What religion the State?

Clare73 · Oct 6, 2021

RandyPNW said:
That's true, but is not an argument.

It is for interpretation.

RandyPNW · Oct 6, 2021

RDKirk said:
God did not "transition" from Israel to Europe. God established a new covenant sans generis e sans soli sed fides.

You need to read your history. In the OT God dealt with Israel. In the NT Christianity entered into the Roman Empire, spread to France and England, and then to Germany, Scandinavia, etc. In the East it spread through the Eastern Roman Empire to all of the Slavic states, including Russia. Do your history, brother, although I'm inclined to believe you already do know it. You just don't want to be agreeable?

I don't read Latin. Is it "without race and without faith alone?" Honestly, I don't have a clue what you're saying. Speak in English.

RDKirk · Oct 6, 2021

RandyPNW said:
You need to read your history. In the OT God dealt with Israel. In the NT Christianity entered into the Roman Empire, spread to France and England, and then to Germany, Scandinavia, etc. In the East it spread through the Eastern Roman Empire to all of the Slavic states, including Russia. Do your history, brother, although I'm inclined to believe you already do know it. You just don't want to be agreeable?

I don't read Latin. Is it "without race and without faith alone?" Honestly, I don't have a clue what you're saying. Speak in English.

Not kind, not land, but faith.

RandyPNW · Oct 6, 2021

Clare73 said:
It is for interpretation.

I know the OT covenant is fulfilled in the New Testament. But you don't translate and interpret passages by referring to the NT Bible. You look at the passage in its immediate context, and interpret it as it would be understood by someone in that time and place.

The NT perspective keeps the long-term purpose in view when trying to understand OT concepts. For example, when reading about the OT offerings, or animal sacrifices, we understand that in its time it provided temporary coverage for Israel's sins, to keep them in covenant relationship with God.

But knowing the NT purpose of the Law, we can see in the animal sacrifices their long-range purpose of being replaced with something that provides Israel and others with final redemption.

RandyPNW · Oct 6, 2021

RDKirk said:
Not kind, not land, but faith.

Okay, thanks. But how you want to explain that determines what you believe. It doesn't dismiss historical realities like the transition God made from Israel to Europe. "I will take the Kingdom of God from you (Israel) and give it to a nation (the Roman Empire) worthy of it."

Clare73 · Oct 6, 2021

RandyPNW said:
I know the OT covenant is fulfilled in the New Testament. But you don't translate and interpret passages by referring to the NT Bible.

You do when that is to what it is referring.

RandyPNW · Oct 7, 2021

Clare73 said:
You do when that is to what it is referring.

Much that is written in the OT era cannot be understood in its full and detailed NT sense until those events actually took place. It was largely a mystery, and yet founded on iron-clad, eternal principles.

For example, it was clear in the OT era that Man was condemned by only a single sin. No matter how many good things OT saints did, just one sin still kept them out of heaven. So all of the offerings God gave Israel to do, it still fell short of granting them eternal life.

This is an eternal principle, and was embedded in OT requirements. It required a NT fulfillment.

But the NT fulfillment was not fully understood in detail. And so, they didn't have the luxury of reading NT Scriptures to interpret how their OT observances would be fulfilled in a NT sense.

So your quip about interpreting OT things in a NT sense doesn't hold water. It's a generally true in a sense, but it has to be understood how this applies. I'm detailing it for you.

1 Tim 3.16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

How nations promised to Abraham in the OT would be fulfilled in the NT is now clearly understood in the NT, simply by reading Paul. But it doesn't disqualify these promises simply because they were given in the OT era.

Gal 3.7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

These nations are called "nations," and must be understood just as the word "nation" is applied to Israel. They were not remnants of nations, but entire nations who would come to share the faith of Abraham.

It did not require that all who exercised faith in the one true God actually get born again and be saved. It only required that the nation, generally as a whole, adopt, in good faith, a Christian Constitution.

Obviously, "demons believe in God and tremble." Not all who begin with faith consummate that faith in spiritual rebirth.

Clare73 · Oct 7, 2021

RandyPNW said:
Much that is written in the OT era cannot be understood in its full and detailed NT sense until those events actually took place. It was largely a mystery, and yet founded on iron-clad, eternal principles.

For example, it was clear in the OT era that Man was condemned by only a single sin. No matter how many good things OT saints did, just one sin still kept them out of heaven.

Their sin was covered, not counted against them, by the sacrifices offered in faithfulness. Sin did not keep them out of heaven. Unbelief in the promise; i.e., Jesus Christ, of Genesis 15:5 kept them out of heaven.

So all of the offerings God gave Israel to do, it still fell short of granting them eternal life.

Because they were not given for eternal life, they were given to cover sin until the true atoning sacrifice remitted their sin. It was faith in the promise; i.e., Jesus Christ, of Genesis 15:5--not law keeping and sacrifices, which gave eternal life.
Nor is eternal life even mentioned in the OT, just as the once-for-all human atoning sacrifice is not mentioned in the OT.

This is an eternal principle, and was embedded in OT requirements. It required a NT fulfillment.
But the NT fulfillment was not fully understood in detail.

A NT fulfillment was not only "not fully understood in detail," it wasn't even on their radar in the OT. They did not see 1500 years of sacrifices as pointing to anything.

And so, they didn't have the luxury of reading NT Scriptures to interpret how their OT observances would be fulfilled in a NT sense.

So your quip about interpreting OT things in a NT sense doesn't hold water.

Contrare. . .

My statement is that the OT Scriptures must be understood today (not in the OT) in the light of the NT, which changes their import in many cases, because they were dealing in patterns and shadows back then, not in the realities themselves. And

1) because the NT is the fulfillment of the substance of OT patterns and shadows, our understanding of them must conform to their NT substance, not to their shadows, and

2) because prophecies are riddles (Numbers 12:8), they must be interpreted in agreement with NT teaching which is the true meaning of the OT.

It's a generally true in a sense, but it has to be understood how this applies. I'm detailing it for you.
1 Tim 3.16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

How nations promised to Abraham in the OT would be fulfilled in the NT is now clearly understood in the NT, simply by reading Paul. But it doesn't disqualify these promises simply because they were given in the OT era.Unless, in light of the NT, they actually have already been fulfilled.
Gal 3.7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham:

“All nations will be blessed through you.” 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

These nations are called "nations," and must be understood just as the word "nation" is applied to Israel. They were not remnants of nations, but entire nations who would come to share the faith of Abraham.

However, since the time of Abraham himself, not all Israel is Israel (Romans 9:6). God has made separations in Abraham's descendants from the beginning, in Ishamel and Isaac (Romans 9:7), in Jacob and Esau (Romans 9:11-13), and now in unbelieving Israel, who has been cut off (Romans 11:17-19), and believing Israel, the remnant in whom the promises are being fulfilled (Romans 11:2-5, Romans 11:29). Only the NT believing remnant is true Israel, in whom the promises are fulfilled.

It did not require that all who exercised faith in the one true God actually get born again and be saved. It only required that the nation, generally as a whole, adopt, in good faith, a Christian Constitution.

Obviously, "demons believe in God and tremble." Not all who begin with faith consummate that faith in spiritual rebirth.

RandyPNW · Oct 8, 2021

Clare73 said:
Their sin was covered, not counted against them, by the sacrifices offered in faithfulness. Sin did not keep them out of heaven. Unbelief in the promise; i.e., Jesus Christ, of Genesis 15:5 kept them out of heaven.
Because they were not given for eternal life, they were given to cover sin until the true atoning sacrifice remitted their sin. It was faith in the promise; i.e., Jesus Christ, of Genesis 15:5--not law keeping and sacrifices, which gave eternal life.
Nor is eternal life even mentioned in the OT, just as the once-for-all human atoning sacrifice is not mentioned in the OT.

You are very confusing to me now. You and I seem to be saying the same thing, and yet apparently not. I said OT sacrifices did not provide eternal life, and you say that they only provided a "covering." Same thing.

But then you say eternal life is not mentioned in the OT, which I think is absurd. Mankind was created to take from the Tree of Life, which is immortality. Sinning against God lost them that hope. And you're saying they didn't even know what they lost?

Clare73 said:
A NT fulfillment was not only "not fully understood in detail," it wasn't even on their radar in the OT. They did not see 1500 years of sacrifices as pointing to anything.
Contrare. . .

Again, Israel's hope was in being permanently delivered from those who threatened their eternal relationship with God. They knew that offering sacrifices was intended to lead to the Messianic Kingdom so that they would never be separated from God again.

That means Israel did know that their sacrifices under the system of Law were intended to lead to something, namely the Messianic Kingdom. There would come a time when sin and offerings for sin would no longer be an issue. They just didn't know or understand the details about Jesus' death for sin.

On the other hand, Isaiah clearly portrayed Messiah as a Suffering Servant. And Daniel foresaw the "cutting off" of Messiah after 70 "Weeks."

Clare73 said:
My statement is that the OT Scriptures must be understood today (not in the OT) in the light of the NT, which changes their import in many cases, because they were dealing in patterns and shadows back then, not in the realities themselves.

If you're going to properly understand and interpret the Abrahamic Promises, you need to know what they meant to those to whom they were originally given. We can't understand them properly unless we understand how they were originally meant to be received.

Understanding NT fulfillment does not disrupt the original meaning of the Abrahamic Promises. They just explain in detail how that takes place.

Fulfillment of the Abrahamic Promises has *not yet* been completed. But Christ is indeed the basis of this fulfillment.

RandyPNW · Oct 8, 2021

Clare73 said:
However, since the time of Abraham himself, not all Israel is Israel (Romans 9:6). God has made separations in Abraham's descendants from the beginning, in Ishamel and Isaac (Romans 9:7), in Jacob and Esau (Romans 9:11-13), and now in unbelieving Israel, who has been cut off (Romans 11:17-19), and believing Israel, the remnant in whom the promises are being fulfilled (Romans 11:2-5, Romans 11:29). Only the NT believing remnant is true Israel, in whom the promises are fulfilled.

Paul is saying that the nation of Israel is destined to be an entirely believing nation, not just a partially believing nation. You seem to think the nation was intended to be fulfilled as only a part, and not as a whole? But God promised Abraham a whole nation, and not just a remnant of a nation!

Paul explains that there is presently, in the NT, only a believing remnant. He does that to show that God has not yet given up on the promise of a *whole nation.* Keeping just a part of the nation in faith is indication that God intends, in the end, to restore the entire nation to faith in their God.

This is not an argument to show that the idea of whole nations devoted to God should be disqualified. On the contrary, God called the entire nation to faithfulness to His Law.

The notion that individuals will always fail to participate in that faithfulness to God goes without saying. And this doesn't disqualify the idea of a whole nation being dedicated to God.

To put it in worldly terms, would you say that having a few traitors in a country delegitimizes the idea of the country entirely? No. Do you think having a few irreligious or pretend Christians in a Christian country disqualifies that country from being a nation dedicated to having Christianity as its exclusive religion? No.

Napoleon and many after the Enlightenment period turned against the Catholic Church or against any State Church. In the end, this was just a form of apostasy from Christianity. You can't have Christian morality in the State when Christianity itself is delegitimized as a State Religion!

We can certainly turn against stale or morally-bankrupt forms of State Religion. But we don't have to separate Christianity from the State--the priests can be separated from the politicians without making religion neutral. To render Christianity unnecessary in our State and among our politicians is spiritual suicide. It is in effect turning our State over to pagans.

It is argued that we cannot "legislate morality." But the Law of Moses was precisely that. And the failure of the Law was not a disqualification of the Law, nor a replacement of the Law with something less demanding in terms of holiness.

Grace demands holiness as much as the Law did. It just renders unnecessary all of the requirements that Israel had to do that brought only temporary covering for sin. God still requires that whole nations serve Him. And to say it can't be legislated in our society is purely concession to sin.

While it is true that we can't legislate morality in a society already committed to sin, it is not true that we cannot offer a Gospel of full national commitment to Christ. It has happened already many times in the past. Failure in the end does not mean it was not the right thing to do to begin with! We must testify to what *should be,* and not necessarily to what *can be* at the moment.

Clare73 · Oct 8, 2021

RandyPNW said:
Paul is saying that the nation of Israel is destined to be an entirely believing nation, not just a partially believing nation.

Actually, Paul does not say that.

Paul says, "IF (not "when") they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in" to the one olive tree of God's people (Romans 11:23), the NT church, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but only Abraham's seed (Galatians 3:28-29).

Paul says, "thus (in this manner) all Israel will be saved' (Romans 11:26):
1) not all Israel is Israel (Romans 9:6-7),
2) in this manner - in the manner of Romans 11:1-6, in a remnant.

You seem to think the nation was intended to be fulfilled as only a part, and not as a whole? But God promised Abraham a whole nation, and not just a remnant of a nation!

Not according to Romans 9, where God has once again made a separation in Abraham's seed, between unbelieving and believing Israel, and
Romans 11, where his promises to the nation of Israel are being fulfilled in a remnant.

Paul explains that there is presently, in the NT, only a believing remnant.

He does that to show that God has not yet given up on the promise of a *whole nation.* Keeping just a part of the nation in faith is indication that God intends, in the end, to restore the entire nation to faith in their God. 11a;

Not according to Romans 11:26: "Thus" (in this manner), the manner of Romans 11:1-5, a remnant, just as only a remnant of the Gentiles are being saved.
Salvation is only of a remnant.

Clare73 · Oct 8, 2021

RandyPNW said:
I know the OT covenant is fulfilled in the New Testament. But you don't translate and interpret passages by referring to the NT Bible. You look at the passage in its immediate context, and interpret it as it would be understood by someone in that time and place.

Not without considering it in the light of NT revelation which gives its true meaning.

The NT perspective keeps the long-term purpose in view when trying to understand OT concepts. For example, when reading about the OT offerings, or animal sacrifices, we understand that in its time it provided temporary coverage for Israel's sins, to keep them in covenant relationship with God.

They did not understand it that way.
To them the sacrifices were remission of sin.
To them, violation of the food laws meant moral defilement, which required cleansing.

In the light of the NT, we know that the sacrifices only covered sin, they did not remit it.
We know that violation of the food laws was not moral defilement, it was only ceremonial defilement, to pattern the nature of sin as spiritual defilement.

But knowing the NT purpose of the Law, we can see in the animal sacrifices their long-range purpose of being replaced with something that provides Israel and others with final redemption.

We can see that it was all temporary, we can see that not all Israel was true Israel, that God has always separated true Israel (descendants of Jacob only) from Israel in general (all Abraham's descendants), and that now he has separated Abraham's descendants again, into unbelieving Israel, which has been cut off (Romans 11:17-19), and believing Israel who inherits the promises, as they are understood in the light of the NT.

FireDragon76 · Mar 10, 2023

ViaCrucis said:
Things done in the name of Christian states has been as atrocious as anything as any pagan empire before ever done. From the killing of Jews, heretics, and pagans, to intra-Christian wars fought between ostensibly Christian powers. The Wars of Religion, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, inquisitions, pogroms.

Even religious persecution was done in colonial America. New England executed Quakers, for instance, like Mary Dyer around 1660. She was the last Quaker to die in New England for her beliefs.

Today, I venture to guess almost all American Christians would find that sort of thing evil. Yet at one time many Christians approved of such terrible attrocities. All in the name of upholding a state religion.

RandyPNW · Mar 12, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
Even religious persecution was done in colonial America. New England executed Quakers, for instance, like Mary Dyer around 1660. She was the last Quaker to die in New England for her beliefs.

Today, I venture to guess almost all American Christians would find that sort of thing evil. Yet at one time many Christians approved of such terrible attrocities. All in the name of upholding a state religion.

Though there is truth in this, I prefer to not get caught up in the "hate the Christian State" rhetoric. It easily falls into the "Antichristian" camp, which attempts to delegitimize Christian involvement in government philosophy entirely. The corruption of a thing does not mean the thing itself is bad--only the corruption of the thing.

God chose Israel to be a state based on faith. It started out to be a nation more than a state. But becoming a state became an essential part of the nation because it seemed people, in their weakness, could only hold onto the nation by reference to the state.

And so, Israel became a state--a monarchy. But it was the Davidic monarchy--a state based on faith.

It is the same with Christian nations. They coalesce around governments based on faith. They always go downhill, and end up in apostasy or compromise. But the idea is sound and God-inspired.

When Israel failed, God turned to other nations, including their state governments. They just had to be based on faith. Continuing to be faithful in that government philosophy has always been the problem.

Opposing Christian governments falls, I believe, into the Antichristian camp. The strategy is to find fault with the mix of Christianity with government so as to remove it entirely. I don't believe that's what God has ever wanted.

Sure, we must expose Christian governments when they become corrupt so as to not let people get confused between what the State does and what true Christianity would do. It is best to point out the sins of Christian governments rather than dismiss the involvement of Christianity in the State entirely.

RDKirk · Mar 12, 2023

RandyPNW said:
Though there is truth in this, I prefer to not get caught up in the "hate the Christian State" rhetoric. It easily falls into the "Antichristian" camp, which attempts to delegitimize Christian involvement in government philosophy entirely. The corruption of a thing does not mean the thing itself is bad--only the corruption of the thing.

God chose Israel to be a state based on faith. It started out to be a nation more than a state. But becoming a state became an essential part of the nation because it seemed people, in their weakness, could only hold onto the nation by reference to the state.

And so, Israel became a state--a monarchy. But it was the Davidic monarchy--a state based on faith.

It is the same with Christian nations. They coalesce around governments based on faith. They always go downhill, and end up in apostasy or compromise. But the idea is sound and God-inspired.

When Israel failed, God turned to other nations, including their state governments. They just had to be based on faith. Continuing to be faithful in that government philosophy has always been the problem.

Opposing Christian governments falls, I believe, into the Antichristian camp. The strategy is to find fault with the mix of Christianity with government so as to remove it entirely. I don't believe that's what God has ever wanted.

Sure, we must expose Christian governments when they become corrupt so as to not let people get confused between what the State does and what true Christianity would do. It is best to point out the sins of Christian governments rather than dismiss the involvement of Christianity in the State entirely.

Can you provide an example of a "Christian state" you have in mind? Or is your concept merely hypothetical?

RandyPNW · Mar 13, 2023

RDKirk said:
Can you provide an example of a "Christian state" you have in mind? Or is your concept merely hypothetical?

I've been asked this *many, many* times!

No, I'm not being hypothetical. 1st, let me say that I believe in the "rise and fall" of nations. Nations, like Israel, start out on fire with the truth of God, like lightning bearing down on Mt. Sinai. Later, truth ebbs not because truth itself ebbs, but rather, people grow careless with truth, compromise morality, and lose their experience with God.

Then it is that the nation falls, and no longer appears to be "called and chosen," even if God does not give up on it. So with the rise and fall of Israel it looks as if Israel failed for all time. But the continuance of a remnant is a reminder that final judgment awaits to make the nation whole again, removing all untoward influences that are presently preventing this.

After Israel's fall, God raised up European Civilization to become Christian nations and Christian states. We can then name many nations that have been "Christian" in name, including virtually all European nations, including nations influenced by European Christianity.

Though these "Christian states" have "fallen" in modern times, they will, like Israel, experience renewal at the coming of Christ in my theology. In history Christian kings did rule and set the law of God as their moral standard, both for themselves and for their people.

RDKirk · Mar 13, 2023

RandyPNW said:
I've been asked this *many, many* times!

You might, then, want to critically examine your thesis.

RandyPNW said:
No, I'm not being hypothetical. 1st, let me say that I believe in the "rise and fall" of nations. Nations, like Israel, start out on fire with the truth of God, like lightning bearing down on Mt. Sinai. Later, truth ebbs not because truth itself ebbs, but rather, people grow careless with truth, compromise morality, and lose their experience with God.

Then it is that the nation falls, and no longer appears to be "called and chosen," even if God does not give up on it. So with the rise and fall of Israel it looks as if Israel failed for all time. But the continuance of a remnant is a reminder that final judgment awaits to make the nation whole again, removing all untoward influences that are presently preventing this.

After Israel's fall, God raised up European Civilization to become Christian nations and Christian states. We can then name many nations that have been "Christian" in name, including virtually all European nations, including nations influenced by European Christianity.

Israel cannot be considered an example. Israel was a nation--the only nation--created by God Himself, for Himself. God selected a single man from whom to build His nation, He explicitly identified the geographic boundaries of that nation. He made a specific covenant in blood with the people of that nation, with both of them acknowledging their promises to one another. He gave them a specific law to govern them differently from any other nation.

Israel is not a valid example of God's relationship with any other nation.

RandyPNW said:
Though these "Christian states" have "fallen" in modern times, they will, like Israel, experience renewal at the coming of Christ in my theology. In history Christian kings did rule and set the law of God as their moral standard, both for themselves and for their people.

