I chuckled at 21:20 when Scott Clark: "They [Doug Wilson and Co.] are not really conservatives. They are radical revolutionaries. What I am saying is: 'Lets try actually being Americans.'" You mean like being be radical revolutionaries?
I'm 46 minutes in and haven't heard any exegetical reasoning for not wanting Christian nations plural. But a whole lot of emotional disdain for Wilson and postmillennialist.
So… I hear biblical truths and right intentions on all sides! My problem(s) are these: which CN position(s) can all born again believers agree upon? Even Wolfe and Wilson aren’t on the same page! What did the reformation produce with the reforming of the RC “ church “ birthing multiple mindsets as to what is biblically acceptable for church governance, then within the culture? One is Westminster the other LBC… another is two kingdoms and separation of church and state ( Anabaptist) etc… Lastly; being we are in the New Covenant, what NT examples are we given for any of these positions? I’m asking sincerely not being argumentative! As I stated above there’s good positions for those involved but also bad ideologies
@@Kenneth-nVA well thought out friend, and I appreciate you not being an antagonist. I took am working through these ideas, so not claiming authority to know it all. I do seek to hear my brethren and find council for resolve rather than mud slinging. I've read Wilson's book and honestly he straight up states there needs to be a clear separation of church and state. These guys are keeping inserting Wilson's position of the idea of a Christian nation is the church ruling the state. I personally am convinced a person's eschatology highly impacts how you will view Christianity in the world. I take it honestly that the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed and is growing ( manifesting on earth), as compared to is a hopeful place in the sky that we are waiting to be put on earth for a thousand years. If it's the latter then so what, if it's the former then let's get to work and win the nations(1cor15, Matt 28, Psalm 2 and 110, Daniel 2)
I can point you to one exegetical comment that I think carries significant weight. Rev Gordon offered that the descriptions of human government in the Book of Revelation are summarily, "beastial." This is why David, who is the consummate Christian Prince over National Israel, exhorts us "to put no confidence in princes."
I've noticed a recurring theme with individuals like these two: they are Boomers who relish in criticizing those striving to solve the problems their generation caused. As John MacArthur said, "we lose down here."
At about the thirty minute mark both Scott and Chris speak about better resources out there to read but don't mention anything specific. Can you recommend some good resources to explore this more?
Such a important topic!! Agreed, people need to stop reading or listening to Dough Wilson. 1.) he’s a heretic who doesn’t understand the gospel. He changes the definition of faith to faithfulness. 2.) He clearly teaches a version of baptismal regeneration. He simply dresses up this old false teaching with clever use of covenant language. This is the same heresy Galatians clearly addresses which was the idea you had to be circumcised. The gospel is clear. Faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone. There is a period behind that sentence. Any teaching requiring for justification or in aid of justification, one must be baptized or circumcised is heresy. The byproduct of these teachings clearly teaches or implies justification equals sanctification though maintaining a state of grace by the faithful use of sacraments or “covenant faithfulness.” On this basis alone Mr Wilson has no credibility whatsoever. He is intentionally misleading by his use of language depending on who he speaks to. But be clear, he has never publicly refuted his teachings on the essential doctrine of justification. It is no surprise he has zealous passion for promoting Christian Nationalism. There is far more passion promoting Christian Nationalism and cultural issues than the life saving gospel of Jesus Christ. Ultimately Christian Nationalism is a distraction from the true purpose of the church which is to promote the gospel and tend to lost souls. Christ told Peter to, “Feed my sheep.” He didn’t say establish a Christian government. We must always defend our church from wolves in sheep’s clothing and what is a distraction from the faithful preaching of the gospel.
So Jesus' direct command doesn't apply in the face of evil. So goes the entire Sermon on the Mount. As for our children, they belong to a more powerful covenant, "Jesus is Lord."
@AboundingGraceRadio His command clearly is on a personal and relational level. The Sermon on the Mount gives us comfort when we suffer for the cause of good, but it doesn't tell us to be victims. Remember that Nehemiah righteously calls men to stand and fight for their kinsmen and Christ places a high priority on self-defense for the sake of His Kingdom in Luke 22
The question is not "Does Jesus want a theocracy" The simple point is... Government is made up of humans and the message of Jesus is directed to all people. So the question is how does Jesus want humans in government to live? Romans 13 is clear that God desires that government resist public displays of evil; hence, it is important for government to have a proper understanding of good and evil.
Amen! Young men will right the wrongs. Isaiah 58:12 KJV [12]" And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in."
I have benefitted greatly from R. Scott Clark. Then he started straw-manning reformed CN doctrin'ists and theologians. Not sure why folks like him are scared of these concepts. You don't have to agree with CN. However, to manipulatively act like a superior thinker without even lovingly and directly engaging those you disagree with is unjust and bewildering.
Good discussion. Two questions: 1) why when Scott urges folks to call legislators, get on skool boards and local offices etc. is THAT not ‘seizing reins of power’ or revolution’? 2) why is this (your program and related folks speaking against Wolfe/Wilson) aggressive rebuttal to theonomy and offensive against your opponents allowable, when one of your main theses *against* the offensive, aggressive approach of wolfe/wilson is ‘turn the other cheek’? Why does TtoC only apply to the ‘other side’. Jesus applied it universally, no? Thx. I disagree with your position, but really appreciate the open debate happening. Very helpful. Blessings.
Greg, 1) Exercising constitutional liberties isn't seizing anything when the form of government we've adopted provides for those very mechanisms. 2) I don't understand this objection. You're going to have to explain it more fully. I 3) TofC?
@@r.scottclark5221 1) the sober minded CN’s advocate for using the same levers to reach the same results..conditions Christians find conducive to happiness. 2) if the principle of ‘turn the other cheek’ were applied universally, that would disqualify even your strong rebuttals to your opponents. According to how Chris G applies the principle, you should rest in God’s providence that He will fight this battle, and you two should just teach your classes or preach on Sunday. I see an inconsistency in saying THEY need to turn the other cheek to gubbmint and culture, but you guys don’t need to turn your cheeks😬 to Wolfe/Wilson. I hope that helps. 3) TtoC is supposed to save me typing out Turn the other Cheek. Sorry. Again, I appreciate the broader back and forth on the subject. Thx.
You Guys should have Rev. Gavin Beers on to defend the Establishment Principle/Christian Nationalism from the Bible. He would be defending the 1647 Westminster Confessions position on the issue of Church and State.
At 1:02:40, Clark says there weren’t many theocrats/theonomists in the 16th/17th centuries besides a few nuts. Then at 1:16:40, he says all 16th/17th century reformers were theocrats. I’ve heard enough 😂
You have equivocated the words theonomist and theocrat. Clark said there were not any theonomists. But just like your idol Doug Wilson, you would prefer to misconstrue with someone's words and then claim that you're being persecuted
@@nolanmoody5904 how can you disregard someone and say you've heard enough and then say you've never heard the distinction? Sorry for insulting, I was under the impression you were a Wilsonite. So, a theocrat believes that the state has the right and duty to enforce religious orthodoxy and enforce the ten Commandments. Theonomy on the other hand says that the civil laws of Israel are to be implemented today. So the difference is between enforcement of the moral law and enforcement of Israel's civil and ceremonial laws. Dr Clark has a lot of good resources and has talked quite a bit about this on his blog The heidel blog.
@ having never heard that distinction, it sounded like he was using the terms synonymously. I understand what he’s saying now. I’ve always understood the general equity principle of the civil laws to be the application of the moral law to society though so not sure if I understand the distinction.
