Is there such a thing as a Christian Nation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
For those who want "evidence" for a Christian nation, can I spin the question?

Is it wrong for a magistrate, along with the moral consensus of the people, to say, "We recognize the moral principles found in the Christian tradition to be the only true foundation of civil law." If it is wrong for him to say that, on what grounds? Merely responding, "Oh, but it doesn't say that in the Bible" is like saying Republicanism is wrong because the Bible doesn't prescribe that. You need a better argument.


I can agree with this Jacob. As long as it is not strecthed to the point of branding me or putting me in the pillory for hitching my wagon to ride to church if the place of meeting was far away, because that would be considered a breach of the Sabbath.:)
.

Because bad laws could be made does not negate the right for someone to make laws at all.

CT
 
I am just having a hard time finding any scriptural evidence of a Christian nation. What makes this thought differ from a Dispensational thought of a literal earthly kingdom? The principle is the same.

One is a top-down bureaucratic regime run from Jerusalem; the other is the result of a bottom-up reformation which is built by the power of the Spirit.


But the end result is still the same no? A literal Christian kingdom on earth seperate form any eschalogical focus. I do not know about this Daniel. Scripture says Christ is the Lord of all regardless if they recognize it. Heb. 1:3, 2:7, 10:12, Rev. 3:21, Phil. 2:5, Acts 2:36), And reigns in heaven. I agree with replacement theology, but this goes beyond the thought and reconstructionism enters into the mix. TO think that the Sovereign Lord of all would employ man to complete the task He alone will do when he comes back is absurd to me. A Christian nation that would wrongly import nation israel covenant and law onto a world government giving them dominion over the civil and spiritual ladscape in order to receive the covenantal promises made to nation Israel alone for an earthy kingdom is not the answer scripture gives. When are we going to realize that earthly elements of the world cannot coexist with the Gospel of Christ? its like oil and water. The grace of Christ that came by His own blood on the cross is what the world needs. I do not want to be one "who say they are Jews but are not" are liars, of the synagogue of Satan, and using "doctrines of demons".

Scripture says Christ is alread reigning King.

Colossians 1:13 "Who hath delivered us from the Power of darkness, and hath translated us into The Kingdom of His dear Son."

Luke 1:33 "and He shall reign over the House of Judah for ever, and of His Kingdom there shall be no end."

Christ 'Is' a king right Now, not will be..
Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All Power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Christ 'Does' Reign in His Kingdom, not will..
1st Corinthians 15:25 "For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His foot."
Romans 15:12 "and again Isaiah saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and He that shall rise to reign over the gentiles, in him shall the gentiles trust."


We Reign with Christ in His Kingdom already
Ephesians 2:6'"and hath raised us up together, and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."


Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."


If the kingdom of God is within the believer already, then why would we need some civil governing authority to do what Christ has already accomplished? Perhaps I am missing the whole point of a Christian nation, if that is the case then i'll sit and learn.

Are we to believe that Christ is the Sovereign Lord but that the nations are not to submit to Him? The Sovereign Lord does do things through men (i.e. the gospel is preached by men). The concept of a Christian nation does not mean that we establish the kingdom (that has been done already as you correctly point out), but that the nation submits to the commands of the King of kings. Is it too hard to believe that the preaching of the gospel results in the submission of the nations to Christ?

Here is an interesting passage concerning what will happen in the NT age:

The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
Now it shall come to pass in the latter days
That the mountain of the LORD’s house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And all nations shall flow to it.
Many people shall come and say,
“ Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
And rebuke many people;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore. (Isaiah 2:1-4)
 
I can agree with this Jacob. As long as it is not strecthed to the point of branding me or putting me in the pillory for hitching my wagon to ride to church if the place of meeting was far away, because that would be considered a breach of the Sabbath.:)
.

Of course, a nation which persecutes Christianity might do alot worse.
 
For those who want "evidence" for a Christian nation, can I spin the question?

Is it wrong for a magistrate, along with the moral consensus of the people, to say, "We recognize the moral principles found in the Christian tradition to be the only true foundation of civil law." If it is wrong for him to say that, on what grounds? Merely responding, "Oh, but it doesn't say that in the Bible" is like saying Republicanism is wrong because the Bible doesn't prescribe that. You need a better argument.


I can agree with this Jacob. As long as it is not strecthed to the point of branding me or putting me in the pillory for hitching my wagon to ride to church if the place of meeting was far away, because that would be considered a breach of the Sabbath.:)
.

