Is there such a thing as a Christian Nation?
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
In terms of Vosian redemptive-history, no.
As to the possibility of the Spirit doing a mighty work in the people, converting them, and them those people transfering their values to every area of life, quite possibly.
As to the possibility of the Spirit doing a mighty work in the people, converting them, and them those people transfering their values to every area of life, quite possibly.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Oliver O'Donovan has done the best work on this area that should give hope to the Christian secularist and temper the zeal of the fanatic. Simply put, Christendom was the West's cultural response to the Gospel. Granting certain abuses, it represented a high-mark in civilization and hinted at exciting possibilities.
Given the current death of the West--and the godless EU Europe deserves worse--Christendom is over. However, a new page in history can turn...
The following reads are very difficult, but very rewarding:
The Desire of the Nations (in all honesty, I don't really care for the first half of the book, since it is technical, weighty, and never really gets to the point. The second half, however, is brilliant)
Ways of Judgment (these are deeper reflections on what a post-Christendom Christendom civilization would look like)
Bonds of Imperfection (these are essays on Christian politics from a medieval perspective). Opened a new world for me.
Given the current death of the West--and the godless EU Europe deserves worse--Christendom is over. However, a new page in history can turn...
The following reads are very difficult, but very rewarding:
The Desire of the Nations (in all honesty, I don't really care for the first half of the book, since it is technical, weighty, and never really gets to the point. The second half, however, is brilliant)
Ways of Judgment (these are deeper reflections on what a post-Christendom Christendom civilization would look like)
Bonds of Imperfection (these are essays on Christian politics from a medieval perspective). Opened a new world for me.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
50% + 1, maybe? Seriously, that would depend more on the locale, values, and population of the nation. I have to go to work, but that's a good question.
Kevin
Puritan Board Doctor
Would this mean that since Christ is king over all nations, then every nation is a Christian nation?
To take it further...what then is a nation? Isit an ethne....perhaps closer to a tribe or clan? This might be closer to the Biblical concept of nation than the modern nation state.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Even assuming an affirmative answer (in some sense) to the initial question, would this follow-up question about what percentage of professing Christians could warrant "officially" considering it a "Christian" nation even be one of the right questions to ask in regard to it (rather than simply asking more about the fruits to look for in such a nation)?
In times past then I think that it can be correct. England is called a Christian country mainly because (1) Monarch is head of Church, (2) 71% of population profess to be Christian, (3) laws are based upon Judeo-Christian principles.
However, this is increasingly a mythical romaticism. (1) is correct but HM does not really hold power, (2) quite what that 71% believe "Christianity" to be is another matter indeed and (3) this is becoming progressively eroded.
I look forward to great conversions within this nation whereby we can covenant nationally with God as did Israel of old.
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
No.
Hebrews 13:14 "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come."
But if we did the only one I want to be a part of is a Cromwellian state that gives me the power to take the turkey out of your oven on Christmas day.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
According to Isaiah 19 Gentile nations will covenant with God.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
No.
Hebrews 13:14 "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come."
But if we did the only one I want to be a part of is a Cromwellian state that gives me the power to take the turkey out of your oven on Christmas day.
Citing a verse at random proves nothing; that interpretation of the verse causes Scripture to contradict Scripture. Psalm 2 forever settles the question of whether or not there should be a Christian state. The king of kings and Lord of lords demands it.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
No.
Hebrews 13:14 "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come."
But if we did the only one I want to be a part of is a Cromwellian state that gives me the power to take the turkey out of your oven on Christmas day.
Citing a verse at random proves nothing; that interpretation of the verse causes Scripture to contradict Scripture. Psalm 2 forever settles the question of whether or not there should be a Christian state. The king of kings and Lord of lords demands it.
So citing a chapter at random proves something?
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
No.
Hebrews 13:14 "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come."
But if we did the only one I want to be a part of is a Cromwellian state that gives me the power to take the turkey out of your oven on Christmas day.
Citing a verse at random proves nothing; that interpretation of the verse causes Scripture to contradict Scripture. Psalm 2 forever settles the question of whether or not there should be a Christian state. The king of kings and Lord of lords demands it.
So citing a chapter at random proves something?
Read the chapter. The kings of the earth must "kiss the Son, lest He be angry". The political pluralist argument reminds me of the Arminian who cites John 3:16 but ignores John 10 and 17 - the argument sounds plausible, until you read other Scriptures.