@@nolanmoody5904 so general equity means natural law that's all it means. Sadly, theonomists like Wilson have taken the term to justify theonomy. But yeah the theonomists Clark is talking about are some of the Anabaptists and maybe a few others. But nearly everyone under Christendom believed in theocracy
Very helpful discussion. The times are fraught with cultural and political division as the radical Left attempts to force their views on the nation in a post-Christian era. This didn’t start in our day but has been going on for two centuries with the gradual falling away of the mainline Protestants who once dominated culture and politics. It’s painful for the minority of Christians who retain the belief in the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture to see themselves without power and with increasing opposition that is now a direct threat to themselves, their churches, and their families. It’s not surprising that the CN movement has appeared as an effort to regain power through earthly means. But it is a poorly defined movement. As a result,,those of us who are not jumping on board are seen as the problem. CN advocates are frustrated, of course, and say that we are not giving them a fair hearing. This conversation is a great response.
@@haiasinosdnah0813said every DW fanboy every time anyone ever said anything remotely critical about him. Here's a challenge for you mate: Please share with us a critical treatment of DW's CN that supposedly doesn't misrepresent him.
Let's turn this discussion to something more helpful, like: "How shall the faithful live in a compromised world?" and "What compromises shall the faithful tolerate in a world where evil is prevalent?" Please note: Sin has abounded since the first Adam rebelled - its not new! The problem of how men shall live and walk is not new either. Do we have uniform agreement regarding the nature and responsibilities of a kingdom? There are plenty of discussions for "Theonomy", "Reconstructionism", and "two kingdom theories" - all positions argue from a contrarian position that assumes that we each person understands how we as individual believers ought to live and walk among men. The common position assumption that there is a unified lexicon of understanding of what "society" is, of what "government" means, and how the faithful in Christ may walk of loyal citizens of the earthly realm while being prepared for an eternal kingdom. Too much debating is like ships in the night - the speakers merely scratch their own itch. Brothers, if we want to win each other for Christ and honestly seek to live at peace with each other perhaps we need to find a more convincing communication strategy.
@JohnHTerpstra Brother, I believe you are missing the heart of the concern here. It is this: Christian Nationalism’s elevation of the state to a level of theological and spiritual importance that rivals Christ. Christian Nationalism is not just about ethical questions of how Christians should navigate a fallen world or what compromises they can tolerate. Instead, it often presents the state as a vehicle for implementing Christian values at a national level, implying that the state’s role in God’s kingdom is near equal to that of Christ Himself. By focusing on the ethical and moral questions of how Christians live and walk in the world (important as they are), it bypasses the real danger of Christian Nationalism-that it effectively gives the state too much authority and prominence. Instead of seeing Christ as supreme, Christian Nationalism risks making political power and the state’s role central to the Christian mission. This diminishes the unique supremacy of Christ in the life of the believer, who is called to follow Christ, not the state, as the ultimate authority. The true danger of Christian Nationalism lies in confusing allegiance-making the state or political structures a co-partner with Christ in the mission of God’s kingdom. Christian theology, especially in the Reformed tradition, emphasizes that Christ alone is supreme (Colossians 1:18) and that the role of the state is fundamentally limited. By focusing on moral living in the world, the the church overlooks the fact that Christian Nationalism undermines the uniqueness of Christ’s reign by assigning to the state a role it was never meant to have. The question is not merely how Christians should live as good citizens but whether the state is being given an authority that only Christ possesses. Christian Nationalism invites competing allegiances-it implicitly demands that Christians see their national identity and political loyalty as deeply tied to their faith. This blurs the distinction between the kingdom of God and earthly kingdoms, which Scripture teaches are fundamentally different. Jesus Himself said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). The New Testament consistently presents the kingdom of God as something that transcends and often contrasts with earthly political structures (e.g., the Roman Empire). By emphasizing citizenship in heaven (Philippians 3:20) and allegiance to Christ, Christian theology recognizes that while Christians may live in earthly nations, their primary loyalty is to Christ, not to the state or its goals. Christian Nationalism disrupts this biblical understanding by subtly promoting the state’s role as a means of advancing God’s kingdom, thus compromising the believer’s singular allegiance to Christ. You call for peaceable communication and finding common ground in discussions of ethics, but that neglects to address the danger of political power in Christian Nationalism. Christian Nationalism elevates political power as a means to achieve Christian goals. However, Christ calls His followers to serve, not to rule, and to bear witness to His kingdom through the church’s mission, not through political dominance or state enforcement. In Christian Nationalism, the power dynamics of the state are elevated to a place where they can be seen as tools for enforcing Christian ethics or even for establishing a “Christian nation.” This runs contrary to the gospel, which shows that true power comes through weakness and suffering, as seen in Christ’s crucifixion. A cruciform, Christ-centered approach does not seek to co-opt state power but rather to live in humble, sacrificial service, showing the world the way of the cross. Christian Nationalism elevates the state in a way that competes with Christ’s supremacy. In a truly Reformed way Christians recognize that Christ alone is supreme, and the state is merely a temporary, flawed institution in the present age. The state’s role is not to lead or advance God’s kingdom-that belongs to Christ and the church. To place the state on equal footing with Christ is to miss the profound truth that Christ is Lord over all, and any political allegiance must be secondary to the believer’s ultimate loyalty to Him alone.
@@παρεπίδημος - Dear Brother Sojourner, your kindness in pointing out that I may have missed the heart of the concern regarding the purported nature of Christian Nationalism is appreciated and well received. Surely you are not contending that the tenets Christian Nationalism exceeds the reprehensible tenets of rebellious fallen men in opposing authority that is owned by the Lord alone. I am sure that we agree that no-one can rightfully claim that a Christian Nationalism is a more vile transgression than the tenets of the first Adam. The Reformation addressed that rival power of the Church of Rome against that which rightfully belongs to Christ alone. Are the heresies that you seek to redress new or novel? Not likely! It seems that what is at issue is the perceived counter powers inherent in one of the fluid spiritual forces that may be classified as Christian Nationalism. What fear shall we rightfully have of the powers of darkness that oppose Christ? Shall we not rather teach men more cogently how their walk of life might correctly exhibit allegiance in matters that belong to God alone. Even men who claim to follow Christ misplace their trust, confidence, and energies in fellow men for whatever is seemly to gain access a figment of man’s imaginations. Calvin asserted that the minds of men are factories of idolatry. Surely, this is what my dear debating brothers really mean to address. The Church of Rome has not changed her spots, she is still a wolf disguised as a lamb. It is inconceivable that men may place their trust in the government of men by men who wield power by the sword, since outside of the work of the Holy Spirit men are not willing to relinquish their corrupt nature. Rome still seeks to “co-partner with Christ in the mission of God’s kingdom.” The devil has not changed his strategy to injure the sheep by deceiving them into misdirection to men of allegiances and authority that belongs to Christ alone. It appears that those who oppose Christian Nationalism, or the Church of Rome, rightly fear the effects of misinformation and the misdirection of lives in a direction other than that of Christ and his kingdom. Shall we not also speak with one voice against the evils of government funded education? After all, government sponsored education demands the inculcation of allegiances to ideologies and practices to things that are of this world and that are diametrically opposed to and clearly not of the kingdom of Christ. Christians recognize that Christ alone is supreme. Why then do we enjoin and submit to state funded education? It seems we bow to state funded institutions so that we may gain accreditation to be seen as credible peers of those who oppose us ideologically and spiritually. Why does our identity as credentialed authorities on matters that are critical to our well being in life require state recognition? The term “Christian Nationalism” is an abstraction that can be safely debated and attached, while simultaneously distracting our audience from all the other “*isms” that ascribe power, authority, and even admiration where they do not belong. It is safe to counter the perceived and real evil ideologies of Christian Nationalism, and other heresies of faith and practice that are readily adopted into the debating lexicon. It seems never safe to debate the merits of the political, social or medical systems,. These are the sheep gathering systems of this world. They are designed to divide, conquer and conform the public to political agendas. Such things seldom find a place in the lexicon of the debate. I'd love to hear how Christians ought to interact politically, socially, and spiritually with the world we live in. We oppose Christian Nationalism for many good reasons. How then shall shall we engage our fellow man? Shall we voice our disapproval of evil and corruption in our government, in the work place? Is it safe to ignore the things that may affect the lives of our children's children? What does fidelity of walk of life testify to our fellow man? Too often Christian who debate matters of faith seek to be defined by what they ARE NOT. I relish to hear what we ARE and how that affects our choices in life. Thank you for your response. I suspect you may have missed my point. I hope this reply brings us closer together.
@JohnHTerpstra Thank you for your thoughtful reply brother and your acknowledgment of my criticism. However, it misses the central concern of my reply: Christian Nationalism, by its nature, elevates the state to a level that rivals Christ’s exclusive supremacy. Let us not downplay the specific danger inherent in Christian Nationalism by equating it with other forms of idolatry or rebellion common to fallen humanity. While all sin is rooted in the rebellion of the first Adam, the issue at hand is not the general problem of sin, but the particular danger posed by Christian Nationalism in promoting the idea that a nation-state or political structure can be co-opted to serve the purposes of Christ’s kingdom. This is not simply another form of idolatry, but a direct theological error that conflates earthly political power with the mission of the church, thereby undermining the unique lordship of Christ and harming the church. By framing Christian Nationalism as just one of many “isms” (and arguably a lesser one than Rome’s historical abuses), I’m afraid it does not fully appreciate the gravity of my concern: Christian Nationalism encourages believers to place their hope and allegiance in political power as a means to advance Christ’s kingdom, rather than in Christ alone. This is a theological issue, not just a political one. In Christian Nationalism, the idol is particularly dangerous because it is cloaked in Christian language. The temptation of Christian Nationalism is that it spiritualizes political power, making it appear as though allegiance to a nation or political ideology is part of one’s allegiance to Christ. This is more than mere misdirection-it’s a blurring of categories between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world, which the New Testament sharply distinguishes (John 18:36). Christian Nationalism does not simply acknowledge the existence of flawed governments-it seeks to actively use political power as a tool to advance Christian ideals. It is a social gospel from a conservative right angle. This is the core issue: while Christians are called to engage with the world and even live within fallen political systems (Romans 13), Christian Nationalism risks merging the role of the state with the mission of the church. This politicization of the gospel can lead to a profound confusion of loyalties, where Christians begin to see national identity and political success as markers of faithfulness to Christ. Instead, Christians are called to be citizens of a heavenly kingdom (Philippians 3:20) and to live in this world with a clear distinction between their ultimate allegiance to Christ and their temporary role as citizens of earthly nations. Your reply seems to suggest that focusing on Christian Nationalism is a distraction from other significant issues, such as the influence of government-funded education or broader political ideologies. However, Christian Nationalism is not a mere distraction-it is a pressing issue because it represents a direct theological and practical challenge to the church’s witness. By blending political power with the mission of the gospel, it distorts the message of Christ’s kingdom. While it is true that other forms of idolatry (such as blind allegiance to education systems, political parties, or ideologies) are dangerous, the uniqueness of Christian Nationalism’s danger lies in its co-opting of Christian language and symbols to further earthly power. This makes it a particularly deceptive and pernicious form of idolatry, as it masks itself as Christian faithfulness while diverting attention away from the cross and the mission of the church. The question of how Christians ought to interact politically, socially, and spiritually with the world is indeed an important one. However, the answer must begin with a clear understanding of the gospel and the distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. Christians are called to engage the world as salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16). However, this engagement must always be done with the understanding that the state is not the church, and the mission of God’s kingdom does not depend on political success or national identity. In political engagement, Christians must avoid the temptation to use the tools of political power to advance the gospel. Instead, they should bear witness to Christ’s lordship by living lives marked by the cross, regardless of the political systems in which they live. This means rejecting the idea that any nation, including a “Christian” one, can fully represent the kingdom of God. Your reply calls for Christians to be defined by what they are, not just by what they oppose, which is a valid and important point. However, part of living out what we are involves clarifying where our ultimate allegiance lies. Christians are called to be citizens of God’s kingdom, proclaiming Christ’s lordship in all areas of life. This means that, while Christians should indeed be proactive in their engagement with the world, they must also reject any political ideology-including Christian Nationalism-that seeks to share the throne with Christ. The danger of Christian Nationalism is not merely one among many “isms” to be debated. It is a specific threat because it invites Christians to misplace their trust in political power as a means to accomplish God’s purposes. While Christians should engage in the world, the supremacy of Christ must remain unchallenged, and no earthly power-whether the state, political parties, or national identity-should be seen as an extension of Christ’s kingdom. Christians can and should be active in public life. But they must do so without compromising the distinct nature of Christ’s kingdom, which is not of this world. Their identity is found in Christ alone, and their mission is to proclaim His lordship, not to use the tools of earthly power to secure His kingdom. Thanks for your response brother.
@@παρεπίδημος Thank you again for your gentle reply. Perhaps you have noticed that the state already lays claim to exclusive supremacy. No amount of Christian Nationalism can elevate the state beyond the sovereign claim she already lays hold to. Christians in the main are unaware of the reality that the state claims exclusive sovereign lordship over all of life. The great vaccination program as well as the program to lock down our world in recent days is a testimony to the assumed power of the state. Please be assured that my assertions do not ignore the dangers that are inherent in the idolatry of Christian Nationalism which, if correctly characterized, presents a false view of ideology when believers to place their hope and allegiance in political power as a means to advance Christ’s kingdom, rather than in Christ alone. This is a spiritual issue, and not just a theological matter or a political one. Is it true that the spiritualization of political power by believers is any more deadly than the messianic and spiritual claims of the secular humanistic state? The messianic state already portends to be the spirit of men at work to assure the survival of mankind. We agree completely - Christian Nationalism is particularly dangerous because it is cloaked in Christian language. That is also the nature of the secular humanistic state. Most Christians are blind to the messianic claims of the state today. Focusing just on Christian Nationalisms’ delusive following while ignoring the already messianic character of the state is to ignore the bull in the china shop. An article by Tim Ventura (Futurist & business executive with 25+ years of industry experience and a passion for the future. th-cam.com/users/TimVenturaInterviews) in 2019, was prefaced with these words: “Space will change us. It is the inevitable consequence of our species adapting to new environments across the cosmos. It will blur the definition of what it means to be human - and a transformation will occur when being human begins to be something more.” Trans-humanism has no room for an Almighty, Eternal, Creator, Sovereign God. There is room only for a present realty that the world is deficient and desperately in need of man’s great salvation plan, a plan that must encapsulate the cosmos and beyond. This is the imaginary realm of super humans. It is the domain of the truly enlightened and a place in which there is no room for those who are not onboard with the great cosmic vision. It is seemingly futile to resist purveyors of trans-humanism who want you to believe that you will either be assimilated or you will be eliminated! This is the economic environment in which church members are employed in pursuit of their meager incomes. At best Christian Nationalism is more like polishing the brass on a sinking ship! Christian men who labor to support the agenda of the messianic state miss the gravity of the great spiritual battle of life and daily living. We can observe the synchronized “lip-speak” of news reports in traditional main-line media and across social media. How many believers bother to ask, “Why is this happening? What is the agenda behind the message? Who is paying for this to happen?” Whether the agenda is spiritual or political in nature, event reporting oriented, or relates to promotion of goods or services, let us be assured that someone somewhere is paying the piper to make it happen. It is naive to consider that these incidents are merely accidental. Governments around the world are offering enormous funding in support of the priorities of the messianic state. The four (4) key foundational technologies that underpin the promotion of the trans-humanist agenda are these: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology (mostly focusing on statistics and predictive analytics - under the banner of AI - artificial intelligence), and Cognitive Science. Investment in these particular key areas are made to foster rapid innovation and development to specifically help drive public adoption. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Supplement to the US President’s 2023 Budget, through the Committee on Technology of the National Science and Technology Council, provides a detailed overview of funding that is provided by the US Federal Government. In 2021 a total of $3.7769 billion (a mere tip of the iceberg) was expended by and through a plethora of government agencies. The religious humanist agenda supports technology as central to its agenda to save mankind from extinction - the non-religious messianic salvation plan. Increasingly the supreme state seeks to be the sole agency that creates and arbitrates all law. Since the state denies the existence of any higher order, there can be no appeal to the laws of the state. Only men tenaciously hold to the ultimate transcendental law-word from God have authority to question the will of the State! In this temporal world they answer to higher law! The Gospel is the proclamation that Christ has triumphed over the death and hades, all who are chosen in him are delivered from sin, through faith by the grace of God there is deliverance. Christians misplace all trust that is placed in political or social power. Engagement in the world, whether politically, socially, or in the work place, is spiritual warfare! The real battle is fought in the highest realms for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Trust Jesus, cling to him alone, there is no other comfort in life. The battle is much bigger than Christian Nationalism.
This moment really solidified that they truly don't know what Doug is saying and read him constantly in an uncharitable or ignorant light. Doug has ALWAYS called it gay mirage in every single resource, video, blog and book he has produced to be clever about the point that it is not really marriage at all. He has done so for a VERY long time. For them to not only misunderstand it, but to be so confused shows that they really don't listen to Doug seriously at all.
While I highly respect brother Gordon and Brother Clark, I will have to say that this was not really a sustained critique of Christian Nationalism so much as a intra-mural discussion between two men who obviously share the same principles (which has its place), but my main concern is that God's Word was not the motivating factor so much as certain theological commitments regarding the relationship between the Old and New Testaments (which I hold to Covenant Theology) that represent the views of Meredith G. Kline and Mosaic republication of the Covenant of Works, an ethical philosophy procurated by David van Drunen, and a commitment to a nature grace dualism that is not far off from the Roman Catholic view. These are foundational to what these two men are talking about in regards to Christian Nationalism (I am Establishmentarian which is distinct from Theonomy in the 20th Century and now 21st Century in the form of Doug Wilson and Stephan Wolffe, both of which are heretics based on what I know about their doctrinal commitments). My aim is not so much to criticize as to help those watching to see that there are questions these men have not answered. 1) Is Jesus King only of the church and not the state, which seems to be the implication and that is more anabaptist (to my knowledge) than reformed? 2) What is the view of these men regarding moral examples in the Old Testament of pagans upholding true religion (specifically Cyrus with Israel) and the New Testament regarding Romans 13 and Paul's witnessing to state rulers? My guess is they would prefer to see the former as non-informative for today or perhaps was more for that time not today (which is a Dispensational/Baptist hermeneutic) and the latter as only referring to Gospel witness and second table upholding (which coheres with their nature grace dualism and basically severes the two tables of the moral law (which in the eyes historically of the Reformed was the natural law inscribed on all men's hearts Romans 2) from each other. First table grace, and second nature. 3) can a Christian take civil office and govern according to God’s Word? If they are consistent R2K (and with the Nature-Grace Dualism) they will have to say no. If they say yes, then they are in fundamental agreement with the Christian Nationalists but differ only in particulars.
Excellent program and very much needed as you can see from some of the comments posted here. Thank you for tackling this controversial topic and shedding light on just how our nation was founded and how we can be active Christian citizens in it.
@@dennisfetherbay2946 Doug Wilson is not participating in the discussion, but they do discuss Wilson's beliefs and point out where he is in error. BTW, I agree with you about Wilson. :)
Douglas Wilson would utterly destroy these fallacious arguments. Miss representation of Douglas's position is incredibly unfortunate. It's either lazy or dishonest. Whether implicitly, or explicitly, these guys are guilty of grotesque slander. Why don't you all invite Douglas Wilson on the defend his position and stop misrepresenting him. I've listen to him for decades, and he doesn't sound anything like how you represent him.
@@AboundingGraceRadio I stand corrected. But not on your arrogant presupposition that "no one should listen to Douglas Wilson". That's exceptionally divisive and deserves repudiation.
@@παρεπίδημος The authors that he’s quoting are not advocating for “revolution” but reformation; the leaders of Christian Nationalism do not view the USA as the new Israel or the chosen people. Stephen Wolfe doesn’t advocate for a theocracy but presents a political theory of a people living within a nation that are Christian and deems there nation as Christian through a consensus (any nation on the globe can implement there version of Christian Nationalism). This could develop in different styles of government ranging from A Republic to a Monarchy (as long as the governing body are ruling for the greater good of the people which he concludes that the Christian worldview produces the greatest good for people). None of the authors the guest is critiquing are advocating to drop the 1st amendment within the American context as it relates to its particular government structure as a Christian Nation. Also Wolfe and Wilson do not believe that the state should take the place of the church but recognizes that each sphere play certain roles within the Christian Nation. Furthermore, both Wolfe and Wilson believe that the Gospel is always spearheading any efforts for a Nation to become a Christian Nation. These are just a few of the plethora of straw man fallacies the host and the guest are spewing. Their rhetoric is hovering close to slander. The only thing I credit them for is recognizing that Wolfe is closer to the fathers of the reformation than themselves when it comes to the role of the magistrate.
Where is my question at? You going to censor me for asking this guy if he is KKK since he stated that white Christians are the ones who should create the Christian nation?
Doug Wilson and Dr. Clark episode. Let’s make it happen.
👍 Heard I'll keep reading and watching Doug Wilson. Thank God I'm young and keep propagating his ideas for a long time.
1:26:11
Doug calls same sex marriage, same sex “mirage” on purpose. It’s his way of saying that same sex marriage isn’t truly marriage.
I chuckled at 21:20 when
Scott Clark:
"They [Doug Wilson and Co.] are not really conservatives. They are radical revolutionaries. What I am saying is: 'Lets try actually being Americans.'"
You mean like being be radical revolutionaries?
I’ve never heard Doug say move to Moscow so we can establish beachhead
I'm 46 minutes in and haven't heard any exegetical reasoning for not wanting Christian nations plural. But a whole lot of emotional disdain for Wilson and postmillennialist.
So… I hear biblical truths and right intentions on all sides! My problem(s) are these: which CN position(s) can all born again believers agree upon? Even Wolfe and Wilson aren’t on the same page! What did the reformation produce with the reforming of the RC “ church “ birthing multiple mindsets as to what is biblically acceptable for church governance, then within the culture? One is Westminster the other LBC… another is two kingdoms and separation of church and state ( Anabaptist) etc… Lastly; being we are in the New Covenant, what NT examples are we given for any of these positions? I’m asking sincerely not being argumentative! As I stated above there’s good positions for those involved but also bad ideologies
@@Kenneth-nVA well thought out friend, and I appreciate you not being an antagonist. I took am working through these ideas, so not claiming authority to know it all. I do seek to hear my brethren and find council for resolve rather than mud slinging.
I've read Wilson's book and honestly he straight up states there needs to be a clear separation of church and state. These guys are keeping inserting Wilson's position of the idea of a Christian nation is the church ruling the state.
I personally am convinced a person's eschatology highly impacts how you will view Christianity in the world. I take it honestly that the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed and is growing ( manifesting on earth), as compared to is a hopeful place in the sky that we are waiting to be put on earth for a thousand years.
If it's the latter then so what, if it's the former then let's get to work and win the nations(1cor15, Matt 28, Psalm 2 and 110, Daniel 2)
Get through the whole thing. They’re there.
I can point you to one exegetical comment that I think carries significant weight. Rev Gordon offered that the descriptions of human government in the Book of Revelation are summarily, "beastial." This is why David, who is the consummate Christian Prince over National Israel, exhorts us "to put no confidence in princes."
I've noticed a recurring theme with individuals like these two: they are Boomers who relish in criticizing those striving to solve the problems their generation caused. As John MacArthur said, "we lose down here."
This makes want to read Doug even more.
Amen!
Yes, the law does arouse foolish actions.
At about the thirty minute mark both Scott and Chris speak about better resources out there to read but don't mention anything specific. Can you recommend some good resources to explore this more?
Such a important topic!!
Agreed, people need to stop reading or listening to Dough Wilson.
1.) he’s a heretic who doesn’t understand the gospel. He changes the definition of faith to faithfulness.
2.) He clearly teaches a version of baptismal regeneration. He simply dresses up this old false teaching with clever use of covenant language. This is the same heresy Galatians clearly addresses which was the idea you had to be circumcised.
The gospel is clear. Faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone. There is a period behind that sentence. Any teaching requiring for justification or in aid of justification, one must be baptized or circumcised is heresy. The byproduct of these teachings clearly teaches or implies justification equals sanctification though maintaining a state of grace by the faithful use of sacraments or “covenant faithfulness.”
On this basis alone Mr Wilson has no credibility whatsoever. He is intentionally misleading by his use of language depending on who he speaks to. But be clear, he has never publicly refuted his teachings on the essential doctrine of justification.
It is no surprise he has zealous passion for promoting Christian Nationalism. There is far more passion promoting Christian Nationalism and cultural issues than the life saving gospel of Jesus Christ.
Ultimately Christian Nationalism is a distraction from the true purpose of the church which is to promote the gospel and tend to lost souls. Christ told Peter to, “Feed my sheep.” He didn’t say establish a Christian government.
We must always defend our church from wolves in sheep’s clothing and what is a distraction from the faithful preaching of the gospel.
Good discussion. Thank you.
"Our ethic for the age is to turn the other cheek."
This dissipates rapidly in the face of evil, which seeks the lives of your children.
So Jesus' direct command doesn't apply in the face of evil. So goes the entire Sermon on the Mount. As for our children, they belong to a more powerful covenant, "Jesus is Lord."
@AboundingGraceRadio His command clearly is on a personal and relational level. The Sermon on the Mount gives us comfort when we suffer for the cause of good, but it doesn't tell us to be victims. Remember that Nehemiah righteously calls men to stand and fight for their kinsmen and Christ places a high priority on self-defense for the sake of His Kingdom in Luke 22
The question is not "Does Jesus want a theocracy" The simple point is... Government is made up of humans and the message of Jesus is directed to all people.
So the question is how does Jesus want humans in government to live?
Romans 13 is clear that God desires that government resist public displays of evil; hence, it is important for government to have a proper understanding of good and evil.
I'll stick with Doug thanks.
Cool. Why are you here?
29:48 hahaha Scott Clark seething because young men don’t listen to him.
Amen! Young men will right the wrongs. Isaiah 58:12 KJV
[12]" And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in."
Christian nations are God's will and good and a blessing to humanity. Christian nationalism is best.
The Bible only knows if one Christian nation, it’s called the church 1 Peter 2:9
Again, thank you for insight.
I have benefitted greatly from R. Scott Clark. Then he started straw-manning reformed CN doctrin'ists and theologians. Not sure why folks like him are scared of these concepts. You don't have to agree with CN. However, to manipulatively act like a superior thinker without even lovingly and directly engaging those you disagree with is unjust and bewildering.
Scared? No, it’s just unbiblical.
Good discussion.
Two questions:
1) why when Scott urges folks to call legislators, get on skool boards and local offices etc. is THAT not ‘seizing reins of power’ or revolution’?
2) why is this (your program and related folks speaking against Wolfe/Wilson) aggressive rebuttal to theonomy and offensive against your opponents allowable, when one of your main theses *against* the offensive, aggressive approach of wolfe/wilson is ‘turn the other cheek’?
Why does TtoC only apply to the ‘other side’. Jesus applied it universally, no?
Thx. I disagree with your position, but really appreciate the open debate happening. Very helpful.
Blessings.
Greg,
1) Exercising constitutional liberties isn't seizing anything when the form of government we've adopted provides for those very mechanisms.
2) I don't understand this objection. You're going to have to explain it more fully. I
3) TofC?
@@r.scottclark5221
1) the sober minded CN’s advocate for using the same levers to reach the same results..conditions Christians find conducive to happiness.
2) if the principle of ‘turn the other cheek’ were applied universally, that would disqualify even your strong rebuttals to your opponents. According to how Chris G applies the principle, you should rest in God’s providence that He will fight this battle, and you two should just teach your classes or preach on Sunday.
I see an inconsistency in saying THEY need to turn the other cheek to gubbmint and culture, but you guys don’t need to turn your cheeks😬 to Wolfe/Wilson.
I hope that helps.
3) TtoC is supposed to save me typing out Turn the other Cheek. Sorry.
Again, I appreciate the broader back and forth on the subject. Thx.
You Guys should have Rev. Gavin Beers on to defend the Establishment Principle/Christian Nationalism from the Bible. He would be defending the 1647 Westminster Confessions position on the issue of Church and State.
Amen to this idea!
Seriously? When you guys anounced it I thought it would be like a half hour conversation hahaha 😂😂😂😂
At 1:02:40, Clark says there weren’t many theocrats/theonomists in the 16th/17th centuries besides a few nuts.
Then at 1:16:40, he says all 16th/17th century reformers were theocrats.
I’ve heard enough 😂
You have equivocated the words theonomist and theocrat. Clark said there were not any theonomists. But just like your idol Doug Wilson, you would prefer to misconstrue with someone's words and then claim that you're being persecuted
@ I’ve never heard anyone distinguish between a theocrat and a theonomist. I would ask you if you hadn’t already insulted me.
@@nolanmoody5904 how can you disregard someone and say you've heard enough and then say you've never heard the distinction? Sorry for insulting, I was under the impression you were a Wilsonite. So, a theocrat believes that the state has the right and duty to enforce religious orthodoxy and enforce the ten Commandments. Theonomy on the other hand says that the civil laws of Israel are to be implemented today. So the difference is between enforcement of the moral law and enforcement of Israel's civil and ceremonial laws. Dr Clark has a lot of good resources and has talked quite a bit about this on his blog The heidel blog.
@ having never heard that distinction, it sounded like he was using the terms synonymously. I understand what he’s saying now.
I’ve always understood the general equity principle of the civil laws to be the application of the moral law to society though so not sure if I understand the distinction.
@@nolanmoody5904 so general equity means natural law that's all it means. Sadly, theonomists like Wilson have taken the term to justify theonomy. But yeah the theonomists Clark is talking about are some of the Anabaptists and maybe a few others. But nearly everyone under Christendom believed in theocracy
‘Not Grampa’s Republican Party anymore’?
Not Grandma’s Democratic Party either!
Very helpful discussion. The times are fraught with cultural and political division as the radical Left attempts to force their views on the nation in a post-Christian era. This didn’t start in our day but has been going on for two centuries with the gradual falling away of the mainline Protestants who once dominated culture and politics. It’s painful for the minority of Christians who retain the belief in the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture to see themselves without power and with increasing opposition that is now a direct threat to themselves, their churches, and their families. It’s not surprising that the CN movement has appeared as an effort to regain power through earthly means. But it is a poorly defined movement. As a result,,those of us who are not jumping on board are seen as the problem. CN advocates are frustrated, of course, and say that we are not giving them a fair hearing. This conversation is a great response.