And why would I, as a proponent of Christian nationhood, do that? I fear that some people invent horror stories and use those horror stories to determine the nature of hte debate.
 
Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

Nicholaus,
A better translation would be "the kingdom of God is within you." The other brings to mind gnostic connotations.
 
Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

Nicholaus,
A better translation would be "the kingdom of God is within you." The other brings to mind gnostic connotations.

:confused: You mean "among you" or "in your midst"?

Gnostic type cultists do indeed cite "within you" as a proof text for their errors.
 
Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

Nicholaus,
A better translation would be "the kingdom of God is within you." The other brings to mind gnostic connotations.

:confused: You mean "among you" or "in your midst"?

Gnostic type cultists do indeed cite "within you" as a proof text for their errors.

That's right. I meant to say "within your midst."
 
That's right. I meant to say "within your midst."

The context plainly demands "within you." "In your midst" still leaves open the possibility of saying "here it is," which is the very thought being opposed.
 
For those who want "evidence" for a Christian nation, can I spin the question?

Is it wrong for a magistrate, along with the moral consensus of the people, to say, "We recognize the moral principles found in the Christian tradition to be the only true foundation of civil law." If it is wrong for him to say that, on what grounds? Merely responding, "Oh, but it doesn't say that in the Bible" is like saying Republicanism is wrong because the Bible doesn't prescribe that. You need a better argument.


I can agree with this Jacob. As long as it is not strecthed to the point of branding me or putting me in the pillory for hitching my wagon to ride to church if the place of meeting was far away, because that would be considered a breach of the Sabbath.:)
.

And why would I, as a proponent of Christian nationhood, do that? I fear that some people invent horror stories and use those horror stories to determine the nature of hte debate.


Perhaps. But they give good amunition Jacob..:cool:
 
One is a top-down bureaucratic regime run from Jerusalem; the other is the result of a bottom-up reformation which is built by the power of the Spirit.


But the end result is still the same no? A literal Christian kingdom on earth seperate form any eschalogical focus. I do not know about this Daniel. Scripture says Christ is the Lord of all regardless if they recognize it. Heb. 1:3, 2:7, 10:12, Rev. 3:21, Phil. 2:5, Acts 2:36), And reigns in heaven. I agree with replacement theology, but this goes beyond the thought and reconstructionism enters into the mix. TO think that the Sovereign Lord of all would employ man to complete the task He alone will do when he comes back is absurd to me. A Christian nation that would wrongly import nation israel covenant and law onto a world government giving them dominion over the civil and spiritual ladscape in order to receive the covenantal promises made to nation Israel alone for an earthy kingdom is not the answer scripture gives. When are we going to realize that earthly elements of the world cannot coexist with the Gospel of Christ? its like oil and water. The grace of Christ that came by His own blood on the cross is what the world needs. I do not want to be one "who say they are Jews but are not" are liars, of the synagogue of Satan, and using "doctrines of demons".

Scripture says Christ is alread reigning King.

Colossians 1:13 "Who hath delivered us from the Power of darkness, and hath translated us into The Kingdom of His dear Son."

Luke 1:33 "and He shall reign over the House of Judah for ever, and of His Kingdom there shall be no end."

Christ 'Is' a king right Now, not will be..
Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All Power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Christ 'Does' Reign in His Kingdom, not will..
1st Corinthians 15:25 "For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His foot."
Romans 15:12 "and again Isaiah saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and He that shall rise to reign over the gentiles, in him shall the gentiles trust."


We Reign with Christ in His Kingdom already
Ephesians 2:6'"and hath raised us up together, and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."


Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."


If the kingdom of God is within the believer already, then why would we need some civil governing authority to do what Christ has already accomplished? Perhaps I am missing the whole point of a Christian nation, if that is the case then i'll sit and learn.

Are we to believe that Christ is the Sovereign Lord but that the nations are not to submit to Him? The Sovereign Lord does do things through men (i.e. the gospel is preached by men). The concept of a Christian nation does not mean that we establish the kingdom (that has been done already as you correctly point out), but that the nation submits to the commands of the King of kings. Is it too hard to believe that the preaching of the gospel results in the submission of the nations to Christ?

They will submit when He has determined to have them submit Daniel. Either way, He is still King and Savior. And scripture says this will not happen until He comes again. Phil 2:9-11

This is ONLY eschalogical in focus Daniel.
 
For those who want "evidence" for a Christian nation, can I spin the question?

