This is exactly how I came to understand your arguments. Every time there was a, 'these guys all affirmed this,' it always cued me in that whatever was being asserted is compatible with or even goes hand-in-hand with classical Reformed Protestant orthodoxy. I didn't need to be convinced that their affirmations were rooted in Scripture; I already agree with their understandings and interpretations of Scripture. Why such a pattern is so difficult for many to understand baffles me, and I can't help but suspect they want to disagree from the outset due to an already-existing bias against you or against the concept of a Christian Nation.
Van Til: *Christians ought to assume the Reformed Christian tradition/view of the world and develop their knowledge of any subject from it.* Bahnsen: *Christians ought to assume the Reformed Christian tradition/view of the world and develop their political theory from it.* Wolfe: *I’m going to assumes the Reformed Christian tradition/view of the world to develop my political theory.* Presuppers: *“How dare Wolfe assume the Reformed Christian tradition/view of the world to develop his political theory.”*
Do Van Til and Bahnsen prove their points using Scripture? Yes. Lots and lots of Scripture. I’m about 70% done reading Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics, and there is some 3,000 Bible passages referenced throughout the book. I have read a page that had some 40+ Bible passages referenced on the one single page. It took ages to read it and it was excellent. Sometimes the references are multiple entire chapters.
An argument does not establish absolute truth, except in a contingent fashion. If the antecedent holds true and the argument is sound then the conclusion holds true. However, the argument can still be sound even if the antecedent is impossible in practice. The real problem with the chapter and verse folks is they don't hold everything subject to this principle so they themselves are guilty of unequal weights and measures in the realm of ideas. I think mathematics can be helpful here. If I tell you a differentiable function is necessarily continuous then you ask me for chapter and verse it's quite annoying to the point of being laughable. But, is math Christian ? Well, Math is certainly about truth, and God is omniscient. How can it not be Christian ? So, we have a Christian math statement which no one can give me chapter and verse. It's easier to see the absurdity with math. In any event, no one is universally about chapter and verse in every aspect of our existence, so requiring it for CN is lopsided if nothing else. Furthermore, the desire to apply Bible verses outside their actual context is far more dangerous than developing a political theory which favors Christianity over other systems which either elevate a false particular religion or deify the state and promote polytheism under the guise of "religious freedom"
Just like low information voters, there are low information Christians grasping for reasons to denounce your position because they have no biblical counter arguments. When you're flat on your rear end, you grasp for help to get up. That's what this complaint about "not using Scripture" is.
I’m very grateful for your time and the honesty of this video and argumentation. This will make me think through your book again, and digest these concepts again. Blessings brother.
Your detractor, Kevin DeYoung once used the Trinity to argue his version of complimentarianism (really soft egalitarianism). The Trinity is often used in place of a proof text to override Scriptural hierarchies of Men over women or Husband as head over Wife.
“The natural sense itself dictates what is just and right, and therefore agrees with the law of God in that point. But the laws of men must be varied according to circumstances, and framed to suit the manners and constitution of a people.” (Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 20, Section 14) “The law of nature and the general precepts of the Word do sufficiently direct men in their duty towards God and men in all relations, capacities, and conditions whatsoever.” (The Works of John Owen, Volume 13) “The Word of God is sufficient to lead us to salvation and to direct our moral conduct, yet it does not prescribe every rule for the governance of states, which must be left to prudence and experience.” (Theologia Christiana, Book 3, Chapter 8) -Benedict Pictet
“What makes an argument Christian is that the argument includes theological statements from revealed truth” Chefs kiss. Scripture is necessary but insufficient. Theological statements are necessary and sufficient.
These guys would have interrupted the first reading of the Declaration of Independence when they got to the part where it says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident... Excuse me, What is the chapter and verse for that?" Thank God they are few; I hope they are disciples (learners). These people are made more for Church than Government.
This is spot on in at least one way and my experience bears this out. Let me explain. I read a book a few months ago where the first 7 chapters of the book simply reiterated what I already agreed with and knew about soteriology. This was all just to get to the point of what the author thought about Ephesians 4:11. Although well written and true, that’s not why I picked up the book.