This conversation was a complete misrepresentation of Wilson and Wolfe!
@@haiasinosdnah0813said every DW fanboy every time anyone ever said anything remotely critical about him. Here's a challenge for you mate: Please share with us a critical treatment of DW's CN that supposedly doesn't misrepresent him.
This can all boil down to one's Eschatological approach to Psalm 2. Wilson is guided by a Post-Mill system and I and it sound like you are Pre-Mill.
Let's turn this discussion to something more helpful, like: "How shall the faithful live in a compromised world?" and "What compromises shall the faithful tolerate in a world where evil is prevalent?" Please note: Sin has abounded since the first Adam rebelled - its not new! The problem of how men shall live and walk is not new either. Do we have uniform agreement regarding the nature and responsibilities of a kingdom?
There are plenty of discussions for "Theonomy", "Reconstructionism", and "two kingdom theories" - all positions argue from a contrarian position that assumes that we each person understands how we as individual believers ought to live and walk among men. The common position assumption that there is a unified lexicon of understanding of what "society" is, of what "government" means, and how the faithful in Christ may walk of loyal citizens of the earthly realm while being prepared for an eternal kingdom. Too much debating is like ships in the night - the speakers merely scratch their own itch. Brothers, if we want to win each other for Christ and honestly seek to live at peace with each other perhaps we need to find a more convincing communication strategy.
@JohnHTerpstra Brother, I believe you are missing the heart of the concern here. It is this: Christian Nationalism’s elevation of the state to a level of theological and spiritual importance that rivals Christ. Christian Nationalism is not just about ethical questions of how Christians should navigate a fallen world or what compromises they can tolerate. Instead, it often presents the state as a vehicle for implementing Christian values at a national level, implying that the state’s role in God’s kingdom is near equal to that of Christ Himself.
By focusing on the ethical and moral questions of how Christians live and walk in the world (important as they are), it bypasses the real danger of Christian Nationalism-that it effectively gives the state too much authority and prominence. Instead of seeing Christ as supreme, Christian Nationalism risks making political power and the state’s role central to the Christian mission. This diminishes the unique supremacy of Christ in the life of the believer, who is called to follow Christ, not the state, as the ultimate authority.
The true danger of Christian Nationalism lies in confusing allegiance-making the state or political structures a co-partner with Christ in the mission of God’s kingdom.
Christian theology, especially in the Reformed tradition, emphasizes that Christ alone is supreme (Colossians 1:18) and that the role of the state is fundamentally limited. By focusing on moral living in the world, the the church overlooks the fact that Christian Nationalism undermines the uniqueness of Christ’s reign by assigning to the state a role it was never meant to have. The question is not merely how Christians should live as good citizens but whether the state is being given an authority that only Christ possesses.
Christian Nationalism invites competing allegiances-it implicitly demands that Christians see their national identity and political loyalty as deeply tied to their faith. This blurs the distinction between the kingdom of God and earthly kingdoms, which Scripture teaches are fundamentally different.
Jesus Himself said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). The New Testament consistently presents the kingdom of God as something that transcends and often contrasts with earthly political structures (e.g., the Roman Empire). By emphasizing citizenship in heaven (Philippians 3:20) and allegiance to Christ, Christian theology recognizes that while Christians may live in earthly nations, their primary loyalty is to Christ, not to the state or its goals. Christian Nationalism disrupts this biblical understanding by subtly promoting the state’s role as a means of advancing God’s kingdom, thus compromising the believer’s singular allegiance to Christ.
You call for peaceable communication and finding common ground in discussions of ethics, but that neglects to address the danger of political power in Christian Nationalism. Christian Nationalism elevates political power as a means to achieve Christian goals. However, Christ calls His followers to serve, not to rule, and to bear witness to His kingdom through the church’s mission, not through political dominance or state enforcement.
In Christian Nationalism, the power dynamics of the state are elevated to a place where they can be seen as tools for enforcing Christian ethics or even for establishing a “Christian nation.” This runs contrary to the gospel, which shows that true power comes through weakness and suffering, as seen in Christ’s crucifixion. A cruciform, Christ-centered approach does not seek to co-opt state power but rather to live in humble, sacrificial service, showing the world the way of the cross.
Christian Nationalism elevates the state in a way that competes with Christ’s supremacy. In a truly Reformed way Christians recognize that Christ alone is supreme, and the state is merely a temporary, flawed institution in the present age. The state’s role is not to lead or advance God’s kingdom-that belongs to Christ and the church. To place the state on equal footing with Christ is to miss the profound truth that Christ is Lord over all, and any political allegiance must be secondary to the believer’s ultimate loyalty to Him alone.
@@παρεπίδημος - Dear Brother Sojourner, your kindness in pointing out that I may have missed the heart of the concern regarding the purported nature of Christian Nationalism is appreciated and well received. Surely you are not contending that the tenets Christian Nationalism exceeds the reprehensible tenets of rebellious fallen men in opposing authority that is owned by the Lord alone. I am sure that we agree that no-one can rightfully claim that a Christian Nationalism is a more vile transgression than the tenets of the first Adam. The Reformation addressed that rival power of the Church of Rome against that which rightfully belongs to Christ alone. Are the heresies that you seek to redress new or novel? Not likely!
It seems that what is at issue is the perceived counter powers inherent in one of the fluid spiritual forces that may be classified as Christian Nationalism. What fear shall we rightfully have of the powers of darkness that oppose Christ? Shall we not rather teach men more cogently how their walk of life might correctly exhibit allegiance in matters that belong to God alone. Even men who claim to follow Christ misplace their trust, confidence, and energies in fellow men for whatever is seemly to gain access a figment of man’s imaginations. Calvin asserted that the minds of men are factories of idolatry. Surely, this is what my dear debating brothers really mean to address.
The Church of Rome has not changed her spots, she is still a wolf disguised as a lamb. It is inconceivable that men may place their trust in the government of men by men who wield power by the sword, since outside of the work of the Holy Spirit men are not willing to relinquish their corrupt nature. Rome still seeks to “co-partner with Christ in the mission of God’s kingdom.” The devil has not changed his strategy to injure the sheep by deceiving them into misdirection to men of allegiances and authority that belongs to Christ alone.
It appears that those who oppose Christian Nationalism, or the Church of Rome, rightly fear the effects of misinformation and the misdirection of lives in a direction other than that of Christ and his kingdom. Shall we not also speak with one voice against the evils of government funded education? After all, government sponsored education demands the inculcation of allegiances to ideologies and practices to things that are of this world and that are diametrically opposed to and clearly not of the kingdom of Christ.
Christians recognize that Christ alone is supreme. Why then do we enjoin and submit to state funded education? It seems we bow to state funded institutions so that we may gain accreditation to be seen as credible peers of those who oppose us ideologically and spiritually. Why does our identity as credentialed authorities on matters that are critical to our well being in life require state recognition?
The term “Christian Nationalism” is an abstraction that can be safely debated and attached, while simultaneously distracting our audience from all the other “*isms” that ascribe power, authority, and even admiration where they do not belong. It is safe to counter the perceived and real evil ideologies of Christian Nationalism, and other heresies of faith and practice that are readily adopted into the debating lexicon. It seems never safe to debate the merits of the political, social or medical systems,. These are the sheep gathering systems of this world. They are designed to divide, conquer and conform the public to political agendas. Such things seldom find a place in the lexicon of the debate.