Is it wrong for a magistrate, along with the moral consensus of the people, to say, "We recognize the moral principles found in the Christian tradition to be the only true foundation of civil law." If it is wrong for him to say that, on what grounds? Merely responding, "Oh, but it doesn't say that in the Bible" is like saying Republicanism is wrong because the Bible doesn't prescribe that. You need a better argument.


I can agree with this Jacob. As long as it is not strecthed to the point of branding me or putting me in the pillory for hitching my wagon to ride to church if the place of meeting was far away, because that would be considered a breach of the Sabbath.:)
.

Because bad laws could be made does not negate the right for someone to make laws at all.

CT



I am using all of history here hermon, not Mass Bay colonie. It amazes why one immediately runs to the anarchy option. This is exactly why Catholics speak of no marriage for priests. They took Pauls words "Its good to be single" to equal it is bad to be married. The opposite is not always the case, as in this situation
 
I need to ask another question. Why do we speculate this option when nothing in scripture even remotely promotes it. The Apostle Peter, in one letter : 1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen

9But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

10for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.

11Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.

We are called
1) strangers
2) Aliens
3) Scattered

Yet we are chosen as God's nation. Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, are not Christian nations, yet the elect are a nation of royalty, saved by the blood of Christ. The elect are, by the highest authority, called a kingdom. Christ gave it this title, "My kingdom is not of this world. Had My kingdom been of this world, My servants would have fought, and I should not have been delivered to the Jews. But now is My kingdom not from hence." We have no Christian nation or kingdom in the world, but Christ has one grand kingdom composed of all the Elect in the world, of which He is Himself the sovereign, and king. What the God of Abraham did with Abraham, Jacob, or by any others, to govern the earthly world, before He gave up the scepter and the crown to His Son, Jesus Christ, is of no binding authority now.
 
You're still confusing spheres Nicholas. Nobody is arguing that the State become the Church and be responsible for the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments. Nobody is arguing that the State be responsible for ordaining clergy or disciplining Church members.

The only thing that has been argued is that the State is God's minister for civil government. You seem to have a notion of what the State shouldn't be. What is the basis for that? Further, what is your basis for what the State should be?
 
I need to ask another question. Why do we speculate this option when nothing in scripture even remotely promotes it. The Apostle Peter, in one letter : 1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen

9But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

10for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.

11Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.

We are called
1) strangers
2) Aliens
3) Scattered

Yet we are chosen as God's nation. Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, are not Christian nations, yet the elect are a nation of royalty, saved by the blood of Christ. The elect are, by the highest authority, called a kingdom. Christ gave it this title, "My kingdom is not of this world. Had My kingdom been of this world, My servants would have fought, and I should not have been delivered to the Jews. But now is My kingdom not from hence." We have no Christian nation or kingdom in the world, but Christ has one grand kingdom composed of all the Elect in the world, of which He is Himself the sovereign, and king. What the God of Abraham did with Abraham, Jacob, or by any others, to govern the earthly world, before He gave up the scepter and the crown to His Son, Jesus Christ, is of no binding authority now.

Reverend Winzer said it best on the last page: The fact of the church does not negate geopolitical entities. In fact, on your reading, one could say that since the NT speaks of the church as a holy nation, modern day states shouldn't even try to be holy! (read: civic righteousness).
 
But the end result is still the same no? A literal Christian kingdom on earth seperate form any eschalogical focus. I do not know about this Daniel. Scripture says Christ is the Lord of all regardless if they recognize it. Heb. 1:3, 2:7, 10:12, Rev. 3:21, Phil. 2:5, Acts 2:36), And reigns in heaven. I agree with replacement theology, but this goes beyond the thought and reconstructionism enters into the mix. TO think that the Sovereign Lord of all would employ man to complete the task He alone will do when he comes back is absurd to me. A Christian nation that would wrongly import nation israel covenant and law onto a world government giving them dominion over the civil and spiritual ladscape in order to receive the covenantal promises made to nation Israel alone for an earthy kingdom is not the answer scripture gives. When are we going to realize that earthly elements of the world cannot coexist with the Gospel of Christ? its like oil and water. The grace of Christ that came by His own blood on the cross is what the world needs. I do not want to be one "who say they are Jews but are not" are liars, of the synagogue of Satan, and using "doctrines of demons".

Scripture says Christ is alread reigning King.

Colossians 1:13 "Who hath delivered us from the Power of darkness, and hath translated us into The Kingdom of His dear Son."

