Shouldn't all Evangelicals want Christian Nationalism?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

YES. We are called to be like Christ, a standard I fall short of daily. Yet, we are still called to strive for this.

We clearly have different views on Christianity. In your "Christian nation," where do you think I should live? Do you see me as an equal, or would I be a second-class citizen in your Christian-nation like non-believers?

Alright. Are you celibate and unmarried?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I am not interested in hypotheticals or reasoning. I only want to know if you can show me from the Word of God that a Christian nation is Biblical.

Well naturally. Because you can't imagine what It would feel like if you didn't have breakfast this morning.

Kingdom of France is earthy kingdom and Jesus was very clear about earthly kingdom; “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's”.

Not what I asked. Please explain to me why the Kingdom of France was the same as the Kingdom of Morrocco

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Well naturally. Because you can't imagine what It would feel like if you didn't have breakfast this morning.

Not what I asked. Please explain to me why the Kingdom of France was the same as the Kingdom of Morrocco

Because they are both earthly kingdom. Both kingdom seek power and oppress people.
do you know how many Christian kingdom of France executed?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Alright. Are you celibate and unmarried?

I am married. But Jesus never said one must be unmarried, but Jesus said one must love his enemy and pray for them.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I am married. But Jesus never said one must be unmarried, but Jesus said one must love his enemy and pray for them.

So we are allowed to follow a different way of living life? We don't have to be exactly like our Lord?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Because they are both earthly kingdom. Both kingdom seek power and oppress people.
do you know how many Christian kingdom of France executed?

If you had a choice of where to live. The kingdom of France or Islamic world in the 10th century. Where would you live?

 

[The Liturgist]

Preaching the gospel is the only way to overcome secularization.

Firstly, Mark 16:15-16 doesn’t say that.

What I am talking about is when governments make the preaching of the Gospel illegal, or otherwise interfere with it via state controlled media and pressure on the churches.

Furthermore, neither Matthew 28:19, nor Mark 16:15-16, which merely restates what Matthew said regarding evangelism*, preclude a government converted unto Christ from acting in furtherance of this evangelization. It was indeed in this way that Armenia, Georgia and Ethiopia were converted to Christianity in the fourth century (except for a minority of Ethiopians who remained Jewish, and later, the Ethiopian state would include Muslims, and likewise in gratitude for helping to save Armenians from the Ottoman Empire’s genocide against them, the newly established Armenian state following the armistice at the end of the first World War (that armistice being the origin of Memorial Day and Remembrance Day in the US and UK on Monday the 11th of November), people of the Yazidi religion, which is a syncretic faith related to Christianity, were allowed to settle in Armenia, where they remain the largest religious minority (since it turns out that, most of the time, converting a country to Christianity makes the population more tolerant of other religions, the exception being Spain and Portugal following the Reconquista). Likewise, it was also in this manner that many other nations became Christian, including both the Ukrainians and the Russians, and several other related ethnic groups, and several other groups who were in turn evangelized by Russian and Ukrainian missionaries, such as the Siberians and many Native Alaskans such as the Aleut people.

So the conversion of countries beginning with their leadership is clearly a means by which the Gospel has been spread, although Christianity cannot be imposed by force, and I am not making that claim. Indeed, the Mexica people would never have converted from the Mesoamerican human-sacrifice religion had it not been for the beautiful icon, Our Lady of Guadalupe, painted by Juan Diego following the appearance of our glorious lady Theotokos and ever Virgin Mary - this holy icon caused the Aztecs to go from a religion based around human sacrifice, which was compromised by the Spanish conquest, but which the Spaniards had failed to displace as the popular religion of the people, even in those cities which were subordinate to the Aztecs and the victims of the Flower Wars, to worshipping God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and being baptized in Christ en masse and attending the Eucharist with a sincere devotion which remains even today despite the pressures of the secular world.

*Thus I am curious why you quoted the longer ending of Mark, which is of disputed authenticity, as opposed to using the more succinct verse and well-known verse in Matthew, which also as an added plus features the Trinitarian formula which is the agreed upon standard for baptism among all Christian churches I am aware of.

 

[zippy2006]

Christian Nationalism would result in many more people hearing about the Gospel of Jesus. The gospel would shine through every major institution, instead of being mostly hidden or mocked as it is today, at best an historical relic.

Great thread. What are the objections to Christian Nationalism that are not knee-jerk reactions? This is well worth thinking on.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

So we are allowed to follow a different way of living life? We don't have to be exactly like our Lord?

We clearly disagree on doctrine, which is fine. God has given both of us wisdom and the Holy Spirit to understand HIM and live accordingly.

However, my question to you is: In a Christian Nation where you seek to impose your interpretation of Christian laws on its citizens, how do you envision a place for Christians like myself who completely disagree with your perspective?

Will I be required to follow your version of the law or face punishment? Must I obey all the Biblical commandments you deem appropriate? What are the consequences if I refuse to follow your version of Christianity?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Firstly, Mark 16:15-16 doesn’t say that.

What I am talking about is when governments make the preaching of the Gospel illegal, or otherwise interfere with it via state controlled media and pressure on the churches.

Furthermore, neither Matthew 28:19, nor Mark 16:15-16, which merely restates what Matthew said regarding evangelism*, preclude a government converted unto Christ from acting in furtherance of this evangelization. It was indeed in this way that Armenia, Georgia and Ethiopia were converted to Christianity in the fourth century (except for a minority of Ethiopians who remained Jewish, and later, the Ethiopian state would include Muslims, and likewise in gratitude for helping to save Armenians from the Ottoman Empire’s genocide against them, the newly established Armenian state following the armistice at the end of the first World War (that armistice being the origin of Memorial Day and Remembrance Day in the US and UK on Monday the 11th of November), people of the Yazidi religion, which is a syncretic faith related to Christianity, were allowed to settle in Armenia, where they remain the largest religious minority (since it turns out that, most of the time, converting a country to Christianity makes the population more tolerant of other religions, the exception being Spain and Portugal following the Reconquista). Likewise, it was also in this manner that many other nations became Christian, including both the Ukrainians and the Russians, and several other related ethnic groups, and several other groups who were in turn evangelized by Russian and Ukrainian missionaries, such as the Siberians and many Native Alaskans such as the Aleut people.

So the conversion of countries beginning with their leadership is clearly a means by which the Gospel has been spread, although Christianity cannot be imposed by force, and I am not making that claim. Indeed, the Mexica people would never have converted from the Mesoamerican human-sacrifice religion had it not been for the beautiful icon, Our Lady of Guadalupe, painted by Juan Diego following the appearance of our glorious lady Theotokos and ever Virgin Mary - this holy icon caused the Aztecs to go from a religion based around human sacrifice, which was compromised by the Spanish conquest, but which the Spaniards had failed to displace as the popular religion of the people, even in those cities which were subordinate to the Aztecs and the victims of the Flower Wars, to worshipping God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and being baptized in Christ en masse and attending the Eucharist with a sincere devotion which remains even today despite the pressures of the secular world.

*Thus I am curious why you quoted the longer ending of Mark, which is of disputed authenticity, as opposed to using the more succinct verse and well-known verse in Matthew, which also as an added plus features the Trinitarian formula which is the agreed upon standard for baptism among all Christian churches I am aware of.

Early in Christian history, authorities banned the spread of the Gospel, leading to Jesus Christ's crucifixion. The early Jerusalem church faced government persecution, and Christians in the first and second centuries encountered similar opposition. Despite these challenges, Christianity has thrived and remains widely practiced 2000 years later. Christianity relies solely on Christ, not on human authority or government.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

We clearly disagree on doctrine, which is fine. God has given both of us wisdom and the Holy Spirit to understand HIM and live accordingly.

However, my question to you is: In a Christian Nation where you seek to impose your interpretation of Christian laws on its citizens, how do you envision a place for Christians like myself who completely disagree with your perspective?

Will I be required to follow your version of the law or face punishment? Must I obey all the Biblical commandments you deem appropriate? What are the consequences if I refuse to follow your version of Christianity?

I have envisioned no consequences and imagine a society of different Christians who agree on moral principles and are willing to see them practiced. If you want to support things like blasphemy against our Lord and support such expressions then I would hope there is some sort of punishment.

My question to you Faith, do you not like law or Christian morality?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

If you had a choice of where to live. The kingdom of France or Islamic world in the 10th century. Where would you live?

It would not have made any difference if I had lived in the Kingdom of France or an Islamic kingdom in 1560. Had I resided in France during that period and proclaimed that Christ is not present in the Eucharist, I would have been burned alive along with every member of my family. I would have faced the same fate in one of the Islamic states.

 

[Fervent]

What I am talking about is when governments make the preaching of the Gospel illegal, or otherwise interfere with it via state controlled media and pressure on the churches.

This is part of why I am opposed to the idea of Christendom, since we have periods where the preaching of the gospel was thwarted by "Christian" institutions and governments when it didn't fit the interests of those governments. It's not that secular governance is inherently preferable, but that many(all?) of the same violations committed by secular governments are and have been committed by nominally Christian governments and the ostensible Christian nature of these governments makes criticism of the government and its practices appear to be breaking from the faith.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It would not have made any difference if I had lived in the Kingdom of France or an Islamic kingdom in 1560. Had I resided in France during that period and proclaimed that Christ is not present in the Eucharist, I would have been burned alive along with every member of my family. I would have faced the same fate in one of the Islamic states.

Well there were no Protestant Christians back then who denied the Eucharist so you might have a point. I guess when one is separated from the historic body of Christ and whose Church didn't exist until, I don't know when, would prefer the current dominion of secularism.

But there were still radical differences between France and the Islamic states. Do you believe it is righteous and just to go on slave raids into Christian lands and take Christian women and sell them into Islamic Harems?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

This is part of why I am opposed to the idea of Christendom, since we have periods where the preaching of the gospel was thwarted by "Christian" institutions and governments when it didn't fit the interests of those governments. It's not that secular governance is inherently preferable, but that many(all?) of the same violations committed by secular governments are and have been committed by nominally Christian governments and the ostensible Christian nature of these governments makes criticism of the government and its practices appear to be breaking from the faith.

I would say you're opposed to Christendom because your particular Church didn't exist until recently and you have no historic connection to the faith once for all delivered. Do you confess the Nicene Creed Faith?

 

[Fervent]

I would say you're opposed to Christendom because your particular Church didn't exist until recently and you have no historic connection to the faith once for all delivered. Do you confess the Nicene Creed Faith?

My particular church? Did we not establish that I don't swear fealty to any particular church tradition and my faith rests in Christ and Christ alone? I am committed to know nothing but Christ and Him Crucified.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

My particular church? Did we not establish that I don't swear fealty to any particular church tradition and my faith rests in Christ and Christ alone? I am committed to know nothing but Christ and Him Crucified.

That to me is a big problem Fervent because you then have no explanation for the past 2000 years. You aren't connected to any community the Apostles established. You aren't connected to any community which actually lived and brought fourth the knowledge of Christ from past generations into the present. It's as if you alone within history are the first Christian to walk the planet since the Apostles I guess.

You've internalized modern ideas of individualism and incorporated them into Christianity which was never part of Christian understand. You only emphasize your personal connection to Christ, not your connection to your brothers and sisters in the faith which you seemingly dismiss as unimportant because all that matters is that you believe. You seem to have forgotten love for your brother and sister should be the most important love except for your love for God. But you make no distinctions between your enemies and your brothers and sisters. It's an utterly alien worldview to the historic Christian tradition.

Do you confess the Nicene Creed?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I have envisioned no consequences and imagine a society of different Christians who agree on moral principles and are willing to see them practiced. If you want to support things like blasphemy against our Lord and support such expressions then I would hope there is some sort of punishment.

My question to you Faith, do you not like law or Christian morality?

We have differing views on what constitutes the Word of God. I believe that the Word of God consists solely of the 66 books from Genesis to Revelation. Therefore, anything outside of these 66 books should not be considered the Word of God, nor should it be preached or taught.

I don't believe in punishing someone for blasphemy or any other sin in that matter. If someone curses God, I would tell them that God loves them and wants them to come to Jesus. If someone is gay, I would not want them punished but instead share that the path to eternal life is through Jesus Christ.

To you, the moral principle of Christianity is about rules: do this, don't do that. To me, it's about loving your enemies, praying for those who persecute you, turning the other cheek, giving more than what's asked, going the extra mile, and helping those in need.

As you can see, our understanding of Christian morality differs significantly. It is not the role of Christians to punish others, but rather to guide them towards Christ. If someone rejects Christ, it is up to Christ to address this when He returns.

Where do Christians like me fit in your vision of a Christian Nation? Would I be equal to you and those who agree with you, or would I be a second-class citizen like non-Christians?

 

[Fervent]

That to me is a big problem Fervent because you then have no explanation for the past 2000 years. You aren't connected to any community the Apostles established. You aren't connected to any community which actually lived and brought fourth the knowledge of Christ from past generations into the present. It's as if you alone within history are the first Christian to walk the planet since the Apostles I guess.

Oh? When did I say I was the first Christian? Simply because I think that every institutional church is in some way flawed does not mean I discard their value entirely, I simply recognize that they are a mixed bag and that no single one contains the whole deposit of faith.

Do you confess the Nicene Creed?

I wouldn't be posting on these boards if I didn't.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Oh? When did I say I was the first Christian? Simply because I think that every institutional church is in some way flawed does not mean I discard their value entirely, I simply recognize that they are a mixed bag and that no single one contains the whole deposit of faith.

You're saying it whenever you dismiss the existence of past Christians, especially those in time from a Church you cannot identify with. You have no historic communion to which you can point to and so I can understand why you as an individual hate the Idea of Christendom. Because you don't consider yourself part of the broader community of Christians.

I wouldn't be posting on these boards if I didn't.

How can you confess a Creed which was demanded by a Roman Emperor and written by Bishops who gathered together under him to proclaim what was Christianity? Does this not represent a sort of heresy in your mind that the Church capitulated to worldly power? How can the Nicene Creed be true in your mind when it's foundation is utterly rotten from your perspective?