Shouldn't all Evangelicals want Christian Nationalism?

[ViaCrucis]

So the Christian Prince is no different from the Non-Christian prince?

Does what St. Paul writes in Romans 13:1-7 apply only to Christian princes?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you a for the USA as a concept then how can you detach yourself from it's violent and bloody beginning?

It's easy to do: apply a little Critical Thinking to those aspects of one's own national history (or ideology) that are philosophy questionable. I can question any past event or ideology in the entire World if I so please, such as the Communist Revolution in Russia or China, or the French Revolution, and I can also question the American Revolution, as well as Britain's "Glorious Revolution."

Try it some time. I don't think anyone has to have a degree in Philosophy to do so... although it does help.

It's hardly a non-sequitur, instead you're trying to create an exception for your preferred political domain and deny others the right to determine their destiny.

You're confused about this. And no, I'm not "denying" anyone the "right" to determine their destiny. For you to insist that I am is a false inference. Again, a good book on Logic would do you well.

Except it was the founders of the USA who were the aggressors against the established political authority in the 13 colonies. Much in the same way if any state were to secede from the USA today it would be considered an act of aggression. You're reinterpreting the history in order to justify your country when it is not warranted. You either support violent revolution which established your country or you don't. Carving out political exceptions is unconvincing.

I didn't say that the American Revolution was "ok." You're misinterpreting what I said above, and you're jumping to this additional false inference even after I already spelled out that I don't approve of revolutionary ideals. Do you see the disconnect in your accusation here? Do you need for me to suggest some good books for you to read and by which you can reassess your current understanding of the history of U.S. and colonial politics?

But you support the USA.

Right. Exactly! I ................... support.........................the U.S.A.........................which in my view of the world MEANS: I....................support................the lives and significance of other, peaceable, fellow U.S. citizens.

Would you have supported the King of the Founders of your country at the time of the revolution?

No. I would take the side some of the colonists did in saying that they thought the colonies shouldn't go to war against Britain (unless attacked). I think we all know a trade tax is a poor reason by which to go to war.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Does what St. Paul writes in Romans 13:1-7 apply only to Christian princes?

-CryptoLutheran

Nope, it applies to all princes but beneath this Idea of yours is the hidden assumption that all worldly power is equal and should operate along the same basic lines regardless of belief system. My question is asking if there is anything which separates the Christian prince from the Non-Christian prince. Should the two be indistinguishable or should there be something expected of the Christian prince that is not expected of the Non-Christian prince?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's easy to do: apply a little Critical Thinking to those aspects of one's own national history (or ideology) that are philosophy questionable. I can question any past event or ideology in the entire World if I so please, such as the Communist Revolution in Russia or China, or the French Revolution, and I an also question the American Revolution, as well as to Britain's "Glorious Revolution."

Let's just deal with the American revolution since you seem to be in favour of it having had happened.

You're confused about this. And no, I'm not "denying" anyone the "right" to determine their destiny. For you to insist that I am is a false inference. Again, a good book on Logic would do you well.

Did you not speak out against violent revolution? Are not violent revolutions carried out in order for people to determine their own destiny? At least in their self appraisal? Is this not why the founders of the US violently rebelled against Britain?

I didn't say that the American Revolution was "ok." You're misinterpreting what I said above, and you're jumping to this additional false inference even after I already spelled out that I don't approve of revolutionary ideals. Do you see the disconnect in your accusation here? Do you need for me to suggest some good books for you to read and by which you can reassess your current understanding of the history of U.S. and colonial politics?

Oh, so you dissaprove of the US revolution? Interesting but it's consistent with your previous statement.

Right. Exactly! I ................... support.........................the U.S.A.........................which in my view of the world MEANS: I....................support................the lives and significance of other, peaceable, fellow U.S. citizens.

I mean most US residents aren't peaceful in that they support foreign wars and adventurism.

No. I would take the side that some of the colonists did that they shouldn't go to war against Britain unless attacked. I think we all know a trade tax is a poor reason by which to go to war.

Interesting. Now we can get to the actual topic. Would you say that since violent revolution is unacceptable in your Christian view, that Christians must always submit to the force which seeks to dominate them and never resist or fight back? Are Christians to be pacifists in your perspective?

 

[AgapeBible]

Christian nationalism is the same as Christian taliban. You can't force people to be Christians, and you can't force people to be good. Different Christians, different churches, have different points of view about the gospel, the Bible, Christian faith and what's right or wrong. Christian nationalism will have an extreme charismatic right wing fundamentalist evangelical view of Christian faith, different from Catholics and other less extreme protestants.

"Christian nationalism will not be Christian at all, it will have the trappings and outer appearance of Christian, but deep inside hidden will be the spirit of Satan. A cruel, oppressive tyrannical government with no freedom or rights, forcing everybody to believe a certain way, that does not have the love and mercy of Christ.cannot lead its people to Christ. Jesus never forced his will on anyone, he preached, he healed, he warned, but he never forced anyone to listen to him. These Christian nationalists, are like the hypocrites and pharisees who had Jesus crucified.

Read the Bible. Read history. In the middle ages the Roman Catholic church had power of Europe and the British Isles because reading the Bible was forbidden. There were very few people who could read, they had parts of the Bible, Psalms Proverbs, Gospels, and books of prayer, but not a whole Bible. Then they had a law that only priests could read the Bible. Protestant Christian leaders made illegal copies of the Bible during the Renaissance and spread them around to anyone who could read.


So if we did have religious Christian laws in the USA, what would be the punishment? For doctors and women having abortions, would they be put to death? Or maybe sent to prison for awhile? What about freedom of speech? Would we punish people for saying a cuss word every time they stub their toe in corner. How about when you drop something? What about nonchristians who swear and take the Lord's name is vain constantly? Pierce their tongue? cut out their tongue? pierce the lips? Beat, whip them, burn their hand? These cruel sadistic punishments have actually been used in medieval times and by puritans and Spanish inquisition. In protestant Elizabethan England a lot of cruel torture practices were used,, the time of King James and Oliver Cromwell, cruel torturous punishments for minor infractions have been used throughout history. Would we simply jail people or publicly whip, beat them, maybe ut people in the electric chair or hang them?


I suggest you watch or read the Handmaid's Tale.. That's the kind of Christian Nationalism Trump wants.

 

[eleos1954]

It doesn't have to be forced. You can believe what you want as long as you don't publicly blaspheme. You would be told to keep it to yourselves or move to a non-Christian society.



More accurate to say that modern technology is one of the greatest mass distractions away from the Gospel. Internet search statistics reflect this.

It doesn't have to be forced. You can believe what you want as long as you don't publicly blaspheme. You would be told to keep it to yourselves or move to a non-Christian society.

Who enforces this? Told by who? Who defines whether a society is christian or not?

People make choices how they use the internet ... for good or evil.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's just deal with the American revolution since you seem to be in favour of it having had happened.

No. I never let others arbitrarily call the shots on 'HOW' I'm going to assess their attempt to justify acts of revolution. I wouldn't be a very good philosopher if I did that, now would I?

But yet again, I disapprove of the American revolution, as did some earlier American colonists. I might even disapprove of it on additional grounds to those they did, and I'm free to do so and it should be seen, I think as the rational expectation.

Did you not speak out against violent revolution?

Yes, I did. It's not acceptable to me.

Are not violent revolutions carried out in order for people to determine their own destiny?

They are, but then again, there's a lot of ambiguity tied up in the generic concept of what it is to "determine" one's own "destiny." There are all sorts of Ethical and Metaphysical positions on this idea and various associated concepts like: autonomy, liberation, independence, and self-determination.

At least in their self appraisal?

That's what the Nazis would have asked, isn't it?

Is this not why the founders of the US violently rebelled against Britain?

Oh, so you dissaprove of the US revolution? Interesting but it's consistent with your previous statement.

Right. I disapprove. And I will continue to do so.

I mean most US residents aren't peaceful in that they support foreign wars and adventurism.