Luke 1:33 "and He shall reign over the House of Judah for ever, and of His Kingdom there shall be no end."

Christ 'Is' a king right Now, not will be..
Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All Power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Christ 'Does' Reign in His Kingdom, not will..
1st Corinthians 15:25 "For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His foot."
Romans 15:12 "and again Isaiah saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and He that shall rise to reign over the gentiles, in him shall the gentiles trust."


We Reign with Christ in His Kingdom already
Ephesians 2:6'"and hath raised us up together, and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."


Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."


If the kingdom of God is within the believer already, then why would we need some civil governing authority to do what Christ has already accomplished? Perhaps I am missing the whole point of a Christian nation, if that is the case then i'll sit and learn.

Are we to believe that Christ is the Sovereign Lord but that the nations are not to submit to Him? The Sovereign Lord does do things through men (i.e. the gospel is preached by men). The concept of a Christian nation does not mean that we establish the kingdom (that has been done already as you correctly point out), but that the nation submits to the commands of the King of kings. Is it too hard to believe that the preaching of the gospel results in the submission of the nations to Christ?

They will submit when He has determined to have them submit Daniel. Either way, He is still King and Savior. And scripture says this will not happen until He comes again. Phil 2:9-11

This is ONLY eschalogical in focus Daniel.


According to Psalm 2 it is there duty to submit before Christ's return. Even if you don't believe that they ever will that still does not impact on what their duty is.
 
Are we to believe that Christ is the Sovereign Lord but that the nations are not to submit to Him? The Sovereign Lord does do things through men (i.e. the gospel is preached by men). The concept of a Christian nation does not mean that we establish the kingdom (that has been done already as you correctly point out), but that the nation submits to the commands of the King of kings. Is it too hard to believe that the preaching of the gospel results in the submission of the nations to Christ?

They will submit when He has determined to have them submit Daniel. Either way, He is still King and Savior. And scripture says this will not happen until He comes again. Phil 2:9-11

This is ONLY eschalogical in focus Daniel.


According to Psalm 2 it is there duty to submit before Christ's return. Even if you don't believe that they ever will that still does not impact on what their duty is.

Agreed,
Nichalos, you need to see the ethical distinction between what is and what ought to be.

And it is NOT just eschatological in orientation. It is primarily ethical. I think Daniel--and probably most everyone else on PB--is wrong on eschatology because they are not premillennial, but notice how Daniel and I have roughly the same position. That means it is ethical in orientation.
 
How can a Calvinist - who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God over men and nations - possibly deny that God's sovereign authority is supposed to be acknowledged by the nations as corporate entities?

That nations and specifically the princes of the nations are warned to "serve the Lord with fear" no one on this board has denied. The question is whether a Christian nation must take a social covenant in order to do so.

Although the OT talks about nations coming to God, those references are either not era specific, or else they do they do not mention covenanting with God. When covenants are mentioned, we don't know if those covenants are to be made in the church age or in the new heaven and new earth of Christ's return. Or those covenants might have been made in the time of the OT. Certainly many in the gentile nations did "convert" to Judaism around the time of Christ. I have been told that it has been estimated that up to 25% of the population of the Roman empire were either Jews or Jewish prostelytes.
 
One is a top-down bureaucratic regime run from Jerusalem; the other is the result of a bottom-up reformation which is built by the power of the Spirit.

snip....
Scripture says Christ is alread reigning King.

snip....
We Reign with Christ in His Kingdom already
snip....

Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."


If the kingdom of God is within the believer already, then why would we need some civil governing authority to do what Christ has already accomplished? Perhaps I am missing the whole point of a Christian nation, if that is the case then i'll sit and learn.

Are we to believe that Christ is the Sovereign Lord but that the nations are not to submit to Him? The Sovereign Lord does do things through men (i.e. the gospel is preached by men). The concept of a Christian nation does not mean that we establish the kingdom (that has been done already as you correctly point out), but that the nation submits to the commands of the King of kings. Is it too hard to believe that the preaching of the gospel results in the submission of the nations to Christ?

Nicholas is not denying that the preaching of the gospel results in the submission of the nations to Christ. The question is about the form that submission ought to take when it is applied to the civil structure of the nation.

