What religion the State?

[RandyPNW]

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

Making a claim doesn't make your case. I stand by what I said. And the theology is, I believe, sound. Asserting a contrary position is not theology--it is opinion without any basis.

Jesus said he would take the Kingdom of God from Israel and give it to a more worthy *nation.* That is just like what God did with Israel, making a covenant with her in order to establish a temporal Kingdom in her midst. God does the same with Christian nations.

It may have been stated more definitively at the time Jesus said this except that Christian nations did not evolve until
several centuries later. But we know that because Israel broke her covenant with God under the Law God had to establish a New Covenant with the nations.

This is explicitly the essence of what the Abrahamic Covenant promised. And it is what Paul declared was being fulfilled among the *nations.*

Gal 3.8 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."

Honestly, I can't understand why there is such an almost-"antichristian" rant against Christian nationalism today, unless it's because Christians today are trying to impose their religion on non-Christian populations. Although it may not be wise to promote an almost "political" form of Christianity today, in states that are less than "Christian," I can't see why Christian history then is "revised" as if it was always a bad thing to have a national Christianity?

Again, it seems atypical of the spirit of Christianity itself to hinder the spread of Christianity among both people and politicians, and to include Christianity in the social mores and public identity. More Christianity in society would seem to increase public compassion and social justice activities?

 

[RDKirk]

Making a claim doesn't make your case. I stand by what I said. And the theology is, I believe, sound. Asserting a contrary position is not theology--it is opinion without any basis.

Jesus said he would take the Kingdom of God from Israel and give it to a more worthy *nation.* That is just like what God did with Israel, making a covenant with her in order to establish a temporal Kingdom in her midst. God does the same with Christian nations.

It may have been stated more definitively at the time Jesus said this except that Christian nations did not evolve until
several centuries later. But we know that because Israel broke her covenant with God under the Law God had to establish a New Covenant with the nations.

This is explicitly the essence of what the Abrahamic Covenant promised. And it is what Paul declared was being fulfilled among the *nations.*

Gal 3.8 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."

Honestly, I can't understand why there is such an almost-"antichristian" rant against Christian nationalism today, unless it's because Christians today are trying to impose their religion on non-Christian populations. Although it may not be wise to promote an almost "political" form of Christianity today, in states that are less than "Christian," I can't see why Christian history then is "revised" as if it was always a bad thing to have a national Christianity?

Again, it seems atypical of the spirit of Christianity itself to hinder the spread of Christianity among both people and politicians, and to include Christianity in the social mores and public identity. More Christianity in society would seem to increase public compassion and social justice activities?

No, God created for Himself another nation through Jesus:

To the elect who are exiles of the Dispersion throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, chosena 2according to the foreknowledge of God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by His blood:
....
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; -- 1 Peter

 

[RandyPNW]

No, God created for Himself another nation through Jesus:

To the elect who are exiles of the Dispersion throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, chosena 2according to the foreknowledge of God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by His blood:
....
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; -- 1 Peter

Sorry, but that, in my opinion, is a complete misrepresentation of what Peter was saying. He was speaking of *Israel,* which seems transparently clear to me and to others, since he explicitly addressed *Jews* when he called them "exiles of the Dispersion." Israel was a nation, and that fact doesn't in the least discount God's promise to reach out to *nations* to invite them to participate in Kingdom theology.

Matt 28.19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations.

 

[RDKirk]

Sorry, but that, in my opinion, is a complete misrepresentation of what Peter was saying. He was speaking of *Israel,* which seems transparently clear to me and to others, since he explicitly addressed *Jews* when he called them "exiles of the Dispersion." Israel was a nation, and that fact doesn't in the least discount God's promise to reach out to *nations* to invite them to participate in Kingdom theology.

Matt 28.19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations.

Between chapter 1 and chapter 3, Peter detailed the process of creating a new nation of uncut stones based upon the Uncut Cornerstone. Peter was absolutely not speaking of Israel.

 

[RandyPNW]

Between chapter 1 and chapter 3, Peter detailed the process of creating a new nation of uncut stones based upon the Uncut Cornerstone. Peter was absolutely not speaking of Israel.

I don't know how you can be "absolutely" certain about something that is so controversial? If you are set in your ways there is no sense discussing or debating this with you. I feel confident, however, that Peter is addressing those in the Dispersion who were, in fact, Jews. And respected commentaries say so. I guess you are "absolutely" certain these respected commentators are wrong?

In case you're missing the point, Peter was addressing Jews who were *believers.* That means they were indeed a nation that had been built on Christ, the OT Rock of Israel. Peter was confirming Israel's call to be a Christian nation. Their future salvation, as a nation, depended on it. And I believe they were promised this would indeed come to pass.

But you are "certain" I'm wrong. Believe what you wish.