGS ON EARTH (GOVERNMENTS, COUNTRYS, CARS, ANYTHING THAT WOULD DRAW OUR EMOTIONS ( LOVE )AWAY FROM CHRIST .. OUR BAPTIST HISTORY WILL SHOW ANY TRUE HEARTED READER THAT WORLDLY governments have never like true bible believing christains ..this world is not my home i justa passen through my treasurers are...ect. I hope that i have not offended ..bro david
BEY THE MAGISTRATES ,THIS IS THE EXACT TERM USED BY MANY OF THE BRITISH OFFICALS AT THE TIME..THE SCRIPTURE TELLS CHRISTAINS IN 1 TIM 2:4 NOT TO ENTANGLETH OURSELVES WITH THE AFFAIRS OF THIS LIFE . 1COR 10:4 TELLS US THE WEAPONS OF OUR WARFARE ARE NOT CARNAL. JESUS TELLS CHRISTAINS THAT HIS KINGDOM (OUR) IS NOT OF THIS WORLD JOHN 18:36.. HEB 11:13 ; 1PETER 2 :11 TELLS USE ( CHRISTAINS )THAT WE ARE STRANGERS AND PILGRIMS IN THIS WORLD AND THAT WE ARE FELLOWCITIZENS AND HOME BOUND TO GLORY EPH 2:19 .THE BIBLE ALSO INFORMS USE THAT WE ARE AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST 11 COR 5:20 A "A REP " TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY ;MAKING CHRISTAINS NO MORE FOREIGNERS TO JESUS CHRIST AND HEAVEN EPH 2:19.. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE WE ARE SEATED IN HEAVENLY PLACES EPH 2:6 .THE BIBLE TELLS THE CHRISTAIN TO SET HIS EFFECTIONS ON THINGS ABOVE NOT THINGS ON EARTH (GOVERNMENTS, COUNTRYS, CARS, ANYTHING THAT WOULD DRAW OUR EMOTIONS ( LOVE )AWAY FROM CHRIST .. OUR BAPTIST HISTORY WILL SHOW ANY TRUE HEARTED READER THAT WORLDLY governments have never like true bible believing christains ..this world is not my home i justa passen through my treasurers are...ect. I hope that i have not offended ..bro davidJoseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Dr. Bob,
Does this mean you would have fought for freedom of your native state from the Union, and yet you would have supported the King of England over those fighting for freedom from England? Does this make sense?
Joseph Botwinick
Does this mean you would have fought for freedom of your native state from the Union, and yet you would have supported the King of England over those fighting for freedom from England? Does this make sense?
Joseph Botwinick
D
DAVID P. BLACK
Guest
its strang that christains need to fight to be "free".. john 8 : 36-38 will tell you how to get true freedom .. and if one finds themselves in bondage in the flesh the scripture tells us in 1 cor 7:20-24 we are the Lord's freeman .. phil 4:11 tells us " what ever state we are in to be content ".. if we are servents ( slaves ) eph 6:5 obey your masters ; also 1 tim 6:1
It means I would have supported the legal and legitimate government that ruled over me. In the case of 1860, it would have been VIRGINIA, not Washington DC to which Virginia was only loosely associated.
Keep reminding yourself of the mindset of 1860, that loyalty and true government was LOCAL, in your state or region. NOT federal. That was just for a few things the states could not do for themselves.
Even raising and supporting an army was up to each state (in the North, too), as creeping Federalism was just gaining credance during the Civil War era. But by the end of the war . .
And note the revolutionaries of 1776 set up a confederacy that was OVERTHROWN by the evil Constitutional Convention when imperial Federalism was instated. That was not the purpose or aim of the rebellion against England.
I can not answer these questions. I have since learned that each step in history has been to bring about the antichrist system. The powers that be, have always staged events to bring about their hidden agenda.
Was the revolutionary war rebellion against God? Regardless, in the scheme of things it probably had to happen.
Was the revolutionary war rebellion against God? Regardless, in the scheme of things it probably had to happen.
D
DAVID P. BLACK
Guest
EVEN THIS COUNTRY WE LIVE IN TODAY WILL BE PART OF THE ONE WORLD SYSTEM .THE CHRISTAIN IS A PILGRIM IN A FOREIGNER COUNTRY CALLED THE WORLD. I HAVE NO KING BUT CHRIST ;I HAVE NO COUNTRY BUT NEW JERUSALEM.11 COR 4:18
Dr. Bob, I've always viewed the stands of the South and the 13 colonies as very similar. Self-defense against an invading force which was itself in violation of existing law. I'm surprised that you might lean Tory. I agree w/ Joseph, it doesn't seem to make sense.