John 5, You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. Some people have trouble connecting the dots; or some people just won't move toward truth (John 3). Jesus encountered the same thing.
Some anti-CNs are just stubborn & akin to the pragmatic faction of the semi-Arians who were technically in agreement w/ the Nicene creed but insisted only biblical language be used. (Some semi-Arians were basically Trinitarians. Others were heretics).
You shouldn't assume on this one. There are some doctrines and theological systems that you can easily build off of. This isn't one of them, especially as Christians in the West largely abandoned it for the last several centuries and others around the world have never adopted it. If the foundation has cracks then whatever you build on it won't be good either. As well, we should be able to substantiate the edifice with Scripture inasmuch.
My biggest critique is that economics is not addressed in this debate. If politics are the ordering of human relations, then economics is intrinsically tied to that argument. I have not seen any reference from you or any supporters that tie any economic system to your position. I do not believe that it is complete until there is an association with you or someone else.
The problem I see in this is that you think you need a universal economic system, in the same way you don’t need a universal political system, it’s the same way for economics.
@jermoosekek1101 I am saying- if we see human relations like a family, politics is telling how siblings should relate to brothers and economics is how siblings should relate to sisters. If it is appropriate for the Bible to be used like this, then a corresponding theory should exist for economics. If this isn't what you were saying, I got confused.
@@roddumlauf9241 I’m curious, however, about the method and manner by which Christians would take over the government apparatus in non-democratic regimes. And his version of CN assumes, at least I think it does, some sort of Protestant Christianity assuming power. But the version of Christianity that is dominant in Russia is not Protestant. Does that change the dynamics of Russian CN? Those were my questions anyway.
@@toddstevens9667I’d recommend reading his book; I just finished it. He has a whole section addressing the role of the civil magistrate and another that gets into how and when the people should hold the magistrate accountable
@@toddstevens9667 I assume that Lone Bulwark/Stephen Wolfe's version of Christian Nationalism in the United States would come by some sort of Protestant Christianity. However, I question any hope of this. Protestants and especially Evangelicals are so divided and attack each other and war with each other. The Reformed seem especially nasty towards non Calvinists. A house divided will fall. How can they expect to build a "Christian Country" when they can't even keep from destroying each other ? The vast majority of Evangelicals Russians voted for Putin and support him and are pleased with the Kremlin's support of them. The Russian Orthodox Church is the official State Church in Russia. The majority of Christians in Russia are Orthodox. The Russian Orthodox Church has built more than 30,000 new church buildings in the past ten years in response to the Russian Revival. What about Christian Nationalism in Africa, or even China ? What would that look like ?
Approach to epistemology effects level of detail in argumentation. Strictly speaking using what your audience believes as a basis for what premises are available to you in argument construction is sufficient. But some people have a view of epistemology that requires that you demonstrate/justify how you got there before you can claim to have knowledge on a topic.
Maybe you could commission someone to print a multi-volume edition that is 3x as big (and costs 3x more) that copy/pastes the supporting scriptural passages and exegesis used by the protestant reformers quoted? Vox Populi! Give them what they want! (People are already sidestepping the arguments anyway, but you might as well monetize that.)
If you were to write a book arguing for the Trinity you would need to appeal to Scripture, so for a book arguing for Christian Nationalism you would need to do the same.
The real reason you do not use scripture is because scripture itself does not make a "case for Christian nationalism." Your book may be a nice logical exercise. Fine. And I think it is, though I don't agree with all the premises. But let's be clear here: Unlike the doctrine of the Trinity, which you reference multiple times in this video, the premises of your book are the contextual fruit of the growth and strength of Western political thought and natural theology, not a robust exegetical biblical survey. Nothing wrong with that by the way, just the nature of things.
The issue is that you have argued that this is a political perspective which may be considered on the ground of prudence but now you want to claim authority for it on the grounds of tradition and logic. The reformers inherited Christendom and we have moved away from that. You continue assuming the Christendom in our tradition in order to prove Christendom as the wisest option for today, but it wasn’t biblical then and it’s not biblical now. I’m fine with your political opinion but it’s not authoritative and if you are now saying it is, you have to demonstrate biblically. You are trying to assume what you have to prove, or make it more clear “this is an opinion for consideration and not authoritative”.