I can't be responsible for the failures of my fellow citizens. I would hope they keep their sensibilities about either the Christian Faith (preferably), or at the very least, their supposed fondness for Human Rights that goes beyond mere lip-service.

Interesting. Now we can get to the actual topic. Would you say that since violent revolution is unacceptable in your Christian view, that Christians must always submit to the force which seeks to dominate them and never resist or fight back?

Generally, yes. Isn't this what Jesus called us to? Isn't this also the reason we don't really see any armed uprising among Christians for the first 250 years of the Christian faith, until after Constantine came along?

As for "resisting,"................... well, no one ever said you had to stay quiet. Even turning the other cheek doesn't mean a Christian will retreat rather than standing steadfast and speaking what might need to be said to one's attacker.

Are Christians to be pacifists in your perspective?

Not archetypically so, but generally yes on a day to day civilian level. If Christians feel called to "serve and protect" at a government level, then I think they can, as I've said earlier, become keepers of the peace or join the military, or run for office.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No. I never let others arbitrarily call the shots on 'HOW' I'm going to assess their attempt to justify acts of revolution. I wouldn't be a very good philosopher if I did that, now would I?

Can you tell me why the American Revolutionaries were wrong to rebel against the crown in your estimation?

That's what the Nazi's would have asked, isn't it?

It's what all people who seek political power away from the power of others ask themselves. What grounds do they have to wage war. Hitler thought it an imperative to strengthen Germany on the European stage given it's broken state at the time he took power. I wouldn't say he was wrong geostrategic ally to want a stronger Germany especially since he was trapped between two hostile powers, Allies and the Soviet Union.

I can't be responsible for the failures of my fellow citizens. I would hope they keep their sensibilities about either the Christian Faith (preferably), or at the very least, their supposed fondness for Human Rights that go beyond mere lip-service.

I merely seek to correct the record that your fellow Americans are peaceable. It does not seem to me, based on how your country acts, that Americans as a whole prefer peace. What they prefer above everything is power and hegemonic dominance.

Generally, yes. Isn't this what Jesus called us to? Isn't this also the reason we don't really see any armed uprising among Christians for the first 250 years of the Christian faith, until after Constantine came along?

I would suggest the reason why you don't see said uprisings is because Christians didn't have access to political power for that first 250 years. Once Christians did have access to political power and the community of the faithful was represented by political polities you necessarily see the use of arms against others, either offensively or in defense. Those Christians prior to Constantine didn't seem to have much ethical qualms with the Emperor becoming Christian and favouring the Church, enacting laws which outlawed Pagan practices and building churches. It seemed to come along quite naturally and those who wanted no part in said system acted consistently in abandoning the world via monasticism.

So it's not as if Christians radically changed, rather their circumstances changed and all the previous assumptions of Christianity were carried through to the Roman system which was changed and influenced by Christianity.

As for "resisting,"................... well, no one ever said you had to stay quiet. Even turning the other cheek doesn't mean a Christian will retreat rather than standing steadfast and speaking what might need to be said to one's attacker.

Can we prevent via the use of force an attacker? Or can we only speak to them?

Not archetypically, so, but generally yes on a day to day civilian level. If Christians feel called to "serve and protect" at a government level, then I think they can, as I've said earlier, become keepers of the peace or join the military.

Why are people allowed to join military organizations as Christians in your view? These military organizations will commit great violence and death.

 

[ralliann]

Natural law relys on man's nature. We know man's nature is against the Spirit of God. Your analysis is in biblical error. This is why CN fourishes. The flesh is weak.

That is the nature of sin, of the flesh. Natural law knows good from evil toward our fellow.

The sin nature our flesh chooses to do that which is not good anyway. in Judaism called the evil inclination...

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This is speaking of revelation.........religious truth.....Not naturally known good from evil...
Natural law of the mind vs his members.

Rom. 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. {in them: or, to them }
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: {so … : or, that they may be }
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 ¶ For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. {allow: Gr. know }
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

 

[lismore]

Hello! I'm wondering how the concept of a Christian Nation squares with this scripture:

Matthew 7: 13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it".