D
DAVID P. BLACK
Guest
as you can tell by my posts i believe the scripture is aginst christains being entagled with issues of the world as much as they are able. but it baffels me how someof you guys can'tfollow the "good DR'S"LINE OF THINKING.THE 13( THE # OF REBELLION BY THE WAY )COLONYS HAD NO CONSTITUTION ,NO BILL OF RIGHTS ,AND BY THERE ODMISSION; JUST BEFORE THE REVOLUTION OPENLY ADDMITED THAT BRITAIN AND ITS KING WERE THERE SOVEREIGN ( IF YOUR A CALVINIST YOU SHOULD KNOW THE MEANING OF THIS WORD ). MY GREATgrandfather william witherspoon fought for the 7th tenn. calvory and he had six bro. that also served ,three of which were killed.. the colonys after the revolution organized themselves into governments ( plural ) no state being a cental power or controlling another ..80yrs later the north some how forgot this or did not care that no one ever gave them authority over the south our any other state/county.therefore the northern states invaded 13 (11)other republics /counties .so the "good DR'S" thinking is basicly right as far as i can see . to over throw the british gov. was rebelion (1 sam 15:23 = witchcraft ) and for worldly people God would not see the south as rebeling aginst the north and would more than likly see the north as a wicked reble aginst his neighbor . but that's the way the world is ....glad i'm no longer part of it..
It does not matter what people may have been thinking or how they viewed state vs central, the fact was that they were under one central government. 80 years was plenty of time to figure out that they were under the authority of one central government.
And please Dr. support how the consititutional convention was evil and not the declration of independance.
al
PS. My position is the convenation was not and the declration was...just in case someone is wondering.
Good question. The constitutional convention was designed to "tweak" some of the problems of the Articles of Confederation that had served to unite (limited) the Sovereign States during the revolution and subsequent times.
The convention was "hijacked" by Federalists who saw this as an opportunity to subvert the victory of the revolution with a new, powerful central government.
Even at this, however, they were not entirely successful. While they did pass an entirely NEW constitution, radically different from the confederation articles, they had to surrender MOST of the power BACK to the sovereign states.
The Constitution was not adopted unless amendments were certified - and the 10th stated that ANY RIGHT, POWER, etc NOT CLEARLY DELINEATED FOR A CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVT is shifted back to the sovereign states.
Ultimately, the States should have retained 95% of the power, and only loosely federated for "general welfare, common defence, etc" (according to the Constitution). By 1860 this was a farce.
Federal power only increased and sectionalism (north and west v old south) saw the tyranny of the majority over the weaker states. Thankfully some patriots, like their forbears, had the courage to stand up for the rightful government of the state over the dictatorship of Federalism.
Sadly, Lincoln and the new party (Republican) stood for the Federal tyranny, as evil as George III had been 80 years before.
More to come.
The convention was "hijacked" by Federalists who saw this as an opportunity to subvert the victory of the revolution with a new, powerful central government.
Even at this, however, they were not entirely successful. While they did pass an entirely NEW constitution, radically different from the confederation articles, they had to surrender MOST of the power BACK to the sovereign states.
The Constitution was not adopted unless amendments were certified - and the 10th stated that ANY RIGHT, POWER, etc NOT CLEARLY DELINEATED FOR A CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVT is shifted back to the sovereign states.
Ultimately, the States should have retained 95% of the power, and only loosely federated for "general welfare, common defence, etc" (according to the Constitution). By 1860 this was a farce.
Federal power only increased and sectionalism (north and west v old south) saw the tyranny of the majority over the weaker states. Thankfully some patriots, like their forbears, had the courage to stand up for the rightful government of the state over the dictatorship of Federalism.
Sadly, Lincoln and the new party (Republican) stood for the Federal tyranny, as evil as George III had been 80 years before.
More to come.
All you have to do is view the most potent results of the War of Northern Agression.
It did not fulfill the stated purposes regarding the slaves, as the civil rights movement of the 60's and onward clearly indicates
It did succeed in the the less clearly deliniated, but much more devious goals. Federalization of Government, and the removal of fiscal power from the states. Personal federal income taxes being the most lethal blow to the carefully crafted work of the founding fathers to restrict the power of the Federal government.
It is a battle that clearly was ongoing from the earliest times in our country, with power hungry federalists taking every opportunity to trample on the principles that birthed the revolution in the first place. Its actually rather amazing that it took until the 1860s for the trashing of our countries founding principles.
It did not fulfill the stated purposes regarding the slaves, as the civil rights movement of the 60's and onward clearly indicates
It did succeed in the the less clearly deliniated, but much more devious goals. Federalization of Government, and the removal of fiscal power from the states. Personal federal income taxes being the most lethal blow to the carefully crafted work of the founding fathers to restrict the power of the Federal government.
It is a battle that clearly was ongoing from the earliest times in our country, with power hungry federalists taking every opportunity to trample on the principles that birthed the revolution in the first place. Its actually rather amazing that it took until the 1860s for the trashing of our countries founding principles.