The problem, of course, is that we Christians want to have biblical positions. We want to have the same opinion as God. The only way to know what God thinks is from His scripture. If you want biblical Christians to follow you, you’re going to have to back up what you say with scripture. That’s just the way it is. The other problem is that CN is not biblical. So you really can’t quote NT scripture to support your position. Sorry.
"So you really can’t quote NT scripture to support your position. Sorry." ~ Right, because he is not a dispensationalist, so he gets to use the OT also. And he also gets to appeal to and cite theologians who have done the exegetical work, so that he doesn't have to rediscover the wheel.
@@noxvenit Funny how the covenentalist position is so tied to the OT in some ways, yet eschews it in so many more. But I’m a Christian, not an Israelite under the Mosaic covenant. So I really do need some sort of NT verse or Apostolic example if Wolfe wants me to be taking over governments for Christ.
@@noxvenit One more point. I’m not a dispensationalist either. I was raised Orthodox Presbyterian. My parents taught me to read using the works of Knox, Calvin, Luther, and Edwards. They actually tried to make me memorize sermons by Whitefield, but I never could remember a paragraph longer than a week or so lol. But in the 1950s (yes, I’m probably much older than you) I found the Puritans. And frankly, my approach to scripture was primarily shaped by my reading of their works. Many of them made very interesting distinctions between Israel and the church, which much later seemed to be trumpeted by the dispensationalists. But I think many of them (the dispys) are just crackpots. But I still would insist that Christian duty is framed by the NT, not the OT. I think I’m supposed to follow the example and writings of the Apostles, rather than Moses. So I want some sort of NT scripture to hang my hat on … especially if someone is telling me to ignore NT scriptures ordering me to submit to the government that God has seen fit to place me under. Anyway, just my opinion. 😁
@ "But I still would insist that Christian duty is framed by the NT, not the OT. I think I’m supposed to follow the example and writings of the Apostles, rather than Moses." You may so insist. I (although not CN myself) insist that our duty is framed by both, since there is no disparity between the two. Yours is still at least a quasi-dispensational approach, I believe. "So I want some sort of NT scripture to hang my hat on … especially if someone is telling me to ignore NT scriptures ordering me to submit to the government that God has seen fit to place me under." I may have missed it, but where have CN told anyone to (categorically) ignore scriptures ordering us to submit to governing authorities?
One would have to be capable of understanding the point in the first place, in order to know if and when it has been reached. You must practice patience, grasshopper.
This is exactly how I came to understand your arguments. Every time there was a, 'these guys all affirmed this,' it always cued me in that whatever was being asserted is compatible with or even goes hand-in-hand with classical Reformed Protestant orthodoxy. I didn't need to be convinced that their affirmations were rooted in Scripture; I already agree with their understandings and interpretations of Scripture. Why such a pattern is so difficult for many to understand baffles me, and I can't help but suspect they want to disagree from the outset due to an already-existing bias against you or against the concept of a Christian Nation.
Van Til: *Christians ought to assume the Reformed Christian tradition/view of the world and develop their knowledge of any subject from it.*
Bahnsen: *Christians ought to assume the Reformed Christian tradition/view of the world and develop their political theory from it.*
Wolfe: *I’m going to assumes the Reformed Christian tradition/view of the world to develop my political theory.*
Presuppers: *“How dare Wolfe assume the Reformed Christian tradition/view of the world to develop his political theory.”*
Do Van Til and Bahnsen prove their points using Scripture? Yes. Lots and lots of Scripture.
I’m about 70% done reading Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics, and there is some 3,000 Bible passages referenced throughout the book.
I have read a page that had some 40+ Bible passages referenced on the one single page. It took ages to read it and it was excellent. Sometimes the references are multiple entire chapters.
@MrNanonen those two scholars are scholars. Wolfe studied Tgeology where? Oh that's right. He is not a Biblical Scholar.
