Christian Nationalism | Ep. 75
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ส.ค. 2024
- In this episode of the G3 Podcast, Josh Buice, Virgil Walker, and Scott Aniol address their concerns with Christian Nationalism and provide a positive vision for Christian cultural engagement.
MENTIONED IN THE PODCAST
2023 G3 National Conference:
g3min.org/even...
2023 G3 Pre-Conferences:
g3min.org/even...
g3min.org/even...
Articles on Christian Nationalism
g3min.org/the-...
g3min.org/the-...
g3min.org/the-...
CONNECT WITH US
Support G3 Ministries:
g3min.org/give/
G3 Ministries:
g3min.org
Facebook:
/ g3conference
Twitter:
/ g3conference
Instagram:
/ g3conference
![[TH] VALORANT Champions Seoul - Grand Final - EDG vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WvObMc9VelI/mqdefault.jpg)
You guys really don’t get it. NO ONE is saying that if our nation is a Christian nation, that the culture or laws or anything else will make people Christian. The plan isn’t to lead people to a false sense of security; the plan is to make just laws and promote Christianity as the only true religion. Are you against just laws and Christianity? Because that’s what CN is advocating.
This
Were you able to listen to the entire discussion? They expressed several times that they aren't above reproach and that they don't have all the answers. It's a discussion, not a planning activity.
CN is advocating so many different things depending on the day and person. I will never accept it as long as it is connected to only being allowed to marry into your own customs.
You already got 2 law, the law of Christ. I thought the Post mill affirm that Christ rules from heaven.
They deleted my link to the recent statement on CN twice. I think we know….
Sinners in the hands of an angry God was preached to a Christian Nation. So it’s the responsibility of the Church and fathers to keep preaching to their children. I don’t think anyone is saying cultural Christianity will lead to conversion.
False. America was never a Christian nation. It had Christians within it just like today we have cultural Christians. Big difference.
@Abel Bekele The Supreme Court disagreed with you in a 1892 ruling aptly named Holy Trinity vs United States.
These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
@Abel Bekele Here is a more thorough look at the Supreme Court ruling...
The court held that a minister was not a foreign laborer under the statute even though he was a foreigner. Page 143 U. S. 471 includes the following quotes:
subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the Constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.
If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen"; the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?
There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Com., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."
@Dillon Anderson Friend, our constitution is literally declared to be separate from association to any single religion. Read First Amendment and the History of the US. "Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion" shaking my head. Do you think that sounds like we are a nation like Iran governed by Islam with an Imam leading the country? Now, that is a Muslim nation. Also study history. When Muslims were making war to traveling ships near the Mediterranean sea against Christianity-- an American vessel was sent with a message from the US ambassador that said we are a neutral state and not enemies of Islam as a Christian nation. 🙄
@Abel Bekele The first amendment was speaking of no establishment of denominationalism... like the Anglican Church in England. Several of the states at the time of the writing of the first amendment had established churches. I do know history. We have shifted. We were a Christian Nation. We moved.
I just posted on Conversations that Matter, about this podcast. How I found it biblical, respectful and kind. How you focused on the things you all agree on and difference. That as brothers in the Lord, work this out. I also gave MacArthur and Sproul as an example, they agreed on the essentials and has some disagreements on a few others. But they loved and supported each other in the battle. So Jon responded that if I knew any of you, he'd love to have you on. I don't but I'm your grandmother's age, so young ones please pick up the phone and talk to each other and come together in truth. In private for the sake of the gospel and for God's glory. Thank you for listening.
I think until a level of respectful behaviour is restored that won't work. Watching people defend mockery and disrespect claiming people need thicker skin is getting so disheartening.
@@StevenSmith-1863 you all are so kind, I went to my hubby with this and he supported I was being biblical. Cause as an old woman I still can get emotional. If I could I would grab all the boys and put them in a room with bibles, and snacks of course and say "come you all reason this out together!" Alittle paraphrase.
@@StevenSmith-1863 James White is not a pluralist. But He is principled. AD is often right.
We should be thinking a lot less about institutions per se...bc we may have to eliminate or recreate many...and think a lot more about the biblical paradigm and biblical commands and seek to lay or support the foundations and jettison all vestiges of the pluralistic junk. Pluralism brings injustice, perversion, and widespread apostasy.
I would also put forth that while MacArthur is a.faithful man of God and is getting better, he has never been the example of how to deal with the civil magistrate. Neither is Piper. Jeff Durbin is a great example, Jason Garwood, Michael Foster, Jon Moody, Joel Webbon, and T Russell Hunter are the best examples in the public eye that we should be rallying around - and to a lesser degree Doug Wilson, Toby Sumpter, etc.
Also.the idea of "legislating Christianity" as they are saying is a bit of a strawman.
This 👍
@@EmissariesoftheGospel I disagree with your take on MacArthur. He said in his taped interview that he's never rebelled against the Gospel. To me, what he's really saying is, "I'm Christian because I was raised in a Christian family." That is a red flag testimony.
I love James White. I think I'm with him where I see both sides and which to see productive dialogue and have the bad faith actors repent or be booted from the table.
This video made me love Christian Nationalism so much more. The arguments against it are either missing the point, misunderstanding, or offering a worse alternative.
G3: how to NOT treat your Christian brothers
th-cam.com/video/YDDHQJqnKdM/w-d-xo.html
What is there to love about Christian Nationalism? That’s an honest question, not an attack.
@@toddstevens9667 its the logical fruit from a discipled nation. Many many of the topics being covered in the podcast is the minority perspective of CN.
@@Patriotcollective what is a discipled nation? Is there even one example of a “discipled nation” in the world? That’s a ludicrous concept. You know very well that Jesus did not mean that nations could become Christians. His point was that His Apostles were to leave Israel and go out among the Gentile nations evangelizing individuals. It’s made more clear in Luke’s recitation of the Great Commission. You see it in the Book of Acts and the Epistles. No one is legislating morality. The Apostles preach repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And the vast, vast majority of CN couldn’t care less about a discipled nation. They want to keep foreigners out of our country. That might be a valid political opinion, but it has nothing to do with Christianity. And yes, I have personally heard Doug Wilson argue this position. Anyway, I doubt we’ll ever agree. So have a nice day 😁
@@toddstevens9667 I agree that a nation cannot "become Christian" in the sense that a person can. However, Voddie Baucham mentions in one of his videos that American states were founded with state churches. I believe that having a state church with faith requirements on the state leaders while also allowing freedom of conscience among the state's citizens is the ideal. Baucham also discusses the Zambian constitution, which outright says they're a Christian country while allowing for the freedom of conscience because Christianity is faith-based, not forced. Curious to hear your thoughts on those examples! I'm definitely not a Doug Wilson fan, but I'm also disappointed with how G3's handled this.
'We need Jesus on his throne ruling with a rid of iron' What do you think he is doing now?
Yeah haha that part is funny because at the end Josh talks about how he believes Jesus is ruling now
"Jesus is ruling in the 17th dimension. Not here and now." That seems to be the Baptist premil understanding.
