Shouldn't all Evangelicals want Christian Nationalism?

[Akita Suggagaki]

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.

But wouldn't you agree that we are also created in God's image and: "The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie: 'The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . "

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P6U.HTM

 

[Maria Billingsley]

But wouldn't you agree that we are also created in God's image and: "The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie: 'The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . "

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P6U.HTM

Your statement contradicts scripture.

Corinthians 2:14-16: The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Dignity being what exactly? What must be respected?

EDIT: I'm changing my question to something more simple.

Let's offer a hypothetical. You and I both exist within the same society. Those that enact and enforce laws have created a law, the law is this: Ignatius the Kiwi can punch ViaCrucis in the face at anytime.

Is this a good law?
Is there anything wrong with this law?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

EDIT: I'm changing my question to something more simple.

Let's offer a hypothetical. You and I both exist within the same society. Those that enact and enforce laws have created a law, the law is this: Ignatius the Kiwi can punch ViaCrucis in the face at anytime.

Is this a good law?
Is there anything wrong with this law?

-CryptoLutheran

Seems like it would be a pretty bad law as it is arbitrary and only exists to inflict harm on you and make you miserable.

 

[lifepsyop]

So should Christians abstain from marriage? Should we abandon Kin? Should we neglect our Mothers and Fathers? Should we refuse to attend Church because it is made up of flawed sinful people, most of whom aren't possibly saved?

I don't understand why political power is forbidden when everything else which is fleshly is allowed and permitted. Obviously all of these things are good, so why can't the civil power in the hands of Christians also be a tool for good?

it is strange. it's like the one socio-political issue that modern Christians get really impassioned about... and they suddenly turn into nuanced theologians arguing why Christians cannot have a Christian nation or kingdom.

all manner of perversion and degeneracy will saturate our society, and modern Christians will just shrug and say "the world is fallen, that's why we need to spread the gospel"

me: "Okay, how about a Christian nation then?"

them: "No no no! Important rules! Separation of civil sphere and church! Very important!"

They are suddenly all up in arms, ready to defend liberal secularism, like that is what's truly sacred. Very strange. Many such cases.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Your statement contradicts scripture.

Corinthians 2:14-16: The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.

I got one also.

Romans 2:14-15
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another

But you are the one of the reformers who rejects it.

Natural law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

You rejected logical thinking and have no response. If you disagree and want to have a logical/rational discussion, then by all means lets. But you seem to have a problem with hypothetical situations and scenarios. I am curious, how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast one morning? Are you capable of thinking about abstracts and hypotheticals?

I have no lack of ability to engage in vain reasonings, with hypothetical situations and scenarios. I am simply not interested in them regarding that which Christ the Lord has said, done, and discussed.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

You rejected logical thinking and have no response. If you disagree and want to have a logical/rational discussion, then by all means lets. But you seem to have a problem with hypothetical situations and scenarios. I am curious, how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast one morning? Are you capable of thinking about abstracts and hypotheticals?

I have no lack of ability to engage in vain reasonings, with hypothetical situations and scenarios. I am simply not interested in them regarding that which Christ the Lord has said, done, and discussed.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I got one also.

Romans 2:14-15
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another

But you are the one of the reformers who rejects it.

Natural law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

First off, I am not a Refomer ( Calvanist), quite against it as a matter of fact.

In response to the verse you presented, while Paul argues that Gentiles have an innate sense of morality, he also acknowledges that the "natural man" is corrupted by sin and will deviate from these moral principles. I agree that at one time the natural man worked in unison with God however, that was short lived. Adam and Eve fell into the lust of the flesh. This is my point, natural man is always against the Spirit because it is of the flesh and not of the Spirit. As Christians we go from the lust of the flesh to walking with His Holy Spirit daily because He has made His Home in us. Thanks for engaging!

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

First off, I am not a Refomer ( Calvanist), quite against it as a matter of fact.

In response to the verse you presented, while Paul argues that Gentiles have an innate sense of morality, he also acknowledges that the "natural man" is corrupted by sin and will deviate from these moral principles. I agree that at one time the natural man worked in unison with God however, that was short lived. Adam and Eve fell into the lust of the flesh. This is my point, natural man is always against the Spirit because it is of the flesh and not of the Spirit. As Christians we go from the lust of the flesh to walking with His Holy Spirit daily because He has made His Home in us. Thanks for engaging!

Well you got me thinking. I guess the traditional idea of Natural Law is that we all have a sense of right and wrong in our hearts. But sin distorts and clouds it. Martin Luther said we become bend in on ourselves and disoriented. We can no longer discern properly right form wrong and can do the most reprehensible things with a clear conscience. Actually think we are doing God's will.

And then there are sociopaths that have no conscience. I wonder how much of what seems our natural conscience is socially learned.
Our nature seems more associated with instincts. The primary instinct is self survival, so self centered.

So. I am not so sure about "Natural Law Theory" regardless of its long history. Look at the world. Definitely a fallen place. And yet during tragedy people come forward with such grace and altruistic kindness.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

it is strange. it's like the one socio-political issue that modern Christians get really impassioned about... and they suddenly turn into nuanced theologians arguing why Christians cannot have a Christian nation or kingdom.

all manner of perversion and degeneracy will saturate our society, and modern Christians will just shrug and say "the world is fallen, that's why we need to spread the gospel"

me: "Okay, how about a Christian nation then?"

them: "No no no! Important rules! Separation of civil sphere and church! Very important!"

They are suddenly all up in arms, ready to defend liberal secularism, like that is what's truly sacred. Very strange. Many such cases.

Pretty much all of us, if we went through a Western education as a child and teen, were brought up on these liberal assumptions. Christians in my opinion, have attempted to reconcile their Christianity with liberal modernity in order to be good citizens and not agitate too much within society. I remember having many of these liberal assumptions until I didn't and it was Christian history and critiques of liberal political theory which finally convinced me that power need not only be the domain of the secular and the worldly. That power as an aspect of life cannot be escaped and when Christians try to specially plead that we avoid power they end up not being consistent, either with past Christians who had no problem taking up the sword (power) or their own Christianity.

Public schooling basically forms the back bone of the modern Christian's thought on this since it is basically a liberal seminary inculcating certain assumptions which make people more loyal to the system as it currently stands. Democracy good, Monarchy bad. Liberalism and freedom of conscience good, restriction and limitation bad.

It will take generations to convince other Christians that the dominant liberal system is not the best for Christians and it's even worse since so many Christians (as evidenced here) have resigned themselves to retreat, to losing, to surrendering the public square to their enemies. They then justify this as good and what Jesus expects of us.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I have no lack of ability to engage in vain reasonings, with hypothetical situations and scenarios. I am simply not interested in them regarding that which Christ the Lord has said, done, and discussed.

Then you are not interested in the application of logic and thought. The hypothetical I gave is rather simple, a community of Christians somewhere which is not subject a non-Christian government structure. Is this community capable of self rule? Administering Justice? Settling disputes? Yes or no? If no, why no? If Yes, then your conclusion that Christians must not have power must translate to Christians not having community as well since communities regulate through power ultimately.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Christians in my opinion, have attempted to reconcile their Christianity with liberal modernity in order to be good citizens and not agitate too much within society.

That has always been the tension even between the Jews and Rome. Liberal modernity offers freedom of thought and deed. But that can be dangerous. But so can restrictions. It depends on who is doing the restricting and of what. Look at the church for centuries. I am just beginning to look at Ressourcement, what shall we retrieve? How do we retrieve? If we have been left with our freedom as individuals to come up with our meaning, values, sense of good and evil, we have done a poor job.

And I think the Religious Right, the most vocal Christian voice out there, has merely appropriated and exploited religion. Blasphemy! But the Left has nothing to offer but a blind freedom with no foundation other than personal autonomy.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That has always been the tension even between the Jews and Rome. Liberal modernity offers freedom of thought and deed. But that can be dangerous. But so can restrictions. It depends on who is doing the restricting and of what. Look at the church for centuries. I am just beginning to look at Ressourcement, what shall we retrieve? How do we retrieve? If we have been left with our freedom as individuals to come up with our meaning, values, sense of good and evil, we have done a poor job.

If one values individual liberty more than one's identity as a Christian, you will naturally give way to behaviors, beliefs and attitudes which erode Christianity in society. All modernity has demonstrated is that Christians were just as susceptible to corruption as any other group and without the rules, customs and standards of a Christian society we crumple into the fold of the world. The strongest Christians are those whose communities reject the world and have a sense of otherness about them, like the Amish.

If we're bringing up Rome and the jews, we can look to the example of the early Christians in Rome even more so. They considered Rome the enemy and acted accordingly. They refused communion with Pagans, refused public acts of worship to the gods and to Caesar. They married each other and were willing to excommunicate those who denied core tenants of the faith. They were not individualists by any stretch of the imagination and through their devotion they created a greater and more powerful community within Rome that eventually usurped it.

And I think the Religious Right, the most vocal Christian voice out there, has merely appropriated and exploited religion. Blasphemy! But the Left has nothing to offer but a blind freedom with no foundation other than personal autonomy.

I guess it depends what you mean by religious right. Do you mean something as represented by the Republican party? Yes, clearly they exploit Christianity without delivering on much social change at all. They are virtually no different from the Democrats in that they are simply slower at adopting their changes. If you mean by the religious right, Christian Nationalists, Monarchists and dissidents, these would seem to actually offer a positive vision for Christianity going forward that can counter modernity.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

Then you are not interested in the application of logic and thought. The hypothetical I gave is rather simple, a community of Christians somewhere which is not subject a non-Christian government structure. Is this community capable of self rule? Administering Justice? Settling disputes? Yes or no? If no, why no? If Yes, then your conclusion that Christians must not have power must translate to Christians not having community as well since communities regulate through power ultimately.

And now after you dictate what I am incapable of doing, you dictate what I am not interested in, and further dictate what I "must" conclude. Your accusations and dictations are noted.

I am eager to discuss with encouragement, that which Christ the Lord has said, done, and discussed. I do not find that hypotheticals and reasonings between people that are not God, do any of those things, and therefore I shall not engage in them.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Seems like it would be a pretty bad law as it is arbitrary and only exists to inflict harm on you and make you miserable.

What makes that wrong?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lifepsyop]

I guess it depends what you mean by religious right. Do you mean something as represented by the Republican party? Yes, clearly they exploit Christianity without delivering on much social change at all. They are virtually no different from the Democrats in that they are simply slower at adopting their changes. If you mean by the religious right, Christian Nationalists, Monarchists and dissidents, these would seem to actually offer a positive vision for Christianity going forward that can counter modernity.

indeed... and reading the apostles, you sometimes get the feeling they might be overjoyed by the organic creation of a Christian kingdom. If the Gospel is spreading across the world, this seems like a natural expectation of what would happen. Knowing this, the apostles could easily have warned followers against the pitfalls of Christian Nationalism, but no such warning ever appears.

Instead the apostles are worried about the holiness of Christian communities...

They are not worried about setting arbitrary limitations on their power and influence like modern Christians are today. In fact, men in the world seem to be consistently encouraged to exert authority over all areas of social life. (another thing that individualistic modern Christians don't like very much)

Already ye are having been filled, already ye were rich, apart from us ye did reign, and I would also ye did reign, that we also with you may reign together,
- 1 Corinthians 4:8

The way that modern Christianity impulsively revolts against Christian nationalism, and venerates the liberal secular order, especially the postwar liberal consensus, is very strange. How did we get here?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

If one values individual liberty more than one's identity as a Christian, you will naturally give way to behaviors, beliefs and attitudes which erode Christianity in society. All modernity has demonstrated is that Christians were just as susceptible to corruption as any other group and without the rules, customs and standards of a Christian society we crumple into the fold of the world. The strongest Christians are those whose communities reject the world and have a sense of otherness about them, like the Amish.

If we're bringing up Rome and the jews, we can look to the example of the early Christians in Rome even more so. They considered Rome the enemy and acted accordingly. They refused communion with Pagans, refused public acts of worship to the gods and to Caesar. They married each other and were willing to excommunicate those who denied core tenants of the faith. They were not individualists by any stretch of the imagination and through their devotion they created a greater and more powerful community within Rome that eventually usurped it.

It is a tension balance between having a good boundary, solid identity and reaching out to be salt in the world, evangelizing..

I guess it depends what you mean by religious right. Do you mean something as represented by the Republican party? Yes, clearly they exploit Christianity without delivering on much social change at all. They are virtually no different from the Democrats in that they are simply slower at adopting their changes. If you mean by the religious right, Christian Nationalists, Monarchists and dissidents, these would seem to actually offer a positive vision for Christianity going forward that can counter modernity.

I mean "Christians" who do not medal Christian values in their own lives.

Biblical Values

We might hear a lot of talk about Biblical Values and how we should govern our lives and country by them. But seldom do we actually try to identify them and reflect on them. And then the biggest challenge is praxis. How do we live them our in our daily lives...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

What makes that wrong?

-CryptoLutheran

I think I just explained what made it wrong. It's arbitrary and exists solely for the purpose of doing harm to you.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

indeed... and reading the apostles, you sometimes get the feeling they might be overjoyed by the organic creation of a Christian kingdom. If the Gospel is spreading across the world, this seems like a natural expectation of what would happen. Knowing this, the apostles could easily have warned followers against the pitfalls of Christian Nationalism, but no such warning ever appears.

Instead the apostles are worried about the holiness of Christian communities...

They are not worried about setting arbitrary limitations on their power and influence like modern Christians are today. In fact, men in the world seem to be consistently encouraged to exert authority over all areas of social life. (another thing that individualistic modern Christians don't like very much)

Already ye are having been filled, already ye were rich, apart from us ye did reign, and I would also ye did reign, that we also with you may reign together,
- 1 Corinthians 4:8

The way that modern Christianity impulsively revolts against Christian nationalism, and venerates the liberal secular order, especially the postwar liberal consensus, is very strange. How did we get here?

I agree pretty much with everything you've said. I see no reason why the Apostles or the early Christians would be opposed to the development of an organic and natural Christian community which had sovereignty over itself. If Churches were to govern themselves and not rely on secular magistrates to settle disputes (as Paul wanted), then it makes little sense to me to suggest that Christians must be akin to dhimmis and naturally submit to the non-Christians around them even when they don't have to.