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
No.
Hebrews 13:14 "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come."
But if we did the only one I want to be a part of is a Cromwellian state that gives me the power to take the turkey out of your oven on Christmas day.
Citing a verse at random proves nothing; that interpretation of the verse causes Scripture to contradict Scripture. Psalm 2 forever settles the question of whether or not there should be a Christian state. The king of kings and Lord of lords demands it.
Did I cite that verse at random?
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
No.
Hebrews 13:14 "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come."
But if we did the only one I want to be a part of is a Cromwellian state that gives me the power to take the turkey out of your oven on Christmas day.
Citing a verse at random proves nothing; that interpretation of the verse causes Scripture to contradict Scripture. Psalm 2 forever settles the question of whether or not there should be a Christian state. The king of kings and Lord of lords demands it.
Did I cite that verse at random?
The verse does not address the issue of whether or not there should be a Christian state, all it proves is that the believer's ultimate hope is the eternal city. To build a political theory on it is, at best, an argument from conjecture.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I've read it. I would simply point out that there are of course arguments against your interpretation of Psalm 2 just as much as there are arguments against Daniel Kok's (implicit) interpretation of Hebrews 13:14. And if those two interpretations of those two passages contradict each other, then of course it needs to be asked which one is being wrongly interpreted. And of course that's where the exegetical and systematic issues need to be fleshed out - and I wanted to clarify that simply mentioning the chapter and assuming your interpretation of it right after accusing Daniel of doing the exact same thing with the verse didn't consistently offer anything in that regard.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Fair enough, but the pluralist has no way to get around Psalm 2 - which directly addresses the issue of the magistrate's submission to Christ - while Hebrews 13:14 does not directly address that subject, and so it is an argument from conjecture.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Psalm 2 mentions "kings of the earth," which means God's lordship extends outside the covenant community of Israel. This doesn't prove Christendom, but it puts the pluralist in a tough situation.
Said kings, then, are required to kiss the Son. This doesn't prove Christendom, but it puts the pluralist now in an impossible situation.
Sure, there are multiple interpretations, but most strain credulity given the laws of grammar and inference.
Said kings, then, are required to kiss the Son. This doesn't prove Christendom, but it puts the pluralist now in an impossible situation.
Sure, there are multiple interpretations, but most strain credulity given the laws of grammar and inference.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
We also need to distinguish between Christendom and a Christian nation. A Christian nation is just that. Christendom is a multi-national (I hate the word nation because it didn't always mean what it means today) society predicated upon the Christian tradition. Christendom is a most legitimate concept. Would you rather be ruled by the EU/UN? Would you rather be ruled by Sharia law? Or would you prefer peace based on the Christian tradition, allowing that tradition to inform society?
Hey, I will even say that Christendom is natural law theory applied to politics in the Christian context. I am now appealing to natural law. That means I am definitionally correct!
Another irony: Most of the modern Klinean 2kingdomz people who argue against Christendom using 2kingdomz and natural law forget that the people who originally formulated these concepts (Gelasius and others) used them to argue specifically for Christendom!
Hey, I will even say that Christendom is natural law theory applied to politics in the Christian context. I am now appealing to natural law. That means I am definitionally correct!
Another irony: Most of the modern Klinean 2kingdomz people who argue against Christendom using 2kingdomz and natural law forget that the people who originally formulated these concepts (Gelasius and others) used them to argue specifically for Christendom!
Vos spoke of the Christianisation of the nations. You must be referring to the modern R-H misappropriation of Vos.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Strictly speaking, these are corporate vows to God, not covenants with God. Only God can institute a covenant with man. Men do not institute covenants with God. Don't forget you covenant theology.
Furthermore, in Israel, they renewed the Mosaic covenant which was already in place. They did not make new covenants as a nation with God. Again, only God can institute new covenants.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I gladly stand corrected.
The Bible calls these corporate vows "covenants," and to distinguish them from the covenants of special revelation theologians call them "personal" or "social." Certainly we cannot tie God to promise anything concerning our particular situation in the world by entering into a personal or social covenant with Him, but we can confirm our commitment to walk in His ways and to trust to the promises He has given us in His Word.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
As a reminder, here is Thomas Case on the subject of Christian nations:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f35/thomas-case-government-Christ-15178/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f35/thomas-case-government-Christ-15178/
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