God Bless

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Hello! I'm wondering how the concept of a Christian Nation squares with this scripture:

Matthew 7: 13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it".

God Bless

The salvation of Christians is a different topic to the political ordering of Christians lives. The Christian Nationalists understand that not everyone can be saved and that isn't the purpose in seeking a political polity which is Christian.

Rather, they believe Christians can govern themselves by using Christian principles and this is their right as political animals part of society.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can you tell me why the American Revolutionaries were wrong to rebel against the crown in your estimation?

From my perspective, the New Testament writings command us to seek peace with all other people and to pray for the welfare of our leaders, and to leave any arrangements for deposing up to the Lord.

Secondly, in view of what I said earlier, not every American Colonist living just prior to the Revolution agreed with the goal of going to war with Britain for the sake of "Independence" (a word and concept not really found in the Bible, by the way). Here's a nice, brief article from the Museum of the American Revolution website that offers a few of the details I was alluding to. Being that I'm not a fan of Thomas Paine, I'll let you figure out one of the additional reasons why I don't dig the 'revolutionary' position:

​

Season of Independence Big Idea 5: Opposition to Independence

Not every colonist supported independence from Great Britain. Read about which colonists did not support independence and how they resisted.

www.amrevmuseum.org

It's what all people who seek political power away from the power of others ask themselves. What grounds do they have to wage war. Hitler thought it an imperative to strengthen Germany on the European stage given it's broken state at the time he took power. I wouldn't say he was wrong geostrategic ally to want a stronger Germany especially since he was trapped between two hostile powers, Allies and the Soviet Union.

I would say Hitler and his entourage were wrong. But that's a discussion for another time and one I really don't care about getting into here. So, I won't.

I merely seek to correct the record that your fellow Americans are peaceable. It does not seem to me, based on how your country acts, that Americans as a whole prefer peace. What they prefer above everything is power and hegemonic dominance.

I didn't say that all of my fellow Americans are peaceable, did I? So, if I didn't, then there's nothing to seek here in this regard, Ignatius. But you're correct, a number of Americans, like in many countries, think that gaining power and hegemonic dominance is something they "should do." I don't, however. To me, gaining an office is for the purpose of administration to benefit the communities in which we live. Unfortunately, there are those who think a government office is rather an opportunity by which to press (or deplatform) the opposition.

I would suggest the reason why you don't see said uprisings is because Christians didn't have access to political power for that first 250 years. Once Christians did have access to political power and the community of the faithful was represented by political polities you necessarily see the use of arms against others, either offensively or in defense. Those Christians prior to Constantine didn't seem to have much ethical qualms with the Emperor becoming Christian and favouring the Church, enacting laws which outlawed Pagan practices and building churches. It seemed to come along quite naturally and those who wanted no part in said system acted consistently in abandoning the world via monasticism.

There's so much missing in this all too brief analysis, as contingent as it is upon a small scope of time just before the arrival of Constantine.

You might want to see what Jesus had to say about 'power politics,' especially those pertaining to the reliance upon the sword. Then follow that up with what the Apostles and other New Testament writers said; add to this the things said about peace from the likes of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenogoras, Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen.

What's more, I don't see the likes of Cyril of Alexandria as a "blessing" whether within the Church or outside of It. His complicity in the death of Hypatia is a case in point:

The Killing of Hypatia | Soraya Field Fiorio

A fight over all things visible and invisible, featuring practical magic, empire, and terrible men.

www.laphamsquarterly.org

So it's not as if Christians radically changed, rather their circumstances changed and all the previous assumptions of Christianity were carried through to the Roman system which was changed and influenced by Christianity.

Sure. And there may be a Godsend in the arrival of Constantine. But even IF that was the case, it doesn't displace the priority for being peaceable.

Can we prevent via the use of force an attacker? Or can we only speak to them?

Well.....................it's like this: if anyone threatens my family by entering my house, they will wish they hadn't. 'Nuff said --- since in that very specific case, I'm going to lean on the side of interpreting "love protects" as doing just that by removing the invader.

Why are people allowed to join military organizations as Christians in your view? These military organizations will commit great violence and death.

Because joining the military is a part of the Government's right to bear the sword and Christians are not precluded from that service by Jesus. Think of the Centurion who came to Jesus for the healing of one of his servants. Jesus didn't tell him, "Oh, .... by the way, as soon as you can, quit your current occupation."

 

[lismore]

The salvation of Christians is a different topic to the political ordering of Christians lives. The Christian Nationalists understand that not everyone can be saved and that isn't the purpose in seeking a political polity which is Christian.

Hello Ignatius. Thanks for your reply. It might be difficult though to produce a genuine Christian polity when as the Lord clearly said only a few are on the true path. God Bless You

 

[Maria Billingsley]

That is the nature of sin, of the flesh. Natural law knows good from evil toward our fellow.

The sin nature our flesh chooses to do that which is not good anyway. in Judaism called the evil inclination...

This is speaking of revelation.........religious truth.....Not naturally known good from evil...
Natural law of the mind vs his members.

Rom. 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. {in them: or, to them }
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: {so … : or, that they may be }
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 ¶ For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. {allow: Gr. know }
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

You are complicating the simplicity of scripture. Thanks for engaging.

 

[ralliann]

You are complicating the simplicity of scripture. Thanks for engaging.

No, it has historically been a doctrine, and is found in scripture all over. Even in the time of Abraham, isaac and Jacob with foreign kings...
Moses father in law advised Moses how to set up a justice system...
Do you actually think people that commit crimes against people don't know it is wrong? Come on.
Steal from a thief, he isn't going to like it. Kill a murderer, he is not going to like it.

 

[lifepsyop]

To whom did Christ give the Keys of the Kingdom, to the Church or to the State?

Were there some special rules against a nation-state officially recognizing Jesus as Lord? It seems like the apostles would have rejoiced at this.

As I'm not an "Evangelical", at least as popularly defined in America (however see here), I'm not part of the target audience of your thread since you are talking to a specific sub-group of American Protestants.

But as a Lutheran I believe in a clear distinction between State and Church, as taught in Holy Scripture and expressed in the Lutheran Confessions. It is not for the State to preach the Word, but for the Church. Christ gave the Keys to His Church, saying, "Whoever's sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whoever's sins you retain are retained." The exercising of this Holy and Sacred Office is exercised by those called and ordained by the Church--for only the Church has the authority to call and ordain her ministers--e.g. pastors. It is the role of the State to exercise the principles of fair and just governance, and--when necessary--bear the sword against wrongdoing; and the Christian is called, such as by the Holy Apostle in Romans 13:1-7, to honor such governance as the institution of God for the good ordering of society.

It is not magistrates who preach the Word and administer Christ's Holy Sacraments, but those called and ordained by the Church to exercise the Sacred Ministry instituted and ordained by Christ viz-a-viz Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18, and John 20:21-23.

-CryptoLutheran

The Protestant movement wouldn't have even been possible if not for the bedrock of the Gospel laid by a thousand years of Christendom and Christian kingdoms.

 

[lifepsyop]

Who enforces this? Told by who? Who defines whether a society is christian or not?

Who defined America in the first place? You would define it in your original framing documents. For example, instead of recognizing the deistic 'Nature's god' in the Declaration of Independence, you would instead recognize Lord Jesus Christ as King over the nation and put it down in writing.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Hello Ignatius. Thanks for your reply. It might be difficult though to produce a genuine Christian polity when as the Lord clearly said only a few are on the true path. God Bless You

Is a genuine Christian polity made up of only saved Christians?

 

[lismore]

Is a genuine Christian polity made up of only saved Christians?

I don't think there has ever been a genuine Christian polity and there won't be one until the Lord returns to rule and reign as King. Come Lord Jesus. God Bless You

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I don't think there has ever been a genuine Christian polity and there won't be one until the Lord returns to rule and reign as King. Come Lord Jesus. God Bless You

So how would you describe the various Kingdoms and states which were populated, administrated and governed by Christians over the last 1600 years or so? Were none of them authentically Christian? What were they then?