Come up with another besides Israel, because Israel is not a valid example of a "Christian state."

RandyPNW · Mar 13, 2023

RDKirk said:
You might, then, want to critically examine your thesis.

Israel cannot be considered an example. Israel was a nation--the only nation--created by God Himself, for Himself. God selected a single man from whom to build His nation, He explicitly identified the geographic boundaries of that nation. He made a specific covenant in blood with the people of that nation, with both of them acknowledging their promises to one another. He gave them a specific law to govern them differently from any other nation.

Israel is not a valid example of God's relationship with any other nation.

Come up with another besides Israel, because Israel is not a valid example of a "Christian state."

So I'm to take your word on this when the facts are otherwise? God positively did *not* just produce Israel, and no other nation. Nothing could be clearer that God did the opposite, namely predicted for Abraham that not only would He produce Israel as a nation, but He would also produce "many nations" of faith for Abraham.

In effect, if we have Israel as a nation-state to fulfill what God promised Abraham, then God is also promising many nation-states for Abraham. And in reality that is precisely what we've had with European Christianity. We've had many nation-states identify as nations called and chosen of God with governments ruling in the name of the Christian religion. How you can come up with the opposite truth is beyond me, but typical of what I hear today.

Jesus said that God was taking away the Kingdom of God from Israel and giving it to a nation more worthy of it. That became the Roman Kingdom, when after Constantine they arrived at a Christian State under Theodosius. They were more willing, at that point, to be a form of God's Kingdom on earth than Israel was. And the Roman Nation expanded to all of Europe, to France, to Germany, to Scandinavia in the West, and even as far as Russia in the East.

RDKirk · Mar 13, 2023

RandyPNW said:
So I'm to take your word on this when the facts are otherwise? God positively did *not* just produce Israel, and no other nation. Nothing could be clearer that God did the opposite, namely predicted for Abraham that not only would He produce Israel as a nation, but He would also produce "many nations" of faith for Abraham.

In effect, if we have Israel as a nation-state to fulfill what God promised Abraham, then God is also promising many nation-states for Abraham. And in reality that is precisely what we've had with European Christianity. We've had many nation-states identify as nations called and chosen of God with governments ruling in the name of the Christian religion. How you can come up with the opposite truth is beyond me, but typical of what I hear today.

Jesus said that God was taking away the Kingdom of God from Israel and giving it to a nation more worthy of it. That became the Roman Kingdom, when after Constantine they arrived at a Christian State under Theodosius. They were more willing, at that point, to be a form of God's Kingdom on earth than Israel was. And the Roman Nation expanded to all of Europe, to France, to Germany, to Scandinavia in the West, and even as far as Russia in the East.

Then the devil took Jesus and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. The devil said to Jesus, “I will give you all these kingdoms and all their power and glory. It has all been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I wish. If you worship me, all will be yours. -- Luke 4

My kingdom is not of this world. -- John 18

FireDragon76 · Apr 12, 2023

RandyPNW said:
Though there is truth in this, I prefer to not get caught up in the "hate the Christian State" rhetoric. It easily falls into the "Antichristian" camp, which attempts to delegitimize Christian involvement in government philosophy entirely. The corruption of a thing does not mean the thing itself is bad--only the corruption of the thing.

God chose Israel to be a state based on faith. It started out to be a nation more than a state. But becoming a state became an essential part of the nation because it seemed people, in their weakness, could only hold onto the nation by reference to the state.

And so, Israel became a state--a monarchy. But it was the Davidic monarchy--a state based on faith.

It is the same with Christian nations. They coalesce around governments based on faith. They always go downhill, and end up in apostasy or compromise. But the idea is sound and God-inspired.

When Israel failed, God turned to other nations, including their state governments. They just had to be based on faith. Continuing to be faithful in that government philosophy has always been the problem.

Opposing Christian governments falls, I believe, into the Antichristian camp. The strategy is to find fault with the mix of Christianity with government so as to remove it entirely. I don't believe that's what God has ever wanted.

Sure, we must expose Christian governments when they become corrupt so as to not let people get confused between what the State does and what true Christianity would do. It is best to point out the sins of Christian governments rather than dismiss the involvement of Christianity in the State entirely.

This is where you make a serious theological mistake. "Christian" nations are not equivalent to Israel.

What religion the State?

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Similar threads