I'd love to hear how Christians ought to interact politically, socially, and spiritually with the world we live in. We oppose Christian Nationalism for many good reasons. How then shall shall we engage our fellow man? Shall we voice our disapproval of evil and corruption in our government, in the work place? Is it safe to ignore the things that may affect the lives of our children's children? What does fidelity of walk of life testify to our fellow man?
Too often Christian who debate matters of faith seek to be defined by what they ARE NOT. I relish to hear what we ARE and how that affects our choices in life.
Thank you for your response. I suspect you may have missed my point. I hope this reply brings us closer together.
@JohnHTerpstra Thank you for your thoughtful reply brother and your acknowledgment of my criticism. However, it misses the central concern of my reply: Christian Nationalism, by its nature, elevates the state to a level that rivals Christ’s exclusive supremacy.
Let us not downplay the specific danger inherent in Christian Nationalism by equating it with other forms of idolatry or rebellion common to fallen humanity. While all sin is rooted in the rebellion of the first Adam, the issue at hand is not the general problem of sin, but the particular danger posed by Christian Nationalism in promoting the idea that a nation-state or political structure can be co-opted to serve the purposes of Christ’s kingdom. This is not simply another form of idolatry, but a direct theological error that conflates earthly political power with the mission of the church, thereby undermining the unique lordship of Christ and harming the church.
By framing Christian Nationalism as just one of many “isms” (and arguably a lesser one than Rome’s historical abuses), I’m afraid it does not fully appreciate the gravity of my concern: Christian Nationalism encourages believers to place their hope and allegiance in political power as a means to advance Christ’s kingdom, rather than in Christ alone. This is a theological issue, not just a political one.
In Christian Nationalism, the idol is particularly dangerous because it is cloaked in Christian language. The temptation of Christian Nationalism is that it spiritualizes political power, making it appear as though allegiance to a nation or political ideology is part of one’s allegiance to Christ. This is more than mere misdirection-it’s a blurring of categories between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world, which the New Testament sharply distinguishes (John 18:36).
Christian Nationalism does not simply acknowledge the existence of flawed governments-it seeks to actively use political power as a tool to advance Christian ideals. It is a social gospel from a conservative right angle. This is the core issue: while Christians are called to engage with the world and even live within fallen political systems (Romans 13), Christian Nationalism risks merging the role of the state with the mission of the church.
This politicization of the gospel can lead to a profound confusion of loyalties, where Christians begin to see national identity and political success as markers of faithfulness to Christ. Instead, Christians are called to be citizens of a heavenly kingdom (Philippians 3:20) and to live in this world with a clear distinction between their ultimate allegiance to Christ and their temporary role as citizens of earthly nations.
Your reply seems to suggest that focusing on Christian Nationalism is a distraction from other significant issues, such as the influence of government-funded education or broader political ideologies. However, Christian Nationalism is not a mere distraction-it is a pressing issue because it represents a direct theological and practical challenge to the church’s witness. By blending political power with the mission of the gospel, it distorts the message of Christ’s kingdom.
While it is true that other forms of idolatry (such as blind allegiance to education systems, political parties, or ideologies) are dangerous, the uniqueness of Christian Nationalism’s danger lies in its co-opting of Christian language and symbols to further earthly power. This makes it a particularly deceptive and pernicious form of idolatry, as it masks itself as Christian faithfulness while diverting attention away from the cross and the mission of the church.
The question of how Christians ought to interact politically, socially, and spiritually with the world is indeed an important one. However, the answer must begin with a clear understanding of the gospel and the distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. Christians are called to engage the world as salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16). However, this engagement must always be done with the understanding that the state is not the church, and the mission of God’s kingdom does not depend on political success or national identity.
In political engagement, Christians must avoid the temptation to use the tools of political power to advance the gospel. Instead, they should bear witness to Christ’s lordship by living lives marked by the cross, regardless of the political systems in which they live. This means rejecting the idea that any nation, including a “Christian” one, can fully represent the kingdom of God.
Your reply calls for Christians to be defined by what they are, not just by what they oppose, which is a valid and important point. However, part of living out what we are involves clarifying where our ultimate allegiance lies. Christians are called to be citizens of God’s kingdom, proclaiming Christ’s lordship in all areas of life. This means that, while Christians should indeed be proactive in their engagement with the world, they must also reject any political ideology-including Christian Nationalism-that seeks to share the throne with Christ.
The danger of Christian Nationalism is not merely one among many “isms” to be debated. It is a specific threat because it invites Christians to misplace their trust in political power as a means to accomplish God’s purposes. While Christians should engage in the world, the supremacy of Christ must remain unchallenged, and no earthly power-whether the state, political parties, or national identity-should be seen as an extension of Christ’s kingdom.
Christians can and should be active in public life. But they must do so without compromising the distinct nature of Christ’s kingdom, which is not of this world. Their identity is found in Christ alone, and their mission is to proclaim His lordship, not to use the tools of earthly power to secure His kingdom.
Thanks for your response brother.
@@παρεπίδημος Thank you again for your gentle reply. Perhaps you have noticed that the state already lays claim to exclusive supremacy. No amount of Christian Nationalism can elevate the state beyond the sovereign claim she already lays hold to. Christians in the main are unaware of the reality that the state claims exclusive sovereign lordship over all of life. The great vaccination program as well as the program to lock down our world in recent days is a testimony to the assumed power of the state.
Please be assured that my assertions do not ignore the dangers that are inherent in the idolatry of Christian Nationalism which, if correctly characterized, presents a false view of ideology when believers to place their hope and allegiance in political power as a means to advance Christ’s kingdom, rather than in Christ alone. This is a spiritual issue, and not just a theological matter or a political one.
Is it true that the spiritualization of political power by believers is any more deadly than the messianic and spiritual claims of the secular humanistic state? The messianic state already portends to be the spirit of men at work to assure the survival of mankind.
We agree completely - Christian Nationalism is particularly dangerous because it is cloaked in Christian language. That is also the nature of the secular humanistic state. Most Christians are blind to the messianic claims of the state today. Focusing just on Christian Nationalisms’ delusive following while ignoring the already messianic character of the state is to ignore the bull in the china shop.
An article by Tim Ventura (Futurist & business executive with 25+ years of industry experience and a passion for the future. th-cam.com/users/TimVenturaInterviews) in 2019, was prefaced with these words: “Space will change us. It is the inevitable consequence of our species adapting to new environments across the cosmos. It will blur the definition of what it means to be human - and a transformation will occur when being human begins to be something more.”
Trans-humanism has no room for an Almighty, Eternal, Creator, Sovereign God. There is room only for a present realty that the world is deficient and desperately in need of man’s great salvation plan, a plan that must encapsulate the cosmos and beyond. This is the imaginary realm of super humans. It is the domain of the truly enlightened and a place in which there is no room for those who are not onboard with the great cosmic vision. It is seemingly futile to resist purveyors of trans-humanism who want you to believe that you will either be assimilated or you will be eliminated!
This is the economic environment in which church members are employed in pursuit of their meager incomes. At best Christian Nationalism is more like polishing the brass on a sinking ship! Christian men who labor to support the agenda of the messianic state miss the gravity of the great spiritual battle of life and daily living.
We can observe the synchronized “lip-speak” of news reports in traditional main-line media and across social media. How many believers bother to ask, “Why is this happening? What is the agenda behind the message? Who is paying for this to happen?” Whether the agenda is spiritual or political in nature, event reporting oriented, or relates to promotion of goods or services, let us be assured that someone somewhere is paying the piper to make it happen. It is naive to consider that these incidents are merely accidental. Governments around the world are offering enormous funding in support of the priorities of the messianic state.