@@johntobey1558 Wolfe is also, not a meteorologist. Does that mean he is incapable of tell you when it's raining ?
@jamesmiller210 no it just means he would defer to : Greg Beale, Moises Silva , and other NT, amd especially old Testament Scholars.
Would you please upload the intro as its own video? I'd like to link to it and want your account to get the credit
th-cam.com/video/GeQWY4ZmP5I/w-d-xo.htmlsi=WsPYo44zg_qKDz_c
An argument does not establish absolute truth, except in a contingent fashion. If the antecedent holds true and the argument is sound then the conclusion holds true. However, the argument can still be sound even if the antecedent is impossible in practice.
The real problem with the chapter and verse folks is they don't hold everything subject to this principle so they themselves are guilty of unequal weights and measures in the realm of ideas. I think mathematics can be helpful here. If I tell you a differentiable function is necessarily continuous then you ask me for chapter and verse it's quite annoying to the point of being laughable. But, is math Christian ? Well, Math is certainly about truth, and God is omniscient. How can it not be Christian ? So, we have a Christian math statement which no one can give me chapter and verse. It's easier to see the absurdity with math. In any event, no one is universally about chapter and verse in every aspect of our existence, so requiring it for CN is lopsided if nothing else.
Furthermore, the desire to apply Bible verses outside their actual context is far more dangerous than developing a political theory which favors Christianity over other systems which either elevate a false particular religion or deify the state and promote polytheism under the guise of "religious freedom"
It's sad that in order to start doing basic algebra, some want us to reestablish that 2+2=4 😞
Well said
Just like low information voters, there are low information Christians grasping for reasons to denounce your position because they have no biblical counter arguments. When you're flat on your rear end, you grasp for help to get up. That's what this complaint about "not using Scripture" is.
I’m very grateful for your time and the honesty of this video and argumentation. This will make me think through your book again, and digest these concepts again. Blessings brother.
I truly don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp. I just came across another video making this critique.
To supplement your argument I'll quote a cross-refence from Calvin who's known for his lack of cross-refences.
" : " --The Institutes
Your detractor, Kevin DeYoung once used the Trinity to argue his version of complimentarianism (really soft egalitarianism). The Trinity is often used in place of a proof text to override Scriptural hierarchies of Men over women or Husband as head over Wife.
And some people turn to trinitarian heresy to affirm male headship/female submission. Best to keep gender discussions away from the Trinity
How is just stance egalitarian?
This is so solid. I want to go to this school.
Great post
I’ll keep my eyes open for the inevitable edit of clips jammed together supposedly proving that Steven thinks he doesn’t need scripture.
“The natural sense itself dictates what is just and right, and therefore agrees with the law of God in that point. But the laws of men must be varied according to circumstances, and framed to suit the manners and constitution of a people.” (Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 20, Section 14)
“The law of nature and the general precepts of the Word do sufficiently direct men in their duty towards God and men in all relations, capacities, and conditions whatsoever.”
(The Works of John Owen, Volume 13)
“The Word of God is sufficient to lead us to salvation and to direct our moral conduct, yet it does not prescribe every rule for the governance of states, which must be left to prudence and experience.”
(Theologia Christiana, Book 3, Chapter 8) -Benedict Pictet
I'm guessing that the Pictet quote is from the French edition, because I can't find it in the earlier Latin edition.
the quote is sourced from the 1876 English translation
Doing the reading now.
Same
Same
“What makes an argument Christian is that the argument includes theological statements from revealed truth”
Chefs kiss.
Scripture is necessary but insufficient. Theological statements are necessary and sufficient.
These guys would have interrupted the first reading of the Declaration of Independence when they got to the part where it says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident... Excuse me, What is the chapter and verse for that?"
Thank God they are few; I hope they are disciples (learners). These people are made more for Church than Government.
Can you cite in 2nd Hezekiah why you posted this video? 😅
This is spot on in at least one way and my experience bears this out. Let me explain.
I read a book a few months ago where the first 7 chapters of the book simply reiterated what I already agreed with and knew about soteriology. This was all just to get to the point of what the author thought about Ephesians 4:11. Although well written and true, that’s not why I picked up the book.
John 5, You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Some people have trouble connecting the dots; or some people just won't move toward truth (John 3). Jesus encountered the same thing.
Some anti-CNs are just stubborn & akin to the pragmatic faction of the semi-Arians who were technically in agreement w/ the Nicene creed but insisted only biblical language be used. (Some semi-Arians were basically Trinitarians. Others were heretics).
You shouldn't assume on this one. There are some doctrines and theological systems that you can easily build off of. This isn't one of them, especially as Christians in the West largely abandoned it for the last several centuries and others around the world have never adopted it. If the foundation has cracks then whatever you build on it won't be good either. As well, we should be able to substantiate the edifice with Scripture inasmuch.
You should have started by writing a book proving the existence of God. If you can’t do that why should I assume the rest of your arguments?
/S
Every atom, molecule, system and life form in the Universe is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and leaves unbelief inexcusable.
My biggest critique is that economics is not addressed in this debate. If politics are the ordering of human relations, then economics is intrinsically tied to that argument. I have not seen any reference from you or any supporters that tie any economic system to your position. I do not believe that it is complete until there is an association with you or someone else.
The problem I see in this is that you think you need a universal economic system, in the same way you don’t need a universal political system, it’s the same way for economics.
@jermoosekek1101 I am saying- if we see human relations like a family, politics is telling how siblings should relate to brothers and economics is how siblings should relate to sisters. If it is appropriate for the Bible to be used like this, then a corresponding theory should exist for economics.
If this isn't what you were saying, I got confused.
Can you make a case for Christian Nationalism in Russia ?
Interesting comment
His text is not really specific to one country. The case is already made.
@@roddumlauf9241 I’m curious, however, about the method and manner by which Christians would take over the government apparatus in non-democratic regimes. And his version of CN assumes, at least I think it does, some sort of Protestant Christianity assuming power. But the version of Christianity that is dominant in Russia is not Protestant. Does that change the dynamics of Russian CN? Those were my questions anyway.
@@toddstevens9667I’d recommend reading his book; I just finished it. He has a whole section addressing the role of the civil magistrate and another that gets into how and when the people should hold the magistrate accountable
@@toddstevens9667 I assume that Lone Bulwark/Stephen Wolfe's version of Christian Nationalism in the United States would come by some sort of Protestant Christianity. However, I question any hope of this. Protestants and especially Evangelicals are so divided and attack each other and war with each other. The Reformed seem especially nasty towards non Calvinists. A house divided will fall. How can they expect to build a "Christian Country" when they can't even keep from destroying each other ? The vast majority of Evangelicals Russians voted for Putin and support him and are pleased with the Kremlin's support of them. The Russian Orthodox Church is the official State Church in Russia. The majority of Christians in Russia are Orthodox. The Russian Orthodox Church has built more than 30,000 new church buildings in the past ten years in response to the Russian Revival. What about Christian Nationalism in Africa, or even China ? What would that look like ?
Approach to epistemology effects level of detail in argumentation. Strictly speaking using what your audience believes as a basis for what premises are available to you in argument construction is sufficient. But some people have a view of epistemology that requires that you demonstrate/justify how you got there before you can claim to have knowledge on a topic.
Maybe you could commission someone to print a multi-volume edition that is 3x as big (and costs 3x more) that copy/pastes the supporting scriptural passages and exegesis used by the protestant reformers quoted?
Vox Populi! Give them what they want!
(People are already sidestepping the arguments anyway, but you might as well monetize that.)
This objection to your book just never made sense to me. MPAI
Can you defend your view using Scripture?
Romans 13, Genesis 1:27
@ How do these verses argue for a natural law Christian nation?
If you were to write a book arguing for the Trinity you would need to appeal to Scripture, so for a book arguing for Christian Nationalism you would need to do the same.
He does
@@jermoosekek1101 In the video he argues that one does not need to reference any Scripture in a book arguing for this position
its implied
The real reason you do not use scripture is because scripture itself does not make a "case for Christian nationalism." Your book may be a nice logical exercise. Fine. And I think it is, though I don't agree with all the premises. But let's be clear here: Unlike the doctrine of the Trinity, which you reference multiple times in this video, the premises of your book are the contextual fruit of the growth and strength of Western political thought and natural theology, not a robust exegetical biblical survey. Nothing wrong with that by the way, just the nature of things.
You need scripture to defend why you didn't use scripture in your book.
The Bible = Jesus
👀👀
The issue is that you have argued that this is a political perspective which may be considered on the ground of prudence but now you want to claim authority for it on the grounds of tradition and logic. The reformers inherited Christendom and we have moved away from that. You continue assuming the Christendom in our tradition in order to prove Christendom as the wisest option for today, but it wasn’t biblical then and it’s not biblical now. I’m fine with your political opinion but it’s not authoritative and if you are now saying it is, you have to demonstrate biblically. You are trying to assume what you have to prove, or make it more clear “this is an opinion for consideration and not authoritative”.
The problem, of course, is that we Christians want to have biblical positions. We want to have the same opinion as God. The only way to know what God thinks is from His scripture. If you want biblical Christians to follow you, you’re going to have to back up what you say with scripture. That’s just the way it is. The other problem is that CN is not biblical. So you really can’t quote NT scripture to support your position. Sorry.
"So you really can’t quote NT scripture to support your position. Sorry." ~ Right, because he is not a dispensationalist, so he gets to use the OT also. And he also gets to appeal to and cite theologians who have done the exegetical work, so that he doesn't have to rediscover the wheel.
@@noxvenit Funny how the covenentalist position is so tied to the OT in some ways, yet eschews it in so many more. But I’m a Christian, not an Israelite under the Mosaic covenant. So I really do need some sort of NT verse or Apostolic example if Wolfe wants me to be taking over governments for Christ.
@@noxvenit One more point. I’m not a dispensationalist either. I was raised Orthodox Presbyterian. My parents taught me to read using the works of Knox, Calvin, Luther, and Edwards. They actually tried to make me memorize sermons by Whitefield, but I never could remember a paragraph longer than a week or so lol. But in the 1950s (yes, I’m probably much older than you) I found the Puritans. And frankly, my approach to scripture was primarily shaped by my reading of their works. Many of them made very interesting distinctions between Israel and the church, which much later seemed to be trumpeted by the dispensationalists. But I think many of them (the dispys) are just crackpots. But I still would insist that Christian duty is framed by the NT, not the OT. I think I’m supposed to follow the example and writings of the Apostles, rather than Moses. So I want some sort of NT scripture to hang my hat on … especially if someone is telling me to ignore NT scriptures ordering me to submit to the government that God has seen fit to place me under. Anyway, just my opinion. 😁
@
"But I still would insist that Christian duty is framed by the NT, not the OT. I think I’m supposed to follow the example and writings of the Apostles, rather than Moses."
You may so insist. I (although not CN myself) insist that our duty is framed by both, since there is no disparity between the two. Yours is still at least a quasi-dispensational approach, I believe.
"So I want some sort of NT scripture to hang my hat on … especially if someone is telling me to ignore NT scriptures ordering me to submit to the government that God has seen fit to place me under."
I may have missed it, but where have CN told anyone to (categorically) ignore scriptures ordering us to submit to governing authorities?
@@noxvenit I hear CN podcasters all the time calling for Christians to takeover the government for Jesus. It’s literally all over TH-cam lol
Can you join with seventh day Adventist person, I think that will be interest
So you reject partaking in the Bread of Life as Jesus Christ instructed. That is a stupid idea!
Why didnt you cite scripture from the statements that theologians made?
Wow !the scene in the Santa Claus where the wife of the psychoanalyst talks a lot of not getting to the point...
This video was an IQ test, and you failed.
@levimercedes6029 you are a jerk!
@@levimercedes6029😂😂😂
One would have to be capable of understanding the point in the first place, in order to know if and when it has been reached. You must practice patience, grasshopper.