The fact is that the mediatorial kingship of Jesus Christ needs to be part of the discussion. Not just for "Christian Nationalists" but to counter the "we want a secular state" advocates, like those from Westminster West. Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords, and all wise kings take refuge in Him. Wise nations seek to submit to His standards. That is very much missing in Americanized Christianity, especially in our political theology.
As a Covenanter for the past 10 years, I am excited to hear someone extolling the Covenanter position and is studied enough to see the differences between the Wilsonites and true Christian Nationalism. Matthew does suggest two good works to read, but it is better to study the "Reformed Presbytery. Act, Declaration, and Testimony: 1876. Philadelphia: Rue & Jones, 1876" and to study the Solemn League and Covenant because the USA is still under its obligation. Having once been a member of the PCA (which Matthew is a member of) I know that the two groups, (American Presbyterian and Covenanter) are incompatible. Matthew does mention the revision of the Westminster Standards, but is misinformed about its purpose and significance. The purpose of the revisions were not to accommodate a change in governmental form, but to make the Standards conform to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. These changes are not minor as Matthew would have you believe, but of such a nature that it destroys true religion. Here are a few changes: In the Westminster Confession 1. In chapter 20 section 4 this clause was removed: "and by the power of the civil magistrate" 2. In chapter 23 section 3 these clauses was removed: 1. "yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses of worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed 2. "For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God" In the Larger Catechism: WLCQ 109: Removed clause: “tolerating a false religion” You can study all the changes by reading: "Irons, Lee. The 1788 American Revision of the Westminster Standards, 2007."
As you can see, these changes have nothing to do with democracy, but with the State abdicating its duty to protect the true Church, and therefore making it the duty of the State to protect idolaters, that is, violators of the First and Second Commandments. Matthew, I am sure you are aware what would happen to you if the true Covenanters were to discover that you participate in the Christ Mass. If one desires to understand true religion, who we are historically, and what went wrong with the Church, you can't just read about Luther and Calvin, and then jump to Jonathan Edwards and the "Great Awakening"; you must understand the history of the Second Reformation.
@Project1643. Matthew teaches at RPTS and is a pastor in the PCA, so he has a foot in both ponds. I'm sure his familiarity with the Covenanter position is limited, and because of the Federal Vision, he is biased against Moscow. What we need to remember is that we aren't in 17th century Britain, but in 21st century USA. The vast majority of Protestants are some form of Baptist. Covenanters represent about .002% of the population. But, we desperately need to reestablish a Christian basis to our civil government. That isn't going to happen through recognizing the Solemn League and Covenant. As the great grandson of Baptists who came here to escape state churches, I'm not a fan of established churches. And, the RP churches split from the state church over what happened during the "killing times" and the reestablishment after the Glorious Revolution. Christian unity can't be forced. It has to be built. I recommend starting with amending the Constitution to recognize Jesus Christ as King. I prefer James Thornwell's version to the RPCNA version because it is more straightforward. Just getting some of our "Reformed" brothers to acknowledge the need for that will be a major undertaking. They love easy access to porn more than they love Jesus.
@@danreichenberg5249 Yes, much has happened in the past four centuries, but we need to remember that a lawful oath will remain binding, (2 Sam. 21). Our nation is not only incurring God's wrath because we have rejected the principles found in the SL&C, but because we remain under its obligation. Covenant breaking is dangerous. I understand most despise the idea that the SL&C is our lawful constitution, but I rejoice in this truth. You said you prefer Thornwell's version to the RPCNA. What is more straightforward with Thornwell and what do you consider more complex with the Covenanter position? I looked at Thornwell's 4 volume set and didn't see a lecture pertaining to this topic. Did I miss it?
@Project1643. You may have ancestors who were parties to the S,L&C, but my ancestors came here from Germany and Sweden to escape the tyranny of the established churches of Europe. The colonies were largely founded as refuges for nonconformists. The idea that the United States, a very different nation from those nations that entered into the S,L,&C, is under it, is absurd and not helpful. Thornwell's amendment was purposed at the first General Assembly of the PCCSA, and read as follows: "Nevertheless we, the people of these Confederate States distinctly acknowledge our responsibility to God, and the supremacy of His Son, Jesus Christ, as King of kings and Lord of lords; and hereby ordain that no law shall be passed by the Congress of these Confederate States inconsistent with the will of God, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures." The National Reform Association (which included the RPCNA) proposed this version: "We the people acknowledge Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as Ruler among nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government." The primary difference is that Thornwell defines what the revealed will of God is (Holy Scripture). Of course, with Roman Catholics and Mormons here, you need to define what Holy Scripture is, but you get the gist.
I write this with charity and to open up a discussion - You reject viewpoints here by calling them weird and crazy (reminiscent of Tim Walz to the conservatives recently). Yet you made little effort to engage with said weird and crazy viewpoints because it “isn’t worth it”, or because they are simply weird and crazy. This seems to be circular argumentation (please correct me if I’m wrong). Because of this, when you offer up the better solution in the Covenanters, you by no means establish how they are better. You’re really not comparing them to anything, especially the “weird and crazy” viewpoint you didn’t define. Perhaps take the time to read Case for Christian Nationalism and see where you might agree and disagree? How can you disagree before you do so? Because you know for sure that you will? I think you would be surprised at the similarities between the Covenanters and Wolfe’s arguments.
Wolfe isn’t concerned about the exegetical nature of these issues. Why would I care about Wolfes building upon the Covenanters when the Covenanters already got it right.
@@johnking9161 The principle “why would I build upon something when it was already done right?” is a slippery slope. The historical church has benefited greatly from the inverse. They have built upon the foundation laid before them time and time again (regardless of how great it was for its time). You and I do the same thing today. What criteria are you applying to the Covenanters to argue their political theology needs no refining? And again, disengaging with and discrediting Wolfe’s work because it’s not exegetical doesn’t answer my questions above. It also doesn’t consider the introduction to his work, which makes a strong case for why it doesn’t meet the criteria / necessity to be an exegetical work.
Matthew thank you for taking on this conversation. I am all for Christian Culture and being a fan of Symington ' book the Mediatorial Reign of Messiah the Prince. By concern for Christian Nationalism though I can define it to a Christian Culture. Christian Nationalism is what the former National Party in South Africa was founded on and implemented Apartheid. And then there was Hitler's NAZI Party which was German Nationalism and based on Christian Nationalism
I think you do a great job representing the Covenanters here. But respectfully, when referring to the “new Christian Nationalists”, if by that you mean, Doug Wilson, Stephen Wolfe, etc. you should know that almost all of their positions are in absolute lock step with historic reformed political thought. I think it would have been better for you to read the Case for Christian Nationalism, or especially Mere Christendom first, and then interact with the points at which you disagree.
I learned about the Covenanters through Doug Wilson and he pointed me to historical books about them, like "Fair Sunshine", which is about covenanter martyrs. He would agree to read the history.
I like pastor Matt Everhard. But I also like the Ogden Christian “borough” brothers, the Moscow mood guys(with the exception to paedo-communion & “Federal Vision “lite”), right response ministries, & Dr. Stephen Wolfe; and I think they have sparked an important conversation about Christian Nationalism. Unfortunately, outside bad actors are attempting to hijack the term “Christian Nationalism” and incorporate a racial nationalism with overtones of hatred towards other races. I think the “Nationalism “ term (due to it’s association to the Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany during the 1930s) causes people to dislike the movement. Nationalism is not a demonstrably bad word but simply means: to identify with one's own nation and support for that nation’s interests over the interest of other nations. Christian Nationalism is having a Christian nation (regulated & governed by Christian laws/ethos) and support for that Christian nation’s interests over the interest of other nations. I am a big fan of the covenanters and their outlook has also shaped my understanding of Christian Nationalism and why I currently support the Christian Nationalist movement.
Hello Pastor, I love your channel. I love what you have to say on various topics. I have wondered where you might fall in relation to some of the other influences from the digital world that I have. And I would argue that that list of questions towards the end is exactly what this newer movement of Christian nationalism tries to solve. It is not merely just stating the mediatorial kingship of Christ, but they’re getting into the minutia of how or what would be implemented once Christian nationalism becomes a big enough movement to influence the country. The mediatorial king ship of Christ is the given and discussions are opening up about what it would look like in a democratic Republic to put Christ at the head of the nation. I would not say Dr. Stephen Wolfe is implying that his version of Christian nationalism is the best, but he’s at least put together a work to be criticized And possibly revised by other people that want to strive for Christian nationalism. Now I understand you may think that there are many distractions within the Christian nationalist movement, which I could definitely understand that point of view, but I think it takes other men who at the minimum believe in mediatorial king ship of Christ to critique Dr. Stephen Wolfe‘s version of Christian nationalism and propose a different version. I like to think of the back-and-forth between the federalist and anti-federalist papers. God bless and peace be with you and yours in the name of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Theonomists and CN would espouse for the most part your description of what the Covenanters espoused. The further clarifying and applying of the reign of Christ as it pertains to today is what many theonomists and Christian nationalists are arguing amongst themselves about. These two camps are not as crazy or non-confessional as some might believe.
I think the theonomy and CN movements are attracting a fair number of rootless young men. This is not bad, but you will expect outbursts of immaturity from time to time until they mature.
You’re basically arguing for Christian Nationalism without using the same title. I think most people are just afraid of the title. Call it anything else and people jump on board.
If that's the case, I wonder why the proponents of Christian Nationalism didn't adopt the historic, confessional position which already existed. It's like saying someone is a Calvinist even though they don't use any of the TULIP language and also come with a bunch of odd baggage.
@@KildaltonTheologicalStudiescalm down pal, no need to be histrionic. Not only is what I said not a slur, you also didn't address the question, which is this: if CN and traditional covenantor establishmentarianidm are the same thing, why introduce a whole new vocabulary which is disconnected from what's been built for the past 500yrs? I'm not having a go at Wilson - Christian Nationalism isn't the worst thing out there by a long way.
@donaldmorrison9940 it's very likely that either A) when they started promoting their ideals for CN/Theonomy they weren't familiar with these older iterations or B) there were too many aspects of the earlier form that didn't/couldn't apply to our country that it was simpler to just start from scratch. I think B is the more likely case, it's much easier to get people of today's culture on board for such a movement of they don't first have to go back to an older culture and restate, and even change, every item for your modern audience. I think that what Matt here has advocated for is so similar to the common CN/Theonomy positions that there's no reason for him not to be on board... HOWEVER, the crazy parts he pointed out like kinism that are infecting the movement really is something to be wrestled with and contended. I'm not sure though if those crazy parts would be any less likely if our starting point was Scottish Covenanter doctrines. I think part of it is just our insanely divided culture.
Honestly I don't really see a difference between what was said here and what is often said in the other camp that you're trying to call out (kind of). A lot of the language here all sounds very similar to me 🤷🏽♂️ I'm sure there's "nuance quote that I'm missing but honestly it all sounds the same to me so I don't really know what the disagreement is
The "other" guys have an obsession with the post war consensus.... to the point that they are borderline Holocaust deniers, and attract all manner of actual Hitlerites to their comment sections.
I’m not Reformed and I wouldn’t call myself a Christian Nationalist, but from what I can tell I share a similar vision and goals with them. I see no reason to attack them, for the most part they are allies.
Hi Pastor Everhard, first may the Lord bless your ministry! I’ve been greatly blessed by your videos over the past year and am a deacon in the PCA in Carlisle Pa. In response to this video, I would encourage you to not label the pictured men simply as a part of the “crazy” and then not hear what they have to say in particular on what you are discussing here, whether that be in their books, podcasts, etc. I have found Brian Sauve, and the Ogden men to be very much digging for the “old paths” versus espousing something new that is crazy. Sometimes we in the reformed tradition see the “old paths” as only the five solas of the reformation (my mind goes to JC Ryle’s great book called Old Paths), but how we relate to the civil sphere as reformed men today is an old path that has been lost on broader American Evangelicalism and even the reformed as well. Sometimes we can lose sight that how a Christian relates to the civil sphere can only be found from the Protestant reformation and onward, when almost 1500 years of church history preceded that. These men you labeled as crazy have been willing to do the work to see what has even come before that (primarily Ogden in my experience ). Back at the early founding of our country here in America, men like John Cotton would deliver “election sermons” (probably botched that label), and the men in Ogden did just that without the politic preaching garbage that can come from some pulpits that do it wrong. I’d recommend you listen to it by looking up their church in Ogden. I’m not sure how many PCA pastors would be comfortable doing that today. This is evidence of what comes from digging into old paths and discovering the duties that God requires of man and how our forefathers responded. What do the Scriptures principally teach? They principally teach what man is to believe concerning God and what duties God requires of man. We are strong today in teaching on the attributes of God in reformed circles (as we ought to be), but how about the duties in the household and the civil sphere? I’m afraid those are either nonexistent or watered down compared to our forefathers. Love the Covenanters! One final thought. If you label these men as “crazy” and don’t want to hear them out, I can’t imagine what you would want to do with Martin Luther. Praying for your ministry and that the Lord would bless it to his glory.
The major criticism I hear from you is a disagreement over tactics. You think they're too controversial, prone to in-fighting, headline-grabby, personality-driven, etc. That may well be, but you framed this video as providing an older and more historically rooted theological alternative to the present-day CN ideas being discussed. The theological content here is good, but I have already heard all of these ideas from the men in the thumbnail. What are you presenting that they aren't already teaching? In addition, you appear to be taking at face value the accusations of CN critics, specifically regarding kinism and antisemitism, admittedly without even having read the source material. I think that is unhelpful. Overall, I think this video brings up some helpful points, but is not as helpful as you intended it to be for the reasons listed above.
I forget which camp it is, I think it's the guys in Ogden, but they have a whole podcast and running interest in that kind of *spooky* stuff. I haven't listened to any of it but on its surface I don't have a problem with some folks' weird hobby/conspiracy. What I DO have a problem with, and I think that's Everhard's Problem, it's them putting it front and center as if it's part and parcel with this new move towards conservative theology, biblical patriarchy, CN/Theonomy, and so on. It's a weird obscure thing that these guys are doing for fun, but it should stay over in the corner with the Warhammer models and the Star Trek souvenirs.
Exactly my thinking. I have realized that many in the PCA (including my favorite Kevin DeYoung) actually agree with the aspousement, they just don't like the term "Christian Nationalism". Such things make me want Christ to come sooner.
@@waynekapukare6669when a term is not clearly defined, such as Christian Nationalism, I am also wary of associating myself with it. It may be that I am eventually claim the term, but not now, not while it is still being hammered out
The argument you're making would put you in the Christian nationalist camp. I think if you actually took the time to listen to them you'd find little you disagree with.
The real issue here is Matthew Everhard's lack of humour. When Brian Sauvé half-jokingly talks about Bigfoot it's clearly a bit. He's not crazy. He's inquisitiveness and more in touch with the culture. Non-Christians and Christians alike have real questions about the supernatural and stranger things.
While I appreciate the discussion of the Covenantors and the spheres of Church and State, I found this video to be disappointingly clickbaity and inflammatory. The title and thumbnail would lead casual viewers to believe that every pastor pictured is fundamentally unstable, when really the takeaway is "these guys actually have sound beliefs with a few fringe things I disagree with." Disagreeing on those things is completely reasonable, but they are not grounds to wholly discredit them like is implied.
Agreed. "I don't really know what any of these books say, I don't really follow CN, or really follow any of the current issues. I don't need to because Covenantors is better."
This guy does that alot. He calls out many without self reflecting. Full or pride and arrogance. In our Bibles, it warns us to be aware of these people. For this guy it's about money. How many views rather than trying to awaken. Look around his office speaks volumes of where his head is at.
To put in briefly, I understand the frustration with immaturity (focus on mythical creatures, arrogance, Twitter quarrels), but I don’t think it’s fair to lump Doug Wilson in with that. He is doing a lot of good when it comes to getting Christians to think more historically and biblically on these kinds of matters.
Doug Wilson, only divides, nothing good in that. Before you go and get heated over this, I used to agree with much of his spurious teachings. Post Tenebras Lux!
I agree with many of your points Pastor, but you said you hadn't "studied the book". I suggest reading Wolfe's book or even having him on your show some time. He doesn't espouse most, if any, of the "don't go there" stuff you mention (with the exception of online polemics; he does do that).
If you're going to argue against an idea, you need to first, define your terms. Listing a bunch of stuff that 'some people also believe in addition to [whatever it is your arguing against]' is not helpful. Define it clearly first and then compare your preferred model with whatever you think you're arguing against.
He mentions the terms of discussion from 1:42 to 2:52. Book recommendations for terms clearly defined at 12:34 if you're interested in a deeper look at what he is arguing. He seems to be saying there's an established, well known view and newer, more modern view with a lot of really odd underscores to it. While there may be a sliding scale or spectrum of what people believe on this issue, he is contrasting a historical view he has read from books (recommended in video) with a newer view he is seeing online, mostly from a particular group of people which are pictured on the thumbnail.
@@ekatrinya He also says that he hasn't read the books and he includes of beliefs of some who are associated with CN. He never defines what he specifically means by CN. All he does is say, 'there's a bunch of stuff recently on the Internet that I think is confused and I'm going to call CN although I don't know what that is, and it's crazy. But here's an alternative, let's have the state pro up the Christian Church and have the Christian Church keep the state between the rails.' His alternative sounds a lot like what one would think CN actually is - making the state overly aligned with the (his version) of the Christian Church. Congratulations; you have just argued exactly for CN after calling it crazy.
I don't see that at all. Moscow advocates for theocracy. You may say "no, they advocate for postmillennialism" but that is simply a distinction without a difference. Lately, I have found it effective to ask postmil theonomists "why do you oppose theocracy? Isn't Jesus king of the universe?" If their own arguments logically justify theonomy, then the same can be said of theocracy. And this is because the two are essentially the same concept; just roses of a different color......and BARELY a different color.
@@edodt4220From what I can tell “theocracy” is becoming the next “Christian Nationalism,” where in a pejorative context it means whatever the user wants it to mean at the moment. Assuming we’re working with a definition where theocracy means rule of the state by the church, that is not what Doug Wilson advocates. I’ve read “Mere Christendom” by Wilson and “A case for Christian nationalism” by Wolfe, and neither one is advocating for theocracy…. They are advocating (in slightly different ways) that the church submit to Christ as Lord, and that the state does the same.
Do you have a video with a more fleshed out, full-length critique of Federal Vision? I’ve tried to seek out some well-thought-out pushback against it, but my research has yielded either, 1) hyper-academic papers published by PhD candidates (that I admittedly can’t make heads or tails of), or 2) vague cultural critiques that amount to, “I just don’t like the way it smells.” Can we get a thoughtful, pastoral critique on it? Or can you point me there? I know that was tangential to this video, but your outright disdain for Federal Vision is interesting because pretty much all PCA and OPC folks have the exact same reaction, and I would be highly interested in the reason(s) why. Thank you in advance.
"weird" where have I heard that recently.... Guys, there is a major market in the online space discussing the seemingly supernatural. Haunted cosmos, the podcast, has stepped in to give this space the God centered grounding it needs. Perhaps a lot of you don't care, but Joe Rogan, The Why Files, and many others are in that space, massively popular, and completely godless. A few solid reformed brothers show up to give context to the supernatural alleged encounters in our world, and all we get is "weird." Seems condescending and out of touch.
The only thing I’d add is that the black pill/Christless conservative crowd who listen to Joe Rogan have an alternative in Ogden/Moscow/Apologia. Too often, too too often, we Reformed go almost materialist on these topics with any of the “weird” so experienced in our word. Sad.
Yep. An if I remember correctly, Christopher Columbus found them and wrote about them in his journal. (Spoiler-they were manatees. You have to really be missing the company of ladies to get those mixed up!)
4:35 didnt study what christian nationalism is. “Let me tell you why i disagree” Youll find astrophysicists who like big foot brother i love you but this is not your best work 6:31” im against Christian nationalism but these christian nationalist are amazing”
This response reminds of when the teacher would keep the whole class in at recess because one or two kids did something they shouldn’t have and maybe another tried to intervene for the better and got lumped in as a troublemaker.
Media definition of Nationalism tend to be vague and lose. My local paper sometimes seems to call mere calling to be citizens in politics by preachers as "monopoly of power" nonsense.
Thank you Matthew for this video. Set well thought out and put together response to what is a questionable view of Christian Nationalism. Voddie Baucham also addresses the subject and if I remember his address correctly is in line with the Mediatorial Kingship view.
I really appreciate you weighing in here Pastor Everhard. I do think though that this is something that should be discussed more - for example, what you describe is actually around the middle of the Christian nationalism scale in terms of how extreme or moderate of a view it is, and many of those you were critiquing here for holding novel views actually agree with everything you just said, and just happen to call it "Christian nationalism" rather than mediatorial kingship. Would you be interested in discussing more about paedobaptism and federal vision? I know some folks that would be very willing to talk about them with you and I think there may be some misunderstandings about what they entail and why they are done.
Does Stephen Wolfe believe the state should get rid of improper worship in Protestant churches? For example would he be in favor of implmenting the following. True Covenanters would support something like this May 1644: An Ordinance for the further demolishing of Monuments of Idolatry and Superstition. The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, the better to accomplish the blessed Reformation so happily begun, and to remove all offences and things illegal in the worship of God, do Ordain, That all Representations of any of the Persons of the Trinity, or of any Angel or Saint, in or about any Cathedral, Collegiate or Parish Church, or Chappel, or in any open place within this Kingdome, shall be taken away, defaced, and utterly demolished; And that no such shall hereafter be set up, And that the Chancel - ground of every such Church or Chappel, raised for any Altar, or Communion Table to stand upon, shall be laid down and levelled; And that no Copes, Surplisses, superstitious Vestments, Roods, or Roodlons, or Holy-water Fonts, shall be, or be any more used in any Church or Chappel within this Realm; And that no Cross, Crucifix, Picture, or Representation of any of the Persons of the Trinity, or of any Angel or Saint shall be, or continue upon any Plate, or other thing used, or to be used in or about the worship of God; And that all Organs, and the Frames or Cases wherein they stand in all Churches or Chappels aforesaid, shall be taken away, and utterly defaced, and none other hereafter set up in their places; And that all Copes, Surplisses, superstitious Vestments, Roods, and Fonts aforesaid, be likewise utterly defaced; whereunto all persons within this Kingdome, whom it may concern, are hereby required at their peril to yield due obedience.
I’m not accusing anyone in particular (but I’m putting 5 faces up here). I haven’t read the books or been drawn to, but it’s “weird” so I have an opinion? This was kinda effeminate
I’ve listened to some of the Christian nationalist guys, sounds like you and them are saying very similar things. Seems you are trying to avoid the extra nonsense they bring. All Christians should want their country to be Christian in values and official covenant.
Preaching through 1 Peter and 2:13-18 comes up this Sunday. Been wrestling with these questions all week. Appreciate your input. Obedience to the gov is a polarizing topic. In the city, many people tend to be all in on obeying gov no matter what (Think 2020). In the country people lean more towards disobedience and rebellion as default attitude. Fascinating and important topic! Lord, give me wisdom.
@epicturtle007 for a deeper understanding on the subject I would refer you to the book The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates. It clarified the questions I had on governmental authority vs biblical authority in our lives. For tomorrow though, the Christian has the Scripture and a conscience with godly morals that are to be obeyed when the government gives immoral commands, ie. "take this vaccine and shut up."
So I can think of at least two explanations: 1.) in the city, cooperation with the bureaucracy is necessary for survival while independence and self-reliance is necessary in the country; 2.) The more remote the center of government and power the more likely it is seen as a threat. Blind unquestioning obedience and instinctive rebellion are both wrong.
As an example, one rapper posed this question, “Order a pizza and call the cops. See which one gets to your house first.” Even those in the city… Hmmm… maybe it’s about wealth and power? I don’t know. This is an interesting topic. I’ll have to give it more thought
Read through your bible and tell me how many cities are tied to holiness and how many are tied to wickedness. I'll tell you the result in advance, the only in the former is Zion. Even Jerusalem is called wicked by God.
The only other person I know of who is explicitly addressing this is Aldo Leon. Finally, somebody else is also putting this out there. Thank you Pastor Everhard. We need other teachers and pastors to teach this.
There are many pastors who have been making this point and addressing the doctrine of Christ's mediatorial dominion, it's just most of us don't have TH-cam shows or podcasts.
Pastor Everhard, from everything you said I would charitably say that you ARE a Christian Nationalist albeit one who is unwilling to use that term. This is fine by me, just a bit funny in my opinion.
Most CN's myself included would agree with just about everything you said. It's sad that you would want to lump people together and call names and deride what they are saying at the same time as saying you have no interest in learning about them or what they are saying.
As a follower of the CN movement I support this video and do find the establishment principle as more biblical and better thought out . Why argue about something that has bin developed that we can just adopt .
A very insightful video. There is still much more about covenant theology, I need to learn. But this video is a good answer to the question of Christian Nationalism.
A very mature and thoughtful response to this. I don’t find anything wrong with calling out many of the views espoused by this movement as “crazy.” I really appreciate your time on this sir. I am afraid for many men in my church who are being drawn towards this. I will be sharing this with them for a sobering response.
i am in full agreement in regards to psalm singing and the the current worshiptainment in the current culture. what i’m trying to understand and how to answer others is the “why does it matter”. is God judging poorly the churches who practice worshiptainmmet? Is this a secondary or even tertiary issue?-and if so then wouldn’t God accept that form of worship. Isn’t that what the core definition of secondary/tertiary that it’s not salvific and if not then wouldn’t it not matter. Most people who practice worshiptainment believe it’s secondary/tertiary as well and don’t believe they’re not saved. They essentially don’t believe that God doesn’t accept this worship and IF he doesn’t will show them grace. Do you posit that God in fact won’t show grace to what you may go so far as to call false worship? And if so how scripturally? How do we convince them to see the interpretation the same way?
Christ reigns over the Church and the nations - however His reign and rule is administered differently over the Church and the nations - Christ holds the Church accountable to His righteousness but regenerates and renews His Church by the Holy Spirit applying the word of God to their lives, and conforming them to His righteousness - Christ holds the nations accountable to His righteousness, and calls them to repentance, and if they repent they are made a part of Christ's Holy nation, the Church, but if they continue to reject Christ's reign and rule, they are eternally condemned. The State, under God's sovereign decree and will, is established to maintain law and order, so that the Church may function and serve Christ's Kingdom, but it's basic purpose is to enforce the law by the sword, not carry out the work of the church, which is to call people to salvation and discipling them.
Just be careful going down that rabbit hole. It's going to be described differently depending on the source. Much like asking a hypercalvinist and a hyperarminian to define the meanings of "predestined', "elect" and "sovereign".
In my eyes, there isn't exactly one thing that is "federal vision" defined in a positive way. That is, i don't think it was ever one well defined thing that people would agree with and say they affirm as "federal vision". The closest would probably be the federal vision joint statement. Many churches put out position papers officially condemning something they called "federal vision", including the PCA and OPC. It is worth looking at those to see what the concerns were. For me, I agree that what was condemned is a grave error that ought to be rejected, but I am unclear about whether anyone was ever actually advocating for it. All the men put on trial in their respective demoninations for "federal vision" were exonerated to my knowledge. And while I disagree with the federal vision statement, it didn't strike me as heretical (mind, I'm a nobody). I heard a Lutheran say that FV seemed more Lutheran if anything, and if that's true, I don't think Reformed denominations generally regard Lutheran beliefs as heresy even if we disagree at points. I'm seeing more and more talk about it all being an overreaction and as the next generation is growing up and is looking back at it, it is unclear exactly what the big deal was. It does seem like a lot of the controversy was sturred up by the Trinity Foundation, a group that was (and maybe still is) a big time "heresy hunting" group that often accused people they disagreed with of some pretty uncharitable things.
Historic Covenanter view is distinguished from modern pop Christian nationalists because they wanted a covenanted uniformity of worship doctrine and practice between the kingdoms and I do not see the modern pop christian nationalists advocating that.
So, Matt is a Christian Nationalist? He attempts to make a distinction without a difference. Also, the “weird” bit sounds a lot like the democrats lately.
Wilson thinks there is a difference, because there is one. Wilson wants America to be like the church of Jeroboam (1 Kings 12-13), while the Covenanter version is true religion. Matthew doesn't understand these differences otherwise he would have left the PCA, and he would understand that Baptist are not Christians.
A loooooot of strawmanning here. You can't mmake these types of accusations and say you aren't speaking about anyone specifically while their pictures are on the screen. There are many people that I don't liike in that circle but you cannot discount everything. Crypto zoology is something for instance that is worth looking into, instead of (in reformed fashion) avoiding the topic completely.
"Crypto zoology is something for instance that is worth looking into, instead of (in reformed fashion) avoiding the topic completely." Imagine going back to the Reformers and explaining to them that, in years to come, their successors - actual adult men - will be discussing mermaids.
@ not the point. Also plenty of theologians throughout history have discussed things regarding supernatural. That’s what angels and demons are btw. There are plenty of things that go on in this world have are mysterious and need explaining, and Christian’s should be able to point to scripture rather than write it off. Why shouldn’t they talk about it?
@@samuelyoho3651 "Also plenty of theologians throughout history have discussed things regarding supernatural" I should hope so too, since God is supernatural. Not exactly mermaid chat, is it?
@@Mic1904 im talking about angelology and demonology. Paranormal. The people at Canon Press talk about the Nephilim and monsters, which the Bible talks about. Your snarky remarks aren't making you look smart.
@@samuelyoho3651 "im talking about angelology and demonology." You're talking about cryptozoology, and the 'reformed fashion' of avoiding this most worthy of investigations.
I've been following the debacle over in the dark roast reformed circles and it's kinda fun actually. Brother wars are hard, but you learn a lot in the process by being a bystander. I don't have a real leg in this race as I'm a filthy non-denom (self-identifying) Reformed Baptist 😅 but it's been very interesting learning so much history and discussion about Christianity and national responsibilities.
@ The Moscow crew and the Ogden crew mostly. I live in Utah and attended the new Christendom press conference. I guess given the situation I wanna make it clear that I am not a part of the anon-group. If it makes any sense, I’ve signed the Antioch declaration.
Brother, it’s wonderful seeing the joy you get out of the Scottish Covenanters! And seeing you talk about Christ’s reign over the nations is awesome! My wife is part of the covenanter blood line! ( blue bloods as you may have heard at RPTS) We hope to keep the covenanter zeal and witness. Your videos are awesome! I would love to hear you thoughts on political dissent and the implications of Christ’s mediatorial rule in a Democracy/ republic. Much love ! - a member of the RPCNA
One (almost pedantic) criticism regarding J.G. Vos's comments on sphere sovereignty: Sphere sovereignty is only correct if there is a single sovereign and a single sphere. Neither the church or the state is sovereign in their "spheres" nor supreme. Christ is their sovereign. Church and State have different roles and responsibilities, and both are accountable to Christ.
Thank you for this, I've appreciated these other men a lot for helping bring this back into the reformed faith, but can't get behind some of what you refer to as weirdness (though I'm a big Haunted Cosmos fan). I'm glad to see you clearly explain this from a historic reformed perspective. I will plan on reading this book! Would you say that the original WCF is more biblical than the American revision?
Not a fan of the controversy for sure, but in my experience anyone who studies FV long enough to understand it, ends up realizing that it's actually a retrieval of a more historical and robust Reformed theology.
Not at all. I have studied it long enough to understand. I have read what the proponents of FV have written. I have heard their defenses of the doctrines. I was even on the road to fully embracing it. I can say without a doubt that FV is heresy and those who promote it are heretics. It is nowhere near a retrieval of historic Reformed theology.
@@landonmiller338 I didn’t read any full books, but I did read their articles, the Federal Vision statement, and listen to podcasts that they have done on the matter, both old and recent. And when looking back at the theologians they site, I am in agreement with the people who say they’re interpreting (Calvin for example) wrong. An example that comes to mind is the term Covenant of grace describing the covenant with Adam. Theologians of the reformation era do use Covenant of grace when talking about the original covenant with Adam, but the same theologians also use the the term covenant of works, and they (in my opinion) clearly define Covenant of grace, contrary to the way Federal Vision use Covenant of grace today.
Implying all the guys pictured would hold to a radical two kingdoms view, and therefore imply they are arguing for a secular view of separation of church and state is just plainly false. I certainly wouldn't defend most of the guys you are implicating. Doug Wilson's Mere Christendom reads exactly like what you're describing. Don't like paedocommunion? Fine, but don't imply that someone like him is promoting a novel concept of Christian political theory.
Excellent and much needed explanation of how the church - state situation should be. I have sifted all these dominionist reformers out of my playlists. Can’t waste time on in-fighting; we’re supposed to have unity as the body of Christ while never compromising Truth. Thank you❤
It’s kind of funny listening to reformed theologians cry about other reformed leaders being controversial. As if Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Huss, and Cranmer weren’t controversial in their day. Luther was excommunicated, Calvin was chased out Geneva, Zwingli died in armed combat, Huss, and Cranmer were burned at the stake; and John Knox started a revolution, and birthed a movement that would later after his death cause the English civil war, and the American Revolution. Yeah, totally tame guys. Semper Blandus approved. Hey, it’s coming up on Christmas, did you know Jolly Ol Saint Nick punched a heretic out of the pulpit at a pastors conference? Yeah, not controversial at all.
21:45 "The default Presbyterian Church" Wow, that is rich! Which brand of Presbyterianism would that be? I was a Reformed Presbyterian, Calvinist for 56 of my 65 years on God's earth. I started in the PCUSA, hit the PCA for a bit while in college. Went back to a PCUSA that was still a bit Reformed. After getting married, we joined another PCA church. Then we found the RPCNA and attended for about a year. Then, we became Orthodox Presbyterians for 25 years. The key to understanding is Scripture. Study it, don't use a study Bible, don't use the Westminster Standards, Calvin's Institutes, Matthew Henry, Scofield, Ryrie, or any such thing! In all of those years, two things stand out from the reformation. All Christians would be wise to follow them. 1. SOLA SCRIPTURA! 2. POST TENEBRAS LUX!
Would the mediatorial kingship view be held only by the RPCNA? Or do the Dutch, Swiss and Hungarian Reformed churches also hold to this view? I'm guessing American Presbyterian churches don't hold to this view, given the changes to the Westminster Confession in 1789
"Highly intersted in mermaids, ghost stories and big foots". Criticise Christian Nationalism all you like but that's clutching at straws. Two guys have a podcast where they talk about unexplained phenomena from a biblical perspective. I'd like to know what the alternative to that is. Ignore it all? Disrgard it as irrational and illogical? We live in a world which doesn't gel with the modernist rationalist view. Criticising one podcast which has nothing to do with CN as associated with the movement is bizzare to me and strikes me as an ad hominem. Kind of like "how could you trust anything they say, they believe in mermaids"
My family comes from a PCA background and are currently members of an OPC church. My son is a junior at a classical Christian High School and did a paper on Christian Nationalism this year. He actually interviewed Doug Wilson on the topic. We were listening to this together and he immediately jumped on several things on this video. One, that you admittedly haven’t read or listened much to those you are critiquing. Two, that the main thrust of your argument boils down to “they are weird” and “there is already something better” but you don’t actually refute their arguments. Christianity has a long tradition, especially for us Reformed Christians, of building on others’ ideas. Older ≠ better. Better = better. Christian Nationalists would mostly claim that they are expounding on the ideas of the Covenanters and not discounting them. I love your content and was trying to introduce my son to your content. Unfortunately, this came off as intellectually lazy and now my son is less interested in listening. It’s this kind of argumentation that pushes young men to the Doug Wilson’s of the world when they realize no one is taking the time to give a good critique and they find out they don’t seem as crazy as they’ve been led to believe.
Appreciate this video and the discussion and book recommendation. But....If you havent really paid attention then i think you should refrain from commenting. It is unfair to those you are commenting on without knowing what they say. The "mermaid and Bigfoot" is completely unrelated. Nonsequitur. Yes brian sauve has a podcast that discusses these things and other subjects like time travel...but their intent is to discuss these things from a christian perspective and realize the world is not just the materialwe can see. There is more. It is meant to be a fun conversation....it is unfair and immature ...and condescending...to write it off as wierd. And the beliefs of wolfe and webbon are being unjustly and inaccuratly portrayed as kinist. Many are carrying the mail for right wing watch in this slander. Love your content. Hate federal vision, hate paedocomunion, hate kinism. I also respect Sauve and Webbon and even Wilson.
Can you explain why you believe Pedocommunion is wrong? I can't figure why someone would agree with pedobaptism and not Pedocommunion. Though I love the passion and arguments of the men in your thumbnail (one was my pastor for a while, and the best I've had) I agree that their biting and devouring of one another is a serious concern.
I can give my perspective. I dont mean this to turn into a baptism debate, but it will have to touch on some of that to offer my perspective. The way i see it, there are three sources for doctrine in Reformed thought. First, things scripture directly says. Second, things it indirectly says; that is, doctrine where we deduce it from things scripture directly says. Third, doctrines where there is complete silence. Baptists tend to see infant baptism as something scripture is silent on, so they seem puzzled by accepting infant baptism but rejecting infant communion, whereas Reformed Christians see infant baptism as a doctrine dediced from what scripture directly teaches. Infant communion is not something scripture is silent on either, but seems to have even more direct teaching on. This will be obvious, but Baptism and the Lord's Supper are different. We all know that baptism wouldn't be properly administered by serving bread and wine, nor would the Lord's supper be properly administered by getting wet. But why? Because the Bible is explicit that baptism involves the element of water and that communion the elements of bread and wine. We can't just do for one what we do for the other; we need justification for the practice. In that vein, scripture seems pretty clear that the Lord's Supper requires us to examine ourselves before approaching the table. Those who are not able to do so are fenced from the table. But that requirement of examination is not said about infant baptism. Just because it is said about one sacrament doesn't mean it also applies to the other, nor does the fact that we think the other involves the whole household mean that the one does as well. Different sacraments, different requirements. To contrast them, we see a strong association in the NT between OT circumcision and NT baptism. Peter uses the Gen 17 formula of circumcising the believer, his children (even 8 day olds), and servents of the household even if they arent blood related and are from far off in Acts 2. Paul speaks of the crossing of the Red Sea by all of Israel as a baptism. And the concern of the apostles never seemed to be about age or personal belief, but whether they were in the household of a believer. For those sorts of reasons (and more), we hold that it is proper to baptize the household under a believing head and reject believers-only baptism. But those things aren't taught about communion, just baptism. Communion does have the explicitly more restrictive teaching, so we honor that.
@oracleoftroy I appreciate the response. The reasons you express are solid, but I guess that they just don't seem to hold as much weight as this one thing, if you're in the covenant, you're in. Communion is for those who are in, right?
@@loganholdaway769 Well, the answer is the same for both: we give the sacraments to the ones who meet the Biblical requirements. Communion is for those who are in the covenant _and_ who meet the standards laid out in 1 Cor 11: 28 (plus any other relevant scripture). Again, obviously non-Reformed groups would disagree with our understanding of the requirements, not trying to debate that or challenge that, but just to give the perspective. We do see that as being a Biblically given requirement specifically for communion, so we can't just ignore it. It is possible that one might be able to make an exception to the confessions on this issue and still be ordained, but that will depend on the denomination. At least in the PCA, they would have to give a strong argument for their position under an intense examination. I heard that Peter Leithart did take such an exception when he was ordained in the PCA. So there is room for disagreement, even when it goes against the WCF in this case. I meant to note in my original reply that in practice, many children are admitted to the table when they are able to make an age appropriate profession. If they are able to examine themselves (perhaps with the aid of their parents), that meets the requirement. Different Reformed denominations might have different rules governing this, but this is at least how it is in the PCA and I've heard similar things from OPC ministers. To get very specific for Everhard's and my denomination, the PCA has the Book of Church Order which lays out boring procedural stuff for congregations to follow. Chapters 57 and 58 are relevant. 58-2. The ignorant and scandalous are not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper. 57-1. Believers’ children within the Visible Church, and especially those dedicated to God in Baptism, are non-communing members under the care of the Church. They are to be taught to love God, and to obey and serve the Lord Jesus Christ. When they are able to understand the Gospel, they should be earnestly reminded that they are members of the Church by birthright, and that it is their duty and privilege personally to accept Christ, to confess Him before men, and to seek admission to the Lord’s Supper. 57-2. The time when young persons come to understand the Gospel cannot be precisely fixed. This must be left to the prudence of the Session, whose office it is to judge, after careful examination, the qualifications of those who apply for admission to sealing ordinances. Section 57-4 also requires being a baptized members and recommends making public profession in the presence of the congregation. There's more that might be of interest, especially the statements and vows involved, but I don't want to get too lost in the weeds. As seen above, admitting members to the table is up to the wisdom of the local session (the ruling body of elders), so exactly how that plays out might change from congregation to congregation. But it isn't just that they are a member or in the covenant that they get automatic admittance to the table.
Great video, sir. I love most of Stephen Wolfe's stuff but i got tired of the people who attached themselves to the CN title (many of whom are baptists or dont hold traditional reformed beliefs) and all the squabbling. Deleting twitter and sticking to books written by dead guys has been much more peaceful and edifying.
Interesting and enlightening. Regarding the quote in the book about the responsibility of "the state to establish the church by appropriate legislation and to provide for its financial support out of the national resources," isn't that perilously close to the state churches of Germany, Finland, etc.? That's never worked out well. Am I missing a differentiation? Also, am I being to nit-picky in pointing out that the US is a republic, not a democracy, and that several of our founding fathers warned against the latter? Thanks for the analysis and insight. I learned quite a bit about the current Christian Nationalism controversy.
"I'm not accusing anyone in particular"
*proceeds to display particular persons profile pictures involved with recent online disputes*
The fact is that the mediatorial kingship of Jesus Christ needs to be part of the discussion. Not just for "Christian Nationalists" but to counter the "we want a secular state" advocates, like those from Westminster West. Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords, and all wise kings take refuge in Him. Wise nations seek to submit to His standards. That is very much missing in Americanized Christianity, especially in our political theology.
As a Covenanter for the past 10 years, I am excited to hear someone extolling the Covenanter position and is studied enough to see the differences between the Wilsonites and true Christian Nationalism. Matthew does suggest two good works to read, but it is better to study the "Reformed Presbytery. Act, Declaration, and Testimony: 1876. Philadelphia: Rue & Jones, 1876" and to study the Solemn League and Covenant because the USA is still under its obligation.
Having once been a member of the PCA (which Matthew is a member of) I know that the two groups, (American Presbyterian and Covenanter) are incompatible.
Matthew does mention the revision of the Westminster Standards, but is misinformed about its purpose and significance. The purpose of the revisions were not to accommodate a change in governmental form, but to make the Standards conform to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. These changes are not minor as Matthew would have you believe, but of such a nature that it destroys true religion. Here are a few changes:
In the Westminster Confession
1. In chapter 20 section 4 this clause was removed: "and by the power of the civil magistrate"
2. In chapter 23 section 3 these clauses was removed:
1. "yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses of worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed
2. "For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God"
In the Larger Catechism:
WLCQ 109: Removed clause: “tolerating a false religion”
You can study all the changes by reading: "Irons, Lee. The 1788 American Revision of the Westminster Standards, 2007."
As you can see, these changes have nothing to do with democracy, but with the State abdicating its duty to protect the true Church, and therefore making it the duty of the State to protect idolaters, that is, violators of the First and Second Commandments.
Matthew, I am sure you are aware what would happen to you if the true Covenanters were to discover that you participate in the Christ Mass.
If one desires to understand true religion, who we are historically, and what went wrong with the Church, you can't just read about Luther and Calvin, and then jump to Jonathan Edwards and the "Great Awakening"; you must understand the history of the Second Reformation.
@Project1643. Matthew teaches at RPTS and is a pastor in the PCA, so he has a foot in both ponds. I'm sure his familiarity with the Covenanter position is limited, and because of the Federal Vision, he is biased against Moscow. What we need to remember is that we aren't in 17th century Britain, but in 21st century USA. The vast majority of Protestants are some form of Baptist. Covenanters represent about .002% of the population. But, we desperately need to reestablish a Christian basis to our civil government. That isn't going to happen through recognizing the Solemn League and Covenant. As the great grandson of Baptists who came here to escape state churches, I'm not a fan of established churches. And, the RP churches split from the state church over what happened during the "killing times" and the reestablishment after the Glorious Revolution. Christian unity can't be forced. It has to be built. I recommend starting with amending the Constitution to recognize Jesus Christ as King. I prefer James Thornwell's version to the RPCNA version because it is more straightforward. Just getting some of our "Reformed" brothers to acknowledge the need for that will be a major undertaking. They love easy access to porn more than they love Jesus.
@@danreichenberg5249
Yes, much has happened in the past four centuries, but we need to remember that a lawful oath will remain binding, (2 Sam. 21). Our nation is not only incurring God's wrath because we have rejected the principles found in the SL&C, but because we remain under its obligation. Covenant breaking is dangerous. I understand most despise the idea that the SL&C is our lawful constitution, but I rejoice in this truth.
You said you prefer Thornwell's version to the RPCNA. What is more straightforward with Thornwell and what do you consider more complex with the Covenanter position? I looked at Thornwell's 4 volume set and didn't see a lecture pertaining to this topic. Did I miss it?
@Project1643. You may have ancestors who were parties to the S,L&C, but my ancestors came here from Germany and Sweden to escape the tyranny of the established churches of Europe. The colonies were largely founded as refuges for nonconformists. The idea that the United States, a very different nation from those nations that entered into the S,L,&C, is under it, is absurd and not helpful. Thornwell's amendment was purposed at the first General Assembly of the PCCSA, and read as follows: "Nevertheless we, the people of these Confederate States distinctly acknowledge our responsibility to God, and the supremacy of His Son, Jesus Christ, as King of kings and Lord of lords; and hereby ordain that no law shall be passed by the Congress of these Confederate States inconsistent with the will of God, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures." The National Reform Association (which included the RPCNA) proposed this version: "We the people acknowledge Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as Ruler among nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government." The primary difference is that Thornwell defines what the revealed will of God is (Holy Scripture). Of course, with Roman Catholics and Mormons here, you need to define what Holy Scripture is, but you get the gist.
The early Baptist didn't want anything to do with Christian nationalism.
I write this with charity and to open up a discussion -
You reject viewpoints here by calling them weird and crazy (reminiscent of Tim Walz to the conservatives recently). Yet you made little effort to engage with said weird and crazy viewpoints because it “isn’t worth it”, or because they are simply weird and crazy. This seems to be circular argumentation (please correct me if I’m wrong).
Because of this, when you offer up the better solution in the Covenanters, you by no means establish how they are better. You’re really not comparing them to anything, especially the “weird and crazy” viewpoint you didn’t define.
Perhaps take the time to read Case for Christian Nationalism and see where you might agree and disagree? How can you disagree before you do so? Because you know for sure that you will? I think you would be surprised at the similarities between the Covenanters and Wolfe’s arguments.
Wolfe isn’t concerned about the exegetical nature of these issues. Why would I care about Wolfes building upon the Covenanters when the Covenanters already got it right.
@@johnking9161 The principle “why would I build upon something when it was already done right?” is a slippery slope.
The historical church has benefited greatly from the inverse. They have built upon the foundation laid before them time and time again (regardless of how great it was for its time). You and I do the same thing today.
What criteria are you applying to the Covenanters to argue their political theology needs no refining?
And again, disengaging with and discrediting Wolfe’s work because it’s not exegetical doesn’t answer my questions above. It also doesn’t consider the introduction to his work, which makes a strong case for why it doesn’t meet the criteria / necessity to be an exegetical work.
Matthew thank you for taking on this conversation. I am all for Christian Culture and being a fan of Symington ' book the Mediatorial Reign of Messiah the Prince.
By concern for Christian Nationalism though I can define it to a Christian Culture.
Christian Nationalism is what the former National Party in South Africa was founded on and implemented Apartheid.
And then there was Hitler's NAZI Party which was German Nationalism and based on Christian Nationalism
They're better because no mermaids.
I think you do a great job representing the Covenanters here. But respectfully, when referring to the “new Christian Nationalists”, if by that you mean, Doug Wilson, Stephen Wolfe, etc. you should know that almost all of their positions are in absolute lock step with historic reformed political thought. I think it would have been better for you to read the Case for Christian Nationalism, or especially Mere Christendom first, and then interact with the points at which you disagree.
I learned about the Covenanters through Doug Wilson and he pointed me to historical books about them, like "Fair Sunshine", which is about covenanter martyrs. He would agree to read the history.
Wilson is a covanent breaker.
Covenanters still exist: Douglas Wilson is out-of-step with them. Good; he pointed you to them. Now abandon DW for something better!
I like pastor Matt Everhard. But I also like the Ogden Christian “borough” brothers, the Moscow mood guys(with the exception to paedo-communion & “Federal Vision “lite”), right response ministries, & Dr. Stephen Wolfe; and I think they have sparked an important conversation about Christian Nationalism. Unfortunately, outside bad actors are attempting to hijack the term “Christian Nationalism” and incorporate a racial nationalism with overtones of hatred towards other races. I think the “Nationalism “ term (due to it’s association to the Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany during the 1930s) causes people to dislike the movement. Nationalism is not a demonstrably bad word but simply means: to identify with one's own nation and support for that nation’s interests over the interest of other nations. Christian Nationalism is having a Christian nation (regulated & governed by Christian laws/ethos) and support for that Christian nation’s interests over the interest of other nations. I am a big fan of the covenanters and their outlook has also shaped my understanding of Christian Nationalism and why I currently support the Christian Nationalist movement.
Okay, good start, now define nation how scripture defines it and how it was defined for all of time until ~1900.
Hello Pastor, I love your channel. I love what you have to say on various topics. I have wondered where you might fall in relation to some of the other influences from the digital world that I have. And I would argue that that list of questions towards the end is exactly what this newer movement of Christian nationalism tries to solve. It is not merely just stating the mediatorial kingship of Christ, but they’re getting into the minutia of how or what would be implemented once Christian nationalism becomes a big enough movement to influence the country. The mediatorial king ship of Christ is the given and discussions are opening up about what it would look like in a democratic Republic to put Christ at the head of the nation. I would not say Dr. Stephen Wolfe is implying that his version of Christian nationalism is the best, but he’s at least put together a work to be criticized And possibly revised by other people that want to strive for Christian nationalism. Now I understand you may think that there are many distractions within the Christian nationalist movement, which I could definitely understand that point of view, but I think it takes other men who at the minimum believe in mediatorial king ship of Christ to critique Dr. Stephen Wolfe‘s version of Christian nationalism and propose a different version. I like to think of the back-and-forth between the federalist and anti-federalist papers. God bless and peace be with you and yours in the name of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Well said.
Theonomists and CN would espouse for the most part your description of what the Covenanters espoused. The further clarifying and applying of the reign of Christ as it pertains to today is what many theonomists and Christian nationalists are arguing amongst themselves about. These two camps are not as crazy or non-confessional as some might believe.
I think the theonomy and CN movements are attracting a fair number of rootless young men. This is not bad, but you will expect outbursts of immaturity from time to time until they mature.
You’re basically arguing for Christian Nationalism without using the same title. I think most people are just afraid of the title. Call it anything else and people jump on board.
If that's the case, I wonder why the proponents of Christian Nationalism didn't adopt the historic, confessional position which already existed. It's like saying someone is a Calvinist even though they don't use any of the TULIP language and also come with a bunch of odd baggage.
@@KildaltonTheologicalStudiescalm down pal, no need to be histrionic. Not only is what I said not a slur, you also didn't address the question, which is this: if CN and traditional covenantor establishmentarianidm are the same thing, why introduce a whole new vocabulary which is disconnected from what's been built for the past 500yrs? I'm not having a go at Wilson - Christian Nationalism isn't the worst thing out there by a long way.
You have missed the plot.
2:21 he says the concept of Christian nationalism under a more historic idea.
@donaldmorrison9940 it's very likely that either A) when they started promoting their ideals for CN/Theonomy they weren't familiar with these older iterations or B) there were too many aspects of the earlier form that didn't/couldn't apply to our country that it was simpler to just start from scratch. I think B is the more likely case, it's much easier to get people of today's culture on board for such a movement of they don't first have to go back to an older culture and restate, and even change, every item for your modern audience.
I think that what Matt here has advocated for is so similar to the common CN/Theonomy positions that there's no reason for him not to be on board... HOWEVER, the crazy parts he pointed out like kinism that are infecting the movement really is something to be wrestled with and contended. I'm not sure though if those crazy parts would be any less likely if our starting point was Scottish Covenanter doctrines. I think part of it is just our insanely divided culture.
Honestly I don't really see a difference between what was said here and what is often said in the other camp that you're trying to call out (kind of). A lot of the language here all sounds very similar to me 🤷🏽♂️ I'm sure there's "nuance quote that I'm missing but honestly it all sounds the same to me so I don't really know what the disagreement is
Re-tweet.
I just think that many in the PCA are just uncomfortable with the term "Christian Nationalism" but they actually agree with the aspousement.
The "other" guys have an obsession with the post war consensus.... to the point that they are borderline Holocaust deniers, and attract all manner of actual Hitlerites to their comment sections.
I’m not Reformed and I wouldn’t call myself a Christian Nationalist, but from what I can tell I share a similar vision and goals with them. I see no reason to attack them, for the most part they are allies.
Hi Pastor Everhard, first may the Lord bless your ministry! I’ve been greatly blessed by your videos over the past year and am a deacon in the PCA in Carlisle Pa.
In response to this video, I would encourage you to not label the pictured men simply as a part of the “crazy” and then not hear what they have to say in particular on what you are discussing here, whether that be in their books, podcasts, etc. I have found Brian Sauve, and the Ogden men to be very much digging for the “old paths” versus espousing something new that is crazy. Sometimes we in the reformed tradition see the “old paths” as only the five solas of the reformation (my mind goes to JC Ryle’s great book called Old Paths), but how we relate to the civil sphere as reformed men today is an old path that has been lost on broader American Evangelicalism and even the reformed as well. Sometimes we can lose sight that how a Christian relates to the civil sphere can only be found from the Protestant reformation and onward, when almost 1500 years of church history preceded that. These men you labeled as crazy have been willing to do the work to see what has even come before that (primarily Ogden in my experience ).
Back at the early founding of our country here in America, men like John Cotton would deliver “election sermons” (probably botched that label), and the men in Ogden did just that without the politic preaching garbage that can come from some pulpits that do it wrong. I’d recommend you listen to it by looking up their church in Ogden. I’m not sure how many PCA pastors would be comfortable doing that today. This is evidence of what comes from digging into old paths and discovering the duties that God requires of man and how our forefathers responded.
What do the Scriptures principally teach? They principally teach what man is to believe concerning God and what duties God requires of man. We are strong today in teaching on the attributes of God in reformed circles (as we ought to be), but how about the duties in the household and the civil sphere? I’m afraid those are either nonexistent or watered down compared to our forefathers.
Love the Covenanters!
One final thought. If you label these men as “crazy” and don’t want to hear them out, I can’t imagine what you would want to do with Martin Luther.
Praying for your ministry and that the Lord would bless it to his glory.
The major criticism I hear from you is a disagreement over tactics. You think they're too controversial, prone to in-fighting, headline-grabby, personality-driven, etc. That may well be, but you framed this video as providing an older and more historically rooted theological alternative to the present-day CN ideas being discussed. The theological content here is good, but I have already heard all of these ideas from the men in the thumbnail. What are you presenting that they aren't already teaching?
In addition, you appear to be taking at face value the accusations of CN critics, specifically regarding kinism and antisemitism, admittedly without even having read the source material. I think that is unhelpful.
Overall, I think this video brings up some helpful points, but is not as helpful as you intended it to be for the reasons listed above.
I haven't heard anything about Bigfoot or mermaids from anyone. Seems like you just threw that in there to further discredit their beliefs.
I forget which camp it is, I think it's the guys in Ogden, but they have a whole podcast and running interest in that kind of *spooky* stuff. I haven't listened to any of it but on its surface I don't have a problem with some folks' weird hobby/conspiracy. What I DO have a problem with, and I think that's Everhard's Problem, it's them putting it front and center as if it's part and parcel with this new move towards conservative theology, biblical patriarchy, CN/Theonomy, and so on. It's a weird obscure thing that these guys are doing for fun, but it should stay over in the corner with the Warhammer models and the Star Trek souvenirs.
I read Wolfe’s book and, as far as I can tell, you’re basically saying the same thing, at least in terms of foundational principles.
Exactly my thinking.
I have realized that many in the PCA (including my favorite Kevin DeYoung) actually agree with the aspousement, they just don't like the term "Christian Nationalism".
Such things make me want Christ to come sooner.
Agreed. Many others are seeing this.
@@waynekapukare6669when a term is not clearly defined, such as Christian Nationalism, I am also wary of associating myself with it. It may be that I am eventually claim the term, but not now, not while it is still being hammered out
Ethno-nationalism and kinism are not a plank within the Covenanters
Dr. Stephen Wolfe has repeatedly stated he is not a kinist.
The argument you're making would put you in the Christian nationalist camp. I think if you actually took the time to listen to them you'd find little you disagree with.
Except it's got different definitions depending on who's using it, so everything gets all confused.
Can you do a series (or something similar) explaining what "Federal Vision" is, please? I really don't get what it is and why it's wrong.
Two words: Doug Wilson
I would appreciate that as well
Southfield Reformed Presbyterian Church has an excellent teaching series on Federal Vision.
@ would you please link that?
@@sweynforkbeardtraindude people who think that the reason FV is rejected just because of Doug Wilson are uninformed on the issue.
The real issue here is Matthew Everhard's lack of humour. When Brian Sauvé half-jokingly talks about Bigfoot it's clearly a bit. He's not crazy. He's inquisitiveness and more in touch with the culture. Non-Christians and Christians alike have real questions about the supernatural and stranger things.
He's probably referring to the podcast Haunted Cosmos where they discuss that stuff.
While I appreciate the discussion of the Covenantors and the spheres of Church and State, I found this video to be disappointingly clickbaity and inflammatory. The title and thumbnail would lead casual viewers to believe that every pastor pictured is fundamentally unstable, when really the takeaway is "these guys actually have sound beliefs with a few fringe things I disagree with." Disagreeing on those things is completely reasonable, but they are not grounds to wholly discredit them like is implied.
Agreed. "I don't really know what any of these books say, I don't really follow CN, or really follow any of the current issues. I don't need to because Covenantors is better."
Indeed.
This guy does that alot. He calls out many without self reflecting. Full or pride and arrogance. In our Bibles, it warns us to be aware of these people. For this guy it's about money. How many views rather than trying to awaken. Look around his office speaks volumes of where his head is at.
“Full of pride and arrogance.”
Wow. You really have no ability to read other humans, do you?
To put in briefly, I understand the frustration with immaturity (focus on mythical creatures, arrogance, Twitter quarrels), but I don’t think it’s fair to lump Doug Wilson in with that. He is doing a lot of good when it comes to getting Christians to think more historically and biblically on these kinds of matters.
Doug Wilson, only divides, nothing good in that. Before you go and get heated over this, I used to agree with much of his spurious teachings. Post Tenebras Lux!
Matt, is this mediatotial kingship overlapping or different from kuyperian sphere sovereignty?
I agree with many of your points Pastor, but you said you hadn't "studied the book". I suggest reading Wolfe's book or even having him on your show some time. He doesn't espouse most, if any, of the "don't go there" stuff you mention (with the exception of online polemics; he does do that).
I love that we have an RPCNA-at-heart guy in the PCA, we need more like you
Whats the difference between this and what Calvin proposed in his political theology? They sound very similar in terms of the Two Kingdom Philosophy.
I like Matthew, I like most of these other guys.
🎶Just like a treeee that's planted by the waater, I shall not be moved🎶
Blessing people!
If you're going to argue against an idea, you need to first, define your terms. Listing a bunch of stuff that 'some people also believe in addition to [whatever it is your arguing against]' is not helpful.
Define it clearly first and then compare your preferred model with whatever you think you're arguing against.
He mentions the terms of discussion from 1:42 to 2:52. Book recommendations for terms clearly defined at 12:34 if you're interested in a deeper look at what he is arguing. He seems to be saying there's an established, well known view and newer, more modern view with a lot of really odd underscores to it. While there may be a sliding scale or spectrum of what people believe on this issue, he is contrasting a historical view he has read from books (recommended in video) with a newer view he is seeing online, mostly from a particular group of people which are pictured on the thumbnail.
@@ekatrinya He also says that he hasn't read the books and he includes of beliefs of some who are associated with CN.
He never defines what he specifically means by CN. All he does is say, 'there's a bunch of stuff recently on the Internet that I think is confused and I'm going to call CN although I don't know what that is, and it's crazy. But here's an alternative, let's have the state pro up the Christian Church and have the Christian Church keep the state between the rails.'
His alternative sounds a lot like what one would think CN actually is - making the state overly aligned with the (his version) of the Christian Church.
Congratulations; you have just argued exactly for CN after calling it crazy.
Starting at 5:36 forward, it sounds pretty much like listening to Doug Wilson’s Christian political philosophy.
Yes. I have a similar comment.
Exactly, it’s nothing different, just a different title. People are just afraid of the title Christian Nationalism.
I don't see that at all. Moscow advocates for theocracy. You may say "no, they advocate for postmillennialism" but that is simply a distinction without a difference. Lately, I have found it effective to ask postmil theonomists "why do you oppose theocracy? Isn't Jesus king of the universe?" If their own arguments logically justify theonomy, then the same can be said of theocracy. And this is because the two are essentially the same concept; just roses of a different color......and BARELY a different color.
Doug Wilson is obsessed with finding 'antisemitism' (a wide political term) in churches. Brian Sauvé has presented more evidence of aliens.
@@edodt4220From what I can tell “theocracy” is becoming the next “Christian Nationalism,” where in a pejorative context it means whatever the user wants it to mean at the moment. Assuming we’re working with a definition where theocracy means rule of the state by the church, that is not what Doug Wilson advocates. I’ve read “Mere Christendom” by Wilson and “A case for Christian nationalism” by Wolfe, and neither one is advocating for theocracy…. They are advocating (in slightly different ways) that the church submit to Christ as Lord, and that the state does the same.
Do you have a video with a more fleshed out, full-length critique of Federal Vision? I’ve tried to seek out some well-thought-out pushback against it, but my research has yielded either, 1) hyper-academic papers published by PhD candidates (that I admittedly can’t make heads or tails of), or 2) vague cultural critiques that amount to, “I just don’t like the way it smells.” Can we get a thoughtful, pastoral critique on it? Or can you point me there? I know that was tangential to this video, but your outright disdain for Federal Vision is interesting because pretty much all PCA and OPC folks have the exact same reaction, and I would be highly interested in the reason(s) why. Thank you in advance.
Southfield Reformed Presbyterian Church has an excellent teaching series on Federal Vision.
Thanks for this. The controversy is tiresome.
100% tiresome
Excellent video.
"weird" where have I heard that recently.... Guys, there is a major market in the online space discussing the seemingly supernatural. Haunted cosmos, the podcast, has stepped in to give this space the God centered grounding it needs. Perhaps a lot of you don't care, but Joe Rogan, The Why Files, and many others are in that space, massively popular, and completely godless. A few solid reformed brothers show up to give context to the supernatural alleged encounters in our world, and all we get is "weird." Seems condescending and out of touch.
The only thing I’d add is that the black pill/Christless conservative crowd who listen to Joe Rogan have an alternative in Ogden/Moscow/Apologia. Too often, too too often, we Reformed go almost materialist on these topics with any of the “weird” so experienced in our word. Sad.
Are there any differences between Mediatorial Kingship and Kuyper’s Sphere Sovereignty? They sound very similar.
Thank you!
Ok but hear me out: mermaids
Yep. An if I remember correctly, Christopher Columbus found them and wrote about them in his journal. (Spoiler-they were manatees. You have to really be missing the company of ladies to get those mixed up!)
@@jeffreybrannen9465 , a large ration of grog can transform a manatee into a mermaid too.
4:35 didnt study what christian nationalism is. “Let me tell you why i disagree”
Youll find astrophysicists who like big foot brother i love you but this is not your best work
6:31” im against Christian nationalism but these christian nationalist are amazing”
This response reminds of when the teacher would keep the whole class in at recess because one or two kids did something they shouldn’t have and maybe another tried to intervene for the better and got lumped in as a troublemaker.
Can’t believe you used Keith Foskey’s photo on the thumbnail. Keith is going to be furious.
Media definition of Nationalism tend to be vague and lose. My local paper sometimes seems to call mere calling to be citizens in politics by preachers as "monopoly of power" nonsense.
Thank you Matthew for this video. Set well thought out and put together response to what is a questionable view of Christian Nationalism. Voddie Baucham also addresses the subject and if I remember his address correctly is in line with the Mediatorial Kingship view.
I really appreciate you weighing in here Pastor Everhard. I do think though that this is something that should be discussed more - for example, what you describe is actually around the middle of the Christian nationalism scale in terms of how extreme or moderate of a view it is, and many of those you were critiquing here for holding novel views actually agree with everything you just said, and just happen to call it "Christian nationalism" rather than mediatorial kingship.
Would you be interested in discussing more about paedobaptism and federal vision? I know some folks that would be very willing to talk about them with you and I think there may be some misunderstandings about what they entail and why they are done.
What you believe is identical to Stephen Wolfe
Does Stephen Wolfe believe the state should get rid of improper worship in Protestant churches? For example would he be in favor of implmenting the following. True Covenanters would support something like this
May 1644: An Ordinance for the further demolishing of Monuments of Idolatry and Superstition.
The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, the better to accomplish the blessed Reformation so happily begun, and to remove all offences and things illegal in the worship of God, do Ordain, That all Representations of any of the Persons of the Trinity, or of any Angel or Saint, in or about any Cathedral, Collegiate or Parish Church, or Chappel, or in any open place within this Kingdome, shall be taken away, defaced, and utterly demolished; And that no such shall hereafter be set up, And that the Chancel - ground of every such Church or Chappel, raised for any Altar, or Communion Table to stand upon, shall be laid down and levelled; And that no Copes, Surplisses, superstitious Vestments, Roods, or Roodlons, or Holy-water Fonts, shall be, or be any more used in any Church or Chappel within this Realm; And that no Cross, Crucifix, Picture, or Representation of any of the Persons of the Trinity, or of any Angel or Saint shall be, or continue upon any Plate, or other thing used, or to be used in or about the worship of God; And that all Organs, and the Frames or Cases wherein they stand in all Churches or Chappels aforesaid, shall be taken away, and utterly defaced, and none other hereafter set up in their places; And that all Copes, Surplisses, superstitious Vestments, Roods, and Fonts aforesaid, be likewise utterly defaced; whereunto all persons within this Kingdome, whom it may concern, are hereby required at their peril to yield due obedience.
I’m not accusing anyone in particular (but I’m putting 5 faces up here).
I haven’t read the books or been drawn to, but it’s “weird” so I have an opinion?
This was kinda effeminate
I do find this video helpful.
I’ve listened to some of the Christian nationalist guys, sounds like you and them are saying very similar things. Seems you are trying to avoid the extra nonsense they bring.
All Christians should want their country to be Christian in values and official covenant.
Since it was brought up, can anyone give me a rundown of Federal Vision?
I would also appreciate this
Check out the teaching series on Federal Vision by Southfield Reformed Presbyterian Church.
very good points also a favorite verse of mine about the nations is when Nineveh repents because of Jonahs visit!!!
I love Jonah. What a lesson God gives Jonah and all of us. God even pointed out the worth of the life of the 120,000 ppl’s animals.
Matt, you are great and always so reasonable, I appreciate your ministry so much. With that said, can you please define Federal Vision? :)
Preaching through 1 Peter and 2:13-18 comes up this Sunday. Been wrestling with these questions all week. Appreciate your input.
Obedience to the gov is a polarizing topic. In the city, many people tend to be all in on obeying gov no matter what (Think 2020). In the country people lean more towards disobedience and rebellion as default attitude.
Fascinating and important topic! Lord, give me wisdom.
@epicturtle007 for a deeper understanding on the subject I would refer you to the book The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates. It clarified the questions I had on governmental authority vs biblical authority in our lives. For tomorrow though, the Christian has the Scripture and a conscience with godly morals that are to be obeyed when the government gives immoral commands, ie. "take this vaccine and shut up."
So I can think of at least two explanations: 1.) in the city, cooperation with the bureaucracy is necessary for survival while independence and self-reliance is necessary in the country; 2.) The more remote the center of government and power the more likely it is seen as a threat.
Blind unquestioning obedience and instinctive rebellion are both wrong.
As an example, one rapper posed this question, “Order a pizza and call the cops. See which one gets to your house first.” Even those in the city…
Hmmm… maybe it’s about wealth and power? I don’t know. This is an interesting topic. I’ll have to give it more thought
Read through your bible and tell me how many cities are tied to holiness and how many are tied to wickedness. I'll tell you the result in advance, the only in the former is Zion. Even Jerusalem is called wicked by God.
People keep saying Trans and gay is a religion could you please explain that?
The only other person I know of who is explicitly addressing this is Aldo Leon. Finally, somebody else is also putting this out there. Thank you Pastor Everhard. We need other teachers and pastors to teach this.
Gavin Beers is also another guy who addresses the establishment principle.
There are many pastors who have been making this point and addressing the doctrine of Christ's mediatorial dominion, it's just most of us don't have TH-cam shows or podcasts.
Any other resources to read for Covenanters?
Pastor Everhard, from everything you said I would charitably say that you ARE a Christian Nationalist albeit one who is unwilling to use that term. This is fine by me, just a bit funny in my opinion.
Most CN's myself included would agree with just about everything you said. It's sad that you would want to lump people together and call names and deride what they are saying at the same time as saying you have no interest in learning about them or what they are saying.
Oh! Conveniently checked YT just now
Great video, brother. Still trying to figure out where I land. Isn't this just classical 2K? It sounds like it.
Is the theological content here any different than what the men in the thumbnail are teaching?
As a follower of the CN movement I support this video and do find the establishment principle as more biblical and better thought out .
Why argue about something that has bin developed that we can just adopt .
A very insightful video. There is still much more about covenant theology, I need to learn. But this video is a good answer to the question of Christian Nationalism.
🥴I quite like Doug Wilson...
A very mature and thoughtful response to this. I don’t find anything wrong with calling out many of the views espoused by this movement as “crazy.” I really appreciate your time on this sir. I am afraid for many men in my church who are being drawn towards this. I will be sharing this with them for a sobering response.
Thank you for this. I don’t want internet pastors to have any say over my life. I have a local pastor for that.
Antidisestablishmentarianism !!!! shut it all down you win the TH-cam for today
i am in full agreement in regards to psalm singing and the the current worshiptainment in the current culture.
what i’m trying to understand and how to answer others is the “why does it matter”.
is God judging poorly the churches who practice worshiptainmmet?
Is this a secondary or even tertiary issue?-and if so then wouldn’t God accept that form of worship. Isn’t that what the core definition of secondary/tertiary that it’s not salvific and if not then wouldn’t it not matter.
Most people who practice worshiptainment believe it’s secondary/tertiary as well and don’t believe they’re not saved. They essentially don’t believe that God doesn’t accept this worship and IF he doesn’t will
show them grace.
Do you posit that God in fact won’t show grace to what you may go so far as to call false worship? And if so how scripturally? How do we convince them to see the interpretation the same way?
Christ reigns over the Church and the nations - however His reign and rule is administered differently over the Church and the nations - Christ holds the Church accountable to His righteousness but regenerates and renews His Church by the Holy Spirit applying the word of God to their lives, and conforming them to His righteousness - Christ holds the nations accountable to His righteousness, and calls them to repentance, and if they repent they are made a part of Christ's Holy nation, the Church, but if they continue to reject Christ's reign and rule, they are eternally condemned. The State, under God's sovereign decree and will, is established to maintain law and order, so that the Church may function and serve Christ's Kingdom, but it's basic purpose is to enforce the law by the sword, not carry out the work of the church, which is to call people to salvation and discipling them.
So youre CN minus bigfoot?
I really like Douglas Wilson and his commentary. I think he’s spot on.
This article clearly explains Doug Wilson’s problematic viewpoints in a respectful manner
Thank you for your take on this, Matt. Always love hearing your thoughts on the important issues.
This is a rare L Pastor Matt. Love ya though!
Such a based take!!!!
Im relatively new to ”reformed theology“. Can someone please give me a definition of the federal vision?
Just be careful going down that rabbit hole. It's going to be described differently depending on the source. Much like asking a hypercalvinist and a hyperarminian to define the meanings of "predestined', "elect" and "sovereign".
Good luck my man, very few people who say they are against federal vision can define it hahaha
@@LDMIEN Nor can many who are for it.
In my eyes, there isn't exactly one thing that is "federal vision" defined in a positive way. That is, i don't think it was ever one well defined thing that people would agree with and say they affirm as "federal vision". The closest would probably be the federal vision joint statement.
Many churches put out position papers officially condemning something they called "federal vision", including the PCA and OPC. It is worth looking at those to see what the concerns were.
For me, I agree that what was condemned is a grave error that ought to be rejected, but I am unclear about whether anyone was ever actually advocating for it. All the men put on trial in their respective demoninations for "federal vision" were exonerated to my knowledge. And while I disagree with the federal vision statement, it didn't strike me as heretical (mind, I'm a nobody). I heard a Lutheran say that FV seemed more Lutheran if anything, and if that's true, I don't think Reformed denominations generally regard Lutheran beliefs as heresy even if we disagree at points.
I'm seeing more and more talk about it all being an overreaction and as the next generation is growing up and is looking back at it, it is unclear exactly what the big deal was. It does seem like a lot of the controversy was sturred up by the Trinity Foundation, a group that was (and maybe still is) a big time "heresy hunting" group that often accused people they disagreed with of some pretty uncharitable things.
It's damnable heresy.
Historic Covenanter view is distinguished from modern pop Christian nationalists because they wanted a covenanted uniformity of worship doctrine and practice between the kingdoms and I do not see the modern pop christian nationalists advocating that.
So, Matt is a Christian Nationalist? He attempts to make a distinction without a difference.
Also, the “weird” bit sounds a lot like the democrats lately.
Wilson thinks there is a difference, because there is one. Wilson wants America to be like the church of Jeroboam (1 Kings 12-13), while the Covenanter version is true religion. Matthew doesn't understand these differences otherwise he would have left the PCA, and he would understand that Baptist are not Christians.
A loooooot of strawmanning here. You can't mmake these types of accusations and say you aren't speaking about anyone specifically while their pictures are on the screen. There are many people that I don't liike in that circle but you cannot discount everything. Crypto zoology is something for instance that is worth looking into, instead of (in reformed fashion) avoiding the topic completely.
"Crypto zoology is something for instance that is worth looking into, instead of (in reformed fashion) avoiding the topic completely."
Imagine going back to the Reformers and explaining to them that, in years to come, their successors - actual adult men - will be discussing mermaids.
@ not the point. Also plenty of theologians throughout history have discussed things regarding supernatural. That’s what angels and demons are btw. There are plenty of things that go on in this world have are mysterious and need explaining, and Christian’s should be able to point to scripture rather than write it off. Why shouldn’t they talk about it?
@@samuelyoho3651 "Also plenty of theologians throughout history have discussed things regarding supernatural"
I should hope so too, since God is supernatural. Not exactly mermaid chat, is it?
@@Mic1904 im talking about angelology and demonology. Paranormal. The people at Canon Press talk about the Nephilim and monsters, which the Bible talks about. Your snarky remarks aren't making you look smart.
@@samuelyoho3651 "im talking about angelology and demonology."
You're talking about cryptozoology, and the 'reformed fashion' of avoiding this most worthy of investigations.
I've been following the debacle over in the dark roast reformed circles and it's kinda fun actually. Brother wars are hard, but you learn a lot in the process by being a bystander. I don't have a real leg in this race as I'm a filthy non-denom (self-identifying) Reformed Baptist 😅 but it's been very interesting learning so much history and discussion about Christianity and national responsibilities.
Who are some of these dark roast guys you speak of?
@ The Moscow crew and the Ogden crew mostly. I live in Utah and attended the new Christendom press conference. I guess given the situation I wanna make it clear that I am not a part of the anon-group. If it makes any sense, I’ve signed the Antioch declaration.
As a Baptist, shouldn't you be cleaner from the dunking and the Presbys be still filthy after just a sprinkle? 😆
Thank you for clarifying these issues.
Brother, it’s wonderful seeing the joy you get out of the Scottish Covenanters! And seeing you talk about Christ’s reign over the nations is awesome! My wife is part of the covenanter blood line! ( blue bloods as you may have heard at RPTS) We hope to keep the covenanter zeal and witness. Your videos are awesome! I would love to hear you thoughts on political dissent and the implications of Christ’s mediatorial rule in a Democracy/ republic. Much love !
- a member of the RPCNA
One (almost pedantic) criticism regarding J.G. Vos's comments on sphere sovereignty: Sphere sovereignty is only correct if there is a single sovereign and a single sphere. Neither the church or the state is sovereign in their "spheres" nor supreme. Christ is their sovereign. Church and State have different roles and responsibilities, and both are accountable to Christ.
Excellent video, Pastor Matthew! Will you be making the slides available from the video?
#FederalVision
You forgot Baxterianism,,,
Thank you for this, I've appreciated these other men a lot for helping bring this back into the reformed faith, but can't get behind some of what you refer to as weirdness (though I'm a big Haunted Cosmos fan). I'm glad to see you clearly explain this from a historic reformed perspective. I will plan on reading this book!
Would you say that the original WCF is more biblical than the American revision?
Not a fan of the controversy for sure, but in my experience anyone who studies FV long enough to understand it, ends up realizing that it's actually a retrieval of a more historical and robust Reformed theology.
Not at all. I have studied it long enough to understand. I have read what the proponents of FV have written. I have heard their defenses of the doctrines. I was even on the road to fully embracing it. I can say without a doubt that FV is heresy and those who promote it are heretics. It is nowhere near a retrieval of historic Reformed theology.
That is exactly opposite of what I found when researching Federal Vision.
@thebishopoftherailway4719 Did you read the actual FV proponents? Wilson, Leithart, Lusk?
@@landonmiller338 I didn’t read any full books, but I did read their articles, the Federal Vision statement, and listen to podcasts that they have done on the matter, both old and recent. And when looking back at the theologians they site, I am in agreement with the people who say they’re interpreting (Calvin for example) wrong. An example that comes to mind is the term Covenant of grace describing the covenant with Adam. Theologians of the reformation era do use Covenant of grace when talking about the original covenant with Adam, but the same theologians also use the the term covenant of works, and they (in my opinion) clearly define Covenant of grace, contrary to the way Federal Vision use Covenant of grace today.
Implying all the guys pictured would hold to a radical two kingdoms view, and therefore imply they are arguing for a secular view of separation of church and state is just plainly false. I certainly wouldn't defend most of the guys you are implicating. Doug Wilson's Mere Christendom reads exactly like what you're describing. Don't like paedocommunion? Fine, but don't imply that someone like him is promoting a novel concept of Christian political theory.
LETS GO!
Excellent and much needed explanation of how the church - state situation should be. I have sifted all these dominionist reformers out of my playlists. Can’t waste time on in-fighting; we’re supposed to have unity as the body of Christ while never compromising Truth. Thank you❤
Thank you for this Matthew. I really appreciate your clarity here. It is helpful work for people looking in on all the madness.
It’s kind of funny listening to reformed theologians cry about other reformed leaders being controversial. As if Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Huss, and Cranmer weren’t controversial in their day. Luther was excommunicated, Calvin was chased out Geneva, Zwingli died in armed combat, Huss, and Cranmer were burned at the stake; and John Knox started a revolution, and birthed a movement that would later after his death cause the English civil war, and the American Revolution.
Yeah, totally tame guys.
Semper Blandus approved.
Hey, it’s coming up on Christmas, did you know Jolly Ol Saint Nick punched a heretic out of the pulpit at a pastors conference? Yeah, not controversial at all.
21:45 "The default Presbyterian Church" Wow, that is rich! Which brand of Presbyterianism would that be? I was a Reformed Presbyterian, Calvinist for 56 of my 65 years on God's earth. I started in the PCUSA, hit the PCA for a bit while in college. Went back to a PCUSA that was still a bit Reformed. After getting married, we joined another PCA church. Then we found the RPCNA and attended for about a year. Then, we became Orthodox Presbyterians for 25 years.
The key to understanding is Scripture. Study it, don't use a study Bible, don't use the Westminster Standards, Calvin's Institutes, Matthew Henry, Scofield, Ryrie, or any such thing!
In all of those years, two things stand out from the reformation. All Christians would be wise to follow them. 1. SOLA SCRIPTURA! 2. POST TENEBRAS LUX!
Would the mediatorial kingship view be held only by the RPCNA? Or do the Dutch, Swiss and Hungarian Reformed churches also hold to this view? I'm guessing American Presbyterian churches don't hold to this view, given the changes to the Westminster Confession in 1789
Our Pastor who is in the PCA discussed this too. It's much better
"Highly intersted in mermaids, ghost stories and big foots". Criticise Christian Nationalism all you like but that's clutching at straws. Two guys have a podcast where they talk about unexplained phenomena from a biblical perspective. I'd like to know what the alternative to that is. Ignore it all? Disrgard it as irrational and illogical? We live in a world which doesn't gel with the modernist rationalist view. Criticising one podcast which has nothing to do with CN as associated with the movement is bizzare to me and strikes me as an ad hominem. Kind of like "how could you trust anything they say, they believe in mermaids"
My family comes from a PCA background and are currently members of an OPC church. My son is a junior at a classical Christian High School and did a paper on Christian Nationalism this year. He actually interviewed Doug Wilson on the topic. We were listening to this together and he immediately jumped on several things on this video. One, that you admittedly haven’t read or listened much to those you are critiquing. Two, that the main thrust of your argument boils down to “they are weird” and “there is already something better” but you don’t actually refute their arguments. Christianity has a long tradition, especially for us Reformed Christians, of building on others’ ideas. Older ≠ better. Better = better. Christian Nationalists would mostly claim that they are expounding on the ideas of the Covenanters and not discounting them. I love your content and was trying to introduce my son to your content. Unfortunately, this came off as intellectually lazy and now my son is less interested in listening. It’s this kind of argumentation that pushes young men to the Doug Wilson’s of the world when they realize no one is taking the time to give a good critique and they find out they don’t seem as crazy as they’ve been led to believe.
Could’ve done much better without all the “weirdness” and “crazy” talk. To be expected from a standard PCA guy, I guess.
Appreciate this video and the discussion and book recommendation.
But....If you havent really paid attention then i think you should refrain from commenting. It is unfair to those you are commenting on without knowing what they say.
The "mermaid and Bigfoot" is completely unrelated. Nonsequitur. Yes brian sauve has a podcast that discusses these things and other subjects like time travel...but their intent is to discuss these things from a christian perspective and realize the world is not just the materialwe can see. There is more. It is meant to be a fun conversation....it is unfair and immature ...and condescending...to write it off as wierd.
And the beliefs of wolfe and webbon are being unjustly and inaccuratly portrayed as kinist. Many are carrying the mail for right wing watch in this slander.
Love your content.
Hate federal vision, hate paedocomunion, hate kinism.
I also respect Sauve and Webbon and even Wilson.
Great video
Can you explain why you believe Pedocommunion is wrong? I can't figure why someone would agree with pedobaptism and not Pedocommunion. Though I love the passion and arguments of the men in your thumbnail (one was my pastor for a while, and the best I've had) I agree that their biting and devouring of one another is a serious concern.
I can give my perspective. I dont mean this to turn into a baptism debate, but it will have to touch on some of that to offer my perspective.
The way i see it, there are three sources for doctrine in Reformed thought. First, things scripture directly says. Second, things it indirectly says; that is, doctrine where we deduce it from things scripture directly says. Third, doctrines where there is complete silence.
Baptists tend to see infant baptism as something scripture is silent on, so they seem puzzled by accepting infant baptism but rejecting infant communion, whereas Reformed Christians see infant baptism as a doctrine dediced from what scripture directly teaches. Infant communion is not something scripture is silent on either, but seems to have even more direct teaching on.
This will be obvious, but Baptism and the Lord's Supper are different. We all know that baptism wouldn't be properly administered by serving bread and wine, nor would the Lord's supper be properly administered by getting wet. But why? Because the Bible is explicit that baptism involves the element of water and that communion the elements of bread and wine. We can't just do for one what we do for the other; we need justification for the practice.
In that vein, scripture seems pretty clear that the Lord's Supper requires us to examine ourselves before approaching the table. Those who are not able to do so are fenced from the table. But that requirement of examination is not said about infant baptism. Just because it is said about one sacrament doesn't mean it also applies to the other, nor does the fact that we think the other involves the whole household mean that the one does as well. Different sacraments, different requirements.
To contrast them, we see a strong association in the NT between OT circumcision and NT baptism. Peter uses the Gen 17 formula of circumcising the believer, his children (even 8 day olds), and servents of the household even if they arent blood related and are from far off in Acts 2. Paul speaks of the crossing of the Red Sea by all of Israel as a baptism. And the concern of the apostles never seemed to be about age or personal belief, but whether they were in the household of a believer. For those sorts of reasons (and more), we hold that it is proper to baptize the household under a believing head and reject believers-only baptism.
But those things aren't taught about communion, just baptism. Communion does have the explicitly more restrictive teaching, so we honor that.
@oracleoftroy I appreciate the response. The reasons you express are solid, but I guess that they just don't seem to hold as much weight as this one thing, if you're in the covenant, you're in. Communion is for those who are in, right?
@@loganholdaway769 Well, the answer is the same for both: we give the sacraments to the ones who meet the Biblical requirements. Communion is for those who are in the covenant _and_ who meet the standards laid out in 1 Cor 11: 28 (plus any other relevant scripture).
Again, obviously non-Reformed groups would disagree with our understanding of the requirements, not trying to debate that or challenge that, but just to give the perspective. We do see that as being a Biblically given requirement specifically for communion, so we can't just ignore it. It is possible that one might be able to make an exception to the confessions on this issue and still be ordained, but that will depend on the denomination. At least in the PCA, they would have to give a strong argument for their position under an intense examination. I heard that Peter Leithart did take such an exception when he was ordained in the PCA. So there is room for disagreement, even when it goes against the WCF in this case.
I meant to note in my original reply that in practice, many children are admitted to the table when they are able to make an age appropriate profession. If they are able to examine themselves (perhaps with the aid of their parents), that meets the requirement. Different Reformed denominations might have different rules governing this, but this is at least how it is in the PCA and I've heard similar things from OPC ministers.
To get very specific for Everhard's and my denomination, the PCA has the Book of Church Order which lays out boring procedural stuff for congregations to follow. Chapters 57 and 58 are relevant.
58-2. The ignorant and scandalous are not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper.
57-1. Believers’ children within the Visible Church, and especially those dedicated to God in Baptism, are non-communing members under the care of the Church. They are to be taught to love God, and to obey and serve the Lord Jesus Christ. When they are able to understand the Gospel, they should be earnestly reminded that they are members of the Church by birthright, and that it is their duty and privilege personally to accept Christ, to confess Him before men, and to seek admission to the Lord’s Supper.
57-2. The time when young persons come to understand the Gospel cannot be precisely fixed. This must be left to the prudence of the Session, whose office it is to judge, after careful examination, the qualifications of those who apply for admission to sealing ordinances.
Section 57-4 also requires being a baptized members and recommends making public profession in the presence of the congregation. There's more that might be of interest, especially the statements and vows involved, but I don't want to get too lost in the weeds.
As seen above, admitting members to the table is up to the wisdom of the local session (the ruling body of elders), so exactly how that plays out might change from congregation to congregation. But it isn't just that they are a member or in the covenant that they get automatic admittance to the table.
Great video, sir. I love most of Stephen Wolfe's stuff but i got tired of the people who attached themselves to the CN title (many of whom are baptists or dont hold traditional reformed beliefs) and all the squabbling. Deleting twitter and sticking to books written by dead guys has been much more peaceful and edifying.
*eww baptists*
@@JosephsCoat
Hi there! 👋😁
Pastor Matt thank you this was so helpful.
Interesting and enlightening. Regarding the quote in the book about the responsibility of "the state to establish the church by appropriate legislation and to provide for its financial support out of the national resources," isn't that perilously close to the state churches of Germany, Finland, etc.? That's never worked out well. Am I missing a differentiation? Also, am I being to nit-picky in pointing out that the US is a republic, not a democracy, and that several of our founding fathers warned against the latter? Thanks for the analysis and insight. I learned quite a bit about the current Christian Nationalism controversy.
Out of curiosity, is it being claimed that the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches the Mediatorial Kingship model of the Cameronians?