Different names for the War Between the States

Last post 08-01-2007 6:05 PM by Bahnsen8. 106 replies.
Page 3 of 8 (107 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 07-25-2007 7:55 PM In reply to

    Re: Different names for the War Between the States

    The Four Centuries:

    How about - The War of the Founding Father's Compromise. Surprise

    Randy

    What does that mean?
    Justin

    "Honor the charge they made,
    Honor the Light Brigade,
    Noble six hundred."
    • Post Points: 15
  • 07-25-2007 8:17 PM In reply to

    Re: Different names for the War Between the States

    WesleySonofCornelius:

    Bahnsen8:

    Wesley,

    In terms of the political philosophies involved, my answer to your question is a definitive "YES!"

    Were there evil men in the South? Of course. Did the Southern leaders make some bad decisions? Absolutely. But, Wesley, even an ant's whisker's worth of intellectual honesty and due diligence will convince anyone that the political philosophy and actions of the North were tyrannical and evil. In spite of the North's attempts to rewrite history, the facts are still available for the honest and diligent. Charles Adams, "When in the Course of Human Events" is a good starting place for the typical American fed a lifetime's diet of nasty Lincoln-lovin' fare.

    What were those political philosophies of the South (not philosophies of individuals in the South but the South as a whole) and show where as a whole the South stood for these philosophies? 

    It appears that you have some bitterness toward Lincoln.  Do you think your Confederate enthusiasm and Lincoln-bitterness prevent you from making a good unbiased history?

    Wesley, Begin with the book by Charles Adams: "When in the Course of Human Events". Also, read the preface to the biography of Stonewall Jackson by R. L. Dabney. In these two sources (only a tiny few of the vast historical resources available) you will discover both the political philosophies at play and the degree to which the two sides held to these views.

    In simplest of terms, Lincoln denied the doctrine of state sovereignty, and Northern leaders- with a wink, wink and a nudge, nudge- joined him; whereas, the leaders of the South believed firmly in the necessity of state sovereignty as the foundational bulwark against a consolidated government becoming a tyranny. But, at a practical level, these political philosophies ultimately came to war because of money. They had there fists up before Lincoln was inaugurated. They hopped around the ring, getting closer and closer as the tariff war heated up, and then ole Reb threw the first physical punch after Yankee Abe faked with a weak jab. Just read Adams' book.

    No amount of B8 typing can convince you, Wesley. You must seek the truth yourself.

    D*** right I'm bitter with Lincoln, as should any freedom-loving American. He is the single greatest killer of Americans in American history. My bitterness was birthed from the truth, Wesley. I am a recovering public school revisionist history graduate who used to love Lincoln.

    The existence of God is proven by the impossibility of the opposite. GB
    • Post Points: 35
  • 07-25-2007 10:20 PM In reply to

    Re: Different names for the War Between the States

    So much for you two agreeing...

    Nice to have the debating back though!

    Fluffy Cow
    • Post Points: 15
  • 07-25-2007 10:29 PM In reply to

    Re: Different names for the War Between the States

    I guess I do not understand the connection/love/preoccupation to this time period.  Maybe that is what I am lacking in the passion shown by many so far.  The United States has come through so much since that era.  The Industrial Revolution with Tesla, Edison, Westinghouse, Taylor; immigration of late 1800s; battles in the West; World War I; the Great Depression; World War II and the Atomic Age; the Cold War; Vietnam; Korean War; etc.  US policy has changed; foreign policy is always in flux; and the demographics of the USA has change dramatically since the 1850s.  The Supreme Court has established precedents and then changed them.

    Today we are living in a different USA.  States-rights have once again become an issue; this time in the definition of marriage.  Should Massachussetts suceed if the USA defines marriage between one man and one woman?  Recently, with the increase in federal government power, I have noticed a push from many citizens back to smaller government and more state power.  But this too could change in a year or two.

    My point is this, the United States is a world government.  It will fail one day.  I do not choose the side of the Union or the Confederacy.  The only thing that can delay the judgment of God is a Great Awakening.  This has nothing to do with state-rights versus federal government.  I am a Son of Liberty and I fight alongside the Commander of the Lord's Army (not Grant; not Lee).

    • Post Points: 35
  • 07-25-2007 10:37 PM In reply to

    Re: Different names for the War Between the States

    WesSoC-

    (Even an abbreviation for your name is long!)

    Nicely said.  We all see that the US is not really mentioned in end times... although Gog and Magog can be translated to George, from George... anyway, I'm all for history and understanding, but remember to keep the focus on God!

    Fluffy Cow
    • Post Points: 15
  • 07-26-2007 10:04 AM In reply to

    Re: Different names for the War Between the States

    "My point is this, the United States is a world government.  It will fail one day.  I do not choose the side of the Union or the Confederacy.  The only thing that can delay the judgment of God is a Great Awakening.  This has nothing to do with state-rights versus federal government.  I am a Son of Liberty and I fight alongside the Commander of the Lord's Army (not Grant; not Lee)."

    Wesley,

    I totally agree with the 4th sentence. This is a fact taught in Scriptures and demonstrated in Scriptures and history.

    Regarding the 1st and 2nd sentence, do you have a particular eschatological view that underlies these conclusions?

    Regarding the 3rd, 5th and 6th sentences, do you have a particular ethical view (ie, extent of application of God's Law) that underlies these statements?

    Obviously, the question is "What does the Bible teach regarding eschatology and ethics, or any other question for that matter."

    May I suggest that our underlying presuppositions will determine our passions.

     

    The existence of God is proven by the impossibility of the opposite. GB
    • Post Points: 35
  • 07-26-2007 3:28 PM In reply to

    Re: Different names for the War Between the States

    I've alread told ya'll what I think about the Civil War and end times.

    I also agree with WesleySonofCornelius about America - it is never mentioned in Revelations at all (one would at least think it would be described as the country from the wes or something of the sort). China will be there of course... 2 million foot soldiers!

    Randy

    777Architect777

    Submission is the key to heaven.

    • Post Points: 15
  • 07-26-2007 3:30 PM In reply to

    Re: Different names for the War Between the States

    Bahsen8 what is this? 
     
    "The existence of God is proven by the impossibility of the opposite. GB"
     
    who is GB? Gospel Bill?
     
    Randy
    777Architect777

    Submission is the key to heaven.

    • Post Points: 25
  • 07-26-2007 3:31 PM In reply to

    Re: Different names for the War Between the States

    Whoa! what happened above?

    Randy

    777Architect777

    Submission is the key to heaven.

    • Post Points: 15
  • 07-26-2007 3:47 PM In reply to

    Re: Different names for the War Between the States

    Bahnsen8:

    "My point is this, the United States is a world government.  It will fail one day.  I do not choose the side of the Union or the Confederacy.  The only thing that can delay the judgment of God is a Great Awakening.  This has nothing to do with state-rights versus federal government.  I am a Son of Liberty and I fight alongside the Commander of the Lord's Army (not Grant; not Lee)."

    Wesley,

    I totally agree with the 4th sentence. This is a fact taught in Scriptures and demonstrated in Scriptures and history.

    Regarding the 1st and 2nd sentence, do you have a particular eschatological view that underlies these conclusions?

    Regarding the 3rd, 5th and 6th sentences, do you have a particular ethical view (ie, extent of application of God's Law) that underlies these statements?

    Obviously, the question is "What does the Bible teach regarding eschatology and ethics, or any other question for that matter."

    May I suggest that our underlying presuppositions will determine our passions.

     

    I am not sure if I understand the connection between my eschatological views and the Civil War discussion.  Nevertheless, this is what I believe the Scripture teaches:  God's People will be persecuted in the end times.  Psalm 2:1-2 says, "Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?  The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One."  Jesus says, "Nations will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.  There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.  All these are the beginning of birth pains.  Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."  (Matthew 24:7-9)

    The church will be persecuted by all nations (USA included if it survives until then).  The word church, in my opinion, has been distorted in our minds over time.  Due to the Catholic Church, we almost always come with preconceived notions with the word.  Furthermore, the word church has its etymology with the Greek word kyrios ('of the lord' or 'belonging to the ruler')  In most translations we place the word church for the Greek word ekklesia.  However, ekklesia is brought into English in words like ecclesiastical (Greek ekklesiastikos: 'of the assembly').  Therefore, when Paul writes about the ekklesia, I believe he is talking about all believers, the elect, God's People, that is, God's Assembly.  Interestingly, the Septuagint uses ekklesia when refering to the assembing of Israel.

    I have heard some talking of replacement theology (I am not sure if I understand every concept of this); however, I believe the assembly built on the rock spoken about to Peter did not replace Israel but that God's People have been rebuilt as mentioned in Amos 9:11.  Interestingly, James quotes the passage in Amos concerning the fact that Gentiles can now be included into the Assembly (Acts 15).

    Therefore, God's People (the rebuilt Assembly) will be persecuted in the last days.  The persecuted will not be those clinging to the US but those clinging to God's Kingdom.

    Does this answer your question?  Now explain how that fits into the current discussion.

    • Post Points: 25
  • 07-26-2007 4:01 PM In reply to

    Re: Different names for the War Between the States

    The Four Centuries:
    Bahsen8 what is this? 
     
    "The existence of God is proven by the impossibility of the opposite. GB"
     
    who is GB? Gospel Bill?
     