It is a known fact of history that nations have remained Christian (defined in terms of cultural profession, actual profession of the faith and measurable godliness in professing believers) for over 100 years without either making national covenants or adopting all NT unamended Mosaic judicial laws (e.g. Wales from 1750-1885). So a Christian nation doesn't need the active help of the state to remain one. Moreover, the great triumphs of the gospel (ancient Rome, modern China, the downfall of the Soviet Union) all occurred without the gospel requiring the aid of the state. The Reformation in England is not really an exception. Henry only allowed a measure of Reform to give theological cover to his break with Rome, Edward was only on the throne for a few years, Mary tried to supress and Elizabeth managed to set boundaries.
Only in some areas on the continent did the gospel have state backing, and one could argue there that state backing was as much hindrance as help.

Here is an interesting passage concerning what will happen in the NT age:

The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
Now it shall come to pass in the latter days
That the mountain of the LORD’s house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And all nations shall flow to it.
Many people shall come and say,
“ Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
And rebuke many people;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore. (Isaiah 2:1-4)

And that passage has been fulfilled many times since the NT era began. And it is being filled today.
 
"State backing" is an ambiguous phrase, though I largely agree with your point. State backing could mean that the state doesn't penalize the gospel by means of persecution, rules, regulations, democrat and republican parties, etc.

Or state backing could be state funding the church, which I utterly oppose.
 
Let us ask another question:

Is the idea of a national religious establishment an inescapable one?

I think it is; every nation has an established religion. Hence, we read in Scripture of 'the gods of the Amorites' or 'the gods of the Egyptians' etc.

In Britain, the established religion is Secular Humanism.
In Iran, the established religion is Islam.
In Spain, the established religion is Popery.

Is God pleased with the fact that the nations have established false religions as the established religion of that nation? If not, then how can a Christian nation possibly be wrong?
 
When we say "Establishment" we need to be a bit more specific. Do we mean an established denomination (ala Church of England or PCA)? DO we mean an established religion (Christianity in general)? Do we mean an established consensus on values (e.g., broadly Christian orientation)?
 
Once there was Israel and the other nations. Now there are no "nations" in God's eyes except the Church.

I think you are misapplying these verses for they are refering to the issue of salvation.

Yes, the salvation of both Jews and Greeks. The extension of God's covenant to all nations, not just the Jews. God has erased nationalism. As Christians, we are all one people. We are not Greek Christians, Jewish Christians, American Christians, Mexican Christians. We are Christians. We are all one body. We are not divided by nation, but by our roles in the Church. Nationalism is a unbiblical model of Christianity.

P.S.
:mad: Jingoism -:down:

:smug: I pat myself on the back for remembering that word - but I still had to look it up to spell it.
g-i-n-g ... nope.
g-h-n-g-o ... argh!
j-i-n-g -o :applause: ... :duh:
 
When we say "Establishment" we need to be a bit more specific. Do we mean an established denomination (ala Church of England or PCA)? DO we mean an established religion (Christianity in general)? Do we mean an established consensus on values (e.g., broadly Christian orientation)?


Excellent point. This is what I have missed but attempted to grasp Jacob. I honestly have no problem with the later. It is the covenenting part makig it obligatory that scrpture does not speak of.

Could this thought be further developed Jacob? IF we are only talking moral values, then any denomnation would fit the bill. On paper at least
 
When we say "Establishment" we need to be a bit more specific. Do we mean an established denomination (ala Church of England or PCA)? DO we mean an established religion (Christianity in general)? Do we mean an established consensus on values (e.g., broadly Christian orientation)?


Excellent point. This is what I have missed but attempted to grasp Jacob. I honestly have no problem with the later. It is the covenenting part makig it obligatory that scrpture does not speak of.

Could this thought be further developed Jacob? IF we are only talking moral values, then any denomnation would fit the bill. On paper at least

Believe it or not, both Rushdoony and Bahnsen decidedly opposed establishing a state denomination. They held to a voluntarist model. I am with them. On the other hand, I do not believe the state should give credence to "all varieties of faith expression." For example, I oppose the American Government sanctioning the spread of Islam in America and in Europe.
 
When we say "Establishment" we need to be a bit more specific. Do we mean an established denomination (ala Church of England or PCA)? DO we mean an established religion (Christianity in general)? Do we mean an established consensus on values (e.g., broadly Christian orientation)?


Excellent point. This is what I have missed but attempted to grasp Jacob. I honestly have no problem with the later. It is the covenenting part makig it obligatory that scrpture does not speak of.

Could this thought be further developed Jacob? IF we are only talking moral values, then any denomnation would fit the bill. On paper at least

Believe it or not, both Rushdoony and Bahnsen decidedly opposed establishing a state denomination. They held to a voluntarist model. I am with them. On the other hand, I do not believe the state should give credence to "all varieties of faith expression." For example, I oppose the American Government sanctioning the spread of Islam in America and in Europe.



I am just looking to further the understanding of what you said earlier. Is christian nation a percentage of the people and leadership that have denominational ties or coul dit be more general?
 
Excellent point. This is what I have missed but attempted to grasp Jacob. I honestly have no problem with the later. It is the covenenting part makig it obligatory that scrpture does not speak of.

Could this thought be further developed Jacob? IF we are only talking moral values, then any denomnation would fit the bill. On paper at least

Believe it or not, both Rushdoony and Bahnsen decidedly opposed establishing a state denomination. They held to a voluntarist model. I am with them. On the other hand, I do not believe the state should give credence to "all varieties of faith expression." For example, I oppose the American Government sanctioning the spread of Islam in America and in Europe.



I am just looking to further the understanding of what you said earlier. Is christian nation a percentage of the people and leadership that have denominational ties or coul dit be more general?

While not precluding the former, it could include the latter. I really don't see how the Constitution HAS to have an explicit reference to King Jesus. THat's nice, but does'nt guarantee anything. Such a document, however, should preclude false religions.

But the better way to say it is to refer, not to some document, but to the values and general consensus of the nation. Does every citizen have to be a born-again, Billy Graham, Bible-believing, Baptized Believer? No.

Take the modern-day nation of Serbia (the storming of the embassy aside). They define themselves, and have for 8 centuries, in terms of their Eastern Orthodox faith (incidentally, this is partly why Madeline Albright and Bill Clinton bombed them). I don't think their constitution mentions their religion. I have their website at home and will check it out. Nor do I think everyone is a believer, clearly not. But I do think it is a "Christian nation;" that is why it is being persecuted by the EU.
 
Interesting aside:

The Serbian National Anthem

God of Justice; Thou who saved us
when in deepest bondage cast,
Hear Thy Serbian children's voices,
Be our help as in the past.

With Thy mighty hand sustain us,
Still our rugged pathway trace;
God, our hope; protect and cherish
Serbian lands and Serbian race!

Bind in closest links our kindred
Teach the love that will not fail,
May the loathed fiend of discord
Never in our ranks prevail.

Let the golden fruits of union
Our young tree of freedom grace;
God, our Master! guide and prosper
Serbian lands and Serbian race!

Lord! Avert from us Thy vengeance,
Thunder of Thy dreaded ire;
Bless each Serbian town and hamlet,
Mountain, meadow, heart and spire.

When our host goes forth to battle
Death or victory to embrace-
God of armies! be our leader
Strengthen then the Serbian race!

On our sepulchre of ages
Breaks the resurrection morn,
From the slough of direst slavery
Serbia anew is born.

Through five hundred years of durance
We have knelt before Thy face,
All our kin, O God! deliver,
Thus entreats the Serbian race!
 
When we say "Establishment" we need to be a bit more specific. Do we mean an established denomination (ala Church of England or PCA)? DO we mean an established religion (Christianity in general)? Do we mean an established consensus on values (e.g., broadly Christian orientation)?

For the purposes of this discussion let us stick to an established religion, rather than to a theory of church establishment (that is something for another day).
 
When we say "Establishment" we need to be a bit more specific. Do we mean an established denomination (ala Church of England or PCA)? DO we mean an established religion (Christianity in general)? Do we mean an established consensus on values (e.g., broadly Christian orientation)?


Excellent point. This is what I have missed but attempted to grasp Jacob. I honestly have no problem with the later. It is the covenenting part makig it obligatory that scrpture does not speak of.

Could this thought be further developed Jacob? IF we are only talking moral values, then any denomnation would fit the bill. On paper at least

Believe it or not, both Rushdoony and Bahnsen decidedly opposed establishing a state denomination. They held to a voluntarist model. I am with them. On the other hand, I do not believe the state should give credence to "all varieties of faith expression." For example, I oppose the American Government sanctioning the spread of Islam in America and in Europe.

As an aside (let's not debate this here) you can have a church establishment without having a denominational establishment - see Stephen Perks' book A Defence of the Christian State for more on this (I discuss this in A Conquered Kingdom as well).
 
Now that the civil state of Israel is over and done with forever is it accurate to labels nations as "Christian" or not?



Without reading all the other posts here is my :2cents:. The only Christian nation is the church and there is an antithesis between them and the unregenerate.



.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top