Is distillilng your own whisky a rebellion against federalism and thus rebellion against God? This question does apply to the topic at hand because that issue very quickly became a wedge in imposing federal authority by G.Washington and A.Hamilton. Farmers in the "west" [approaching Appalachia at that time] could grow far more grain than there was a market for, so they began grinding and distilling to make and sell a product for which there was a market. But the eastern businessmen made no profit from this enterprise, and the individual states had paid no regard to it, so they now called on the feds under the new Constitution to heavily tax and greatly limit the scope of the farmers' enterprise.
To this day bootlegging continues, where farmers are forbidden to produce and sell a product from their own labor which is in demand. If they got a license (federal) to manufacture hard liquor, and followed all the requirements, it would not be profitable. By current law it is even illegal to distill your own liquor for private use and even to own a still without a permit.
Was this-- or is this-- what they have called "class legislation?" And is it rebellion against God, and if so, were "sit ins", where blacks illegally entered white businesses, also such a rebellion against legitimate authority, and thus against God?
To this day bootlegging continues, where farmers are forbidden to produce and sell a product from their own labor which is in demand. If they got a license (federal) to manufacture hard liquor, and followed all the requirements, it would not be profitable. By current law it is even illegal to distill your own liquor for private use and even to own a still without a permit.
Was this-- or is this-- what they have called "class legislation?" And is it rebellion against God, and if so, were "sit ins", where blacks illegally entered white businesses, also such a rebellion against legitimate authority, and thus against God?
Conservative Christian
New Member
Was the American Revolution a Biblically Justified Act?
by David Barton
"Some today contend that the American Revolution represented a complete violation of basic Biblical principles and embodied rebellion or a spirit of anarchy. They argue from Romans 13 that since government is of God, then all government decrees are to be obeyed as proceeding from God. Yet, this is only one of two theological interpretations of Romans 13 — interpretations representing a debate that has existed among American Christians for centuries.
On one side was the belief that when government speaks, God requires us to obey. Interestingly, it was this same theological position that resulted in the “Divine Right of Kings” philosophy which reasoned that since the King was Divinely chosen by God, God therefore expected all citizens to obey the King in all circumstances; anything less, they reasoned, was rebellion against God. Historically, this position was supported primarily and almost exclusively by the Quakers.
The other interpretation of Romans 13 was set out forcefully in a theological work first printed in 1579 by Frenchman Philippe du Plessis Mornay. Written originally in Latin, it was titled Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, but was later reprinted in English as “A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants” under the pen name “Junius Brutus.” This treatise took the position that government being ordained of God was referring to the general institution of government rather than to each and every distinct government.
That is, the institution of government was ordained by God, but that did not mean that God approved of every specific government. God ordained government in lieu of anarchy — He opposes anarchy, He opposes rebelliousness and lawlessness, and He opposes wickedness. Yet, there are clearly have been governments in recent years that promote anarchy, rebellion, and wickedness (e.g. Ghadaffi in Libya, Hussein in Iraq, Bin Laden in Afghanistan, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Idi Amin in Uganda, etc.). Has God endorsed those specific governments that promote that which He hates? If so, He has contradicted His nature and is commanding submission and support to the very things that He hates — such is not possible."
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=40
by David Barton
"Some today contend that the American Revolution represented a complete violation of basic Biblical principles and embodied rebellion or a spirit of anarchy. They argue from Romans 13 that since government is of God, then all government decrees are to be obeyed as proceeding from God. Yet, this is only one of two theological interpretations of Romans 13 — interpretations representing a debate that has existed among American Christians for centuries.
On one side was the belief that when government speaks, God requires us to obey. Interestingly, it was this same theological position that resulted in the “Divine Right of Kings” philosophy which reasoned that since the King was Divinely chosen by God, God therefore expected all citizens to obey the King in all circumstances; anything less, they reasoned, was rebellion against God. Historically, this position was supported primarily and almost exclusively by the Quakers.
The other interpretation of Romans 13 was set out forcefully in a theological work first printed in 1579 by Frenchman Philippe du Plessis Mornay. Written originally in Latin, it was titled Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, but was later reprinted in English as “A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants” under the pen name “Junius Brutus.” This treatise took the position that government being ordained of God was referring to the general institution of government rather than to each and every distinct government.
That is, the institution of government was ordained by God, but that did not mean that God approved of every specific government. God ordained government in lieu of anarchy — He opposes anarchy, He opposes rebelliousness and lawlessness, and He opposes wickedness. Yet, there are clearly have been governments in recent years that promote anarchy, rebellion, and wickedness (e.g. Ghadaffi in Libya, Hussein in Iraq, Bin Laden in Afghanistan, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Idi Amin in Uganda, etc.). Has God endorsed those specific governments that promote that which He hates? If so, He has contradicted His nature and is commanding submission and support to the very things that He hates — such is not possible."
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=40