    Randy
    I think it is Greg Bahnsen
    Justin

    "Honor the charge they made,
    Honor the Light Brigade,
    Noble six hundred."
    • Post Points: 15
  • 07-26-2007 4:39 PM In reply to

    Re: Different names for the War Between the States

    Wesley,

    Yes, I think I understand that you are of the dispensational pre-millenial school of eschatology (Please correct me if I am wrong. I hate it when people incorrectly label me.) with a particular emphasis on the idea that ALL nations will be against the church in the end. Thus, in your view, ultimately, all national governments will fail and will be used by satan to persecute the church. You believe that the world will continue to worsen until finally every single earthly authority will be under satan's immediate command (albeit for God's glory, ultimately). You believe that this decay of all authorities (except the church) into evil is inevitable because of your eschatological views. Now, let me quote you again from a prior post:

    "My point is this, the United States is a world government.  It will fail one day.  I do not choose the side of the Union or the Confederacy."

    From your perspective, the discussion of the War for Southern Independence is really not so important because you believe that all governments must eventually fail, including the U.S. So, why spend all this time looking into this if we cannot change the outcome anyways? Thus, your eschatological presuppositions determined your views on the War of Northern Aggression before you opened a single history book. This is true for all of us. Our presuppositions determine our conclusions.

    Now, I have the opposite view of the future. The end of Psalm 2 says:

    I will tell of the decree:
    The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
    today I have begotten you.
    Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
    and the ends of the earth your possession.
    You shall break them with a rod of iron
    and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.”

    10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
    be warned, O rulers of the earth.
    11 Serve the Lord with fear,
    and rejoice with trembling.
    12 Kiss the Son,
    lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
    for his wrath is quickly kindled.
    Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

    "The nations" shall belong to the Lord Jesus. And the pre-millennial idea that this will occur only after his earthly kingdom is established is lacking. What "nations" will there be after the supposed Armageddon? None. Furthermore, look at Psalm 110

    110:1 The Lord says to my Lord:
    “Sit at my right hand,
    until I make your enemies your footstool.”

    The Lord sends forth from Zion
    your mighty scepter.
    Rule in the midst of your enemies!
    Your people will offer themselves freely
    on the day of your power,
    in holy garments;
    from the womb of the morning,
    the dew of your youth will be yours.
    The Lord has sworn
    and will not change his mind,
    “You are a priest forever
    after the order of Melchizedek.”

    The Lord is at your right hand;
    he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.
    He will execute judgment among the nations,
    filling them with corpses;
    he will shatter chiefs
    over the wide earth.
    He will drink from the brook by the way;
    therefore he will lift up his head.

    Note the phrase "until I make your enemies your footstool." Jesus shall reign over His Kingdom from His throne in heaven until all his enemies are subdued, here on earth, in history. This will be accomplished via the preaching of the gospel (His "mighty scepter") by His church ("sends forth from Zion"). Thus, you see, Wesley, I believe that Genesis 1:28 will actually be accomplished in history by God's power working through His church via His Spirit and His Word. I do not believe that the fall will undo God's intitial command and plan for this earth. I believe the power and grace of Christ will perform God's initial plan and desire, despite satan, sin and this evil world. The Great Commission is just the restated command of Genesis 1:28 for a fallen world. "Lord, how can we be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and take dominion over it, now that it is so wicked and fallen and apparently hopeless??!!" Jesus answers this with His life, His death, His resurrection, His Great Commission and His glorious ascension and enthronement at the right Hand of God the Father.

    So, when I look back on the WNA, I see a great punishment of God on this nation (North and South) because of many disobediences, including the national sin of slavery. But, I also see a devastating loss in the progression of nations being subdued under the gospel. I believe we are to strive to bring not only our personal lives under the dominion of God's Word, but every area of life, be it church, civil, political, economic, etc.

    Clear as mud?

    The existence of God is proven by the impossibility of the opposite. GB
    • Post Points: 15
  • 07-26-2007 5:09 PM In reply to

    Re: Different names for the War Between the States

    Wow!  Your eschatological view is new to me.  As for what you labeled me, I am honestly not up on the labels.  However, I have read a few things about dispensation and do not think I fit that catagory.  Nevertheless, I believe you captured my view well in your first two paragraphs.

    So how do you invision the demographics of the earth at the end?  Why do all the nations of the earth mourn when they see the Son of Man appear in the clouds (Matthew 24:30)?  Why do we see Revelation ending with massive destruction?  Why does Jesus come as a theif in the night?  Do you see God's People as one established nation (like a perfect Christian Rome) in the end times?  Do you believe that the USA is the beginning of that Christian nation?

    Lots of questions.  Sorry.  Your belief is just strange to me.

    • Post Points: 25
  • 07-26-2007 5:10 PM In reply to

    Re: Different names for the War Between the States

    Another question: how does your view fit in with the general moral decay of the USA?

    • Post Points: 25
  • 07-26-2007 5:28 PM In reply to

    Re: Different names for the War Between the States

    I'm just going to keep calling it the War of Northern Aggression, if people don't understand me I'll say the War Between the States:)

    JBR
    "If God be for us, who can be against us?"


    • Post Points: 15
Page 3 of 8 (107 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »