What religion the State?

[RandyPNW]

You made that statement, yet you don't believe it.

Why are you speaking for me? You're not me.

 

[RandyPNW]

I would dispute that assertion. God did not merely find Israel and then give it a religion. God created Israel from scratch to be His own nation. There is no indication that Jesus intended the Roman Empire to adopt Christianity, rather His command is to pull people out of their national cultures into the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven is the state of Christian citizenship. From the prophetic dream of Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Danial to the Revelation of John, it's clear that Jesus will not convert the nations of the world, he will destroy them.

Sounds like a manufactured belief to me. I see no evidence that God treats Israel different from how He treats any other nation. He's impartial.

Certainly, God had to begin somewhere, and began with Israel, in this process of showing nations how they should live. So, it appeared that God was "discriminatory" when He chose Israel.

I do agree that there was an "advantage" enjoyed by Israel, in the sense that they were biologically descended form fathers of faith. However, they also had a greater capacity for falling away, which is precisely what they did. So why would God fashion for them a theocracy that would fail unless He designed it for all peoples?

Not only so, but once a nation has been "Christianized," there is the possibility of many new "Abrahams" or "fathers of faith." Why wouldn't the possibility of a new Christian "Israel" exist in the NT era? I refer not to Israel itself, but to any non-Jewish Christian state.

The world is fallen. It will not be restored from its fallen state by the Church...that is also clear in scripture. This is a fallen world of tooth and claw and sword, and the order of the fallen world is kept by tooth and claw and sword. A nation in this fallen world must kept its order and its wealth by the sword, and indeed, Paul confirms this. But Jesus is also true: He who lives by the sword will die by the sword. Thus, every earthly nation falls.

Yes, Israel fell too, and yet God still gave them a theocracy--a right system to live by. The presence of apostates and the wicked does not stop God from giving all nations the message of the Kingdom of God.

Can God change changes, then, if they are given the Gospel of the Kingdom? Of course, the presence of leaven that "leavens the whole lump" does not mean that nations cannot, for some time, adopt the right system of government. Nations have indeed adopted Christianity, and for a time, were better than pagan nations. I would dispute your claim that there is no value in having a Christian Constitution!

"Temporarily and partially" would not be Christian...and it certainly would not be "effective."

Temporary Christianity is perfectly reasonable--as reasonable as Israel's theocracy was.

But it was true. Even Roger Williams recognized it as far back as 1644. The phrase "....hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist congregation in America and the founder of Rhode Island, in his 1644 book "The Bloody Tenent of Persecution." It was from that phrase that Thomas Jefferson cribbed "....wall of separation between church and state" when writing to the Danbury Baptists. Williams carefully counted the points from Constantine to his time that the Church failed Christianity by trying to manage nations in a fallen world.

President Carter made an attempt at trying to manage the United States as though it was a nation of Christians. It didn't work. Not even Christians liked it.

I actually liked Carter's "born again" approach to social justice. However, as a liberal I doubt he tried to make the State fully "Christian." For the record, I voted for Carter, although I'm normally a Republican.

I'm aware of the "separation of State and Religion" beliefs, developed by Roger Williams. Obviously, I disagree with that idea. It's, in my opinion, a very bad idea. What would he have proposed--a religiously-neutral State?

He may have had in mind the separation of *denominations,* rather than an equality between Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism? Any State divided against itself will fall. And I'm sure God did not intend to send that message!

 

[RandyPNW]

I declare that your heretical sect is non-Christian and that the following be enacted from the Justinian Code:

1. The Emperor Constantius to Taurus, Praetorian Prefect.

We have determined that the temples shall be immediately closed in all cities, and access to them forbidden to all, so that permission for further offending may be refused to those who are lost. We also wish everyone to abstain from sacrifices, and if any person should do anything of this kind, he shall be laid low with the avenging sword; and We decree that his property, after having been taken from him, shall be confiscated to the Treasury, and that the Governors of provinces shall also be punished, if they have neglected to suppress these crimes.

I'm not getting your point. A Christian Empire has the right to establish religious law across the empire, to preserve the peace. Obviously, if 90% of the Empire are Christians, then when an Islamic group comes in and builds a mosque, it would create disorder in the State.