Well good grief then have a conversation…a REAL conversation & not this back & forth on Twitter, etc…. Actually talk face to face, you know, like true men of God do!
Would love to see a conversation between y’all and Joel Webbon, William Wolfe or Dusty Deevers
The deleted my posting the link to the statement twice. They won’t discuss. Seems they don’t want people to read the statement.
@@doingthingscheap7911 that's so sad.
@@doingthingscheap7911 I’ve had links deleted before too in chats and i didn’t think it was because someone was specifically deleting it, I thought there was a TH-cam glitch. It could be that 🤷♂️
@@hammerbarca6 You mean like Doug Wilson, who said that Christians should be more like Andrew Tate? th-cam.com/video/9XITwdVCvo0/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=CanonPress
@@kirbyhubbard2909 only Joel is defined a primary player. They pick the other two bc Stephen Wolfe is easier to smear and lie about, and people chomp at the bit to slander DW
I'm not seeing a problem with what they are saying. They are asking legit questions.
Josh you said you don’t want to legislate Christianity yet you want to legislate abortion as murder. How do you reconcile those two statements around minute 14? Natural law theology? You said we as Christian should be involved in the civic sphere and debate. Do we leave special revelation behind and just use natural theology? Seems the puzzle isn’t matching here.
💯
The problem with there statement is that something will be legislated! Do we want that legislation based in God's Law? Welcome to CN.
No? What shall it be based in ,then? Paganism? Dualism? Marxism? Anarchy? Godless laws produce Godless Morals, which is to say it produces death.
That’s not the same thing as legislating Christianity. By making laws that protect the right to life for all people, we are not forcing anyone to “be Christian” which is what legislating Christianity would do. Protecting unborn humans from murder doesn’t force the parents to adhere to any religious belief, it’s to afford the unborn the opportunity to live, which is their constitutional right in this country. You, the unborn, and I all should have equality rights under the law to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn’t guarantee the outcome of happiness, just that you can pursue it. But my right to pursue happiness ends when to do so would end the life of another person. This is same for pregnant women. You cannot pursue your own happiness if to do so means you are deliberately ending the life of the person whom you created. Now we can argue more on abortion for victims of rape, but the fact is, the vast majority of abortions are chosen by women who chose to pursue happiness by committing an act that could logically result in pregnancy, then decided to end the life of the person they created in doing so because it was inconvenient for them.
@@taaron5595 so you are saying that the foundational principle for murder, including infants, is not rooted in God's Law? If it is rooted elsewhere then it's fickle. Cases and point abortion is legal.
If you say that murder ought to be illegal, because God says, then you are legislating Christian principles. If you say murder ought to be illegal for any other reason, then you are choosing to legislate, some other religion.
Moral law that is legislated by civil governance includes murder, stealing, etc. The debate over abortion is whether a pre-born life should afford equal protection as those born.
If the problem is only eschatology why call them enthocentric, or even bring the topic of racism as if that is what the disagreement was. Why make them disavow people as if CN supported their views, and after they disavow not believe them and say things like it isn’t enough.
Stephen Wolfe has stated it would be wrong to marry someone with different customs that is concerning.
Concerning is not grounds for insinuating that someone is racist and that everyone that agrees with him in some way is also racist. He is still a brother in Christ, I don’t think their treatment of him was right.
Mami, if we aren't supposed to marry outside our customs what is the logical end or start of that. If that was the biblical mandate what "races" would have been right to intermarry since they would have been different culture s? We need to be clear we don't support that line of thinking. Wolfe is claiming he knows of sins that aren't in scripture. That is more than "concerning" .
You are absolutely right on this issue. Here in Latin america we had our version of “christian nationalism” in the form of catholicism being the official doctrine and religion of the land. It didn’t go very well because the truth of Christ was repressed and many went to hell believing themselves to be saved. I respectfully say this: what’s the deal with americans and their willful ignorance of history? To try out christian nationalism and to say we will do it right this time is like the socialists saying we will try “real” true communism this time. It’s being done and it has failed because only Christ can bring perfection and righteous judgement.
Where do you come up with the idea that all law is religious?
@@Mike-rm9bb So thou shall not murder is exclusive to jewish religion? or MAYBE it belongs to the law that GOD has put in our hearts. Brother my issue with this subject is that just as social justice may sound good and virtuous, this christian nationalism push may sound beautiful and right but the definition and the means on how you achieve this is where our SIN and fallen nature will bring about the same horrendous consequences already watched throughout history. Only Christ himself can rule righteously.
@@alexacabrera85, I agree with the G3 concerns about religious liberty. At the same time, I’m also aware that social law and practice do have spiritual roots. It’s true that there is a universal law of conscience, but it’s also true that it can be warped and that secularism doesn’t provide a solid foundation for natural law. A good understanding of natural law is developed in light of scripture and a Christian worldview.
The challenge is how to thread the needle of affirming that society should honor Christ while making this voluntary, while persuading everyone to agree to work toward a basic Christian morality to the extent possible (E.g. marriage is between opposite sexes and any race, but it should not be that one christian can only marry a christian, that would go too far, even though that is the Christian standard). Yes, one can make rational arguments at a surface level, but ultimately deep moral arguments require the Christian God to ground them.
I’m inclined to see the first amendment as the product of a Christian polity. That is we should promote a civil polity of the second table and have Christian civil leaders be articulate about both universal moral law, while praising freedom of worship, while also expressing voluntary praise of Christ as the true king even in the public sphere. Something like that, but it is a hard mix.
The question of the cultural Christian being lulled to sleep and sliding downwards seems odd. In our current society, that same person is an active antagonist against the Gospel. Is it better for him to be passive or an antagonist? Ask your enemies, they will tell you which is better.
Thank you for this conversation. I think it’s very important for Christians to think about this issue biblically and not be swept away with the headwinds that are coming from the Left and the Right. This is a helpful resource.
God will not lose any of His sheep, so... christian nation better than transing kids...
Depends on term meaning. Replacement of something bad with a pendulum swing which also is bad isn't good.
We shouldn't at all accept any swing from people who think it's sad a Greek man marrys outside of his customs and his kids apparently won't marry Greek because of it. That is in and of itself unbiblical.
@@mktay2067 transing kids still worse.
America isn't a Christian Nation though
God is always first, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
Thank you brothers. I sincerely pray this issue doesn’t rip through the church like CRT did. I will say, it’s been hard watching the Twitter battle, as well as watching videos from our other brothers. 🙏🏾
It is THE CRT people who have made the mischaracterizations and the misinformation G3 has about Christian Nationalism. It is from their playbook. G3 has simply adopted it.
52:21 I think the trap that was being laid was for you to deny the label and become impotent in any action you take. Any time you do anything that’s smells of Christ the label will be thrown at you, and you’ll back down because you don’t wanna be in “that camp”. That’s the play that’s being run, and I think you guys are the ones that aren’t seeing it.
Bingo! 🎯
I don’t think so. Regardless of the type of Christian nationalist you are (which runs the gambit from mainstream Trump voters to white supremacists to Christian theonomists), it’s too political and not focused on the sort of Christianity that the NT demands. It’s best to jettison the politically-loaded label and just be NT Christians, which has nothing to do with nationalism at all. Jesus was a Christian Internationalist (see the Great Commission).
Voddie said the same thing on his recent podcast with Founders at min 34
Dr. Tom Ascol, Dr. Voddie Baucham, and William Wolfe on January 18, 2023, at the IOPT Pre-conference spoke on Christian Nationalism.
Thx
You’re going to alienate a lot of people from your ministry with your misrepresentation. Very disappointed with what I've seen from G3 in the past weeks. It makes me want to cancel our trip to the G3 conference.
EXACTLY what I was thinking!
Hannah, if you're going to claim misrepresentation why didn't you give any examples?
@@HearGodsWord Plenty of people have already exposed the misrepresentation, I'm not going to spend all day typing it up. Jon Harris (Conversations That Matter) has done some great videos on the topic.
@@Hannah-me3wu so you have no examples
@@HearGodsWord - she indicated she didn’t have time to, so I will…
1st: just in the first few minutes they say “Stephen Wolf’s version” of Christian nationalism” trying to tie it to just one man, yet many have come together and written a statement on it…
2) minute 6-7 they say that they agree with things that nobody is saying they disagree with.
3) minute 10-11, nobody is saying they have a “loser theology”
4) 13:30 is they allude to the idea of the “Christian Pope” which has never been mentioned and yet the G3 guys keep bringing it up.
5) minute 15, “overlap” and “state and church is conflated” - “no actual answers” - all of those are mischaracterizations.
6) nobody is claiming the G3 guys are unpatriotic… they continue to defend their patriotism when that isn’t the issue
7) minute 19; “we will do so with as much charity as possible” - not hardly
8) it doesn’t require post-Mil eschatology; the issue of free speech has already been discussed and it doesn’t need a revival as much as it requires reformation.
9) min 25, the same tired remarks about cultural Christianity … again, already addressed.
10) min 28, nobody is arguing for labeling unbelievers as Christians.
So that’s just a handful of mischaracterizations in just half of the episode.
To anyone reading the comments. Christian Nationalism IS the book "To My Legionaries" by Corneliu Codreanu. Read it! It is not the Westminster Confession of Faith. It's a simple as that.
Okay you have 4 choices:
1. Nation with Christian Values and with true Christians.
2. Nation with Christian Values but about the same saved as now.
3. Nation without Christian Values but not wholly opposed to it.
4. Nation opposed to Christianity.
Okay, you are probably for 1 and 2 (in that order) but you’re arguing like 3/4 are what we should simply accept? I don’t get it. And I don’t want to go to War for any reason. But, I would argue for 1/2 if I were you guys. It’s best for allllllll people.
I wish you guys would acknowledge that there is never a neutral culture. There are always values. The questions is, "Who's values will be enforced?" We have been trying to remove Christianity out of the government and...do we have a neutral government? No... we have murder, castration, and immorality celebrated. From 1 Tim 2 and Romans 13, it's abundantly clear that politicians should be prayed for and evangelized to so that they can fulfill their office well *according to the law of God*. The only way, as Christians, we define good and evil is through the Bible. So if the government is supposed to reward good and punish evil... they must do so according to the law of the God who appointed them (Rom 31:1).
Does anyone smell 7 mountain mandate stuff in CN?
Y'all should actually read the statement on Christian nationalism and the Gospel and work it out.
Hopefully it’s not an echo chamber of anti-CNs complaining about font and you actually address the recent statement on Christian nationalism’s content. I believe we can still reconcile.
Didn’t actually engage with what is actually being said/written 😞
This is misrepresenting their concern. Being petty and aggravating the situation on purpose is the concern with the " font. " They've admitted they have been doing that and that's wring.
@@mktay2067 actually the Font was little concern. The OP said “hopefully”; so he hadn’t yet viewed this. The video isn’t really about fonts/attitudes; it’s really far worse than many were expecting, so I guess that exceeds expectations??
I posted the link to the statement twice. Both comments deleted.
@@doingthingscheap7911 imagine that; don’t want people to read it I suppose.
Theater is 💯% correct.... opposition by design. The devil offers what he offered Jesus and thats to be ruler
If we are to disciple the nations teaching them to follow Christ and the goal is not a Christian Nation what is it?
The goal that Christ has given us is to build HIS CHURCH, by preaching the Gospel and adding to the Church those who believe - not to force unregenerate people to obey the call of the Gospel to repent and come to Christ. Tas Collier, New Zealand
@Tas & Heather Collier Amen...the absolute butchering of that passage to make it a political focus is absolutely infuriating and very concerning. Nations is referring to the various people groups...not political entities!!
What a mess this is. You spent 13 mins saying you are for all these things then you contradicted yourself at the 14 min mark. You can't say you want to ban abortion and then say Christians can't make Christian laws. Which is it?
So then we also can't say ban murder 🤔
What about stealing?
Their point is we can't enforce Christianity in practice. Force you to church. Make you take communion. Laws in England actually had this. It was the reason for separation of church and state. Not that those of a religion couldn't impact government but that government can't dictate your personal faith.
You can say it though
Good discussion. I have questioned the need of some to co-opt and repurpose the term Christian Nationalism, since it isn't even a biblical concept. If they really mean to just talk about civil government from a biblical standpoint, then they should just do so, without adding that provocative and distracting term.
Your not taking into account that Christian nationalism is a prejoritive term assigned to us by the left. Christian was once a term assigned to the followers of Christ in the same prejoritive manner. We owned it and showed the world what it meant to be Christian. Yes raw nationalism has it's defects, but let's own the term and show them what a Christian nation would/should look like.
@@kreendurron On the contrary, by saying “co-opt and repurpose,” I was referring to the pejorative application of Christian Nationalism by the Left onto followers of Christ who want godly civil government. That being said, the pejorative use of the term in no way requires me to repurpose it for my own political goals.
For Christians to adopt the term Christian Nationalism is unadvisable at best, and foolish at the worst. I’m concerned that the preoccupation with the term could cause some of us to forget that our highest calling is to spread the gospel.
@@TheMaineSurveyor I understand that concern, I share it to an extent, I really don't love the term either. It is however preferable to racist or bigot, even though in their mind is the same thing, but it's at least something we could work with.
I prefer Mere Christendom as the "mere" is more evocative of a natural bottom up approach.
@@kreendurron I am familiar with the term Mere Christendom. I'm not sure why we need a marketable term to unite behind. I thought the gospel was enough. The message I'm getting from the pro-Christian Nationalism/Mere Christendom camp is that we need new branding. I don't get the urgency.
Whether or not we win the culture war here and now in the US in the 2020s, Christ is King and He will return someday, and perfect everything. Nothing of this earth will last into the new heavens and new earth. I'm looking forward to that.
In the meantime, our first priority is to preach the gospel, baptize and disciple new believers, and walk by the Spirit, confessing sin where we fail, and going to Christ for help when we are being tempted.
One of the other things we can do is push back against the culture and the lawlessness we see in Washington DC, in our states, counties, and towns. God establishes civil authorities. He established We the People as the authority in the United States. Let us use this privilege to protest where we feel led, participate in government where we can, and prayerfully consider our votes. But none of this political activity should overshadow our work in spreading the good news of Jesus Christ.
@@TheMaineSurveyor Amen, AMEN, AMEN!!!!
I appreciated these brothers trying to weigh in on this with grace; they have legitimate concerns about a movement that frankly has confusion all over it in terms of how you define it, how you implement it, and what the end goal is. And to be honest, I'm a little confused that so many folks are doing videos about Christian nationalism and I hear very little scripture. Scripture is our guide for our lives as believers (2 Timothy 3:16-17, John 17:17); therefore I am confused by anyone defending something that seems undefined and vague without verses to back it up.
And on a side note; for those in the comment section that seem to think G3 isn't worth your time because of their stance on this issue, my question is this, Does G3's stance on Christian nationalism now make their ministry and theology invalid? Until they "line up" with the way others think, should they now be shunned? I'm getting this feeling that there are knee-jerk reactions to G3 that make some believers think they should take a Romans 16:17-18 approach. If this is the case, then I would suggest you take a step back yourselves before asking G3 to take a step back. We're Christians and we need to be mature and gracious in our responses.
@@StevenSmith-1863 So you haven't reviewed any of their material and you don't know if they're solid elsewhere, but you know enough to know that they "peddle microwaved Religious Right theological rhetoric that is divorced from the real politics on the ground." Could you perhaps be more specific with a video or audio link since you haven't reviewed any of their written material? And you accused them of slander, which is defined as "make false and damaging statements about (someone)." No offense, if you just make assertions without backing it with evidence, you could also be accused of doing the same thing. This violates so many verses about bearing false witness (Exodus 20:16, Proverbs 14:5, 19:5, Ephesians 4:25, and Colossians 3:9 just to name a few).
No offense, unless you provide something to back your assertions, it would be foolish for me to take seriously your accusations. Without it, you are just speaking for yourself and unfortunately it could be based on your own biased, subjective opinion. It's hard to take seriously a response that seems more grounded in unchecked emotion than provided facts and scripture.
@Steven Smith Voddie, while a great man, should not be our standard. That is God's Word.
The New Testament church was given many commands by Christ and his disciples, which include: 1) preaching the Gospel to a broken world, 2) participating in the sacraments, 3) meeting together with other believers in local churches, 4) doing church discipline, 5) rebuking and separating from false teachers, 6) taking care of our families and neighbors, 7) remaining pure, 8) working for our food, 9) rejecting worldly ideas and philosophies, 10) putting Christ first in all things and various other commands. I don't see one command to build a "Christian" nation among all of these instructions.
If it is a Biblical concept, then why didn't Jesus or Paul or Peter mention it? That's my problem with the whole movement. The ideas are the issue, not just the names and terms.
@@StevenSmith-1863
1) "It comes down to applying the OT and the NT to politics through the creation mandate in Genesis 1 as equal to the gospel or downplaying that creational mandate as of secondary importance to the sharing of the gospel."
First of all, the creation mandate has nothing to say about specifically creating "Christian" nations. Furthermore, this Adamic Covenant finds its ultimate FULFILLMENT in CHRIST! He is the ultimate Adam.
Secondly, NOTHING should be equal to our proclamation of the Gospel. That is BIBLICAL. In 1st Corinthians, Paul states, "And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."
By your standard, Paul was wrong. Again, he made no mention of creating a Christian nation or government!!! His sole focus was the GOSPEL. Between your ideas and the Bible, I choose to believe the WORD!!
2) "To put it another way: will the Reformation's doctrine of the equality of all vocations of all believers win out or will the patristic and medieval doctrine of the superiority of the clergy and Holy Spirit chosen eunuchs win?"
First off, this has NOTHING to do with our discussion. But, I do believe that all vocations are equally important, and I don't need the reformers to tell me that!
Again, you have not given any Scriptures to back up your claims, and you admit that initially. Brother, we need to keep the Gospel of primary and main focus on our journey as strangers in a world that is NOT our home! Politics is fine to be involved in, and we should be when we can be--but it's not to be our main mission or even an equal mission to proclaiming the Gospel!
@@StevenSmith-1863 Again, where is the Bible to back up this focus on politics???
Please provide some.
@Steven Smith Sir, our work is to spread God's Gospel, both at home, and in the church and the public arena. Our ultimate citizenship is in heaven. This reeks of adding to the Gospel.
Brothers, if you do all that, does that not lead to Christian laws (God's laws) being implemented? Or does a man leave his Christianity behind when he goes to work? Most of us don't work at/for the church we work out in the world. It's not about Stephen Wolfe v David French. It's a godly nation v a pagan nation.
I love you all and I will be at G3 this year as I have been in the past, but I think you are talking past what our brothers, who are CNs.
I think people have said that you are using their playbook, telling people to trust YOU, as if you are the gatekeepers of all that is good and right. You know something that we don't. You are able to see things that we don't. If quite condscending. We have seen it before and it did not go well with them.
They also emphasized that they are not above reproach and don't have all the answers. It was a discussion. It didn't appear that they are planning to rule America. Believers have to listen and research for themselves. I don't believe that consider themselves as gatekeepers.
They explained at the beginning of this they hold issues with Wolfes version of CN. So it is about him.
@@mktay2067But then they bring up Wilson’s Christendom and others who espouse CN and lump them all together. They clearly aren’t interacting exclusively with Wolfe.
This is where it is talking past each other. Yes they point out other takes on CN and where they disagree but no they don't lump them all into the same CN doctrine. The main issue here is Wolfe and those who are in agreement with him.They also acknowledged there would be a lot they would also agree on.
It is about the likes of Wolfe though Qiana.
Matthew 28:19
[19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (ESV). Here's where you find it where you get your matching orders.
I can't help but notice the reference to nations in the great commission. Just saying, this isn't that complex. We need to quit assisting those who would divide us by helping the MSM validate the term CN as a pejorative that will be used against all of us. Please define terms clearly and validate that Jesus is our Lord and King. We strive for His Kingdom to come and His will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. We can love our nation and be walking in obedience to our Lord.
Are you saying that this verse supports CN?
We can't help but contrast this mature and calm discussion to a discussion on the other side last night which seemed petty, immature, and extremely vague.
Thank you so much for this.
Agreed. The CN folks sound very juvenile and emotional about the whole thing.
I disagree. Just because someone is spreaking calmly and softly doesn't mean they are saying something right or true. I think both sides need to come to the table and has it out.
But the other side is definitely funnier and has better memes. 🙂
@@qianashaw8167 One doesn't indicate the other. This podcast was full of biblical truth while being clear and mature. The other side are acting like boys, sadly. We should be concerned only with biblical truth, not with who is most entertaining. ❤
Agreed. I was extremely disappointed to say the least.
I just watched Jon and AD’s conversation and I don’t think it was petty and immature at all. Did we watch the same video?
What they want is CN, but what they would get is the (un)Holy Roman Empire.
Who is they? G3?
Really?? Just stop! We still believe in sphere sovereignty. This CN is based way, way , way down the line in the argument, from where you take it.
Obviously the CN crowd.
@@MidFiMan interesting, I think not wanting to establish God’s law through the Gospel as God reveals His church will do would be closer to Papism than Christian nationalist.
Thank you brethren for your kindness and love in talking about this important topic. It is great that believers can agree to disagree without name calling or being ugly in one's attitude.
You're arguing against strawmen. It's surprising such astute men are missing the primary thrust of the actual arguments for Christian Nationalism. Very disappointing.
Why don't you have a roundtable discussion with Stephen Wolfe and others instead of pontificating against what you think it is?
If you're going make such claims why not prove them?
@Hear God's Word Because the comments section of TH-cam isn't the place for involved theological interaction. And the G3 representatives in the video are making claims.
@@c.m.granger6870 so you've got nothing then, which leaves you with a baseless opinion 👍
@@HearGodsWord That's not what I said, but if that helps you get by, ok.
@C. M. Granger if I'm wrong then prove it.
It's helpful to hear this. It's the twitter grenade wars that are so hard to look at.
Thank you Josh, Virgil and Scott for this video . I have been waiting for this. I thought I was going crazy with not wanting to accept this. God bless all of you and your ministry. Christ is King!
I'm married to a dutch woman, just ask her opinion about neocalvinism, reconstructionism and postmillennialism. She knows all the harm those ideas can make to people. So, yeah, we ain't kuyperian fans in my house...
He is not a presup, as RC Sproul was not.
Assuming neutrality
@jmsto87 Who is assuming nuetrality? I know Wolfe isn't he starts out telling you that he is arguing from natural law and not exegeting Scripture. As opposed to a pre-sup saying, "God wrote a book".
I definitely don't believe either Sproul or Wolfe assume neutrality.
Most, if not all, who are not presup assume some sense of neutrality. Like Buice saying he’s against legislating Christianity. Then they inconsistently say “all of Christ for all of life”
@@jmsto87 I am digging more into all of what it means, so thank you for giving me this piece to the puzzle. God bless.
@@qianashaw8167 God is great 🙏🏼 for the record I love G3 but think they’re in error here and need to quit while they’re ahead and dig into theonomy more before muddying the waters again.
God did it with Israel. Was God wrong for calling Israel his people, even if not all of those people were internally saved? I’d rather live in a Christian Nation (if even possible at this point) than the nonsense we currently live in. I’d rather try to convince “Christians” they aren’t save than try to stop the madness currently happening. At this point, we are just trying to keep our head above water.
We are not God and he specified them as his. Every tim.e God does something doesn't mean we do
@@mktay2067 are you not specified as “His?”
I think the problem in your analysis is that you’re slandering your opponents as emotivists, claiming that all of their arguments stem from a place of anger, when really they are seeking to honor Christ in politics. All of our desires are to see God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven, so why do you need to attribute sinful anger as what is driving this movement?
30:10 All of Christ for all of life. That includes nation, not just church & family, right? If not CN, and if you believe in separation of church & state, how do you define Christ for all of governmental life?
Finally talked about the roots of the term at 54 minutes...a little late, but Thank You!
I love G3…and I…like many here am earnestly studying and eating my popcorn while this plays out…but I can’t help but feel like G3 is scared to face to face this with the CN big 3.
We cannot legislate Christianity. Be faithful in sharing the gospel to all people that is what God commands us Christians to do.
rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism (Wikipedia). Theocracy ( example: the state of Iran). Nationalism is NEVER mentioned in Scripture.
Brothers, thank you. It probably would be helpful at this point to do a debate(s?) on eschatology at this point. Things seem to be reaching a tipping point, and it would be helpful for the Bride to think through these things with the sharpest arguments at the forefront. Eschatology seems to be the main driver, generally speaking.
I don’t think the problem is eschatology. I think the problem is that we don’t believe that there is a design for government given by God. We talk about the government of the family and the church as if God had intended a design for us to follow, but we don’t do the same for national government.
“Occupy” until He comes involves living out our Christian Faith openly and publicly whatever sphere of influence He has placed us in.
If our occupation is within the civil arena, then we conduct ourselves as believers.
@MamiMalista it's same as disagreement between puritans and separatist pilgrims. They killed each other over it. They are not the same. Thanksgiving vs witch trials are very different gatherings. Rhode Island wouldn't sign the constitution without rights. Because they were persecuted for not participating in theonomy. So you can thank Rhode Island separatists who were fleeing Boston because of John Cotton who had said they had dangerous views against theonomist governnent. You can thank the persecution of separatist at the hands of theonomists government for our bill of rights. And they demanded as Christians the protection of freedom and rights given by God to worship and establish their own churches. So if we talk about God's desire for our nation I'm pretty sure it's sums up in love your neighbors. Don't persecute them for their faith. Even if you have a desire to cleanse the church ir government. The puritans wanted to purify the English church..
Didn't go so well and followed suit after separatist pilgrims to a new land. They were not happy ever with their own church alone but to run the church and governments as 1 and have desired it since before they arrived in America. The pilgrims however have complete diff view and experience in the old world and the new.
The Bloody Tenent of Persecution
At 13:47, you said: *"I am against this idea that we should legislate Christianity..."*
Theonomy (Christian Nationalism) is not about imposing Christianity, but about recognizing an authority higher than man as the source for morality in law-making and leadership; it simply means that Christians are in places of leadership such that laws and practice within a society are subservient to the word of God.
That is very debatable. AD pointed out we aren't there yet but basically said why not. We need to take into account where it goes to its logical end.
@@mktay2067
I don't believe that it is a debatable point at all. The great commission is not fulfilled at the tip of a sword - that's Islam, not Christianity.
@@lawrencestanley8989 Yep, that is exactly what a Christian Nation will be.
@@greengateacreshomestead4324
A Christian nation would be Islam? Good bye sir, that's got to be the most ridiculous statement I've heard all day, and that's saying something...
@@lawrencestanley8989 Thanks you just proved my point, how dangerous people like you are. I guess history does not stick to you.
Why has my posting the link to the recent statement on Christian nationalism been deleted twice?
That was happening on conversation that matters page too. .🤔
Just tested it on Harris's page and within a hour it was gone.
@@mktay2067 hmmm maybe a TH-cam thing then
TH-cam often hides posts with links in them
These fellas are certainly disabusing me of some perfect-looking thought out theory before engaging/reacting to the reality we're currently in.
Virgil Walker: "I'm not embracing a 17th, 18th, 19th-century political philosophy." "We can have that conversation all day long." What!!!?? No you can't! Because you won't accept an invitation to have the conversation! Instead? Preferring to issue G3 "bulls" from the Blogosphere.
CN folks and thoughtful Christians: How did Christianity shape those 17th, 18th, and 19th-century political philosophies? And did those political philosophies provide (imperfectly) more flourishing and more Peace and more advance of the Gospel because they were faithfully subservient to a correct Christian Ethos? And is the Left "successful" because the Christians have ceded the Orthopraxis to an Evil Orthodoxy because the professing Christians have adopted a neo-Pietist view?
Would like to point out that Pietism "rose" the first time as an opposition to those Christians who developed a robust Christianity in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries - with the same "just be nice" arguments! Not that success is a defacto indicator of correctness. But it wouldn't be stupid to ask; Did political philosophies incubated in the world of Jonathan Edwards survive where Pietism didn't because it was and immature understanding of the Imago Dei the first time,...and it's still is?
Would be glad to have the discussion with these fellas as brothers. They have refused all invitations. Kinda like "the pope" Josh Buice wants to imply the CN folks are pushing for. "G3 has spoken. DO YOU RECANT!?" Good luck with that, brothers. You weren't my pope in the Social Justice fight. You're not my pope now. G3 can either be a transformational movement, and it will advance the Gospel. Or it will be a neo-pietist movement and become the next T4G.
I wonder if G3 members consider G3 part of Big Eva. If not, why not? It seems to me that mics/cameras, Internet, podcasts, conferences, and self-appointed para-church groups are not edifying the Church in America. But no one is willing to let go.
49:05 at 32 and 48 Virgil is ON POINT as always!! Theater. “Here’s what I think we would be good politics-Christian nationalism” PLUS most of these people on the other side are in their 30s…some have changed their standpoint on theology and eschatology several times. Their kids aren’t grown. Their churches (at least the one I know personally) is in turmoil. This may be ungracious but I just see them wanting to put their name on something for their own names sake
Yes, very ungracious.
The reason you're not being taken seriously, Virgil, is because you say, "If you're being unclear, it's probably because you WANT to be unclear." Well, that's a big charge, Virgil. You're being accused of not being a good-faith critique for two reasons: 1. Because you have attributed a slanderous motive in that statement. 2. You all keep saying, "We'll have the conversation". Still standing by...
Waiting for that good-faith, face-to-face, sit-down, public discussion.
May I suggest that you reach out to your Lutheran bretheren and talk about the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, as this would go a a long way in clarifying things?
I think you are ships passing. I have listened to both sides and think you are making Steven wolfe your focus and those brothers on CN are not him. So sad you missed the target and shot your brothers.
Thank you for this conversation prayers for all on both sides.
Read The Law by Frederic Bastiat... great read
At 14:40, you said: *"does he (the Christian civil magistrate) also have some finger or hand upon the keys?"*
The Calvinists of the Scottish Covenanters, the French Huguenots, and all of the people who believed in the truth of Samuel Rutherford’s 1644 book “Lex, Rex” explained that the law of God is transcendent, and that the civil government must obey God in their sphere, and the Church must obey God in their sphere: while the church and the civil government each operate as separate institutions, both are subject to the Divine Law. In scripture, the offices of prophet, priest, and king are each separate offices, but all operate in submission to God in their separate offices - the only one permitted to act in more than one office is the one who is of the order of Melchizedek, the Messiah Himself.
Yes! They seem to be very concerned about the civil magistrate having the keys to the kingdom, yet that would be a complete violation of the principles of sphere sovereignty, which is a necessary component of every version of CN I’ve heard explained.
Wave of the hand. Lex Rex? Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos? Covenanters? Black Robe Regiment? No no no... this Christian Nationalism thing is brand new lol, ten year history max... right? Lol. This is people enjoying the fruit of a tree and despising the root. The West was Christian explicitly for millennia. The nations of the West were also explicitly Christian. The more theologically faithful these nations have been and the more the people showed themselves to be truly regenerate the more those nations prospered, culminating in England and the US. We live eating the fruit of the tree planted by people who believed in and established the very things that the G3 crowd seems to despise. If you like moral laws that 'seem' to coincide with your Christian morals (the fruit), look to the root of that tree.
Biblical, thoughtful and thorough. Thank you.
Hoping we keep our heads… please. Please
But of course.
The positive statement I have is that: You correctly recognize that eschatology is a tap root in all of this. I don’t think it’s actually making eschatology a litmus to orthodoxy as you paint this to be. But it does expose/require men to follow their eschatology to its logical derivative ends and outcomes; it helps us measure and square that to scripture.
Where I don’t think this hit the mark: I fear these positions your taking/explaining just introduce self refuting or at the minimum, inconsistencies. Just squaring your position on abortion and developing a Christ honoring society in mind melting in itself. I also think the whole adding the whole ‘degrees, variations, particulars’ argument to this statement is intentionally deceptive. You have a straightforward statement, yet still cast this as ‘Wolfe’s’ particular CN, but the truth is actually that the bedrock pillar positions aren’t actually that varied. It’s not that nuanced brothers, the whole projecting this as ‘wolfe’s version’ is lame. You have a this draft statement on CN&G and you’re first produced response is to construct yet another straw man it appears. Josh and Virgil bot have been so very helpful in my growth, the statement on SJ&G was so very important and I’m immensely grateful for you; this is disheartening to see. Why oh why are we seeing the cookie cutter tactics that we all stood against being now used by you guys? That era of gas-lighting, strawmanning, meme by 15 part thread, particularizing that which is particular to undercut, and other silliness is something we all fought against and now you guys are using these tactics.
The whole ‘this-form-of-christian-nationalism’ feint is at least at this moment in this argument a straw man; because we can indeed interact with this specific statement and with these particular ideas…. What I saw today is a swerve.
Just my 2¢
-No king but Christ!
Doesnt the persecution of Christ show us how watchful we must be, in both realms, both had opportunities to stop the crucifixion and both looked to the other for authority while they murdered the only authority.
Clear, calm, thoughtful and concise discussion- thank you. 🙏
There are already restrictions to free speech (can’t yell “bomb” in public just cause), so that concern should be explored sure, not in an echo chamber.
Yes we live for God’s glory… but that requires obedience from all including government officials. They also must obey Jesus the King. Allowing freedom to publicly practice paganism, satanism, molach worship etc. is disobedience from the legislature, executive, and judicial.
Scott did a very good episode on his own I listened to yesterday that was helpful for me to understand Christian Nationalism.
Sure appreciate this. I have been a long-time listener of Doug Wilson and especially James White. Many of the concerns I have had are dealt with here. Maybe not decisively in every instance, so I hope ya'll keep it up.
Some observations I've had along the way are touched on here. I have begun to wonder if the CNs could justify the Reformation. The more they talk about how this whole thing fleshes out, the more I begin to hear faint echos of the voices that spoke against the Reformation. IF things are as "loose" as Doug Wilson sometimes suggests (Mormons, JWs, Muslims...none of these have anything to 'worry about' in the CN framework), then it seriously causes me to wonder why we should have had a Reformation to begin with. Even if we grant the theological issues were very real (and everyone agrees they were and are) it would seem to me that Erasmus was right after all, and Luther just needed to chill out.
In fact, the parallels between the RCC and the CN line of logic seem to me to be becoming more obvious over time. I don't see how we don't end up with a Pope and some Inquisitions at SOME POINT. We haven't gotten this far down the road without the old Presbyterian/Baptist disagreements beginning to arise.
Of course, this is because we keep trying to do what ONLY Jesus can do: save the world AS THOUGH the church IS Jesus.
Further, I keep being reminded of Dispensationalism as I listen to DW. The difference between postmil theonomists and old-school dispensationalists is how big a hurry they are to MAKE Jesus come back. The dispensationalists ALWAYS see a "short" timeline, and postmils are totally cool with an extremely LONG timeline. But both of them are make their eschatology PRIMARY. So they are aggressive and worldly, in the sense that they proclaim worldly politics as sanctifying. In this regard, they are again quite Roman, and ironically share a view of politics that is simply the flip-side of the coin with the totalitarian leftists. They DO NOT separate chuch and state, contrary to the theology of the Reformers. They are often utterly distracted by off-topic activities, like building temples in Jerusalem or insisting on the promotion of political slogans like CN. These guys WILL FIGHT with you over the very label, within the context of a system that exegetes nothing and has little regard for perceptive thought or communication. It's strategic suicide.
That suicide is disturbing to me, not just because I've gained what I think amounts to a seminary education from James White over the last 20+ years, but also in the sense of being dragged down along with them all. The world will have a heyday with this political label; they have the media machine, marketing experts, money, means and power to BURY us if we jump in the pigpen with them. But they CANNOT defeat the Gospel. Call it strategy, or obedience, or whatever you want: the GOSPEL will save us, but the political vehicle of CN will BURY us. And we will deserve it if we put our trust in men rather than God.
FURTHER, the whole thing is a form of theological bullying. They speak of their eschatology as if it were a first-order doctrine square in the middle of orthodoxy. But I would not necessarily put DW "square in the middle" of ANYONE'S orthodoxy; now we can discuss the various aspects of that, and I continue to say that DW is the most important theologian of our time (which does not necessitate that everything he says and does is correct). But the point is, there is a lot of ASSUMPTIONS that are smoothed over by these guys because they speak on these topics as if they are settled historical Christian orthodoxy. And that is simply NOT the case.
There are actually a few dozen other things I would say on this subject; it's been heavy on me for a long time now. The benefits of it have been that it has driven me deeper into the scripture. I personally have no venom for anyone in the middle of these discussions, but there has to be allowance for a certain degree of firm, straightforward discussion here. Partly because the CNs refuse to back away from that grittier level of discussion, but also because the issues are THAT important.
These discussions can have implications. When you invite the polarizing nature of worldly politics into theology, it can have a profound effect on presuppositions. I have never been further from a postmil view than I am now as a result of the sloppiness of the whole CN discussion. I have a strong conviction that our convictions should be rooted in the SCRIPTURE; when we have folks constantly importing the filth of worldly politics into our theology it has a strong contaminating effect. And it makes us all less fair-minded as theologians.
I do think it's true that Christianity had a more central role in the life of America up until about the last 60 years. And I have thought on this quite a bit. The thing I think that CNs fail to acknowledge on this point is that we actually DID have some very serious social injustices at the exact same time as our government was "proclaiming" Jesus as Lord. I think we have to be careful to acknowledge this, because there are many out there who might have the feeling that we are calling America BACK to 'something' when what is actually happening here is CNs are talking about something all-together NEW. I don't think they are always very up front about that fact, though if DW were here he might say "no, I've been clear that secularism failed." I think he should come right out and admit that what he means is "the American EXPERIMENT has failed." Small things like this are BIG in my ears, along with the many things that are just ASSUMED when they state their propositions. It gives me the strong feeling that they are actually DONE discussing these issues. You're either a postmil theonomists and you're on-board or you're NOT, and they are simply going to agress their way through the discussion in that spirit and have little time to entertain any objection to that framework. I find this very concerning.
But it's not every day you can justify an entire eschatological framework by daisy-chaining verses together in such a way that the Great Commission means that Revealation was written in the 60s. Not without a few people raising their hand with objections that warrant serious discussion.
I could go on, but it's better if I simply say that I appreciate what you're doing here, and hope there is more healthy discussion on this subject. I thank you for raising these issues because there are people watching and hoping that they are not alone in their concerns.
Separatist pilgrims vs puritans. 2 diff views and churches. This was squashed with the bill of rights signed by Rhode Island and the
The Bloody Tenent of Persecution. And differences were put aside and were no longer an issue that was a non negotiable. For so long puritans and separatist were at war long after the reformation. And into early American history. Until the bill of rights. History often paints puritans and pilgrims as the same ppl but they are not. They eventually all dispersed into different denominations and churches and under a new constitution and bill of rights there was no need to actually discuss it anymore and the war within the reformed churches settled down.
Buice's opening objection is incoherent. He talked about how everyone has a different path to the same goal but criticized Wolfe for giving his personal path. Wolfe never claimed to be God. Of course that's his take.
I thought Buice was just trolling from the Tweets presented by Jon and AD but now I'm thinking he's just in over his head. You're causing more confusion and division than anything, man. Please repent and excuse yourself from the conversation.
And then he claims that no one can become more patriotic than he is. How about soldiers on the front line who sacrifice their lives for their fellow soldiers and their country? This guy is just extremely cringe. Virgil Walker, get your boy.
G3: how to NOT treat your Christian brothers
th-cam.com/video/YDDHQJqnKdM/w-d-xo.html
@@providenceperspective It's so weird how G3 are acting like progressives. Maybe it's relative. Or maybe we we've discovered the horrifying truth that progressives are the offspring of Western highly culturalized Christian conservatives like G3. CN might be too Christian for their palates.
@@lkae4 I think he was clearly using it as a figure of speech. Obviously he not actually claiming to be the most patriotic man in the country. These seem like pretty desperate attacks, which by the way, is all I’ve seen in the comments. Not one is interacting with the actual content.
@@Bibleguy89-uu3nr Are you Christian or did you just grow up around Christians?
G3: how to NOT treat your Christian brothers
th-cam.com/video/YDDHQJqnKdM/w-d-xo.html
Josh is saying that it's not sufficient to have a culture that adopts a Judeo-Christian ethic and call it "cultural Christianity". The crux of the misunderstanding here is: NO ONE is saying that is an "acceptable" end point. So it's a straw man. Is it a DESIRABLE path forward until Christ rules and reigns with a Rod of Iron and all hearts bow to Christ? Uhhhh. YES?
Because Josh is so focused on whether Cultural Christianity is an acceptable "ends" and refuses to discuss whether it is a positive "means", he is irrelevant both WITHIN and WITHOUT the Church.
G3 becomes irrelevant OUTSIDE of the Church because it then has no answer to the question: "How then shall we live?" So...in come the Leftists first, and the anarchists, and the tyrants. They will gladly fill the discussion space Josh is functionally vacating saying, that it's not in the Christian scope.
G3 becomes irrelevant INSIDE of the Church because neo-Pietism becomes a Cultural Christianity where "Anyone in a congregation with an orthodox statement of faith MUST be regenerated and going to heaven as long as we walked an aisle and we always talk in nice, soft, hushed tones, and we don't try to imply that those Christian values have any 'flex' to tell the king to stop promoting baby-killing."
People are not looking a Protestant Pope, Josh. It's notable that your lack of willingness to sit down and talk to people and seek understanding - instead presenting what you FEAR it may lead to - is very, very Pope-ish. So you're getting rejected for your Popery...while telling other people they want a Pope. The irony there shows you're fighting a threat in your imagination. It also proves that axiom of Scripture: You will become what you fear most. The end of the matter is clear: Fear God AND KEEP His commandments. And you will bear His Image. Any other option is a partial Imago Dei at best.
You keep saying you're willing to talk about it. You keep, then, not talking with people asking you to talk about it. That's kind of like when the Leftists gets all bent out of shape because "A racist wouldn't listen to a black voice," but Ibram Kendi won't sit down with John McWhorter because John's a racist. It's a nice, tight, neo-Pietist cult that is impenetrable. It's a good gig. If you can get it.
No one is upset that you're critiquing something. You're being disingenuous. You say you'll have the conversation. And you don't accept the invitation. You say critique it and be honest about it and receive critique.
Still waiting for you to engage with ANYONE directly face-to-face...and not stop beating around straw-men.
Enjoyed the conversation.
Honest conversation! Great job brothers!
Actually, they were dishonest about a lot of what they said about Steven Wolf and they didn’t discuss at all the statement that has been drafted on Christian Nationalism.
They also say they’re “happy to have a conversation” and yet refuse to openly debate the opposite side…
Great job. My question is do you still abide by the 1689 Baptist confession? I moved away from the Baptist after what went on with all the problems. Thank you and God Bless.
What problems?
@@kellygipson8354 The 288 page report of Wrongs being done in the Baptist Convention.
@@rickysmith133 you mean the SBC? When you mentioned the 1689, it never crossed my mind that you were referring to the SBC I automatically associate 1689 with people who actually believe in scripture. Sorry.
No one is defining any terms here. You guys are saying "Steven Wolfe's version of Christian Nationalism" but your not defining his or anyone else's version for that matter. So it sounds like you all agree on a ton but are bickering over very minor details and there shouldn't be some huge controversy over this issue.
I don't understand the need to use the term Christian Nationalism. Why is it so important that Christians adopt the term? All we're really talking about is civil government, what the Bible teaches about it, and how to rightly implement it.
This was a great conversation!
I’ve been curious about this topic. Thank you I shall listen.
Would that American politicians would take Psalm 101 to heart...
This was very sound and helpful in me understanding this discussion better. Thank you and God bless.
I wonder if the category of morality to which Buice is appealing is actually a tertium quid.
I’ve heard more about the Christian prince from you guys than any of the supposed CN’s. That’s certainly not integral to the CN position I don’t think. It still seems like your talking past eachother
From what I am seeing many are getting behind Wolfe to support the CN view but his are extreme. Than when pointing out why his version is extreme they deflect to their version instead of addressing the concerns about Wolfes version.
@@mktay2067 see the statement that came out yesterday I guess 🤷♂️ Wolfe isn’t the only voice and yeah I don’t even recommend his book but I also don’t think his ideas are so much worse than someone less “extreme” that I must denounce him
Here is where talking past each other starts. This discussion at the beginning was clarified it is about Wolfe and French's take. I will denounce someone who starts dictating sins from their own thought process versus biblical truths.Wolfe is teaching intermarriage of different customs is frowned upon. What is the logical end of that?
@@mktay2067 “I think Wolfe is wrong on that point, but I think we should have a Christian nation”
I don't think G3 disagrees at all with that 🤷
@ 43:25, Buice says that we need to have a conversation about blasphemy laws and then says, "I'm happy to have that conversation." So far? Not true. He's happy to tweet at people, but he doesn't answer the invitation to have a conversation. So...there's that. For the moment, at best he's busy. At worst? Are his pants on fire?
I don't have a problem with any of the questions these folks ask. This feels a LOT like T4G and GC and SBC redux. This is where we say, "These people won't answer these questions..." publicly, and then privately refuse to have a conversation to discuss the questions. It's disingenuous at best. Disappointing.
Don't mind saying that...at this juncture, I haven't been able to find where this panel has been willing to sit down with others and have a conversation. Which makes this panel? Liars. Which makes me sad. Repentance is beautiful. Will hope for it.
Just like the Woksters before: Fire shots at someone else in the camp and then claim to be the "victim" and the "uniter".
You were supposed to destroy the Sith, Josh. Not become one!
.... I can't even.
Thank you brothers. I have been praying for respect snd unity (not necessarily uniformity) in the body of Christ on this issue. It sounds like this is your heart as well. 💜🙏
Anyone have a list of books, articles, TH-cam videos ect. that I can read or watch to get caught up on the issue?
@Conversationsthatmatter is a good resource
Crosspolitics has an interview with Stephen Wolfe on his take of Christian Nationalism
Mere Christendom is coming out, there is supposed to be a Sweater Vest Dialogue with James White and Douglas Wilson on that topic soon, its already recorded just not released.
I would also like to point out a couple of historic books on similar issues... Lex Rex and Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos
Thanks guys!!
Scott great point regarding labeling the nation Christian without actually being one. Something to think about.
You seem really triggered by this video
This is a great misunderstanding of Presbyterianism and Congregationalist Church history at the sane time.
Such as?
Josh how did any awakening or move of the spirit happen? Did it not happen under christians working to build up some form of government? No they were all surrounded by politics. Christ wants everything not just the spiritual.
It’s not presbies running this train guys. It’s Baptists and others. Reformed or otherwise.
Better get on board, boys, you don’t want to miss this train. Once it starts chuggin’, it’s never gonna stop. It’s better to ride in the cab than on the cowcatcher.
I as well denounce ALL of the straw men these guys are beating to death. I wonder if they'll ever engage in real dialogue with CN advocates instead of just slandering them? The invitations are on the table behind them....being ignored.
I agree 100 percent!
Josh great point regarding credal form of CN. Something to consider.
Well done guys. I feel I'm a better follower of Christ, a citizen of the kingdom, and an American citizen after listening to this discussion.
Thank you for bringing clarity to this issue.
It wud develope a class system too id not want to see
The smears continues
I’m proud of you guys for standing for truth . That took boldness