Shouldn't all Evangelicals want Christian Nationalism?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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.

You would not have these books if not for Christendom passing it down from one generation to the next. The faith existed outside the bible and was in the community of the faithful.

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.

So you disapprove of what our lord did when he cleansed the temple? He should have respected the freedom of speech of the merchants to sell their wares in the Temple?

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.

Rules matter Faith and relying on vague principles will not promote order or a good sense of living. That is precisely what is wrong with so many Churches these days that have completely abandoned Church discipline and preach a cheap Gospel of grace where any action is just automatically forgiven. I'm not a Lutheran but I like the expression of Law and Gospel and the Law matters in the life of a Christian.

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.

If the Christian is a political ruler it is their duty to punish wrongdoers or those who threaten the peace of the community.

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?

I don't know Faith. I do not have a comprehensive view of what I would like a Christian Nation to be. I have given some policy positions that I think are a good challenge to modernity and few here disagree with those propositions. That's all I've done. Insofar as other Christians are concerned I imagine a broad coalition of Christians agreeing to certain principles and practices and allowing for autonomy within their respective Churches. This complete secularization of society has been disastrous and we don't have to accept it as Christians.

 

[Fervent]

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.

Don't put words in my mouth. My view of tradition is ecclectic and not particular, I don't think any tradition has it right but that doesn't mean I dismiss the value of history. I consider myself part of an ecumenical community, but the institutions themselves tend to be oppressive rather than liberating and quite often stifle the gospel rather than promote it.

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?

It wasn't "demanded by a Roman Emperor", though the emperor was instrumental in organizing the convention. I don't confess it based on the authorities involved, but because it agrees with my studies and serves as a convenient summation. I am not anti-traditionalist just because I do not uncriticacally accept a tradition as authority.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

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?

What you wrote here completely contradict with Biblical principle.

Paul warned Corinthians about looking up to apostles.

“ 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[b]”; still another, “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Christ is solely is the author and finisher of faith, any additions to this are blasphemous.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Don't put words in my mouth. My view of tradition is ecclectic and not particular, I don't think any tradition has it right but that doesn't mean I dismiss the value of history. I consider myself part of an ecumenical community, but the institutions themselves tend to be oppressive rather than liberating and quite often stifle the gospel rather than promote it.

Can you point to me in history the existence of any Christian post Constantine and before the reformation? You say the tradition is eclectic and not particular, but who are you talking about?

It wasn't "demanded by a Roman Emperor", though the emperor was instrumental in organizing the convention. I don't confess it based on the authorities involved, but because it agrees with my studies and serves as a convenient summation. I am not anti-traditionalist just because I do not uncriticacally accept a tradition as authority.

The Emperor Constantine organized the council. Do you not regard the act of the Emperor getting involved in the Church to help sort out doctrine as an utterly rotten foundation and something Christians in good standing cannot accept? Yet the Church did accept it and this was the start of a general or great apostasy?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

What you wrote here completely contradict with Biblical principle.

Paul warned Corinthians about looking up to apostles.

“ 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[b]”; still another, “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Christ is solely is the author and finisher of faith, any additions to this are blasphemous.

I don't see Paul denying communion with other Christians, rather he's emphasizing that baptism is rooted in Christ, yet baptism is typically done by the hands of a believer. Yet it is interesting that when Christ appeared to Paul in acts and asks him why he is persecuting him, Christ, it was because Paul was persecuting the body of Christ which was the community of the faithful. Jesus didn't make a distinction between himself and his body here on earth.

Communion with other believers is essential Faith and this perhaps part of our disagreement. You do not value other Christians, you value only your individual connection with Christ. This is an utterly alien concept of what a Christian is in Christianity.

 

[Fervent]

Can you point to me in history the existence of any Christian post Constantine and before the reformation? You say the tradition is eclectic and not particular, but who are you talking about?

John Cassian, John of Damascus, Isaac the Syrian, Maximus the Confessor, Jan Hus, Erasmus, Augustine all appear to be within the Christian tradition though I disagree with all of them on various things. Of course, only God truly knows who is and isn't a Christian. But when I say eclectic I mean I view things ecumenically.

The Emperor Constantine organized the council. Do you not regard the act of the Emperor getting involved in the Church to help sort out doctrine as an utterly rotten foundation and something Christians in good standing cannot accept? Yet the Church did accept it and this was the start of a general or great apostasy?

Again, don't put words in my mouth. There are not two mutually exclusive extremes that we must decide between.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I don't know Faith. I do not have a comprehensive view of what I would like a Christian Nation to be.

Thank you. Finally you and I agree on something.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

John Cassian, John of Damascus, Isaac the Syrian, Maximus the Confessor, Jan Hus, Erasmus, Augustine all appear to be within the Christian tradition though I disagree with all of them on various things. Of course, only God truly knows who is and isn't a Christian. But when I say eclectic I mean I view things ecumenically.

With the exception of Hus, non of these disagreed with the existence of the institutional Church and they all considered themselves part of a visible earthly communion. Augustine for instance spoke about what was proper governance for Christian rulers and none of these authors espoused the sort of complete separation from power that you did. Rather they all benefitted in someway from the state, except maybe Hus who was executed as a heretic.

So I'm guessing you consider these Fathers, with the exception of Hus, as fundamentally flawed as betraying the Gospel by accepting the society around them.

Again, don't put words in my mouth. There are not two mutually exclusive extremes that we must decide between.

I'm only asking how you can accept what Christendom did with Constantine. It must trouble you that the early Christians who gathered at Nicaea so easily accepted and worked with Imperial power. Isn't this a heresy to your eyes? One which corrupted Christianity?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Thank you. Finally you and I agree on something.

That's why I would prefer you engage with the specific policies I've advocated for in the thread. Being against blasphemy. Being against Pornography. Being against Abortion and etc. Would you oppose working politically against these things?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I don't see Paul denying communion with other Christians, rather he's emphasizing that baptism is rooted in Christ, yet baptism is typically done by the hands of a believer. Yet it is interesting that when Christ appeared to Paul in acts and asks him why he is persecuting him, Christ, it was because Paul was persecuting the body of Christ which was the community of the faithful. Jesus didn't make a distinction between himself and his body here on earth.

Communion with other believers is essential Faith and this perhaps part of our disagreement. You do not value other Christians, you value only your individual connection with Christ. This is an utterly alien concept of what a Christian is in Christianity.

What defines true believers? Not everyone who claims to be a believer is genuinely one.



Matthew 7

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’



Paul further cautioned Christians to remain vigilant against false teachers.

“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.”

 

[Fervent]

With the exception of Hus, non of these disagreed with the existence of the institutional Church and they all considered themselves part of a visible earthly communion. Augustine for instance spoke about what was proper governance for Christian rulers and none of these authors espoused the sort of complete separation from power that you did. Rather they all benefitted in someway from the state, except maybe Hus who was executed as a heretic.

As I said, I disagree with all of them at various points for a variety of reasons.

I'm only asking how you can accept what Christendom did with Constantine. It must trouble you that the early Christians who gathered at Nicaea so easily accepted and worked with Imperial power. Isn't this a heresy to your eyes? One which corrupted Christianity?

Why would it trouble me, when I don't believe it's an either/or proposition? I told you how I could accept the Nicene creed, which is because it serves as a useful summary. The political mechanisms that brought it about aren't really material to the question, especially since no one but you has suggested that we must choose between assuming secular power or patholigizing it.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

That's why I would prefer you engage with the specific policies I've advocated for in the thread. Being against blasphemy. Being against Pornography. Being against Abortion and etc. Would you oppose working politically against these things?

My previous response, which I am reiterating, is based on a straightforward understanding of scripture. The "kingdom of God" resides in heaven, and while Christians inhabit the world, they are not of the world. Establishing a Christian nation is unbiblical; therefore, it is inappropriate to create policies for the secular world. There is not a single verse in the New Testament that instructs Christians to establish a Christian nation. Instead, it directs Christians to go forth and preach to the world.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

What defines true believers? Not everyone who claims to be a believer is genuinely one.


Matthew 7

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’


Paul further cautioned Christians to remain vigilant against false teachers.

“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.”

The thing is Faith, we can only act on what we see and leave it up to God to judge in the end the salvation of others and even ourselves. Our duty while on earth is to commit ourselves to the body as we perceive it, as much as possible and the problem I see with this purely individualistic reading of Christianity is that it denies the communion, the body of Christ. It was always normative for Christians to think about themselves as a community.

This is why when Fervant says there is only him and Christ, he isn't being like the ancient Christians. He is being a modern, he is has fully embraced the modern creed of individualism and here he thinks he has become more authentic as a result. I am not denying the individual connection to Christ as important but that cannot be all there is, especially in Christianity in which we are mandated to care for each other and love each other.

This is why I have a such a visceral reaction when someone says they can't distinguish love for a friend and love for an enemy. We are obvious to love our friends first and enemies less so. We never deny love to our enemy, but our love for them should not be against the interests of our friends. This is exactly how Christians operated for most of history until we were told this was wrong by non-Christians.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

My previous response, which I am reiterating, is based on a straightforward understanding of scripture. The "kingdom of God" resides in heaven, and while Christians inhabit the world, they are not of the world. Establishing a Christian nation is unbiblical; therefore, it is inappropriate to create policies for the secular world. There is not a single verse in the New Testament that instructs Christians to establish a Christian nation. Instead, it directs Christians to go forth and preach to the world.

If you want to say Christians are not of this world, then I expect you to take that seriously and in all cases. Not just power. We should give up sex. We should give up children. We should give up all earthly fidelities and friendships and focus solely on heaven. Christians should enter monastaries and prefer God to other people because we are not to be worldly and the more we give into the pleasures of this world the more we are seperated from God. Yet you don't do that and are married, which is why I brought it up. You have not been satisfied with God alone and needed another human to fulfil some need within you. A very worldly thing to do.

We understand that there are different callings and when you say Christians are not called to establish a Christian Nation, the implication is that they are to be subject to others and their whims. That power is rightfully the domain of the Non-Christian and I reject that.

This is why you can't address my hypothetical. So can you address it faith? Please? We cannot have a conversation unless you're willing to engage with ideas. So I'll repeat it. Imagine a land where there are multiple communities and all of these communities are free and independent of each other. One of the larger communities is a Christian community. Does this Christian community have the right to rule itself in your view or must they surrender their sovereignty to another community in the land?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

If you want to say Christians are not of this world, then I expect you to take that seriously and in all cases. Not just power. We should give up sex. We should give up children. We should give up all earthly fidelities and friendships and focus solely on heaven. Christians should enter monastaries and prefer God to other people because we are not to be worldly and the more we give into the pleasures of this world the more we are seperated from God. Yet you don't do that and are married, which is why I brought it up. You have not been satisfied with God alone and needed another human to fulfil some need within you. A very worldly thing to do.

We understand that there are different callings and when you say Christians are not called to establish a Christian Nation, the implication is that they are to be subject to others and their whims. That power is rightfully the domain of the Non-Christian and I reject that.

This is why you can't address my hypothetical. So can you address it faith? Please? We cannot have a conversation unless you're willing to engage with ideas. So I'll repeat it. Imagine a land where there are multiple communities and all of these communities are free and independent of each other. One of the larger communities is a Christian community. Does this Christian community have the right to rule itself in your view or must they surrender their sovereignty to another community in the land?

Your points sound good, but can you support them with scripture? Quote a few verses from the New Testament where Jesus or other authors ask Christians to establish a Christian nation.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

The thing is Faith, we can only act on what we see and leave it up to God to judge in the end the salvation of others and even ourselves. Our duty while on earth is to commit ourselves to the body as we perceive it, as much as possible and the problem I see with this purely individualistic reading of Christianity is that it denies the communion, the body of Christ. It was always normative for Christians to think about themselves as a community.

This is why when Fervant says there is only him and Christ, he isn't being like the ancient Christians. He is being a modern, he is has fully embraced the modern creed of individualism and here he thinks he has become more authentic as a result. I am not denying the individual connection to Christ as important but that cannot be all there is, especially in Christianity in which we are mandated to care for each other and love each other.

This is why I have a such a visceral reaction when someone says they can't distinguish love for a friend and love for an enemy. We are obvious to love our friends first and enemies less so. We never deny love to our enemy, but our love for them should not be against the interests of our friends. This is exactly how Christians operated for most of history until we were told this was wrong by non-Christians.

Can you quote me a scripture where it says “love our friends first and enemies less “?

Can you quote me a scripture where it says “ We never deny love to our enemy, but our love for them should not be against the interests of our friends. “?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Can you quote me a scripture where it says “love our friends first and enemies less “?

Can you quote to me a scripture which says we are to love our friends equally to our enemies? We as humans are limited, our love, unlike God's, is not infinite and the attempt to Love one's enemy as much as you love one's friend will end up in disaster. Our first duty is to those whom we love first and foremost, brothers and sisters in Christ, Family and friends. We seek their interests first before our enemies and this is entirely natural especially when the interest of our enemies goes against the interests of our friends.

The command to love one's enemy is not a command to love them utterly, because then we would seek their interests above our own and they are our enemies because our interests contradict. We are called to be merciful to our enemies, to not treat them with disdain like other rulers have and this is what makes the command to love your enemies so hard.

Can you quote me a scripture where it says “ We never deny love to our enemy, but our love for them should not be against the interests of our friends. “?

Can you show me where scripture says says I am treat my enemy like I treat my friends?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Your points sound good, but can you support them with scripture? Quote a few verses from the New Testament where Jesus or other authors ask Christians to establish a Christian nation.

My point isn't that Jesus commands us to establish a Christian Nation, only that it is permissible for Christians to do so and at times it has been incredibly beneficial to be in a Christian nation for the faithful. I have not once advocated in this thread that there is an absolute need to dominate all politics, rather I have approached politics as a reality that Christians can participate in and that can take the form of Christian Nationalism, Christian Monarchy or Theocracy, or any other form of government we may wish to care about.

When I see people like yourself Faith appeal to the example of Jesus, I am of course not opposed to our Lord and his life. But our Lord's calling was unique, not everyone can live like Christ or else human society would cease to function. Some are called to be political leaders and the implication of many here is that no Christian is called to political leadership because Christ never took a crown. This of course forgets that Christ embodies not only the Prophet and the Priest but also the King and Christ can be a model for Kingship which should be different from that of the worldly King who seeks only accolades or glory, the chief responsibility of the Christian King or leader being service.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

They thwarted it less than any Communist, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist government.

 

[zippy2006]

the preaching of the gospel was thwarted by "Christian" institutions and governments

So are you opposed to Christian Nationalism or to "Christian" Nationalism. I think all Christians are opposed to "Christian" Nationalism, and yet that seems to be the basic claim of the naysayers.