The four (4) key foundational technologies that underpin the promotion of the trans-humanist agenda are these: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology (mostly focusing on statistics and predictive analytics - under the banner of AI - artificial intelligence), and Cognitive Science. Investment in these particular key areas are made to foster rapid innovation and development to specifically help drive public adoption. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Supplement to the US President’s 2023 Budget, through the Committee on Technology of the National Science and Technology Council, provides a detailed overview of funding that is provided by the US Federal Government. In 2021 a total of $3.7769 billion (a mere tip of the iceberg) was expended by and through a plethora of government agencies. The religious humanist agenda supports technology as central to its agenda to save mankind from extinction - the non-religious messianic salvation plan.
Increasingly the supreme state seeks to be the sole agency that creates and arbitrates all law. Since the state denies the existence of any higher order, there can be no appeal to the laws of the state. Only men tenaciously hold to the ultimate transcendental law-word from God have authority to question the will of the State! In this temporal world they answer to higher law! The Gospel is the proclamation that Christ has triumphed over the death and hades, all who are chosen in him are delivered from sin, through faith by the grace of God there is deliverance.
Christians misplace all trust that is placed in political or social power. Engagement in the world, whether politically, socially, or in the work place, is spiritual warfare! The real battle is fought in the highest realms for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Trust Jesus, cling to him alone, there is no other comfort in life. The battle is much bigger than Christian Nationalism.
1:26:21 that IS a pun because it is no marriage in the sight of God.
This moment really solidified that they truly don't know what Doug is saying and read him constantly in an uncharitable or ignorant light.
Doug has ALWAYS called it gay mirage in every single resource, video, blog and book he has produced to be clever about the point that it is not really marriage at all. He has done so for a VERY long time.
For them to not only misunderstand it, but to be so confused shows that they really don't listen to Doug seriously at all.
Who else could determine it?
America's major problem: we aren't truly fully Christian and biblical!
Not even close
Where was Dr. Clark when Chris debated Dw and his partner?
To be fair, Chris chose the setting and handled himself fairly well. Actually, it was a very good discussion
"Moscow" bent over backwards to be nice to him. Tag-teaming would have looked very different, and frankly would have been deserved.
@davechesser9062 yes on nice, no on well deserved
While I highly respect brother Gordon and Brother Clark, I will have to say that this was not really a sustained critique of Christian Nationalism so much as a intra-mural discussion between two men who obviously share the same principles (which has its place), but my main concern is that God's Word was not the motivating factor so much as certain theological commitments regarding the relationship between the Old and New Testaments (which I hold to Covenant Theology) that represent the views of Meredith G. Kline and Mosaic republication of the Covenant of Works, an ethical philosophy procurated by David van Drunen, and a commitment to a nature grace dualism that is not far off from the Roman Catholic view. These are foundational to what these two men are talking about in regards to Christian Nationalism (I am Establishmentarian which is distinct from Theonomy in the 20th Century and now 21st Century in the form of Doug Wilson and Stephan Wolffe, both of which are heretics based on what I know about their doctrinal commitments).
My aim is not so much to criticize as to help those watching to see that there are questions these men have not answered. 1) Is Jesus King only of the church and not the state, which seems to be the implication and that is more anabaptist (to my knowledge) than reformed? 2) What is the view of these men regarding moral examples in the Old Testament of pagans upholding true religion (specifically Cyrus with Israel) and the New Testament regarding Romans 13 and Paul's witnessing to state rulers? My guess is they would prefer to see the former as non-informative for today or perhaps was more for that time not today (which is a Dispensational/Baptist hermeneutic) and the latter as only referring to Gospel witness and second table upholding (which coheres with their nature grace dualism and basically severes the two tables of the moral law (which in the eyes historically of the Reformed was the natural law inscribed on all men's hearts Romans 2) from each other. First table grace, and second nature. 3) can a Christian take civil office and govern according to God’s Word? If they are consistent R2K (and with the Nature-Grace Dualism) they will have to say no. If they say yes, then they are in fundamental agreement with the Christian Nationalists but differ only in particulars.
Excellent program and very much needed as you can see from some of the comments posted here. Thank you for tackling this controversial topic and shedding light on just how our nation was founded and how we can be active Christian citizens in it.
What is Mr. Federal Vision Doug Wilson doing on this discussion! I wouldn't trust him discussing the weather!
@@dennisfetherbay2946 Doug Wilson is not participating in the discussion, but they do discuss Wilson's beliefs and point out where he is in error. BTW, I agree with you about Wilson. :)
@@angelawittman5144 Thanks!
Where does the NT say America can't be a Christian nation. Mt28:19?
What makes a nation Christian? How do you define it?
@@jahnvantuttlesma8215What makes a family Christian?
@@Psalm144.1 I never referenced the family. Is there an argument that you are wanting to make?
Where does the NT say that a nation can be a disciple?
The early Americans called it new Israel.
Stop reading Doug Wilson?? He doesn't know what he's talking about?? This is just a ridiculously embarrassing level of discourse.
Douglas Wilson would utterly destroy these fallacious arguments. Miss representation of Douglas's position is incredibly unfortunate. It's either lazy or dishonest. Whether implicitly, or explicitly, these guys are guilty of grotesque slander. Why don't you all invite Douglas Wilson on the defend his position and stop misrepresenting him. I've listen to him for decades, and he doesn't sound anything like how you represent him.
Umm, I did, he was on, know what you’re talking about before attempting to wax eloquent.
ad hominem and cowardly, thin skinned comments will be deleted. Like the one from DF that was just removed
@@AboundingGraceRadio I stand corrected. But not on your arrogant presupposition that "no one should listen to Douglas Wilson". That's exceptionally divisive and deserves repudiation.
@@AboundingGraceRadio are you referring to me? (Regardless, I edited mine for diplomacy!)
Excuse me:it was the Founding Fathers who "forced" our constitution on us. Why not "force" a true God glorifying biblical nation on us?
Some people have confused turning the other cheek with spreading both cheeks.
Thanks for continuing to visualize the juvenile tactics of modern CN
@@AboundingGraceRadioyour welcome
The arrogance and the straw manning of this guest is astounding!
smh
Such an enlightening comment!
Smh
@@παρεπίδημος The authors that he’s quoting are not advocating for “revolution” but reformation; the leaders of Christian Nationalism do not view the USA as the new Israel or the chosen people. Stephen Wolfe doesn’t advocate for a theocracy but presents a political theory of a people living within a nation that are Christian and deems there nation as Christian through a consensus (any nation on the globe can implement there version of Christian Nationalism). This could develop in different styles of government ranging from A Republic to a Monarchy (as long as the governing body are ruling for the greater good of the people which he concludes that the Christian worldview produces the greatest good for people). None of the authors the guest is critiquing are advocating to drop the 1st amendment within the American context as it relates to its particular government structure as a Christian Nation. Also Wolfe and Wilson do not believe that the state should take the place of the church but recognizes that each sphere play certain roles within the Christian Nation. Furthermore, both Wolfe and Wilson believe that the Gospel is always spearheading any efforts for a Nation to become a Christian Nation. These are just a few of the plethora of straw man fallacies the host and the guest are spewing. Their rhetoric is hovering close to slander. The only thing I credit them for is recognizing that Wolfe is closer to the fathers of the reformation than themselves when it comes to the role of the magistrate.
I found this very condescending and unhelpful a primarily from Clark
It was and us and should be the original white Christian Americans who determine what the nation ought to be!
Are you KuKluxKlan?
Where is my question at? You going to censor me for asking this guy if he is KKK since he stated that white Christians are the ones who should create the Christian nation?
Should they wear white hoods too?
the original inhabitants of this continent weren’t white. They’re still here, so maybe you can ask them what they think the nation ought to be.
witness to the false teachers of our day
America's major problem: we aren't truly fully Christian and biblical!
And never can be
And hope it will never be