-
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
- Thread starter No Deceit
- Start date
Fromtheright asked,
I believe what our forefathers had done was evil. I also believe one can be thankful for their present country regardless of how it came into being. I am thankful for the country I live in. Being critiical of ones country or leaders past or present actions should not be viewed as a hatred for ones country.
The flag? I have no problem with the flag and besides that I can not figure out how to put my own personal avatar in its place.
Romans 11:36
For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
and
Romans 9:
17For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."
21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil.
Matthew 10:41
He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
Matthew 13:43
Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
Matthew 23:35
that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
Matthew 25:46
And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
If you are not righteous then you will end up in hell.
In His love
al soto
Well, I will assume most of you did not read the article in detail, so I will clarify my position.
I believe what our forefathers had done was evil. I also believe one can be thankful for their present country regardless of how it came into being. I am thankful for the country I live in. Being critiical of ones country or leaders past or present actions should not be viewed as a hatred for ones country.
The flag? I have no problem with the flag and besides that I can not figure out how to put my own personal avatar in its place.
You gave no example of this so I will ignore it and take it as slander.
In my limited knowledge I was looking for a quick answer to see if anyone regreted their actions for thier part in the war. The point of the quote was to show that most players in the Revolution relished their role and never repented of their participation.
What's misleading about using Paine's argument? It is still used today.
All things are of God.
Romans 11:36
For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
and
Romans 9:
17For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."
21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
Job 1
1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil.
Matthew 10:41
He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
Matthew 13:43
Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
Matthew 23:35
that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
Matthew 25:46
And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
If you are not righteous then you will end up in hell.
In His love
al soto
Parliment agreed to tax the colonies. There was nothing against the law being done.
What tyranny are you refering to? Taxation without representation? That's not tryany. As long as the authority is not asking you to do something that goes against God we can obey the authority's command.
more later....
al
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
No Deceit,
Thank you for your response.
All things are of God.
Is abortion of God?
Is pornography of God?
Were Saddam's rape cells of God?
Were Hitler (since you said God put him there)'s gas chambers of God?
Is the Ku Klux Klan of God?
If this is your God, then there isn't much left for Satan to do, is there? Are these things of a holy God? I just gotta know, who teaches such a warped theology?
Your viewpoint implies that there are no rights. Is that what you are saying?
Parliment agreed to tax the colonies. There was nothing against the law being done.
With whom did Parliament agree? Itself?
What tyranny are you refering to? Taxation without representation? That's not tryany.
That was part of it. You might go back and look at the list of "abuses and usurpations" cited in the DoI as Major B quoted.
I believe what our forefathers had done was evil. I also believe one can be thankful for their present country regardless of how it came into being. I am thankful for the country I live in. Being critiical of ones country or leaders past or present actions should not be viewed as a hatred for ones country.
One can only conclude from the arguments with which you started this that ours is an illegitimate nation as it was founded in rebellion. Your argument more than implies that our founders or their descendants should have repented of the Revolution, surrendered to the mother country, and paid reparations for the cost of the war.
Thank you for your response.
Wrong. If you will look in the very sentence you quoted, you will see a colon after it. And you responded to the very examples you said I didn't give.
All things are of God.
Is abortion of God?
Is pornography of God?
Were Saddam's rape cells of God?
Were Hitler (since you said God put him there)'s gas chambers of God?
Is the Ku Klux Klan of God?
If this is your God, then there isn't much left for Satan to do, is there? Are these things of a holy God? I just gotta know, who teaches such a warped theology?
Your viewpoint implies that there are no rights. Is that what you are saying?
Parliment agreed to tax the colonies. There was nothing against the law being done.
With whom did Parliament agree? Itself?
What tyranny are you refering to? Taxation without representation? That's not tryany.
That was part of it. You might go back and look at the list of "abuses and usurpations" cited in the DoI as Major B quoted.
I believe what our forefathers had done was evil. I also believe one can be thankful for their present country regardless of how it came into being. I am thankful for the country I live in. Being critiical of ones country or leaders past or present actions should not be viewed as a hatred for ones country.
One can only conclude from the arguments with which you started this that ours is an illegitimate nation as it was founded in rebellion. Your argument more than implies that our founders or their descendants should have repented of the Revolution, surrendered to the mother country, and paid reparations for the cost of the war.
Let's talk about that British government, ND. In 1625, King Charles I succeeded his father James. The Stuart kings believed in the Divine Right of Kings, and did not like parliaments except as rubber stamps. The long and short of it is that the Parliament and King Charles ended up in a Civil War, and Charles ended up headless. Samuel Rutherford wrote a genius political tome called "Lex Rex, or the Law and the Prince," which posited that even the king is subject to the law.
King Charles II was invited back after it became apparent the English were not ready for a republic, and he behaved. His brother James II took over when he died without a legal heir, and his catholicism led to another revolution, the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights.
Our founders were merely doing what the Brits had themselves done, which is, to oppose executive tyranny and increase the cause of popular sovereignty.
King Charles II was invited back after it became apparent the English were not ready for a republic, and he behaved. His brother James II took over when he died without a legal heir, and his catholicism led to another revolution, the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights.
Our founders were merely doing what the Brits had themselves done, which is, to oppose executive tyranny and increase the cause of popular sovereignty.
Maybe, maybe not. Though we disagree on matters of interpretation, the Constitution works quite well as supreme law of the land. I don't think that was ever the issue. In general, persons in that day considered themselves loyal to their state first, then to their country. One would identify himself as a Virginian or Californian ahead of referring to oneself as an American, regardless of whether one sided with the South or North. Today, if I voiced the opinion that California should secede, I'd be told by most board members here that if I didn't love the US, I should leave it. I think the shift towards considering onself an American, then a statesman, was the result of the Civil War, not a cause of it. Just my $.02.
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
Johnv,
I think the shift towards considering onself an American
It was also an attitude that worked well enough for George Washington. I think I'm in pretty good company.
I think the shift towards considering onself an American
It was also an attitude that worked well enough for George Washington. I think I'm in pretty good company.
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
No Deceit,
It is clearly an inference from your argument, however, that because our nation was founded on rebellion that the nation is therefore illegitimate. Or, is political power, once usurped, legitimate? If so, your argument is a contradition in terms.
Paine argued that because we founded our nation on rebellion that it is illegitimate, the same Paine who helped to stir the rebellion? Do I misunderstand your point, or misunderstand Paine?
It is clearly an inference from your argument, however, that because our nation was founded on rebellion that the nation is therefore illegitimate. Or, is political power, once usurped, legitimate? If so, your argument is a contradition in terms.
"Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on the foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the kings, and the Christian world hath improved on the plan, by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!" [Common Sense, January 1776]
He correctly points out that Israel's desire for a king was wicked and wrong, but to go beyond and say that monarchy and its heirs are wicked as well is not what Scripture teaches. Tom Paine, failed to see (or kept hidden) that monarchy produced David, a man after God's own heart, and in that line of kings is our own king, the King of Kings, Jesus Christ, who will set up monarchy once more.
--------
This is was I stated in the article. I do not believe like Paine. Just because our country began with rebellion and sin, that in of itself does not make the present country evil. Just as Israel's desire for a king was evil, our forefathers desire not to be taxed was evil, and their rebellion toward England evil. Now that the country is here I am required to honor my government and honor its leaders.
Some here have pointed to man's law allowing for rebellion, which I am quite sure you are correct in pointing out (Jefferson for example extolled this as a virtue and nessesary from time to time) yet this is not true with God. God does not allow for rebellion against the authority, especially on the grounds given by the colonists. Romans 13 can not be any clearer.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. (Romans 13:1,2)
The only justification we have to disobey the authority is if we are asked to sin against God.
Fromtheright states in response to my point of denying any Tyranny,
For example here are a few "facts" given for tyranny:
"For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us, For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world, for imposing taxes on us without our consent, for depriving us, in many cases, of the benefit of trial by jury. . ."
Nothing here are natural, God given rights, that one should, if the authority refuses to honor, raise a rebellion for.
Let me clarify. What the colonists did was evil, rebellious, and sin. Those who teach otherwise are calling God a liar and risk bringing judgement upon themselves.
May God give you His truth.
In His love,
al soto
A True Church
He correctly points out that Israel's desire for a king was wicked and wrong, but to go beyond and say that monarchy and its heirs are wicked as well is not what Scripture teaches. Tom Paine, failed to see (or kept hidden) that monarchy produced David, a man after God's own heart, and in that line of kings is our own king, the King of Kings, Jesus Christ, who will set up monarchy once more.
--------
This is was I stated in the article. I do not believe like Paine. Just because our country began with rebellion and sin, that in of itself does not make the present country evil. Just as Israel's desire for a king was evil, our forefathers desire not to be taxed was evil, and their rebellion toward England evil. Now that the country is here I am required to honor my government and honor its leaders.
Some here have pointed to man's law allowing for rebellion, which I am quite sure you are correct in pointing out (Jefferson for example extolled this as a virtue and nessesary from time to time) yet this is not true with God. God does not allow for rebellion against the authority, especially on the grounds given by the colonists. Romans 13 can not be any clearer.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. (Romans 13:1,2)
The only justification we have to disobey the authority is if we are asked to sin against God.
Fromtheright states in response to my point of denying any Tyranny,
I reread the Declaration and there is nothing in it whatsoever that legitimizes rebellion against the authority.
For example here are a few "facts" given for tyranny:
"For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us, For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world, for imposing taxes on us without our consent, for depriving us, in many cases, of the benefit of trial by jury. . ."
Nothing here are natural, God given rights, that one should, if the authority refuses to honor, raise a rebellion for.
Let me clarify. What the colonists did was evil, rebellious, and sin. Those who teach otherwise are calling God a liar and risk bringing judgement upon themselves.
May God give you His truth.
In His love,
al soto
A True Church
Paul of Eugene
New Member
I heard somewhere that even God's people, the Jews, under Moses rebelled against their human authorities (the land of Egypt) and went out to form their own nation.
What a bunch of disobedient rebels THEY were.
What a bunch of disobedient rebels THEY were.
Georgia's (and we're talking former Soviet republic not US state here 
) 'Rose Revolution' of November 2003?
Yours in Christ
Matt
) 'Rose Revolution' of November 2003?Yours in Christ
Matt
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
No Deceit,
I reread the Declaration and there is nothing in it whatsoever that legitimizes rebellion against the authority.
The DoI's list of abuses was a list of where England/the King/Parliament violated the rights of Englishmen as granted in various charters and recognized since Magna Charta. The Revolution was in opposition to such violation and in vindication of those rights, many of which were recognized by some in Parliament such as William Pitt. The colonists were fighting evils perpetrated against them in violation of long-established rights. Were all of them Christians? Of course not. There are few things on this earth in which one will find perfection.
Tom Paine, failed to see (or kept hidden) that monarchy produced David, a man after God's own heart, and in that line of kings is our own king, the King of Kings, Jesus Christ, who will set up monarchy once more.
OK, No Deceit, yes or no, is monarchy of itself a holy form of government? Is a republic or democratic system of government therefore evil?
our forefathers desire not to be taxed was evil
Our forefathers' desire was not simply opposition to taxes but opposition to illegitimate taxation in contravention of long-established custom and law.
Let me clarify. What the colonists did was evil, rebellious, and sin. Those who teach otherwise are calling God a liar and risk bringing judgement upon themselves.
No, I'm simply calling you a liar, though I prefer to be charitable in seeing you as simply mistaken and deluded.
I'll assume you concede the point Paul.
Paul doesn't respond for two days and you call this a concession? How arrogant. Especially given your own apparent refusal to address several points raised by others, including Major B and myself and that you had a four day and then a seven day delay between posts. Waiting to post is not a concession; it is a prerogative. We need not justify our silence or delays to you, nor is either a concession.
I reread the Declaration and there is nothing in it whatsoever that legitimizes rebellion against the authority.
The DoI's list of abuses was a list of where England/the King/Parliament violated the rights of Englishmen as granted in various charters and recognized since Magna Charta. The Revolution was in opposition to such violation and in vindication of those rights, many of which were recognized by some in Parliament such as William Pitt. The colonists were fighting evils perpetrated against them in violation of long-established rights. Were all of them Christians? Of course not. There are few things on this earth in which one will find perfection.
Tom Paine, failed to see (or kept hidden) that monarchy produced David, a man after God's own heart, and in that line of kings is our own king, the King of Kings, Jesus Christ, who will set up monarchy once more.
OK, No Deceit, yes or no, is monarchy of itself a holy form of government? Is a republic or democratic system of government therefore evil?
our forefathers desire not to be taxed was evil
Our forefathers' desire was not simply opposition to taxes but opposition to illegitimate taxation in contravention of long-established custom and law.
Let me clarify. What the colonists did was evil, rebellious, and sin. Those who teach otherwise are calling God a liar and risk bringing judgement upon themselves.
No, I'm simply calling you a liar, though I prefer to be charitable in seeing you as simply mistaken and deluded.
I'll assume you concede the point Paul.
Paul doesn't respond for two days and you call this a concession? How arrogant. Especially given your own apparent refusal to address several points raised by others, including Major B and myself and that you had a four day and then a seven day delay between posts. Waiting to post is not a concession; it is a prerogative. We need not justify our silence or delays to you, nor is either a concession.
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
No Deceit,
Before I respond I would like to know how it is I lie or how I am deluded.
In teaching that what our Founding Fathers did was evil.
So it is clear to everyone, are you teaching that what our forefathers did was right and just before God?
Absolutely.
Before I respond I would like to know how it is I lie or how I am deluded.
In teaching that what our Founding Fathers did was evil.
So it is clear to everyone, are you teaching that what our forefathers did was right and just before God?
Absolutely.