To hold a belief in Islam privately would not be against the law. But since it is a Christian State, a very small number of Muslims would be interested in such a thing, and would only be trying to insert something offensive to Christianity.

Now Muslims could say the same thing, that a small Christian group of evangelists are insulting Mohammad if they start a church in an Islamic state. However, we cannot compare the true God with a false god. The truth may be imposed by God, and He did do that with Israel. "Have no other gods."

But man does not have a right to do this, to impose his own preferred religion over all others. There is only one true God, and despite the fact some misrepresent Him, He remains the only true God.

We can only hope that those who know there is only one God and yet do not know Him will tolerate those who do know Him and wish to share their faith. God wishes Christian minorities to spread their faith in non-Christian countries. And He does wish there to be Christian Constitutions in every state. He knows this will not happen, but it is His ideal.

 

[RandyPNW]

And that necessitates making the laws that govern the church become the law over every single man, woman, and child in that nation - or else it's not a "Christian" state it's a secular state, with Christian influences.

Which by the way we already have. It just so happens that our Christian influence is waning.

It's important to note the changing definitions of "secular." It used to be that in Christian states, the political rulers, who were Christian, were called the "secular powers." And the ecclesiastical authorities were referred to as the "religious powers." Thus, both secular and religious powers were Christian--they just had different realms of authority.

But today, "secular government" tends to refer to religiously-neutral government. Any religion is acceptable if a local community elects non-Christian leaders. This is a different kind of "secular government."

No, State law is different from Church law. Just look at political laws, as compared with the bylaws of individual denominations. They are very different. Both can be based on Christian philosophy, but they have different spheres of influence, and one can be more tolerant than the other.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Both can be based on Christian philosophy, but they have different spheres of influence, and one can be more tolerant than the other.

A Christian government must reflect Christ.

a secular government that is by the people and for the people reflects the people.

When we were a nation largely populated by Christians, it reflected Christian values more, even as it gave those in the minority a voice and protections, however, now that we have fewer and fewer actual Christians, our laws reflect more secular values.

However I have zero problem with that, because our nation is actually designed to protect those in the minority - so regardless of whether we the minority or majority, so long as we keep the protections in place we are protected... by design.

I don't have any problem having a minority opinion and voice - so long as I am allowed to practice my faith without government interference.

As Christians we have known from day one (or I have known because I was saved 7 years ago) that we are now, or will be very soon, in the minority. I'm happy regardless, so long as laws don't change. We have been given by the founders of this nation protection to practice our faith no matter who's running the joint.

That is by God's design. Government has been given so that we may practice our faith in peace.

We may have a few fights ahead, but these are battles we are ready to fight - legally and peacefully.

 

[RandyPNW]

A Christian government must reflect Christ.

a secular government that is by the people and for the people reflects the people.

If it reflects pagan people, then that govt. reflects paganism. If it reflects a Christian people, then that govt. reflects Christianity.

The only way the US govt. has been able to work is through the use of an underlying Christian consensus. The more that Christian consensus gets diluted, the less it will work.

When we were a nation largely populated by Christians, it reflected Christian values more, even as it gave those in the minority a voice and protections, however, now that we have fewer and fewer actual Christians, our laws reflect more secular values.

However I have zero problem with that, because our nation is actually designed to protect those in the minority - so regardless of whether we the minority or majority, so long as we keep the protections in place we are protected... by design.

Again, a compassionate system designed to protect minorities work only because the system was originally based on Christianity. The less Christian the system becomes, the less real Christian freedoms are protected. Christians will end up more like they are in Communist or in Islamic countries--tolerated, but without free expression, robbed of any input into the govt.

I don't have any problem having a minority opinion and voice - so long as I am allowed to practice my faith without government interference.

You're not going to have freedom to practice your faith the less Christian the govt. becomes.

As Christians we have known from day one (or I have known because I was saved 7 years ago) that we are now, or will be very soon, in the minority. I'm happy regardless, so long as laws don't change. We have been given by the founders of this nation protection to practice our faith no matter who's running the joint.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the laws are, in fact, changing. And not to the betterment of Christian freedoms. Consider the COVID laws in the state of California, US. Churches are not allowed to sing, while BLM groups are given complete freedom. The less Christian the govt. becomes, the less a Christian minority will be legally protected. Please watch Tucker Carlson some time?

That is by God's design. Government has been given so that we may practice our faith in peace.

Those days are quickly disappearing in Western nations.

We may have a few fights ahead, but these are battles we are ready to fight - legally and peacefully.

As a Christian minority, there is no religious restraint on a pagan majority in restraining your "religious rights." They can change the Constitution, treating it as a "living document," evolving with society towards religious values antithetical to Christianity.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I'm not getting your point. A Christian Empire has the right to establish religious law across the empire, to preserve the peace. Obviously, if 90% of the Empire are Christians, then when an Islamic group comes in and builds a mosque, it would create disorder in the State.

Simply, I'd prefer a secular government. I give church tours and I still have people believe that the Greek Orthodox church worships Zeus and pagan deities. I've had extremely hostile reactions from "Christians" like yourself who accuse us of worshiping Mary and the saints. There are those on CF who say that Catholics and Orthodox worship Satan and the "death cookie" a la Jack Chick. Yeah, you are not my allies nor will I EVER allow you to rule over me.

 

[RandyPNW]

Simply, I'd prefer a secular government. I give church tours and I still have people believe that the Greek Orthodox church worships Zeus and pagan deities. I've had extremely hostile reactions from "Christians" like yourself who accuse us of worshiping Mary and the saints. There are those on CF who say that Catholics and Orthodox worship Satan and the "death cookie" a la Jack Chick. Yeah, you are not my allies nor will I EVER allow you to rule over me.

Eph 4.3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

My personal belief is that the historic churches, including the RCC, the Greek or Russian Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church, etc. are overly large and full of dead wood. But these are religious structures within which there can be many good local assemblies, many good ministers, and many good worshipers. Judging who is sincere, and who is "dead wood" is a matter for each local congregation. It's wrong to judge purely by appearances, or to judge too quickly. And it's wrong to slander others without a full knowledge of the situation.

I don't think Catholics actually worship Mary, but they do treat her like some kind of goddess. Catholics pray to Mary and to the saints, as I understand it, and this is not only unbiblical, but it is contemptible. Only God should be prayed to.

In my ideal Christian state you would be given freedom to use whatever structure you wish to worship in, as long as it complies with laws governing social peace and order. To parade down main street in a society of Protestants holding high a statue of Mary may indeed be considered "disorder," and should in fact cause you some concern!

But I seriously doubt a truly Christian State would burn people at the stake. The Catholics did this to Protestants at a time when they weren't acting truly Christian. This does not characterize a truly Christian state.

The problem, in this regard, is not the Christian state, but rather, any state that acts in a non-Christian, wicked way. Catholic states do not have a monopoly on that. In fact, Christian states are less likely to act in a wicked way than pagan or non-Christian states, in my opinion.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

And you just proved my entire point. Thank you.

 

[RDKirk]

But I seriously doubt a truly Christian State would burn people at the stake. The Catholics did this to Protestants at a time when they weren't acting truly Christian. This does not characterize a truly Christian state.

The problem, in this regard, is not the Christian state, but rather, any state that acts in a non-Christian, wicked way. Catholic states do not have a monopoly on that. In fact, Christian states are less likely to act in a wicked way than pagan or non-Christian states, in my opinion.

Your opinion is not borne out well by history. Maybe ultimately not as wicked, but always, always too wicked to be considered "truly Christian."

It's the fundamental nature of trying to maintain the order and power of any nation in this fallen world. People can be "truly Christian" in this fallen world, but no nation can be.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Eph 4.3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

My personal belief is that the historic churches, including the RCC, the Greek or Russian Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church, etc. are overly large and full of dead wood. But these are religious structures within which there can be many good local assemblies, many good ministers, and many good worshipers. Judging who is sincere, and who is "dead wood" is a matter for each local congregation. It's wrong to judge purely by appearances, or to judge too quickly. And it's wrong to slander others without a full knowledge of the situation.

I don't think Catholics actually worship Mary, but they do treat her like some kind of goddess. Catholics pray to Mary and to the saints, as I understand it, and this is not only unbiblical, but it is contemptible. Only God should be prayed to.

In my ideal Christian state you would be given freedom to use whatever structure you wish to worship in, as long as it complies with laws governing social peace and order. To parade down main street in a society of Protestants holding high a statue of Mary may indeed be considered "disorder," and should in fact cause you some concern!

But I seriously doubt a truly Christian State would burn people at the stake. The Catholics did this to Protestants at a time when they weren't acting truly Christian. This does not characterize a truly Christian state.

The problem, in this regard, is not the Christian state, but rather, any state that acts in a non-Christian, wicked way. Catholic states do not have a monopoly on that. In fact, Christian states are less likely to act in a wicked way than pagan or non-Christian states, in my opinion.

And this, this right here, this is that sectarianism of yours I mentioned earlier.

You're right that a "truly Christian" state would not burn anyone at the stake. But, and this is important, true and real Christians were the ones burning other true and real Christians at the stake. This isn't a matter of real and false Christians; but real Christians on both sides. Because here's the thing: Real Christians are real sinners, and real hypocrites, and real scoundrels.

Indeed, if I am not a real sinner then my faith and confession of the Gospel is meaningless. God does not save people from imaginary sins. God does not save imaginary sinners. God saves real sinners who have real sin, because there is a real Gospel with real mercy from a real God who really loves us and who really sent His Son to this real world. Christ was born of a real virgin, and suffered under the very real Pontius Pilate, and He was crucified on a real cross, and buried in a real tomb, and then He really rose from the dead--and He really will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

I am a real sinner. I commit real sins. I need real repentance, and real mercy to heal my really broken heart, mind, soul and, one day, my very real flesh and blood body.

Real Christians do real bad things. And we need to be honest about that. A life without repentance is a life without faith.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RandyPNW]

Your opinion is not borne out well by history. Maybe ultimately not as wicked, but always, always too wicked to be considered "truly Christian."

It's the fundamental nature of trying to maintain the order and power of any nation in this fallen world. People can be "truly Christian" in this fallen world, but no nation can be.

It really depends on your definition of "Christian State." I'm appalled at the hatred Christians have for Christian States. Hardly what Paul meant by "praying for your political leaders." Even more so, the Christian should pray for a Christian State.

Yes, they always do go corrupt, and none of them perfectly resembles the eschatological Kingdom of God. But that's not the point. If we were to throw out anything Christian that does not meet your standard of perfection, you yourself wouldn't remain standing.

History tends to record the failures, and ignore the successes. Your sense that all Christian states are always failure is not true--not in the least. Either that, or your definition of "Christian State" is so exalted that nothing could possibly fit into the definition. But Christian states have existed, and still exist. And they've existed at all kinds of different levels of spirituality, from functional to disfunctional, from genuine to purely external and pretentious. Your choice to view the "Christian State" as an abject failure identifies you as a cynic. Sorry, but it is what it is.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It really depends on your definition of "Christian State." I'm appalled at the hatred Christians have for Christian States. Hardly what Paul meant by "praying for your political leaders." Even more so, the Christian should pray for a Christian State.

Why? At no point have I been given a reason to want such a thing, let alone to actively pray for it. On the contrary, I pray for citizens of my country to be informed, compassionate, and those who are Christians to be good citizens. And I don't mean by putting little crosses on ballot boxes or voting to have "Christian" leaders in positions of power; I mean loving people.

And here is, perhaps, one of the major "scandals" of good theology: A work that does not benefit my neighbor is not a good work, and thus is not a work done in the service of God; a work "for God" is never a good work because it accomplishes nothing good. How can any of my works benefit God? Or how can any of my works benefit me before God? The answer, of course, is that they can't. God is in need of nothing, and therefore has no need for our good works; God commands good works from us not because these make us holy, righteous, or good before Him; or that He benefits from them. Rather God commands good works from us because God loves people, He loves His good created world, and therefore calls us, and invites us, to partner with Him in loving the world. That is how we become "fellow workers with God" (1 Corinthians 3:9).

God is the Laborer, He is the Servant ("The Son of Man did not come to be served, but rather to serve."). And we are called to be fellow-laborers and servants with Christ our God who gives Himself to the world.

As such, here is what Fr. Martin Luther says,

"If you find yourself in a work by which you accomplish something good for God, or the holy, or yourself, but not for your neighbor alone, then you should know that that work is not a good work. For each one ought to live, speak, act, hear, suffer, and die in love and service for another, even for one’s enemies, a husband for his wife and children, a wife for her husband, children for their parents, servants for their masters, masters for their servants, rulers for their subjects, and subjects for their rulers, so that one’s hand, mouth, eye, foot, heart, and desire is for others; these are Christian works, good in nature." - Martin Luther, Adventspostille

And in On the Freedom of the Christian, Dr. Luther writes,

"We conclude therefore that a Christian man does not live in himself, but in Christ and in his neighbour, or else is no Christian: in Christ by faith; in his neighbour by love. By faith he is carried upwards above himself to God, and by love he sinks back below himself to his neighbour, still always-abiding in God and His love, as Christ says, 'Verily I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man' (John i. 51)." - Martin Luther, On the Freedom of the Christian

It is therefore not in the vocation of the Christian shoemaker to affix little crosses to shoes, but rather to make shoes to clothe the feet of his neighbor, who needs shoes.

Likewise the Christian citizen does not make his government "Christian" by forcing legislation to demand religious conformity from the infidel or heretic, and placing laws against the infidel or heretic; but rather by promoting justice for our neighbor. And thus the Christian citizen desires his neighbor to be free, happy, and healthy--including his own enemies.

"On the contrary, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink;" - Romans 12:20a

Yes, they always do go corrupt, and none of them perfectly resembles the eschatological Kingdom of God. But that's not the point. If we were to throw out anything Christian that does not meet your standard of perfection, you yourself wouldn't remain standing.

On the contrary, it has nothing to do with meeting a standard of perfection; but about recognizing that the State and the Church don't have anything to do with one another.

To quote my other favorite Martin,

"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Strength to Love

History tends to record the failures, and ignore the successes. Your sense that all Christian states are always failure is not true--not in the least. Either that, or your definition of "Christian State" is so exalted that nothing could possibly fit into the definition. But Christian states have existed, and still exist. And they've existed at all kinds of different levels of spirituality, from functional to disfunctional, from genuine to purely external and pretentious. Your choice to view the "Christian State" as an abject failure identifies you as a cynic. Sorry, but it is what it is.

Can you name some of these successes that were the result of a state being explicitly "Christian" in name? And, I should remind you, that when Constantine legalized Christianity it was not a "Christian State" that legalized Christianity, but still a Pagan one (though Constantine himself had, as far as we know, at least nominally converted by then); Rome wouldn't become a "Christian State" until Theodosius nearly 70 years later. I say this because I fully would agree that legalizing Christianity in the Roman Empire was a good thing, but religious tolerance does not require a Christian state, as can be seen by many states in history (and especially today) which are not Christian in name, but which nevertheless tolerated and gave religious freedom (off the top of my head, the Mongol Empire was such, the Khans were very accepting of all religions, and in fact, one of Genghis Khan's sons married the princess of a Christian tribe, and Christians served in the courts of the Khans).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

It really depends on your definition of "Christian State." I'm appalled at the hatred Christians have for Christian States. Hardly what Paul meant by "praying for your political leaders." Even more so, the Christian should pray for a Christian State.

Here is exactly what Paul said, quote:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 1 Timothy 2

Notice the clause that I bolded. It tells us explicitly what to pray for: That we may be left to lead quiet and peaceful Christian lives. In other words, we pray for "benign neglect." If the Church were supposed to conquer the nations of the earth and make them Christian nations, somebody in the NT would have said so. But nobody said so.

Yes, they always do go corrupt, and none of them perfectly resembles the eschatological Kingdom of God. But that's not the point. If we were to throw out anything Christian that does not meet your standard of perfection, you yourself wouldn't remain standing.

That is totally the point. I don't remain standing...I get on my knees. I continue to live only because God is merciful. But there is nothing in scripture that indicates God's mercy extends to earthly nations. Rather, both the OT and the NT point out that God will destroy all earthly nations. No earthly nation will "get out alive."

History tends to record the failures, and ignore the successes.

Not true. History is written by the winners, not the failures.

Your sense that all Christian states are always failure is not true--not in the least. Either that, or your definition of "Christian State" is so exalted that nothing could possibly fit into the definition. But Christian states have existed, and still exist. And they've existed at all kinds of different levels of spirituality, from functional to disfunctional, from genuine to purely external and pretentious. Your choice to view the "Christian State" as an abject failure identifies you as a cynic. Sorry, but it is what it is.

Which Christian state--by your definition-- has not failed to be "truly Christian?"

 

[RandyPNW]

Here is exactly what Paul said, quote:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 1 Timothy 2

Notice the clause that I bolded. It tells us explicitly what to pray for: That we may be left to lead quiet and peaceful Christian lives. In other words, we pray for "benign neglect." If the Church were supposed to conquer the nations of the earth and make them Christian nations, somebody in the NT would have said so. But nobody said so.

Who said anything about the Church conquering nations? You're a bit hysterical, my friend.

Also, you're not reading correctly. Paul is not just praying for being able to lead a quiet and peaceable life. He is also calling Christians to pray for *all men,* including "kings."

That is totally the point. I don't remain standing...I get on my knees. I continue to live only because God is merciful. But there is nothing in scripture that indicates God's mercy extends to earthly nations. Rather, both the OT and the NT point out that God will destroy all earthly nations. No earthly nation will "get out alive."

The Scriptures say that God will judge the nations--not annihilate them completely! God's promise to Abraham was that he would enjoy a posterity of faith among the nations. That can't happen if God has them all destroyed!

You say that there is nothing about God's mercy being extended to earthly nations? Where exactly do you think God extends His mercy--to *heavenly* nations?

Isa 51.4 “Listen to me, my people; hear me, my nation: Instruction will go out from me; my justice will become a light to the nations. 5 My righteousness draws near speedily, my salvation is on the way, and my arm will bring justice to the nations.

Not true. History is written by the winners, not the failures.

History is filled with the dates of great numbers of catastrophes and problems, and fewer dates of victory and success.

Which Christian state--by your definition-- has not failed to be "truly Christian?"

Every Christian state at some point in their history enjoyed limited success. Converting to Christ is itself a victory.

 

[RandyPNW]

Why? At no point have I been given a reason to want such a thing, let alone to actively pray for it.

So you wish for nations to be non-Christian states? Go figure!

Or how can any of my works benefit me before God? The answer, of course, is that they can't.

That's a very strange thing to say. Of course God benefits from our obedience to Him! He wants us to do good! He wants us to be kind and loving, just as He is.

Likewise the Christian citizen does not make his government "Christian" by forcing legislation to demand religious conformity from the infidel or heretic, and placing laws against the infidel or heretic; but rather by promoting justice for our neighbor. And thus the Christian citizen desires his neighbor to be free, happy, and healthy--including his own enemies.

To love our enemy is not to hand him a gun to aid and abet his criminal acts. We are to promote a state that provides a criminal justice system. Locking up a criminal is not an act of hatred towards our neighbor.

On the contrary, it has nothing to do with meeting a standard of perfection; but about recognizing that the State and the Church don't have anything to do with one another.

That State affects the Church, and the Church affects the State. I don't see how you can say otherwise?

Can you name some of these successes that were the result of a state being explicitly "Christian" in name? .... I fully would agree that legalizing Christianity in the Roman Empire was a good thing...

You just admitted that the State converting to Christianity was a good thing. So what's the whole argument about?

...but religious tolerance does not require a Christian state, as can be seen by many states in history (and especially today) which are not Christian in name, but which nevertheless tolerated and gave religious freedom (off the top of my head, the Mongol Empire was such, the Khans were very accepting of all religions, and in fact, one of Genghis Khan's sons married the princess of a Christian tribe, and Christians served in the courts of the Khans).
-CryptoLutheran

Yes, Islamic states give a measure of tolerance for Christians. But they severely limit the freedom Christians have in promoting their faith.

That's the whole point. Christian states allow greater freedom of Christian expression in proclaiming the gospel. Just looking at times when the Christian state apostacizes misses the point.

When the Christian state becomes no better than a pagan state, they are as bad as each other. Hence, the value in conversion to being a Christian state has value when it converts to true Christianity, and not just to an external form of it.

I know Christian states, by their very nature, will be somewhat external and perfunctory in performance. But the whole idea is to give freedom for all people within the state to convert to Christianity without being persecuted for it.

 

[RandyPNW]

And this, this right here, this is that sectarianism of yours I mentioned earlier.

You're right that a "truly Christian" state would not burn anyone at the stake. But, and this is important, true and real Christians were the ones burning other true and real Christians at the stake. This isn't a matter of real and false Christians; but real Christians on both sides. Because here's the thing: Real Christians are real sinners, and real hypocrites, and real scoundrels.

That is not the "real Christianity" I'm talking about. Yes, real Christians committed sins. If they burned people at the stake, they were engaging in torture, and that isn't Christian.

Torture and murder are not the kind of sins most Christians are engaged in. That isn't what the Scriptures mean when they say that all Christians have sin. Rather, they mean that Christians have a sin nature, which we have to always be engaged in overcoming. We have a temptation towards sin, but we can fight it.

 

[RandyPNW]

Your opinion is not borne out well by history. Maybe ultimately not as wicked, but always, always too wicked to be considered "truly Christian."

It's the fundamental nature of trying to maintain the order and power of any nation in this fallen world. People can be "truly Christian" in this fallen world, but no nation can be.

Saying a person is Christian, and saying a nation is Christian are two different things. A person stands alone before God, and is either saved or unsaved, either living a Christian life or not.

But a nation consists of a mix of people, just as a church does. Not everybody in a Christian nation is truly Christian. And not every Christian in a Christian nation acts like a true Christian.

But for a nation to act Christian does not require that 100% of the people in a nation act truly Christian. When a nation, for example, engages in a just war, and does so out of Christian conviction, the nation is acting Christian, regardless of whether every individual is an exemplary or genuine Christian or not. Nations may do a lot of good in the name of Christianity without being 100% Christian in heart and in practice.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is not the "real Christianity" I'm talking about. Yes, real Christians committed sins. If they burned people at the stake, they were engaging in torture, and that isn't Christian.

Torture and murder are not the kind of sins most Christians are engaged in. That isn't what the Scriptures mean when they say that all Christians have sin. Rather, they mean that Christians have a sin nature, which we have to always be engaged in overcoming. We have a temptation towards sin, but we can fight it.

No sin is Christian. But all Christians sin, and sin often.

Have Christians engaged in murder and torture? Absolutely, there were Christians at all levels of government and in positions of authority that supported torture at places like Guantanamo.

And your proposed Christian state will be just another instrument of terror, torture, and sin in the world.

The moment we give the government authority over the Church the government will take full advantage to remove Christ from the Church and install Caesar as lord.

The moment the Church thinks she can be master over the State she has abandoned her mission, calling, and purpose for being; and has sold herself over to the devil.

There can be no compromise. Jesus Christ is Lord.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

So you wish for nations to be non-Christian states? Go figure!

I don't want my religion hijacked by the fallen temporal powers of this fallen age. It's the same reason why I am dogmatically and ideologically opposed to the Religious Right.

That's a very strange thing to say. Of course God benefits from our obedience to Him! He wants us to do good! He wants us to be kind and loving, just as He is.

Yes He does. But He does not benefit from our doing that. When I feed the hungry, it is pleasing to God because a hungry person is fed, not because God Himself was lacking and in need of something. God is God, He doesn't need our works. He desires our good works because they benefit our neighbor, and God cares about our neighbor. So, again, good works not done for our neighbor are not good works at all.

To love our enemy is not to hand him a gun to aid and abet his criminal acts. We are to promote a state that provides a criminal justice system. Locking up a criminal is not an act of hatred towards our neighbor.

I agree. Part of having a just society is a system of justice; and honest, just courts of justice. Though, of course, I'd go further and say that not only should we not give those with malicious intent access to deadly weapons, we should be in the business of turning our own swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks. As whoever lives by the sword dies by the sword.

That State affects the Church, and the Church affects the State. I don't see how you can say otherwise?

Everything affects everything else, that's just the nature of reality. The question is what kind of effect(s) are we talking about, and are these good or bad?

You just admitted that the State converting to Christianity was a good thing. So what's the whole argument about?

I don't recall saying that the "State converting to Christianity was a good thing". I said that legalizing Christianity was a good thing.

The Roman Empire did not "convert" to Christianity until the Edict of Thessalonika by Emperor Theodosius I in 380 AD, making Nicene Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, and thus making heresy a capital offense against the State. The result? The persecution of Jews, Pagans, and heretics. In 386 a heretic by the name of Priscillian was put to death by the "Christian" State of Rome.

Was the legalization of Christianity under Constantine a good thing? Yeah I think so, I think it was very good.

Was the "conversion" of the Roman State a good thing? I've yet to see a good argument made that it is.

Yes, Islamic states give a measure of tolerance for Christians. But they severely limit the freedom Christians have in promoting their faith.

And the sad, perhaps irony, is that Christians and Jews have historically enjoyed more religious freedom in Islamic states than either Jews or Muslims have enjoyed in so-called "Christian" states. While crowns of Castille, Spain, and Aragon were forcing conversion of Jews and Muslims by the sword and Inquisition on the Iberian peninsula, both Jewish and Christian communities were thriving in the Islamic world. Not as though there weren't terrible persecutions by Muslim authorities, but let's not pretend as though things in "Christian" nations were better for non-Christians than things were for Christians in non-Christian nations.

Having said that, I have no desire to live under an Islamic state. Neither do I have any desire to live under a "Christian" state.

I would prefer a secular, liberal republic such as the United States. A nation founded on secular principles of liberal democracy and republicanism. Has the US ever been perfect? Hardly. And America has a shady and ugly history of persecuting, oppressing, and maligning minority groups, especially the Indigienous Nations of the North American continent who were forced to suffer slaughter, genocide, and violent exile; as well as the treatment of people of African descent, enslaved and treated like cattle without any ounce of human dignity.

The long shameful history of the United States is something to be honest about. But even with all that ugliness, the hope of a secular society built upon the premise of human equality and dignity is an ideal that is worth striving for in this world, as we work on behalf of justice for the afflicted, the disenfranchised, and the oppressed; overturning systems of violence and injustice.

That's the whole point. Christian states allow greater freedom of Christian expression in proclaiming the gospel. Just looking at times when the Christian state apostacizes misses the point.

Some of us are familiar with history. Which Christian states, historically, allowed greater freedom of Christian expression in proclaiming the Gospel? Was it when King Henry VIII had William Tyndale put to death? Thomas Moore? Thomas Cranmer? During the Wars of Religion, which were the Christian nations, the ones killing Catholics or the ones killing Protestants?

No, historically, Christian states have not provided greater freedom of Christian expression; but has restricted it to whatever the dictates of the powers and principalities decree.

And I don't have any desire for any king, emperor, or congress to tell me what I can and can't believe.

When the Christian state becomes no better than a pagan state, they are as bad as each other. Hence, the value in conversion to being a Christian state has value when it converts to true Christianity, and not just to an external form of it.

There's no difference between a Christian state and a Pagan state.

Also, what is "true Christianity"? Do you mean Lutheranism? Because Lutheranism is true Christianity, in case you forgot.

I know Christian states, by their very nature, will be somewhat external and perfunctory in performance. But the whole idea is to give freedom for all people within the state to convert to Christianity without being persecuted for it.

Sounds to me like the best way to do that is to have a state that leaves us alone, and lets us practice our faith in peace.

Or would you prefer we live in a society full of conversos, rather than believing converts?

All are welcome to the Holy Fount of Baptism, but we do not bring any to this precious laver of regeneration at the edge of the sword, to do so is to commit grave blasphemy against the Water and the Word of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran