Some recommended reading: The Case for Christian Nationalism (Dr. Stephen Wolfe) Who Is My Neighbor? An Anthology In Natural Relations Apology of the Church of England (John Jewel) - NOTE: Chapter 6 most relevant, on the role of the state in public religion. www.anglican.net/works/john-jewel-apology-answer-defence-church-of-england/ The Alliance Between Church and State (William Warburton) www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_alliance_between_church_and_state/G6NdJrMICAIC?hl=en&gbpv=1 Of the Power Communicated by God to the Prince (Abp. James Ussher) archive.org/details/wholeworksofmost11ussh/page/254/mode/2up The works of the fathers with respect to the role of the emperor in the faith and the acts/minutes of the major councils (too many to list); all display an assumption of public religion being a state concern.
Ever Christian Nationalist should read “for my legionnaires”, by Corneliu Cordeanu. For the Platinists out there, “Republic” is a good case for a benevolent and honorable authority vs the democracy of the mob. Many Parrales can be made between Christ and Plato’s “nobel myth.”
If I understand you correctly, if there was some sort of civil religion that supported Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics you would see it as better then but would prefer Anglican state church. Would you prefer Protestant state religion, where only Protestants are state supported? Trinitarian? Does the state have to support modernist churches and Roman Catholics? So first table and second table, or just the second table? As a Baptist, I would say second table only. 2) I would point out many of the best examples had the state being the nursing mother to a specific, official, denomination. 3) should we expect an Anglican state religion in Australia? 4) does this require monarchy?
Imagine how Strong Christianity would be if Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodoxy all stopped fighting with each other and started focusing on reversing the secularization of society.
I don't understand why no one has commented on this but I'll be the first. The Orthodox and Catholics have a false gospel and thus they are not Christians. When we preach we preach to them as well. Christians should not lock arms with people who don't believe. Also when we speak like this we are relying on the arm of the flesh and not on God. When the Lord desires to cause revival and change He will do so with the true gospel of His Son Jesus Christ. Christianity is strong because God is behind it, we don't make it strong at all. So dear brother, stop thinking this way. I know its popular but it's not helpful whatsoever and interferes with Evangelising. I've engaged with Catholics and Orthodox and when I call them to repent they are appalled because so many Protestants think they are saved because they hold to central tenants of the faith. Let's care about the souls of men more than perceived strength by joining larger groups in spreading Christianity because they won't spread Christianity but rather a form of godliness which will lead them to hell.
The difficulty in refuting Michael Jones is not that he is logical in his argumentation, he needs not to be logical, because he is doing narrative, not analysis. The "look, we're not like these fanatics, we're cool Christians" narrative, which was created precisely so that Christianity would be "respectable" in the eyes of the world. Another thing is that Jones' biblicism is a pair of scissors, made to discard any opinion that is inconvenient to the Bible in the modern world as "scholastic interpretation", "Constantinian inheritance" or "projection of cultural patterns into Scripture", forgetting that he himself projects cultural patterns into Scripture in several of his videos, i.e. his Anabaptist view of the Old Testament (basically making OT in irrelevant in morals) and his Whig view of history (in the most vulgar conception of Whig history), both hallmarks of the modern United States mentality, absent from any theologian who has spoken about the state and its role. If we think about it, Jones, in combating the supposed American exceptionalism of Christian nationalists, is himself affirming another kind of American exceptionalism, that the values of 1776 are self-evident and good for all peoples and times without exception. Basically, Jones is a political syncretist, who thinks that the spirituality of the church requires Christians to live as atheists six out of seven days a week, when it comes to government
Makes sense due to the fact that he believes in macro evolution. And his crisis of faith years ago was due to him not being able to reconcile modern science with scripture. His “solution” was to take an allegorical approach to Genesis and fit in modern “science” in places where the Bible contradicts what “scientists” say is true. Unfortunately, scripture is secondary to him when it comes to the theories of the enlightenment age.
i find christian commentators like jones (and also conservative pundits) difficult to take seriously, because while they all generally confess to being Christian, because of their American background, they have this revulsion/combativeness towards monarchy and/or approval for democracy/republicanism which does NOT comport with Christian eschatology, given that jesus will return and establish his theocratic kingdom on earth. in addition to no more tears and death, there will also be no voting, and one unelected head of state for all time. yet supposedly a pluralistic democracy is what god had in mind from the beginning????? help it make sense!
True, Anabaptist view on Civil Secularism is cringe. Because they are the same people who condemns Constantine the Great turning Christianity into a state religion. Its like they never read the bible and think that Jesus is a pacifist or a hippy. Matthew 10:34-36, Luke 12:49-56
The descriptions of Christian nationalism that IP uses remind me a lot of Antonio Gramsci’s description of fascism. Gramsci essentially argued that fascism couldn’t be defined by any set of clear political doctrines (despite the fact that the founding philosophers of fascism did exactly that), but rather that fascism was defined by a set of tendencies and a general disposition or mood. This is why so many leftists accuse anyone to the right of them of being fascists. I suspect that the sociologists who wrote on Christian nationalism were influenced by Gramsci’s ideas.
Been waiting for this, amazing work brother Paul! If Christian values are not protected and Christian laws are not promoted then another will take it's place.
"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." Revelation 11:5
When inspiringphilosophy is talking about christian nationalism it seems to be more directed at the nick fuenetes christian nationalism. That seeks to create ethnostates, enforce everyone to be christian, remove non christians and basically put all the women back in the kitchen. Like the definition Stephen Wolfe is working from does not seem to be the one nick fuenetes is. And unfortunately when anyone in this culture hears christian nationalism they immediately picture nick not stephen. Inspiringphilosophy also did a live that was directed towards nick which kinda proves this point that thats the kind of christian nationalism he is opposing.
I've begun reading the Bible cover to cover again at the beginning of this year and I've found maybe one or two very very vague possible arguments against Christian Nationalism but I have picked up on tons of arguments for it. I genuinely believe the plainest reading of scripture abundantly supports Christian Nationalism
In our witness and preaching of the gospel we don't limit ourselfe to any extent and stop when it comes to affecting society and state. If we personally preach to someone that abortion is unaceptable, we likewise must take this same message to state when we engage with it's officials; it would be immoral hipocrisy for christians to engage in deception towards officials of country and goverment by saying to them that they should - against their own counciens - to not seek and follow Christ on their level of governing the state. We cannot put a border to message of obidience in society that is affected by the gospel; every christian who is state official is bound to follow same Christ, same Messiah in his life lke all the rest of us, and he must strive to follow Him in his home and in his own job at goverment, and this inevitably lead christians in goverment to christianisation of it. And christians in goverment, cannot being hipocryte when it comes to law that they are ressposible for; by necessity of just who we are as christians, everything what we do, everywhere where we have impoact, in school, in goverment, in bisnes, we all must by necessity transforming our zone of impact in way that is in accordance to our faith. Anti-christian nationalism claim that we must be hipocrites and we must life as christians only partially in our personal life at home but then violates our own morals at our place of authority and work, is evil and wrong. What is right, is to do what Scripture is telling - to teach nations everything that Lord Jesus Christ want, and thus impacting our goverments, and preserving what is right and true.
Nationalism does not contradict the Bible and it's even common sense to keep out groups of people that hold to anti-Biblical or un-Biblical religions and ideologies (Islam, Hinduism, other far east religions, communists, etc). Distinctions need to be made amongst races, cultures, religions and ideologies when it comes to nation states and policy making. Only in the Church are there no distinctions.
One other thing about with the way MJ and other critics of Christian nationalism talk about it, they seem to forget much of American history. They act as if America was always this secular cesspool, when in reality, throughout American history until the 1960s, Christianity was the dominant religion and it was expressed in both public and private institutions including schools, courts, etc. Prayer was practiced in many functions and schools would teach Christian values. In 1778, South Carolina had Protestant Christianity as their state religion in their state constitution. People like MJ ignorantly believe that a secular society is better than a religious one because it's more "free", but what use is freedom when you lose everything that once build the concord of your nation? Religion is inherently tied to politics through human nature and ethics. Both religion and politics relate to these subjects. You can't separate religion from politics without increasing atheism and secularism, i.e. sinfulness.
Highly, highly recommend Corneliu Codreanu’s works, specifically “For my Legionnaires”, *THE* standard for Christian nationalist philosophy Great video as always Paul
20:44 While IP's theological arguments may not be airtight, an implicit bias you fail to address in this video is IP's perspective as a US American. America was founded largely by protestant groups. Even though early colonists were largely Christian, they were from a variety of denominations. The United states founding documents are designed to allow laws and rules to be changed according to the greater cultural zietigiest while not outright encroaching on any one groups rights. The main purpose of the Constitution was to be a living document dictated by the citizens, unlike the static guidelines of the bible that ruled Europe at the time. Christian Nationalism is antithetical to the spirit of the US's founding principles, and this is why Michael argues vehemently against the proliferation of the ideology *in the United States*. He never outright asserts that Europe should disregard its Christian cultural heritage. He mainly refutes American radicals that insist we return to a fictional, oppressive status quo where white protestant men are on top. Although you cite many theological arguments, you never really analyze his position in context. There is in fact a genuine historical arguement for the UK to return to its Anglican roots, but the proposition of transforming the USA into some Anglican utopic ethnostate is laughable.
One thing I have about MJ's video was that he made a video about why he supports post-millennialism and how we should convert everyone in the world to Christianity. I'm not a postmillennialist, and as far as politics go I am a Christian Executive Monarchist, but if Micheal already supports post-millennialism, why not support Christian Nationalism? Espeically when that is literally the outcome one has to aspire to gain once accepting post-millennialism?
I don't think this is a theological debate so much as a political one. They embrace post-war liberalism which views democracy as both biblical and ideal despite history/Scripture proving otherwise. They view National identity as automatically Mustache Man, while ignoring the real causes of WW2. They fail to acknowledge that Nationalism is the inherent enemy of Communism/Globalism. Are there any Anti-CN's who acknowledge the Great Replacement across the West/Anglosphere which specifically targets peoples of European descent? This I believe is a key objection to CN. It is also the greatest threat facing the West/America today.
I probably don't fully agree with either side but the intro is a masterpiece Paul. Quality memes. 32:22 The interesting thing here is that IP seems to agree that when Christian's have political power and cultural influence that we have not only the right but responsibility to use that agency in ways commensurate with living out the Gospel. Which if I understand it correctly is what Christian Nationalists are formally advocating for, even though I suspect I disagree with the extent of Wolfe's application, for example. Notably I disagree with Paul that nations are 'as natural as the nuclear family'. SO I do think the issue here, as Paul addresses, is that Mike's using a sociological definition which seems to lump in ethnofascists and broader Nationalist groups that prescribe to either a nominal view of Christian values not grounded in sincere belief or are merely Christless Conservatives who are making a mere historical claim about how they define 'the West'.
I agree, he makes no strong arguments. Very much like the guys at G3. Their foundational belief on separation of church and state is emotional, not rational or Biblical.
And now also what that ever-busy Satan is for the same intent continually attempting, what devices he purposes, what treacheries he studies, what weapons he prepares, what wars he brosches against Godly princes and magistrates who desire to have this heavenly light to shine in their dominions and labor to spread the same far and wide into the whole world, the Lord Himself knows, who dwells in the heavens, who also is wont to scatter the wicked counsels of the ungodly & to disperse them as vain smokes through His incredible love and mercy towards us when it is most expedient for His church and when tyrants do look for nothing less than a disappointment of their intents which they so long and watchfully provided for. -Girolamo Zanchi, Confession of the Christian Religion, Dedicatory Epistle, pg. 1-2
This was a very good analysis and response to the sort of anti Christian nationalist argument put forth by Inspiring Philosophy. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels their way of thinking is fundamentally flawed and lacks reason and justification. Keep up the great work! Also, looking forward to your spicy takes mentioned in the video.
This video has given me a lot to think about. It is also nice to see that you point out strongly that "Christian nationalist" is not the same as "Christian National Socialist" (which is quite common and they often just call themselves Christian Nationalists.) I am not a Christian Nationalist myself, but if I were to argue against Christian Nationalism as you have presented in this video, my only argument would be: read the Old Testament. And that's not an argument. Which parts? (Obviously the books of Kingdoms, 1 Sam through 2 Chr.). And that still isn't even an argument against Christian Nationalism as you have presented it, it is just a check on it to ensure that we do not confuse authoritarianism with transforming the heart of the people. If the Holy Spirit transforms the heart of the people, they will vote Christian and for Christian interests thus resulting in something not dissimilar to what you have argued for here. And so, my only argument that I can offer of substance is another argument altogether: humans are fallible. So while we can strive to be denominationally neutral[^1], as the hearts of the people sway this way or that, so too will their biases. One heart shall become Unitarian Universalist, another shall burn all who prefer green carpet to red, and another shall ban non-abortive contraceptives, and another shall forbid the death penalty. The end would be that the political sphere would look exactly like the religious sphere. But if all the people shall convert, that is inevitable, and the end would be Christian Nationalism by fiat, now wouldn't it. [^1]: I am personally anti-ecumenicalism -- I think it is a dangerous distraction from the gospel that tends toward denying differences, where Mere Christianity is better than ecumenicalism.
First part of four so Ill be waiting til he's done before I make any response. He's consciously trying to put forward a meaningful case and avoid the crap argumentation and strawmanning of others, which is very good and I think he has succeeded so far. Nonetheless, the evidence in his first part is based on very incorrect exegesis imo
One thing that I thought about between IPs arguments and yours is that of federally recognized holidays. If a state is meant to be secular, then it can not unfairly decide what holidays it observe. Things like the 4th of July for America could be a secular holiday, but Easter and Christmas are explicitly not secular (even if made so by modern society). So should a secular state keep those days? Or should it be required to keep all relgions holidays? Christianity has been paramount to American history and culture, even in terms of the government. So where is the line drawn between a Christian state and not? Heck, even in a democratic system, if the majority of the population is Christian, wouldn't the laws be naturally representative of those ethics? Is a state secular anymore? Honestly, a truly secular state wouldnt use the Gregorian calendar, but rather followed in the footsteps of the french revolution.
Even "secular" holidays are actually religious by definition, since they serve the same purpose of honouring the national cultus (e.g. MLK Day as a reinforcement of the national religion of civil rights and its quasi-prophets)
@@TheOtherPaul I noticed that too. The simple fact we call them "holidays" are relgious in nature, "holy days" and all. The idols have changed but we still have idols, so to does the relgion change but relgion remains even in denial of it. Secularism really is just another relgion, isnt it?
Michael unwittingly presupposes political liberalism yet one of America’s founding fathers, John Adams talked about their constitution being made for ‘a moral and religious people’ not some generic valueless human being.
I was said this privately but I’ll share muh comment. To be completely honest, Inspiring Philosophy assumes many arguments that do not align his points or claims. And failing to realise this mistake through his own moral superiority. He’s trying very hard to make Christo-nationalism and Christo-fascism sound the same when clearly they’re not. By fact and definition.
Really clear and logical video! God bless. Sorry for the unrelated question. Have you read any material by the English Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan late Kallistos Ware?
Excellent video brother! The anti-CNs never stood a chance. Only a matter of time before we get a based (Baptist😎) Christian prince here in the states. Btw, any recommendations on where to get the Who Is My Neighbor book? Looked on Amazon, archives, bookfinder and can't get it anywhere. Would like to get a physical or pdf copy.
Awesome work. Overall, it comes down to the modern evangelical rejection of historical two kingdom theology and natural law. They strawman because they are ignorant of those categories.
Great video Paul! I really think it’s needed in this day and age, have you considered reading Theonomy and Christian ethics by Greg Bahnsen? I think it brings important exegetical and hermeneutical principles out regarding this topic.
I havent, tho I considered myself a Theonomist for a while (chiefly by reading Rushdoony). I wouldnt anymore given my different perspective on the precise role of the Torah and my greater emphasis on historic tradition and natural law.
@@TheOtherPaulThis is not true, eastern churches are ethno centric in their rite but internationalistic in faith. You can still have pray in Romanian Orthodox church as a Greek
I think people who say that was the Old Testament seem to like to accuse anybody of being pharisaical. Which to be fair I understand that a lot of people who do attempt to make works a requirement of salvation. However, I am somebody who thinks that while grace is free and you cannot earn it, that it also means if somebody is persuaded to abide by the law they can. I think obeying the law is not good if somebody is ignorant about the law and why we follow the law. Perhaps this is a poor way of putting it, but like scripture puts it, the law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. We are either bound to sin and the lusts thereof or bound to the righteousness of Christ. One is more freeing than the other. Freeing you from sin or requiring rituals to pay for sin. Jesus Christ is our mediator to God. I would say the law is there to help us recognize why we need Jesus Christ in the first place. We want to continue in the spirit so that the law is something no longer needed because it would be natural for us to walk in the spirit. However, most important thing to recognize is the law cannot justify a person. Only God can justify a person. I do realize somebody cannot just be born into Christianity and even raised in it. It does appear that people are born into it seem to end up rejecting Christianity as a whole. Or I should say they don't recognize who the savior is in the first place. Many may do the practice, but forget the meaning behind all of it. I think we are not in the Old Testament and we are not required of anything to be saved. Jesus Christ is the one that saves. However, I do think the natural inclination of somebody saved by Christ would want to appease him. Granted I recognize this is a fallen world and it is a constant process of refining, but I think it is possible to strive for perfection on this world as it is in heaven. Some times it is easy to assume that it is beyond our reach as a world or a nation, but like it says in Romans 8:22-23 "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."
Don't you feel a little silly as an Anglican unironically calling for your tradition to be the dominant one in a Christian society? You guys had that and how well did that work out? At least Tucker Carlson is a self-aware Anglican who gave a speech right before getting fired by Fox News where he repeatedly mocked Anglicans for not even being Christian anymore! Before you take over the world for Anglicanism perhaps you should focus on making Anglicanism Christian again?
I express a simple ultimate desire; where on earth does that entail my not paying attention to the actual problems in the communion today? Have you even watched any of my content on Anglicanism/the communion or seen my Twitter wall? That is a #1 concern of mine; I'm not an idiot. And none of that entails that I cannot have a wish for Anglicanism to rise again and achieve cultural dominance; these are such easily distinguished matters. So no, I don't feel silly for that comment, but you should for yours.
In the first ten minutes you argue that his definition of Christian Nationalism is wrong because he defines it based on the actions of Christian Nationalists instead of what they say. Isn’t that anti intellectualism?
I know you've made a short video on this subject before, but could you make an in-depth video responding to miracle claims by Roman Catholics? Arguing against doctrinal claims is easier because it's based on Biblical exegesis and Church Fathers, but I don't know how to respond to many miracle claims.
There are 3 kinds that stump me the most. 1) Eucharistic miracles. I believe God could certainly do them, but why do they only seem to happen in the Roman Church? Wouldn't we expect to see them in all kinds of churches? It kind of supports their claim of being "the One True Church." 2) Certain Marian apparitions. For example, our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico. rootofjesse2.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/miraculous-image-of-our-lady-of-guadalupe/ The claims about her image on the Tilma are absolutely wild and supernatural if they're true. Not to mention the claims about the tens of millions of people that converted to Roman Catholocism because of this, and the claim of a Native who accidentally got shot by an arrow and was raised back to life after everyone prayed to Mary for him. I know you could just say it's demonic, but it's hard to believe that when it caused the conversion of so many people from paganism to Romanism. 3) Personal testimonies of miraculous healing (or other miracles) after praying to specific saints. My friend knew someone whose sister had cancer. This woman with cancer did a specific devotion to Padre Pio during adoration, and she inexplicably smelled roses. When she went into her next checkup, her cancer was miraculously gone. And apparently the scent of roses is a common thing when people's intercessions to Padre Pio get answered. I know that God could grant their prayers even if they're wrongly directed, but why would he do the whole scent of roses thing and deceive them into thinking their intercessions to saints are effective and good if they're not? I can't believe that all these people are just lying, so what is the explanation?
Ive seen material and claims about Eucharistic miracles tho not deep enough to make content; maybe in the distant future. For now Id recommend messaging Fr. James (Barely Protestant on UA-cam) who knows of alleged eucharistic miracles outside of Rome. I even just spoke to an Anglo-Cath friend who attests to having experienced one with a wafer in his own hand. Id also likewise not just assume that all miracles are from God; biblically, we know this is not the case.
Hey Paul I noticed you answer comments often. I respect your takes. I am from a baptist background. Moved to a reformed backroundish. I find myself with the Eastern Orthodox tradition for the past couple months. Do you believe orthodox christians are under the grace of Christ. Im struggling right now because I love Orthodoxy and love the Liturgy. I am not well read on patristics and I an trying to become educated on the subject. I find the arguements for Orthodoxy strong but Icons I struggle with and the strong veneration towards them. If you could offer your take or have a video to point me to. I am trying to follow the historic faith. God bless.
Well it’s been a month, I don’t know if you have converted to EO, but if not I highly recommend you going Lutheran, you can start by reading the Book of Conord, our doctrines are much in line with the Patristics we also value tradition and we have inherited the Tridentine Mass. Also check out a book called “Disillusioned” written by a former EO priest named Joshua Schooping who recently converted to Lutheranism. Hope this helps
@@ministeriosemmanuel638Submit to the guy who gave up his monastic vows for the 16 century version of “prostate cancer bro”? Yeah no. Orthodoxy is truth. Glory to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church☦️
5:40 are you still friendly with Mr Corey Mahler? Little reactions like this are concerning when you were previously in touch with someone who treats Hitler like the greatest "Christian" ever.
Yes, I occassionally have interactions with him, I'm open about that. I'm also friends with atheists, whose sins are actually damnable, unlike having a taboo historical opinion about a hated figure.
what do you mean by IP being a biblicist? afaik he isn't a baptist. he mentioned how he goes to an orthodox church (sometimes?). or isn't protestant. afaik biblicism is a kind of argumentation employed by protestants typically baptists/low church evangelicals. then again its not clear to me what exactly biblicism entails.
Wherever he does attend (which as far as Im aware is an unspecified high prot church) his argumentation in these videos is biblicist, as seen in how he makes arguments like "Jesus doesnt command us to do X," which is very typical of biblicism and ignores truths/obligations of scripture that arent explicit but arise by good and necessary consequence.
ive noticed this kind of argumentation in even scholarly works and commentaries. for instance in matt 1:25, dr blomberg writes that "until" here strongly suggests (but does not prove) that joseph had marital relations with joseph after jesus' birth. blomberg doesn't explain why this ought to be the case, or what the application ought to be if his assertion is true (that the Blessed Virgin was well no longer a virgin). similarly in matt 23:8-10 many commentators state (but do not argue or prove), that jesus is against titles in the church, and that he has an egalitarian vision for the church. blomberg goes further and suggests that while such titles arent forbidden, they should be abolished since they stand in the way (to paraphrase) of Jesus' egalitarian vision. none of this comes from a close reading of the text, nor is reasoned out well, nor are the church fathers referenced etc. they just state it as if its obvious what the scripture is saying. @@TheOtherPaul
Defs not a fan; it's an impossible ideal. As General Shepherd said, "Boundaries shift, new players step in, but power always finds a place to rest its head."
Seeing the parody you made of that WH40k trailer really made me think how delusional the folks who call it "satire" are. Where is the mockery there? All I see is an epic army of humans and their machines marching against their extinction.
Yeah, an empire which feeds its citizens human corpses isn't satire. /s Often the loyal servants of the Emperor end up in conflict with each other over disagreements about what the Emperor's vision for humanity was. For instance, during the Months of Shame the Grey Knights and the Space Wolves would come to blows over whether it's appropriate to mass execute loyal troops of the Imperium who had been exposed to daemons when defending Armageddon against a Chaos invasion, lead by the Daemon-Prince Angron. Also the many parts of the Imperium hate each other, and only tolerate each other's existence due to mutual benefit. For instance, the Adeptus Mechanicus and the Adeptus Ministorum consider each other borderline heretics, and the Ordos Hereticus would likely mass execute the Navis Nobilite for being mutants were the Navis Nobilite not absolutely vital for interstellar travel. Also there's the Imperial Guardsman's Uplifting Primer, a book which all Imperial Guard must have on them at all times, otherwise they could be shot by the regimental commissar. This is despite the fact that many Imperial Guard cannot read. It also must be noted that the Imperial Guardsman's Uplifting Primer, while it does contain some useful information, also contains some outrageous lies, such as it says that orks are "considerably weaker than the average man". In fact orks are very strong. The human empire in WH40K is the Imperium of Man. The state religion of the Imperium of Man is known as the Imperium Cult, which is the worship of the Emperor, who is a corpse who requires a sacrifice of at least one thousand people every day so that he never truly dies. In life however the Emperor hated all forms of religion with a passion, and punished anybody who tried to worship him. Also one of the main religious texts of the Imperial Cult, the Lectitio Divinitatus, was written by Lorgar, who was forced to renounce his faith in the Emperor's divinity by the Emperor himself, causing Lorgar to turn to the worship of the Ruinous Powers of Chaos (becoming the first heretic) and to fight against the Emperor during the Horus Heresy. Also GW has literally said that Warhammer 40k is satire.
@@jamesseale7686 For some reason my reply was deleted. Anyway: My point is that none of the advertisement for WH40K looks like satire. There is no mockery, no self evident absurdity, nothing that would indicate the imperium are "the bad guys". They created a world so ludicrously hostile o humans that most policied adopted by the imperium are perfectly justified. You need a hyper militarist society in a world where humanity can go extinct at any moment, you need a state religion that is strictly enforced to keep unity and prevent the literal demon cults from spreading, etc. I am aware it's meant to be satire but it fails very hard at it. Not only is the imperium completely dissimilar to what it allegedly wishes to critique (fascism) but it doesn't do a good job at presenting the imperium as bad. Also stop using "/s", this isn't reddit.
@@Testimony_Of_JTF I would agree that a lot of material put out by GW tends to paint the Imperium of Man in a positive light, even when the Imperium does some pretty awful things (child abuse to make Space Marines, sacrificing people en masse to the Emperor etc). I also agree that many of the things that the Imperium does are kind of justified, kind of like an extreme version of the trolley problem. As for saying that WH40K doesn't contain "self evident absurdity" I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. Personally I find the idea of giant mechs (Imperial Knights, Chaos Knights etc) fighting each other with chainswords to be absurd for instance.
@@Testimony_Of_JTF Oh, WH40K is certainly cool. However it can be both cool and absurd. In my opinion some of the most over-the-top elements of WH40K are also some of its coolest (17km long spaceships firing torpedoes 200 feet long, Imperial Knights etc).
Thank you for your honesty and civility, you have shown me that indeed Christian nationalism can be more nuanced than what Michael presented, but I am not at all convinced by the other arguments against Michael, or the arguments for your preferred version of CN. Arguments against Michael: - no clear hermeneutic or methodology: fair enough, he did not lay out the rules for his hermeneutic or methodology. It his however clear that he uses Scripture (special revelation) and sociological research (natural law), much like you do, to conclude that Christian nationalism _as defined by those researchers_ (not by your scholars) is unfavourable. You are defending that which Michael did not directly attack. And fair enough, we should recognise that there is nuance and inhomogeneity in all movements and ideologies, which Michael did not, but that does not mean that his criticisms against what he was targeting are invalid. - Michael's arguments can lead to a slippery slope by being too lax and liberal: Again fair enough, he could have articulated his position on such manners better. Perhaps Michael does not feel knowledgeable enough to say what would be the best way to approach border policies and such, but he does feel justified in saying that the extreme position of forbidding any non-Christians (perhaps even limiting it to the same denomination) is bad. That your scholars do not advocate for such a strict policy is great, but does not detract from Michael's argument. You arguments for CN: - state enforcement of the faith has helped the Gospel spread: is coercion and threatening people with violence the way the Lord wants us to spread his Gospel? Is it not said in Matthew 26:52 that all who draw the sword die by the sword? Notice how the sword there was drawn to _defend Christ,_ and Christ rebuked that! - 49:04 "Ethnically or culturally homogenous nations are real" - where is your evidence? What is your definition of homogenous? You say it is tautological, but that is just a baseless claim until you back it up with research. Since this is a matter of natural law, as you say, it should be discoverable by science and scholarship. You go on to say at 49:25 that "since these nations are real entities, they have a natural right and duty of self-preservation, just as an individual". What constitutes self-preservation in this case? Maintaining ethnic and cultural homogeneity? By what means? I can only imagine very bad examples of how to achieve those things, but perhaps your intent is less nefarious than banning interracial marriages and learning of each other's cultures and how to coexist. - an indifferent secular state is entirely alien to Scripture: so what? Must we reject all that is alien to Scripture, or should we study things according to their merits and demerits? Going with the first option, we would be forced to reject digital technology. Clearly you do not reject digital technology. Novelty is not grounds for the rejection of an idea. - at the end you said that Christ is Lord over all, implying that that is grounds for a Christian state. In fact the very notion of Christ being Lord/King/Ruler strengthens the case against CN: if Christ is Lord, what need is there of another lord? What need is there of an earthly king, who is a fallible human being, when we can simply rely on the Heavenly King, who is infallible, and who hears all his subjects? And how do you deal with Jesus denying people the desire for authority and superiority, namely in Matthew 20:20-28? Can the denial of CN get any more clear than "the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave"? And how does CN align with Jesus instructing us to put our faith in the Father, instead of our worries in Matthew 6:25-34? I do not for a second believe that Paul's words in Romans 13 can overrule that which Jesus himself said. How can Romans 13 be reconciled with the passages from Matthew cited above? That is not a rhetorical question, I would genuinely love to see the reasoning behind this reconciliation since people must have attempted it in the past.
Well, allow me to respond to some of your points. -The criticism of the MJ is not that it doesn't use Scripture and Nature, it's that it 1-Pressures a worldview alien to Scripture (the Whig view of history) and 2-it doesn't critique the ideas and concepts of the CN, but only the possible negative consequences, which, let's face it, is just a disguised form of the slippery slope fallacy. -On your question "Is coercion what God wants for the Gospel?", we have to make use of a division between the inner realm (the conscience with God) and the outer realm of the social order, in which external conformity reigns and in which God commands the State to guard against blasphemy and immoral behaviour. This is clear from various examples such as David (1 Ch. 15:16; 23:6. 22:2). Solomon (1 K. 6), Asa (1 K. 15:12, 15; 2 Ch. 14:4). Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 19). Joash (2 K. 12:4, 5). Hezekiah (2 Ch. 29:10) Josiah (2 K. 23:2; 2 Ch. 34:30); do you know how many times these examples are attacked or condemned in the New Testament? A grand total of zero. In fact, if you doubt how State sponsorship benefited Christianity, I invite you to read books like Paul Veyne's "How Our World Became Christian". Or even pick up a KJV Bible. -You say that a secular state should not be rejected out of hand, but examined on its own merits and demerits. Guess what, that's exactly what CN did and concluded that it is not compatible with Scripture, not only because the world in which it was written was a mostly monarchical world, but that such a conception goes against the necessary consequences of Scripture in the first place (leaders are not called to be indifferent to the moral situation of their subjects in the Bible, but to be fathers of the Church, Is.49:23; Is.60:10; and shepherds of it, Is.44:28;). The other objection is that every state, by its God-given nature, is not neutral and cannot be. A neutral state is, in the end, a state that will sooner or later erect a moral standard that will judge other standards, including those of Scripture, claiming that this cannot be the final rule from which the others derive, but just another document that expresses something of natural wisdom. In both instances, at the very least those two views are material heresy, as expressed in liberal worldview. -In Matthew 20:20-28, Christ speaks clearly about the mission of preaching the gospel and how the church should be structured. He does not say that these positions are forbidden to Christians or that command or hierarchy are bad prima facie. Regarding your consideration that Romans 13 does not overruns with what Christ has commanded, I agree, because there is nothing to overrun, one speaks of the mission of preaching the gospel that ministers and the church in general have, another speaks about how another agency ordained by God should act. We could say that one speaks of the supernatural mission of every Christian and the other of the natural mission of every Christian in charge of any society, which is why Protestants have always been opposed to the church, as presbyters and bishops, having temporal power, but affirming that every christian in the magistracy has the duty to fight and defend the values of Christ. As Lancelot Andrews, wrote : *“Calvin as he did not approve of the king as pope, so did not approve of the pope as king; nor do we approve in the king what we detest in the pope, while both he with us and we with him think that the duties of King James in the Christian church are the same as those of Josiah in the Jewish church, nor do we ask that anything beyond should be done”* (Tortura Torti [1609], p. 379). -Another argument of yours is that if Christ is Lord we don't need other lords. This could therefore mean that we don't need other brothers, leaders, kings and priests, because Christ is perfect in all of those functions and much more. But even the New Testament doesn't take this stance. For example Romans 13:3-4 *For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.* Or 1 Peter 3:3 *Wives, respect and obey your husbands in the same way. Then the husbands who do not obey the word of God will want to know God. They will want to know God because their wives live good lives, even though they say nothing about God.* Or Colossians 3:22-4:6 *Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;* Basically, we can see hierarchies being accepted and welcomed in the New Testament, and these earthly hierarchies coexisting with obedience to the Church's call to evangelise. The fact that they are earthly realities does not detract from the fact that they are ordained by God and important for the well-being of his people. Ultimately, the question is, is a Christian social order necessary for the church to exist? No, you see it in history - people keeping the faith in the midst of all kinds of persecution. Now, is this same Christian social order necessary for the church to do it´s mission in all force and for God's name to be glorified in all spheres of society? Yes, surely.
@@gabrielferreira1531 A couple of questions for clarification: what's YM? And why do you say "NC" where I would expect "Christian Nationalism"? For your points: - Pressures a worldview alien to Scripture: we are talking about a political structure, right? How is a political structure a worldview? Is it not a tool, a conceptual and abstract one, but a tool nonetheless? A tool, a set of principles on how to organise society. - it doesn't critique the ideas and concepts of the NC, but only the possible negative consequences, which, let's face it, is just a disguised form of the slippery slope fallacy: Michael did critique the idea of seizing power to further the Gospel, and he gave Scriptural and research-based support for his claim, viz. the scene of Christ's temptation. How is that not critiquing the ideas? He critiqued both the ideas and the outcomes, which, as you rightly point out, are on a slippery slope. Your scriptural arguments: 1 Ch 15:16: "And David spake to the chief of the Levites to appoint their brethren to be the singers with instruments of musick, psalteries and harps and cymbals, sounding, by lifting up the voice with joy." How is that relevant?? The other Chronicles references are also about David telling people to do stuff. 1 K 6 is about Solomon building a temple 1 K 15:11 (not 12) says: And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father. This is about a ruler using his power for good. Fair enough. 2 Ch. 14:4 is a list of names 2 Ch 19:2 is the closest to supporting the point that you are making: "And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord." But what is the context here? Who are the ones that hate God here? Or is it specifically in reference to Ahab, whom Jehoshaphat had just helped? 2 Kings 14:3 (not 4) once again just says that a King was righteous and did good deeds. 2 Chronicles 29:10: "Now it is in mine heart to make a covenant with the Lord God of Israel, that his fierce wrath may turn away from us." Also close to making a point for you, but context is yet again crucial to understanding what he meant. He felt the need to do that because, as per 29:6, "For our fathers have trespassed, and done that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord our God, and have forsaken him, and have turned away their faces from the habitation of the Lord, and turned their backs" 2 Kings 23:2 and 2 Chronicles 34:30: "And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant." All that was not just any old nation, that was Israel, the light to the nations, to whom was given a law that was supposed to edify them to become the origin for the Messiah. Was that law a perfect one? No. Was that law eternal? No. Jesus himself said that "It is finished", referring to the law that the Father had instituted, making it unnecessary for us. Can we still follow it? Sure. Can we expect God to pat us on the back for doing so? Absolutely not. Thus all these citations were either irrelevant, or they were not the actual verses that made the points that you wanted to make, or only demonstrated what things were like in the Old Testament days. As for reading the book - I might do that someday. As for the bit about the KJV, I have no idea why you specified that version in particular, it's not like it's special, but I do in fact read it just because I like the aesthetics of a more mediaeval English. - such a conception goes against the necessary consequences of Scripture in the first place (leaders are not called to be indifferent to the moral situation of their subjects... : You know, I actually agree, but I also see from experience that that is impossible to do in a genuine and honest manner in the giant nation-states that are so heterogenous and expansive. But it's not like this is the only way to live, is it? I am personally in favour of abandoning a state structure altogether, but that's somewhat beside the point. The point is that I agree with this statement but also believe that any leader of a modern nation-state cannot aid the moral and religious lives of billions of people, that is simply impractical. I do not agree with your view of the Matthew verses cited by me. It very clearly talks about *rulers lording over them*, if that's not hierarchical structure than what is it? If you say that that's just the structure of the church and not of our lives, would that not be hypocritical of us? - For the argument about the lack of necessity of lords: yes, I personally do hold to the inferences that you made there. None is necessary in our lives but Christ, but it's not like they are to be actively shunned at all times. Meanwhile the passages you cite are simply at odds with reality. Thousands of rulers were agents of evil, Paul should know that. How aren't the rulers that captured him evil? How aren't many of today's rulers, or even past rulers evil? And as for Peter: would a Muslim man, having taken an obedient Christian wife (let us suppose she is the only one, which is not a given), want to learn about the One True God? It would take a miracle for something like that to work, which is possible, but not likely. As for Colossians: This verse had force in that context, specifically for the Christians who were slaves and could not escape their predicament. It is not approving of the situation, it is telling a slave how to make the best of a bad situation. And need I remind that we have abolished slavery, though it was a common practice both during the OT and NT times. So this, too, seems like a novelty that got introduced into our lives despite not being a part of Scripture or its world. Surely you will not say that the abolition of slavery, which was championed by Christians, who decided based on Scripture that it was the right decision, was a mistake? As for your final question, I answer it with a confident "No". And my basis for that is Matthew 24:3-14, especially verses 7-9, where Christ talks of nations rising against nation, and "delivering *you* up to tribulation and killing *you* ", making an opposition between the nations, who will wage war, and the Christian individuals, who will be killed by the nations. Does this sound like a Christian state? Would a Christian state deliver its own, righteous Christian people to tribulation and kill them?
@@Yan_Alkovic Well, allow me to answer some of your points. -No, it's not a political structure, it´s a worldview. But structures flow from worldviews. -On the scriptural evidence
1 Ch 15:16- Yes it's relevant, it's the head of state being actively involved in the worship of God 1 K 6 is about Solomon building a temple, exactly. And this was another of his responsibilities of honouring God. Can you imagine a secularist state doing the same? 1 K 15:11-Yes, to do good, and what good was that? *"They made a covenant with the Lord, the God of their forefathers, promising to worship him with all their heart and with all their soul. They also swore that all those who would not worship him, both children and adults, both men and women, would be put to death. They swore aloud to God, the Lord, that they would be faithful to the covenant, and then they shouted for joy and blew trumpets and bugles. The people of Judah rejoiced because of this oath, which they had made with all their hearts. And because they had sought the Lord with all their good will, he let them find him and allowed them to live in peace with all the neighbouring peoples."* Asah is not committed to a general good, but to a specific good, which is to strengthen the true religion among the Israelites 2 Ch. 14:4 is a list of names-No, it isn't, read it again *He commanded Judah to seek the Lord, the God of their ancestors, and to obey his laws and commands.* 2 Ch 19:2 is the closest to supporting the point that you are making-No, isn´t, all the others show it *2 Kings 14:3 (not 4) once again just says that a King was righteous and did good deeds.* And I've already explained that good works in Scripture are always linked to the strengthening of true religion and worship. I'll move on to your last argument, since most of your objections in the others were irrelevant. *Was that law a perfect one?* Yes. Psalm 19 says: *The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.* *Was that law eternal?* Yes. The moral Law is eternal and the mosaic covenant was an expression of it, abrrogated on it´s cerimonial aspect but still on full force on it´s moral aspect(or do you think the commandments against incest or homossexuality were revoked?) *Jesus himself said that "It is finished", referring to the law that the Father had instituted, making it unnecessary for us* Nope, what was finished was the cerimonial law of sacrifices, not the moral one that God instituted Hebrews 9; 22-28 says *For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.* -About the inferences you make, sorry, the Scripture does not have this anti-authority view, in all the verses I quoted and many others that are contained in it. The answer is simple: was Paul persecuted? Was he. Did Paul stop seeing the State as something that comes from the natural divine Order? No. Neither did Peter or Our Lord. Regarding your consideration of Colossians, Paul never saw slavery as sinful, his letter to Philemon shows that. And about the abolition of slavery, let's face it, it was more an expedient measure of rich countries that needed more markets and costumers than a humanitarian impulse, despite the American propaganda about the abolitionist movement (apart from the fact that the Bible doesn't command having slaves, it allows it, falling into the indifferent things that are subject to social circumstances). Regarding your example of Peter's passage, the apostle doesn't ask whether something is probable or not, he just says "this is your duty, do it". The verses from Matthew 22, I've already explained, talk about how Christians should nurture a spirit of meekness in preaching the gospel, not vainglory. It says nothing about hierarchies or commands. And about Matthew 24, Christ is warning the disciples that this would be their fate, not that persecution should be the normal or acceptable state for the church. Your point about giant nation states is totally irrelevant, you can have small states, confederations, city states, nothing testifies against the CN. And I answer the question with a resounding YES, based not only on every verse I've quoted, but especially on Isaiah 49, which tells about the kingdom of the Messiah, not the post-second coming as the millennialists falsely claim, but the one that exists since his ascension into heaven, especially verses 20 to 23 *The children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other, shall say again in thine ears, The place is too strait for me: give place to me that I may dwell.Then shalt thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a captive, and removing to and fro? and who hath brought up these? Behold, I was left alone; these, where had they been? Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.* Kings and queens will serve Christ and his church, and have done so many times in the past. Now, if you prefer to stick to the liberal view of history, which has only brought us degeneration, debauchery and depression, feed your favourite pig
This was a very interesting video. Personally, as a practitioner catholic, I tend to be opposed to christian nationalism because it seems like their end goal seems to be the stablishment of a state that promotes, defends and enforces Christian values; and don't get me wrong, a country that does so is objectively good, as those are godly values, but cathecism teaches of the principle of the Ecclesiastes, meaning all humans are brothers and sisters. In that sense, I tend to reject christian nationalism because I don't see as a maximal goal to have a nation for christians in the world, I want the whole world to be christian Would love to hear from y'all and get some clarification on the matter, as I could very well been wrong on my pre conception of christian nationalism. In any ways, I will be praying for you Americans and for all the nations that are currently under the tyrannic thumb of that Satan called secular liberalism
I'm not sure "Christian Natioalism" has ever existed, except in maybe Madieval Byzantine or the Papal States? From what I have heard from Apologia Church, it's basically Theonomy, which would result in a society like a theocracy whereby the Law of Moses gets legislated into civil and criminal law. That means doing things like applying the death penalty to homosexuality or to lying about your virgin status to your betrothed. It's just looks embarrassing at best and Medieval at worst. I don't believe it's well defined and can/could easily turn into oppression and if a Christian leader can enforce Christian morals on Muslims... why couldn't a Muslim leader enforce Islamic ideals on Christians (and I don't want that)... So, secularism is bad, but far better.
Well, allow me to answer some of your points. -If biblical laws sound embarrassing or medieval to someone, that's the person's fault, not the fault of God-given Scripture; -No, Christian nationalism does not involve the application of Mosaic judicial law. Stephen Wolfe himself writes: *The civil law of the Mosaic law did not in itself foreshadow Christ and so did not undergo a change as to their righteousness-they are, in other words, not deadly. But they are dead; they are "no longer living in such a way as to obligate," says Junius. He continues, speaking of civil law in general:"In circumstances it undergoes as many changes as possible, and varies according to time, place, person, deeds, modes, causes, and supports-in the past, the present, or the future-as well as in public and private matters."35 In other words, whether any civil law is good depends on circumstances, which requires the discernment and prudence of man. Calvin writes, "[E]ach nation has been left at liberty to enact the laws which it judges as beneficial." Nothing about this disparages the Mosaic law-a law of God. It is a perfect example of law. But it is not a universal body of law.* The Case for Christian Nationalism, page 248 So this claim is innocuous. -Your question is, if the Christian can impose his morals on the Muslim, what would stop the Muslim from doing the same? I say nothing, and that's what already happens, preaching the gospel is curtailed in Islamic countries. And no, it's not a "secular state" problem - a Muslim can't take four wives in the US, because it violates, guess what, the morals of the US state. And no, the CN does not imply or preach coercion. Wolfe already clarified this when he wrote *"Religious belief was a matter of persuasion, not coercion, even after baptism and church membership. this is why church ministers, armed with the Word, were always first to attempt the reformation of erring minds and hearts, and civil authorities would step in only if they remained publicly obstinate and a disruption to the ordinary life of the community. The 1649 Platform of Church Discipline, written in part by New England minister John Cotton, states that "[the] objects of the power of the magistrate are not things merely inward, and so not subject to his cognizance and views: as unbelief, hardness of heart, erroneous opinions not vented, but only such things as are acted by the outward man." Cotton denied that magistrates can "compel their subjects to become churchmembers."They can restrain all outward "idolatry, blasphemy, [and] heresy," for these ordinarily disturb "the peaceable administration and exercise of the worship and holy things of God."* As for whether there has ever been Christian nationalism apart from the examples you cited, we could list the English Anglican Establishment that reigned from 1558 until 1828 (J.C.D. Clark's book "English Society, 1688-1832: Ideology, Social Structure, and Political Practice During the Ancien Regime" details this very well) or the Christianity of Prussia in the 17th century until the 20th century. Or the any christian monarchy until WW1. Or even the entire pre-French Revolution social order.
@@gabrielferreira1531 The embarrassment isn't about who wrote what. The embarrassment is about the severity of the punishment. The death penalty for lying about being a virgin or for a homosexual act. You might suppose that there will be a distinct separation between establishing Christian Nationalism and imposing the Law of Moses. Yet, right now, Apologia Church is trying to legislate for incarcerating women for having an abortion and they base this mainly on the Law of Moses. They support Christian Nationalism, they are kind of the same thing. So, I think that Stephen Wolfe's assessment of Christian Nationalism, even after his research, is deficient. "Your question is, if the Christian can impose his morals on the Muslim, what would stop the Muslim from doing the same? I say nothing," That is only true if secularism is abandoned. I live in a secular state and there are laws that limit my Muslim neighbours from breaking the crosses on my church, no matter how fundamentalist crazy those Muslim neighbours might be. It doesn't matter what they imagine Allah says to them through their book. If they damage property, they get fined (not the death penalty). I am interested in your final paragraph. I don't rate books as somehow intrinsically more objective than any other media. Of course, some media platforms are more academic than others, I grant you that, yet academia is arbitrarily often rejected by those who do claim to rate academic sources above non-academic sources (e.g. the academic work of Bart Ehrman). So, I just don't get intimidated by people who want to scream.. 'he's not academic'..ummm, take a look in the mirror. I haven't come across any UA-cam channels that have bothered to try to prove Medieval Europe (or even up until WW1) was full of Christian Nationalistic type of nations. I suspect that if I drilled into the specific examples provided I would find evidence to demonstrate that they probably were not Christian Nationalism. One of the major difficulties for Christian Nationalism is about how Christianity relates to the Law of Moses and what obligations Christians have to implement the Law of Moses. That is an unsettled contention within Christianity - I mean within the Episcopacy, within the Fellowship.
@@HJEvan Why this insistence on Apologia church? If it has these standards, it is their activity. Furthermore, if we believe that abortion is murder, nothing could be fairer than punishing women who kill their foetuses On the question of the laws of Moises, and I've already explained the question, and if you want to read more, read Question 34 of Turrentin's institutes of elenctic theology, he gives a good overview of civil government and its relationship with the church.
@@gabrielferreira1531 The only reason for raising Apologia Church is because tangible circumstances prove the reality of an abstract idea. The abstract idea is, 'Christian Nationalism'.. what is 'Christian Nationalism' in reality though? What does it look like when implemented? A book can't demonstrate that, only the reality of it can demonstrate that. Okay, in my opinion (and I kind of admit that my comments are always an opinion to lesser or greater degree), Christian Nationalism can't exist, at all, without legislating some form of Mosaic Law, because there's no other civil law in the whole of Christian religious sources. Nations are built on civil/criminal law. Jesus didn't build a nation state and so didn't make civil law. Moses did that. Jesus didn't do that. So, the only kind of Christian Nation that could be a Christian Nation, would have to appeal heavily to the Law of Moses. Apologia Church are my first example because I don't find, can't find, other Christians today, trying to make national laws/ civil laws. I see Christians at protests and stuff, but I only see Apologia Church getting involved with state legislation. I think that would necessarily have to be the starting point for any Christian Nationalism. How else do these morals get to be forced on the whole population? How else do Christian morals 'form the 'fabric' of a nation? "if we believe that abortion is murder, nothing could be fairer than punishing women who kill their foetuses".. I think that's a fair comment. I was trying to use that example only to demonstrate that Christian Nationalism is going to bring with it legislating of the Law of Moses and it's happening now (or it's trying to happen now). The fear is not just that people will get punished. The fear is that religious leaders will be able to legislate. That is a fear because, since nations these days try to be objective.. If Jeff Durbin, a Christian pastor, can provide legislation based only on his religious sources, that sets a precedence for other religious leaders from other religions to present their legislation... Now, if I want to be objective, I have to permit that... Yet, I just don't want to invite the opportunity for Imams to establish elements of Sharia on the whole of the population of any given state. If that means I forego the opportunity to force Christian morals, so be it. Anyway, the good thing about Christian morals is they are intrinsically good which means that anyone can implement them without needing them to be legislated. I can chose to not have an abortion, irrespective of whether or not an abortion is illegal.
@@HJEvan Christians are not obliged to follow the Laws of Moses. Rather its fulffiled by Christ and therefore no longer should we need to follow it. This is also continue in the writings of Paul where he say thay the Law is cursed, idk why he said that but he definitely thinks we shouldn't practice the Law of Moses. Anyway, what we christians should do is to make laws that are christians based and divinely inspired from scripture or tradition. Like in Matthew 16 where Jesus gives the Keys to Peter to bind and loose Laws to heaven and earth. This is the law that is given by Jesus to us. We can make any laws so long its consistent with the religion
I find it suspect that you condem a stance for being a modern and enlightenment origined viewpoint while also donning a modern and enlightenment coined term: Nationalism.
Well by your own admission you are conflating a position with a term. Sure, nationalism is a modern term, but what it denotes (as described in Wolfe's book) is essentially timeless. He doesn't rely on Enlightenment nationalist emphases like independence from monarchies. By contrast, IP's position is undeniably modern.
Okay, so why use the term "Nationalism" at all? Why not make a new term that means what you want it to mean, rather than this modernist term that has all sorts of baggage associated with it?
@@jimnicholas7334 because the term does not carry all the same enlightenment baggage today. Plenty of self-described nationalists (myself included) are pro-monarchy and even pro-empire. It's come to be a catch all for a belief in the good of national preservation, and this is easily supplemented by Christian ethics
You keep smuggling in this “Default Natural Good” into your argument, implying that anything like that is afforded by Christianity. You hear your opponent’s biblical arguments, then you scrunch your face like Tucker, and say “But what about Muh self interest!? If ‘anyone’ wants to take my shirt, do you expect me to just give it to him, along with my coat?? Do you also expect me to go an extra mile for anyone who asks me to walk a mile with them, for free!? Do you expect me to actually “love”my “enemies” in the only way that makes sense of the word love: to actually, guilelessly _like them as equal images of God to myself, and siblings under God?”_
@@jermoosekek1101 Did Jesus ever say that Nationalism is the best way people are to love God and their neighbor? God never even said a monarchy was the best way for the ancient Jews to love God and neighbor. In fact, in *1 Samuel **8:10**-22* God specifically reiterates his Deuteronomical warning against having a King, and only groaningly allows the Israelites to set up a king. But God saw this as a reduction in Love for God and man, and even as a choice to have a man as King who materially abuses the citizens in various ways, instead of God being the sole Lord of all. If you set up a hierarchy of leaders to represent Jesus, they will inevitably distract from him.
"I don’t want my race to go extinct" Just become Eastern European Slav and you will be fine, convert from Anglo-Saxonism and your white race will be fine
Go and marry a white woman and have white children. There's no problem with that. But all are one in Christ. Excluding races is contradictory to the Bible and the Gospel.
Anti-Christian is only to tell christian official in goverment that they must being in sin and in denial of faith by refusing to live by Christian live in their work and only at their private life - it's against Scripture, logic, reason and clearly it's a tool of the enemy. Repent. Christians always was right about this, novelity destoryed nations.
43:55 Did Jesus ever command you “recognize and preserve your national peoples” and to rule over anybody? Or did Jesus command you to love one another and to exalt yourself through humility and meekness? What does Jesus care about the narcissist from 4 Billion years ago during the Earth’s cooling phase who made up your nation’s name, and it’s stupid, ancient, pre-Christian cult, whose remnants constitute your distinctive nation’s cultural signifiers? Plenty of nations have come and gone, merged and split, since Jesus came. The name you give a piece of land, or your version of the look of your favorite region of climatological human evolution, has nothing to do with what Jesus commanded and came to do. All of that is just your own god-independent passion, and it leads to justification for overt sins throughout history, which violent hypocrisy gradually led to the abandonment of Christianity in favor of sober Humanism.
![attacking ideas | my changing view of Islam [cc]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X9rTbh4a57o/mqdefault.jpg)
Some recommended reading:
The Case for Christian Nationalism (Dr. Stephen Wolfe)
Who Is My Neighbor? An Anthology In Natural Relations
Apology of the Church of England (John Jewel) - NOTE: Chapter 6 most relevant, on the role of the state in public religion.
www.anglican.net/works/john-jewel-apology-answer-defence-church-of-england/
The Alliance Between Church and State (William Warburton)
www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_alliance_between_church_and_state/G6NdJrMICAIC?hl=en&gbpv=1
Of the Power Communicated by God to the Prince (Abp. James Ussher)
archive.org/details/wholeworksofmost11ussh/page/254/mode/2up
The works of the fathers with respect to the role of the emperor in the faith and the acts/minutes of the major councils (too many to list); all display an assumption of public religion being a state concern.
Ever Christian Nationalist should read “for my legionnaires”, by Corneliu Cordeanu.
For the Platinists out there, “Republic” is a good case for a benevolent and honorable authority vs the democracy of the mob. Many Parrales can be made between Christ and Plato’s “nobel myth.”
If I understand you correctly, if there was some sort of civil religion that supported Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics you would see it as better then but would prefer Anglican state church. Would you prefer Protestant state religion, where only Protestants are state supported? Trinitarian? Does the state have to support modernist churches and Roman Catholics? So first table and second table, or just the second table? As a Baptist, I would say second table only. 2) I would point out many of the best examples had the state being the nursing mother to a specific, official, denomination. 3) should we expect an Anglican state religion in Australia? 4) does this require monarchy?
And yes please make a syllogism
Imagine how Strong Christianity would be if Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodoxy all stopped fighting with each other and started focusing on reversing the secularization of society.
I don't understand why no one has commented on this but I'll be the first. The Orthodox and Catholics have a false gospel and thus they are not Christians. When we preach we preach to them as well. Christians should not lock arms with people who don't believe. Also when we speak like this we are relying on the arm of the flesh and not on God. When the Lord desires to cause revival and change He will do so with the true gospel of His Son Jesus Christ. Christianity is strong because God is behind it, we don't make it strong at all. So dear brother, stop thinking this way. I know its popular but it's not helpful whatsoever and interferes with Evangelising. I've engaged with Catholics and Orthodox and when I call them to repent they are appalled because so many Protestants think they are saved because they hold to central tenants of the faith. Let's care about the souls of men more than perceived strength by joining larger groups in spreading Christianity because they won't spread Christianity but rather a form of godliness which will lead them to hell.
The difficulty in refuting Michael Jones is not that he is logical in his argumentation, he needs not to be logical, because he is doing narrative, not analysis. The "look, we're not like these fanatics, we're cool Christians" narrative, which was created precisely so that Christianity would be "respectable" in the eyes of the world.
Another thing is that Jones' biblicism is a pair of scissors, made to discard any opinion that is inconvenient to the Bible in the modern world as "scholastic interpretation", "Constantinian inheritance" or "projection of cultural patterns into Scripture", forgetting that he himself projects cultural patterns into Scripture in several of his videos, i.e. his Anabaptist view of the Old Testament (basically making OT in irrelevant in morals) and his Whig view of history (in the most vulgar conception of Whig history), both hallmarks of the modern United States mentality, absent from any theologian who has spoken about the state and its role.
If we think about it, Jones, in combating the supposed American exceptionalism of Christian nationalists, is himself affirming another kind of American exceptionalism, that the values of 1776 are self-evident and good for all peoples and times without exception. Basically, Jones is a political syncretist, who thinks that the spirituality of the church requires Christians to live as atheists six out of seven days a week, when it comes to government
Makes sense due to the fact that he believes in macro evolution. And his crisis of faith years ago was due to him not being able to reconcile modern science with scripture. His “solution” was to take an allegorical approach to Genesis and fit in modern “science” in places where the Bible contradicts what “scientists” say is true. Unfortunately, scripture is secondary to him when it comes to the theories of the enlightenment age.
i find christian commentators like jones (and also conservative pundits) difficult to take seriously, because while they all generally confess to being Christian, because of their American background, they have this revulsion/combativeness towards monarchy and/or approval for democracy/republicanism which does NOT comport with Christian eschatology, given that jesus will return and establish his theocratic kingdom on earth. in addition to no more tears and death, there will also be no voting, and one unelected head of state for all time.
yet supposedly a pluralistic democracy is what god had in mind from the beginning????? help it make sense!
True, Anabaptist view on Civil Secularism is cringe. Because they are the same people who condemns Constantine the Great turning Christianity into a state religion. Its like they never read the bible and think that Jesus is a pacifist or a hippy. Matthew 10:34-36, Luke 12:49-56
The descriptions of Christian nationalism that IP uses remind me a lot of Antonio Gramsci’s description of fascism. Gramsci essentially argued that fascism couldn’t be defined by any set of clear political doctrines (despite the fact that the founding philosophers of fascism did exactly that), but rather that fascism was defined by a set of tendencies and a general disposition or mood. This is why so many leftists accuse anyone to the right of them of being fascists. I suspect that the sociologists who wrote on Christian nationalism were influenced by Gramsci’s ideas.
Very astute observation.
Funniest part was by his own definition pretty much any democracy was fascism.
Been waiting for this, amazing work brother Paul!
If Christian values are not protected and Christian laws are not promoted then another will take it's place.
"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." Revelation 11:5
Christ is King of the heavens and earth
We’re so back kings
Bruh, I haven't even watched it yet, but this is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO racist because reasons.
When inspiringphilosophy is talking about christian nationalism it seems to be more directed at the nick fuenetes christian nationalism. That seeks to create ethnostates, enforce everyone to be christian, remove non christians and basically put all the women back in the kitchen. Like the definition Stephen Wolfe is working from does not seem to be the one nick fuenetes is. And unfortunately when anyone in this culture hears christian nationalism they immediately picture nick not stephen. Inspiringphilosophy also did a live that was directed towards nick which kinda proves this point that thats the kind of christian nationalism he is opposing.
Very fair
Dude we are so back
We so are
Blessed be the name of the Emperor. Who is Jesus Christ.
I've begun reading the Bible cover to cover again at the beginning of this year and I've found maybe one or two very very vague possible arguments against Christian Nationalism but I have picked up on tons of arguments for it. I genuinely believe the plainest reading of scripture abundantly supports Christian Nationalism
In our witness and preaching of the gospel we don't limit ourselfe to any extent and stop when it comes to affecting society and state. If we personally preach to someone that abortion is unaceptable, we likewise must take this same message to state when we engage with it's officials; it would be immoral hipocrisy for christians to engage in deception towards officials of country and goverment by saying to them that they should - against their own counciens - to not seek and follow Christ on their level of governing the state. We cannot put a border to message of obidience in society that is affected by the gospel; every christian who is state official is bound to follow same Christ, same Messiah in his life lke all the rest of us, and he must strive to follow Him in his home and in his own job at goverment, and this inevitably lead christians in goverment to christianisation of it. And christians in goverment, cannot being hipocryte when it comes to law that they are ressposible for; by necessity of just who we are as christians, everything what we do, everywhere where we have impoact, in school, in goverment, in bisnes, we all must by necessity transforming our zone of impact in way that is in accordance to our faith.
Anti-christian nationalism claim that we must be hipocrites and we must life as christians only partially in our personal life at home but then violates our own morals at our place of authority and work, is evil and wrong. What is right, is to do what Scripture is telling - to teach nations everything that Lord Jesus Christ want, and thus impacting our goverments, and preserving what is right and true.
I think there’s a lot of christians beginning to wake up to issues of Christian Nationalism, Theonomy and Postmillennialism.
Nationalism does not contradict the Bible and it's even common sense to keep out groups of people that hold to anti-Biblical or un-Biblical religions and ideologies (Islam, Hinduism, other far east religions, communists, etc). Distinctions need to be made amongst races, cultures, religions and ideologies when it comes to nation states and policy making. Only in the Church are there no distinctions.
One other thing about with the way MJ and other critics of Christian nationalism talk about it, they seem to forget much of American history. They act as if America was always this secular cesspool, when in reality, throughout American history until the 1960s, Christianity was the dominant religion and it was expressed in both public and private institutions including schools, courts, etc. Prayer was practiced in many functions and schools would teach Christian values. In 1778, South Carolina had Protestant Christianity as their state religion in their state constitution. People like MJ ignorantly believe that a secular society is better than a religious one because it's more "free", but what use is freedom when you lose everything that once build the concord of your nation? Religion is inherently tied to politics through human nature and ethics. Both religion and politics relate to these subjects. You can't separate religion from politics without increasing atheism and secularism, i.e. sinfulness.
I just found your channel and I am loving it! That intro was absolutely legendary! Christus ist für immer König!
Huge thanks king :D
Fantastic job, Paul! This was some hilarious editing
Highly, highly recommend Corneliu Codreanu’s works, specifically “For my Legionnaires”, *THE* standard for Christian nationalist philosophy
Great video as always Paul
Another W for my favourite protestant
Based based based ✝️✝️✝️
20:44 While IP's theological arguments may not be airtight, an implicit bias you fail to address in this video is IP's perspective as a US American. America was founded largely by protestant groups. Even though early colonists were largely Christian, they were from a variety of denominations. The United states founding documents are designed to allow laws and rules to be changed according to the greater cultural zietigiest while not outright encroaching on any one groups rights. The main purpose of the Constitution was to be a living document dictated by the citizens, unlike the static guidelines of the bible that ruled Europe at the time. Christian Nationalism is antithetical to the spirit of the US's founding principles, and this is why Michael argues vehemently against the proliferation of the ideology *in the United States*.
He never outright asserts that Europe should disregard its Christian cultural heritage. He mainly refutes American radicals that insist we return to a fictional, oppressive status quo where white protestant men are on top. Although you cite many theological arguments, you never really analyze his position in context. There is in fact a genuine historical arguement for the UK to return to its Anglican roots, but the proposition of transforming the USA into some Anglican utopic ethnostate is laughable.
Absolutely fantastic work. Very enjoyable watch
One thing I have about MJ's video was that he made a video about why he supports post-millennialism and how we should convert everyone in the world to Christianity. I'm not a postmillennialist, and as far as politics go I am a Christian Executive Monarchist, but if Micheal already supports post-millennialism, why not support Christian Nationalism? Espeically when that is literally the outcome one has to aspire to gain once accepting post-millennialism?
I don't think this is a theological debate so much as a political one. They embrace post-war liberalism which views democracy as both biblical and ideal despite history/Scripture proving otherwise. They view National identity as automatically Mustache Man, while ignoring the real causes of WW2. They fail to acknowledge that Nationalism is the inherent enemy of Communism/Globalism.
Are there any Anti-CN's who acknowledge the Great Replacement across the West/Anglosphere which specifically targets peoples of European descent? This I believe is a key objection to CN. It is also the greatest threat facing the West/America today.
Are you going to review the recent Horn vs White debate? Also great video, God bless ❤
Thank you! And yes, I am about to schedule it.
I can define this video in one word. Based.
Personally I think they made a big mistake when they didn’t make the Anglican and Catholic Churches state religions in Australia.
I’m a Christian (Wagner) Nationalist
I probably don't fully agree with either side but the intro is a masterpiece Paul. Quality memes.
32:22 The interesting thing here is that IP seems to agree that when Christian's have political power and cultural influence that we have not only the right but responsibility to use that agency in ways commensurate with living out the Gospel. Which if I understand it correctly is what Christian Nationalists are formally advocating for, even though I suspect I disagree with the extent of Wolfe's application, for example. Notably I disagree with Paul that nations are 'as natural as the nuclear family'.
SO I do think the issue here, as Paul addresses, is that Mike's using a sociological definition which seems to lump in ethnofascists and broader Nationalist groups that prescribe to either a nominal view of Christian values not grounded in sincere belief or are merely Christless Conservatives who are making a mere historical claim about how they define 'the West'.
So based Paul
HE IS BACK!!!
I agree, he makes no strong arguments. Very much like the guys at G3. Their foundational belief on separation of church and state is emotional, not rational or Biblical.
And now also what that ever-busy Satan is for the same intent continually attempting, what devices he purposes, what treacheries he studies, what weapons he prepares, what wars he brosches against Godly princes and magistrates who desire to have this heavenly light to shine in their dominions and labor to spread the same far and wide into the whole world, the Lord Himself knows, who dwells in the heavens, who also is wont to scatter the wicked counsels of the ungodly & to disperse them as vain smokes through His incredible love and mercy towards us when it is most expedient for His church and when tyrants do look for nothing less than a disappointment of their intents which they so long and watchfully provided for.
-Girolamo Zanchi, Confession of the Christian Religion, Dedicatory Epistle, pg. 1-2
Amazing
I cant help but feel that the soyjak remark was.. Intentional....
IP's physiognomy is quite telling. Just gonna leave this out there
It wasn't based on observed physiognomy; purely the nature of his views.
@@TheOtherPaul well thats disappointing
can we get a gofundme for pinesap so he doesn't have to wear cargo shorts to AFPAC
This was a very good analysis and response to the sort of anti Christian nationalist argument put forth by Inspiring Philosophy. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels their way of thinking is fundamentally flawed and lacks reason and justification. Keep up the great work! Also, looking forward to your spicy takes mentioned in the video.
Well done, Paul!
This video has given me a lot to think about.
It is also nice to see that you point out strongly that "Christian nationalist" is not the same as "Christian National Socialist" (which is quite common and they often just call themselves Christian Nationalists.)
I am not a Christian Nationalist myself, but if I were to argue against Christian Nationalism as you have presented in this video, my only argument would be: read the Old Testament. And that's not an argument. Which parts? (Obviously the books of Kingdoms, 1 Sam through 2 Chr.). And that still isn't even an argument against Christian Nationalism as you have presented it, it is just a check on it to ensure that we do not confuse authoritarianism with transforming the heart of the people. If the Holy Spirit transforms the heart of the people, they will vote Christian and for Christian interests thus resulting in something not dissimilar to what you have argued for here.
And so, my only argument that I can offer of substance is another argument altogether: humans are fallible. So while we can strive to be denominationally neutral[^1], as the hearts of the people sway this way or that, so too will their biases. One heart shall become Unitarian Universalist, another shall burn all who prefer green carpet to red, and another shall ban non-abortive contraceptives, and another shall forbid the death penalty. The end would be that the political sphere would look exactly like the religious sphere. But if all the people shall convert, that is inevitable, and the end would be Christian Nationalism by fiat, now wouldn't it.
[^1]: I am personally anti-ecumenicalism -- I think it is a dangerous distraction from the gospel that tends toward denying differences, where Mere Christianity is better than ecumenicalism.
what do you think of anglican aesthetics "refutation" of CN?
First part of four so Ill be waiting til he's done before I make any response. He's consciously trying to put forward a meaningful case and avoid the crap argumentation and strawmanning of others, which is very good and I think he has succeeded so far. Nonetheless, the evidence in his first part is based on very incorrect exegesis imo
One thing that I thought about between IPs arguments and yours is that of federally recognized holidays.
If a state is meant to be secular, then it can not unfairly decide what holidays it observe. Things like the 4th of July for America could be a secular holiday, but Easter and Christmas are explicitly not secular (even if made so by modern society). So should a secular state keep those days? Or should it be required to keep all relgions holidays? Christianity has been paramount to American history and culture, even in terms of the government. So where is the line drawn between a Christian state and not? Heck, even in a democratic system, if the majority of the population is Christian, wouldn't the laws be naturally representative of those ethics? Is a state secular anymore?
Honestly, a truly secular state wouldnt use the Gregorian calendar, but rather followed in the footsteps of the french revolution.
Even "secular" holidays are actually religious by definition, since they serve the same purpose of honouring the national cultus (e.g. MLK Day as a reinforcement of the national religion of civil rights and its quasi-prophets)
@@TheOtherPaul I noticed that too. The simple fact we call them "holidays" are relgious in nature, "holy days" and all. The idols have changed but we still have idols, so to does the relgion change but relgion remains even in denial of it.
Secularism really is just another relgion, isnt it?
Michael unwittingly presupposes political liberalism yet one of America’s founding fathers, John Adams talked about their constitution being made for ‘a moral and religious people’ not some generic valueless human being.
I was said this privately but I’ll share muh comment.
To be completely honest, Inspiring Philosophy assumes many arguments that do not align his points or claims.
And failing to realise this mistake through his own moral superiority.
He’s trying very hard to make Christo-nationalism and Christo-fascism sound the same when clearly they’re not. By fact and definition.
The video was made very well. Definitely worth the wait 👍
Really clear and logical video! God bless.
Sorry for the unrelated question. Have you read any material by the English Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan late Kallistos Ware?
Just starting this, very excited
Excellent video brother! The anti-CNs never stood a chance. Only a matter of time before we get a based (Baptist😎) Christian prince here in the states. Btw, any recommendations on where to get the Who Is My Neighbor book? Looked on Amazon, archives, bookfinder and can't get it anywhere. Would like to get a physical or pdf copy.
We don't need a Christian prince...everyone has their own vision for a Christian state..
Nah he’ll be Methodist
@@Weavileiscoolbased Methodists? I’d love to see that.
@@matrixlonenah there is a lot of common ground among CN of different denominations.
@@arminius504 I did make a video on American covenantalism....as the Christian consciousness of the country
Awesome work. Overall, it comes down to the modern evangelical rejection of historical two kingdom theology and natural law. They strawman because they are ignorant of those categories.
Jones (IP) is a Roman Catholic btw
Based intro
Great video Paul! I really think it’s needed in this day and age, have you considered reading Theonomy and Christian ethics by Greg Bahnsen? I think it brings important exegetical and hermeneutical principles out regarding this topic.
I havent, tho I considered myself a Theonomist for a while (chiefly by reading Rushdoony). I wouldnt anymore given my different perspective on the precise role of the Torah and my greater emphasis on historic tradition and natural law.
@@TheOtherPaulis this different from 'general equity' theonomy?
Good work. Thanks for posting!
jesus is retarded. u dont need him for these values
Christ is King!
That intro goes hard! Can’t wait to watch!
Excellent arguments responding to the “look only to the heavenly means” straw man arguments around the 20 minute time stamp.
Are you going to start putting your videos/streams on Spotify again? Love your stuff man!
Thank you very much king :D and I do intend to, it's just a lot of frustrating work to do for each stream. I'm exploring how to automate the process
Good to hear man!! Keep up the good work.
At 40:42 i was wearing headphones and nearly had a heart attack
What do you think about Fr Daniel Sysoev saying "Nationalism and patriotism are incompatible with the Orthodox Christian faith"?
Couldn't say, but ethno-centrism seems the norm around Eastern churches.
@@TheOtherPaulphyletism is certainly a problem in eastern Churches, but it is nonetheless a heresy
@@TheOtherPaulThis is not true, eastern churches are ethno centric in their rite but internationalistic in faith. You can still have pray in Romanian Orthodox church as a Greek
I think people who say that was the Old Testament seem to like to accuse anybody of being pharisaical. Which to be fair I understand that a lot of people who do attempt to make works a requirement of salvation. However, I am somebody who thinks that while grace is free and you cannot earn it, that it also means if somebody is persuaded to abide by the law they can. I think obeying the law is not good if somebody is ignorant about the law and why we follow the law. Perhaps this is a poor way of putting it, but like scripture puts it, the law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. We are either bound to sin and the lusts thereof or bound to the righteousness of Christ. One is more freeing than the other. Freeing you from sin or requiring rituals to pay for sin. Jesus Christ is our mediator to God. I would say the law is there to help us recognize why we need Jesus Christ in the first place. We want to continue in the spirit so that the law is something no longer needed because it would be natural for us to walk in the spirit. However, most important thing to recognize is the law cannot justify a person. Only God can justify a person. I do realize somebody cannot just be born into Christianity and even raised in it. It does appear that people are born into it seem to end up rejecting Christianity as a whole. Or I should say they don't recognize who the savior is in the first place. Many may do the practice, but forget the meaning behind all of it. I think we are not in the Old Testament and we are not required of anything to be saved. Jesus Christ is the one that saves. However, I do think the natural inclination of somebody saved by Christ would want to appease him. Granted I recognize this is a fallen world and it is a constant process of refining, but I think it is possible to strive for perfection on this world as it is in heaven. Some times it is easy to assume that it is beyond our reach as a world or a nation, but like it says in Romans 8:22-23 "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."
The intro! 🤣 Most based ever!!
Don't you feel a little silly as an Anglican unironically calling for your tradition to be the dominant one in a Christian society? You guys had that and how well did that work out? At least Tucker Carlson is a self-aware Anglican who gave a speech right before getting fired by Fox News where he repeatedly mocked Anglicans for not even being Christian anymore! Before you take over the world for Anglicanism perhaps you should focus on making Anglicanism Christian again?
I express a simple ultimate desire; where on earth does that entail my not paying attention to the actual problems in the communion today? Have you even watched any of my content on Anglicanism/the communion or seen my Twitter wall? That is a #1 concern of mine; I'm not an idiot. And none of that entails that I cannot have a wish for Anglicanism to rise again and achieve cultural dominance; these are such easily distinguished matters.
So no, I don't feel silly for that comment, but you should for yours.
Bro, My Imperial fists?! :0
Everybody Gangsta till the church start walking!
Great video
In the first ten minutes you argue that his definition of Christian Nationalism is wrong because he defines it based on the actions of Christian Nationalists instead of what they say. Isn’t that anti intellectualism?
Or it is true
I love your normal intro…but considering the subject….that intro nearly had me yelling Deus Vult!!
I know you've made a short video on this subject before, but could you make an in-depth video responding to miracle claims by Roman Catholics? Arguing against doctrinal claims is easier because it's based on Biblical exegesis and Church Fathers, but I don't know how to respond to many miracle claims.
There are 3 kinds that stump me the most. 1) Eucharistic miracles. I believe God could certainly do them, but why do they only seem to happen in the Roman Church? Wouldn't we expect to see them in all kinds of churches? It kind of supports their claim of being "the One True Church." 2) Certain Marian apparitions. For example, our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico. rootofjesse2.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/miraculous-image-of-our-lady-of-guadalupe/ The claims about her image on the Tilma are absolutely wild and supernatural if they're true. Not to mention the claims about the tens of millions of people that converted to Roman Catholocism because of this, and the claim of a Native who accidentally got shot by an arrow and was raised back to life after everyone prayed to Mary for him. I know you could just say it's demonic, but it's hard to believe that when it caused the conversion of so many people from paganism to Romanism. 3) Personal testimonies of miraculous healing (or other miracles) after praying to specific saints. My friend knew someone whose sister had cancer. This woman with cancer did a specific devotion to Padre Pio during adoration, and she inexplicably smelled roses. When she went into her next checkup, her cancer was miraculously gone. And apparently the scent of roses is a common thing when people's intercessions to Padre Pio get answered. I know that God could grant their prayers even if they're wrongly directed, but why would he do the whole scent of roses thing and deceive them into thinking their intercessions to saints are effective and good if they're not? I can't believe that all these people are just lying, so what is the explanation?
Ive seen material and claims about Eucharistic miracles tho not deep enough to make content; maybe in the distant future. For now Id recommend messaging Fr. James (Barely Protestant on UA-cam) who knows of alleged eucharistic miracles outside of Rome. I even just spoke to an Anglo-Cath friend who attests to having experienced one with a wafer in his own hand. Id also likewise not just assume that all miracles are from God; biblically, we know this is not the case.
I was literally just talking with my boss that I have no clue what a Christian nationalist is
Pick up Wolfe's "The Case for Christian Nationalism" to find out :D
@@TheOtherPaul already ordered it, papi paul
This was the absolute worst video I’ve ever seen on trying to debunk InspiringPhilosophy.
Prove my case wrong then.
Why not the Theonomy held by Bahnsen?
Hey Paul I noticed you answer comments often. I respect your takes. I am from a baptist background. Moved to a reformed backroundish. I find myself with the Eastern Orthodox tradition for the past couple months. Do you believe orthodox christians are under the grace of Christ. Im struggling right now because I love Orthodoxy and love the Liturgy. I am not well read on patristics and I an trying to become educated on the subject. I find the arguements for Orthodoxy strong but Icons I struggle with and the strong veneration towards them. If you could offer your take or have a video to point me to. I am trying to follow the historic faith. God bless.
Well it’s been a month, I don’t know if you have converted to EO, but if not
I highly recommend you going Lutheran, you can start by reading the Book of Conord, our doctrines are much in line with the Patristics we also value tradition and we have inherited the Tridentine Mass.
Also check out a book called “Disillusioned” written by a former EO priest named Joshua Schooping who recently converted to Lutheranism. Hope this helps
@@ministeriosemmanuel638Submit to the guy who gave up his monastic vows for the 16 century version of “prostate cancer bro”? Yeah no. Orthodoxy is truth. Glory to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church☦️
We should submit to Rome and I should become the new Holy Roman Emperor. That would be epic I think.
5:40 are you still friendly with Mr Corey Mahler? Little reactions like this are concerning when you were previously in touch with someone who treats Hitler like the greatest "Christian" ever.
Yes, I occassionally have interactions with him, I'm open about that. I'm also friends with atheists, whose sins are actually damnable, unlike having a taboo historical opinion about a hated figure.
Although I tend to lean more to Eastern Orthodox I'll just write this
Glory to Jesus Christ our risen king✝️☦️💪
what do you mean by IP being a biblicist? afaik he isn't a baptist. he mentioned how he goes to an orthodox church (sometimes?). or isn't protestant. afaik biblicism is a kind of argumentation employed by protestants typically baptists/low church evangelicals. then again its not clear to me what exactly biblicism entails.
Wherever he does attend (which as far as Im aware is an unspecified high prot church) his argumentation in these videos is biblicist, as seen in how he makes arguments like "Jesus doesnt command us to do X," which is very typical of biblicism and ignores truths/obligations of scripture that arent explicit but arise by good and necessary consequence.
ive noticed this kind of argumentation in even scholarly works and commentaries.
for instance in matt 1:25, dr blomberg writes that "until" here strongly suggests (but does not prove) that joseph had marital relations with joseph after jesus' birth. blomberg doesn't explain why this ought to be the case, or what the application ought to be if his assertion is true (that the Blessed Virgin was well no longer a virgin).
similarly in matt 23:8-10 many commentators state (but do not argue or prove), that jesus is against titles in the church, and that he has an egalitarian vision for the church. blomberg goes further and suggests that while such titles arent forbidden, they should be abolished since they stand in the way (to paraphrase) of Jesus' egalitarian vision. none of this comes from a close reading of the text, nor is reasoned out well, nor are the church fathers referenced etc.
they just state it as if its obvious what the scripture is saying.
@@TheOtherPaul
What do you think of anarcho capitalism? That’s my position and I think there are rights but we make conceive them differently
Defs not a fan; it's an impossible ideal. As General Shepherd said, "Boundaries shift, new players step in, but power always finds a place to rest its head."
Inquisitor Paulus of his majesty our Lord and God's most holy inquisition.
Why did he block you
I was a bit cheeky in a tweet
#readrushdoony
It’s been a long time since I’ve been able to post that 😂
Seeing the parody you made of that WH40k trailer really made me think how delusional the folks who call it "satire" are. Where is the mockery there? All I see is an epic army of humans and their machines marching against their extinction.
Yeah, an empire which feeds its citizens human corpses isn't satire. /s
Often the loyal servants of the Emperor end up in conflict with each other over disagreements about what the Emperor's vision for humanity was. For instance, during the Months of Shame the Grey Knights and the Space Wolves would come to blows over whether it's appropriate to mass execute loyal troops of the Imperium who had been exposed to daemons when defending Armageddon against a Chaos invasion, lead by the Daemon-Prince Angron.
Also the many parts of the Imperium hate each other, and only tolerate each other's existence due to mutual benefit. For instance, the Adeptus Mechanicus and the Adeptus Ministorum consider each other borderline heretics, and the Ordos Hereticus would likely mass execute the Navis Nobilite for being mutants were the Navis Nobilite not absolutely vital for interstellar travel.
Also there's the Imperial Guardsman's Uplifting Primer, a book which all Imperial Guard must have on them at all times, otherwise they could be shot by the regimental commissar. This is despite the fact that many Imperial Guard cannot read. It also must be noted that the Imperial Guardsman's Uplifting Primer, while it does contain some useful information, also contains some outrageous lies, such as it says that orks are "considerably weaker than the average man". In fact orks are very strong.
The human empire in WH40K is the Imperium of Man. The state religion of the Imperium of Man is known as the Imperium Cult, which is the worship of the Emperor, who is a corpse who requires a sacrifice of at least one thousand people every day so that he never truly dies. In life however the Emperor hated all forms of religion with a passion, and punished anybody who tried to worship him. Also one of the main religious texts of the Imperial Cult, the Lectitio Divinitatus, was written by Lorgar, who was forced to renounce his faith in the Emperor's divinity by the Emperor himself, causing Lorgar to turn to the worship of the Ruinous Powers of Chaos (becoming the first heretic) and to fight against the Emperor during the Horus Heresy.
Also GW has literally said that Warhammer 40k is satire.
@@jamesseale7686 For some reason my reply was deleted. Anyway:
My point is that none of the advertisement for WH40K looks like satire. There is no mockery, no self evident absurdity, nothing that would indicate the imperium are "the bad guys".
They created a world so ludicrously hostile o humans that most policied adopted by the imperium are perfectly justified. You need a hyper militarist society in a world where humanity can go extinct at any moment, you need a state religion that is strictly enforced to keep unity and prevent the literal demon cults from spreading, etc.
I am aware it's meant to be satire but it fails very hard at it. Not only is the imperium completely dissimilar to what it allegedly wishes to critique (fascism) but it doesn't do a good job at presenting the imperium as bad.
Also stop using "/s", this isn't reddit.
@@Testimony_Of_JTF I would agree that a lot of material put out by GW tends to paint the Imperium of Man in a positive light, even when the Imperium does some pretty awful things (child abuse to make Space Marines, sacrificing people en masse to the Emperor etc). I also agree that many of the things that the Imperium does are kind of justified, kind of like an extreme version of the trolley problem. As for saying that WH40K doesn't contain "self evident absurdity" I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. Personally I find the idea of giant mechs (Imperial Knights, Chaos Knights etc) fighting each other with chainswords to be absurd for instance.
@@jamesseale7686 I find it more cool than absurd but that's just a matter of opinion I guess
@@Testimony_Of_JTF Oh, WH40K is certainly cool. However it can be both cool and absurd. In my opinion some of the most over-the-top elements of WH40K are also some of its coolest (17km long spaceships firing torpedoes 200 feet long, Imperial Knights etc).
Thank you for your honesty and civility, you have shown me that indeed Christian nationalism can be more nuanced than what Michael presented, but I am not at all convinced by the other arguments against Michael, or the arguments for your preferred version of CN.
Arguments against Michael:
- no clear hermeneutic or methodology: fair enough, he did not lay out the rules for his hermeneutic or methodology. It his however clear that he uses Scripture (special revelation) and sociological research (natural law), much like you do, to conclude that Christian nationalism _as defined by those researchers_ (not by your scholars) is unfavourable. You are defending that which Michael did not directly attack. And fair enough, we should recognise that there is nuance and inhomogeneity in all movements and ideologies, which Michael did not, but that does not mean that his criticisms against what he was targeting are invalid.
- Michael's arguments can lead to a slippery slope by being too lax and liberal: Again fair enough, he could have articulated his position on such manners better. Perhaps Michael does not feel knowledgeable enough to say what would be the best way to approach border policies and such, but he does feel justified in saying that the extreme position of forbidding any non-Christians (perhaps even limiting it to the same denomination) is bad. That your scholars do not advocate for such a strict policy is great, but does not detract from Michael's argument.
You arguments for CN:
- state enforcement of the faith has helped the Gospel spread: is coercion and threatening people with violence the way the Lord wants us to spread his Gospel? Is it not said in Matthew 26:52 that all who draw the sword die by the sword? Notice how the sword there was drawn to _defend Christ,_ and Christ rebuked that!
- 49:04 "Ethnically or culturally homogenous nations are real" - where is your evidence? What is your definition of homogenous? You say it is tautological, but that is just a baseless claim until you back it up with research. Since this is a matter of natural law, as you say, it should be discoverable by science and scholarship. You go on to say at 49:25 that "since these nations are real entities, they have a natural right and duty of self-preservation, just as an individual". What constitutes self-preservation in this case? Maintaining ethnic and cultural homogeneity? By what means? I can only imagine very bad examples of how to achieve those things, but perhaps your intent is less nefarious than banning interracial marriages and learning of each other's cultures and how to coexist.
- an indifferent secular state is entirely alien to Scripture: so what? Must we reject all that is alien to Scripture, or should we study things according to their merits and demerits? Going with the first option, we would be forced to reject digital technology. Clearly you do not reject digital technology. Novelty is not grounds for the rejection of an idea.
- at the end you said that Christ is Lord over all, implying that that is grounds for a Christian state. In fact the very notion of Christ being Lord/King/Ruler strengthens the case against CN: if Christ is Lord, what need is there of another lord? What need is there of an earthly king, who is a fallible human being, when we can simply rely on the Heavenly King, who is infallible, and who hears all his subjects?
And how do you deal with Jesus denying people the desire for authority and superiority, namely in Matthew 20:20-28? Can the denial of CN get any more clear than "the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave"?
And how does CN align with Jesus instructing us to put our faith in the Father, instead of our worries in Matthew 6:25-34?
I do not for a second believe that Paul's words in Romans 13 can overrule that which Jesus himself said. How can Romans 13 be reconciled with the passages from Matthew cited above? That is not a rhetorical question, I would genuinely love to see the reasoning behind this reconciliation since people must have attempted it in the past.
Well, allow me to respond to some of your points.
-The criticism of the MJ is not that it doesn't use Scripture and Nature, it's that it 1-Pressures a worldview alien to Scripture (the Whig view of history) and 2-it doesn't critique the ideas and concepts of the CN, but only the possible negative consequences, which, let's face it, is just a disguised form of the slippery slope fallacy.
-On your question "Is coercion what God wants for the Gospel?", we have to make use of a division between the inner realm (the conscience with God) and the outer realm of the social order, in which external conformity reigns and in which God commands the State to guard against blasphemy and immoral behaviour. This is clear from various examples such as David (1 Ch. 15:16; 23:6. 22:2). Solomon (1 K. 6), Asa (1 K. 15:12, 15; 2 Ch. 14:4). Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 19). Joash (2 K. 12:4, 5). Hezekiah (2 Ch. 29:10) Josiah (2 K. 23:2; 2 Ch. 34:30); do you know how many times these examples are attacked or condemned in the New Testament? A grand total of zero. In fact, if you doubt how State sponsorship benefited Christianity, I invite you to read books like Paul Veyne's "How Our World Became Christian". Or even pick up a KJV Bible.
-You say that a secular state should not be rejected out of hand, but examined on its own merits and demerits. Guess what, that's exactly what CN did and concluded that it is not compatible with Scripture, not only because the world in which it was written was a mostly monarchical world, but that such a conception goes against the necessary consequences of Scripture in the first place (leaders are not called to be indifferent to the moral situation of their subjects in the Bible, but to be fathers of the Church, Is.49:23; Is.60:10; and shepherds of it, Is.44:28;). The other objection is that every state, by its God-given nature, is not neutral and cannot be. A neutral state is, in the end, a state that will sooner or later erect a moral standard that will judge other standards, including those of Scripture, claiming that this cannot be the final rule from which the others derive, but just another document that expresses something of natural wisdom. In both instances, at the very least those two views are material heresy, as expressed in liberal worldview.
-In Matthew 20:20-28, Christ speaks clearly about the mission of preaching the gospel and how the church should be structured. He does not say that these positions are forbidden to Christians or that command or hierarchy are bad prima facie. Regarding your consideration that Romans 13 does not overruns with what Christ has commanded, I agree, because there is nothing to overrun, one speaks of the mission of preaching the gospel that ministers and the church in general have, another speaks about how another agency ordained by God should act. We could say that one speaks of the supernatural mission of every Christian and the other of the natural mission of every Christian in charge of any society, which is why Protestants have always been opposed to the church, as presbyters and bishops, having temporal power, but affirming that every christian in the magistracy has the duty to fight and defend the values of Christ. As Lancelot Andrews, wrote : *“Calvin as he did not approve of the king as pope, so did not approve of the pope as king; nor do we approve in the king what we detest in the pope, while both he with us and we with him think that the duties of King James in the Christian church are the same as those of Josiah in the Jewish church, nor do we ask that anything beyond should be done”* (Tortura Torti [1609], p. 379).
-Another argument of yours is that if Christ is Lord we don't need other lords. This could therefore mean that we don't need other brothers, leaders, kings and priests, because Christ is perfect in all of those functions and much more. But even the New Testament doesn't take this stance. For example Romans 13:3-4
*For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.*
Or 1 Peter 3:3
*Wives, respect and obey your husbands in the same way. Then the husbands who do not obey the word of God will want to know God. They will want to know God because their wives live good lives, even though they say nothing about God.*
Or Colossians 3:22-4:6
*Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;*
Basically, we can see hierarchies being accepted and welcomed in the New Testament, and these earthly hierarchies coexisting with obedience to the Church's call to evangelise. The fact that they are earthly realities does not detract from the fact that they are ordained by God and important for the well-being of his people.
Ultimately, the question is, is a Christian social order necessary for the church to exist? No, you see it in history - people keeping the faith in the midst of all kinds of persecution. Now, is this same Christian social order necessary for the church to do it´s mission in all force and for God's name to be glorified in all spheres of society? Yes, surely.
@@gabrielferreira1531 A couple of questions for clarification: what's YM? And why do you say "NC" where I would expect "Christian Nationalism"?
For your points:
- Pressures a worldview alien to Scripture: we are talking about a political structure, right? How is a political structure a worldview? Is it not a tool, a conceptual and abstract one, but a tool nonetheless? A tool, a set of principles on how to organise society.
- it doesn't critique the ideas and concepts of the NC, but only the possible negative consequences, which, let's face it, is just a disguised form of the slippery slope fallacy: Michael did critique the idea of seizing power to further the Gospel, and he gave Scriptural and research-based support for his claim, viz. the scene of Christ's temptation. How is that not critiquing the ideas? He critiqued both the ideas and the outcomes, which, as you rightly point out, are on a slippery slope.
Your scriptural arguments:
1 Ch 15:16: "And David spake to the chief of the Levites to appoint their brethren to be the singers with instruments of musick, psalteries and harps and cymbals, sounding, by lifting up the voice with joy."
How is that relevant?? The other Chronicles references are also about David telling people to do stuff.
1 K 6 is about Solomon building a temple
1 K 15:11 (not 12) says: And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father.
This is about a ruler using his power for good. Fair enough.
2 Ch. 14:4 is a list of names
2 Ch 19:2 is the closest to supporting the point that you are making: "And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord."
But what is the context here? Who are the ones that hate God here? Or is it specifically in reference to Ahab, whom Jehoshaphat had just helped?
2 Kings 14:3 (not 4) once again just says that a King was righteous and did good deeds.
2 Chronicles 29:10: "Now it is in mine heart to make a covenant with the Lord God of Israel, that his fierce wrath may turn away from us."
Also close to making a point for you, but context is yet again crucial to understanding what he meant. He felt the need to do that because, as per 29:6, "For our fathers have trespassed, and done that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord our God, and have forsaken him, and have turned away their faces from the habitation of the Lord, and turned their backs"
2 Kings 23:2 and 2 Chronicles 34:30: "And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant."
All that was not just any old nation, that was Israel, the light to the nations, to whom was given a law that was supposed to edify them to become the origin for the Messiah. Was that law a perfect one? No. Was that law eternal? No. Jesus himself said that "It is finished", referring to the law that the Father had instituted, making it unnecessary for us. Can we still follow it? Sure. Can we expect God to pat us on the back for doing so? Absolutely not. Thus all these citations were either irrelevant, or they were not the actual verses that made the points that you wanted to make, or only demonstrated what things were like in the Old Testament days.
As for reading the book - I might do that someday. As for the bit about the KJV, I have no idea why you specified that version in particular, it's not like it's special, but I do in fact read it just because I like the aesthetics of a more mediaeval English.
- such a conception goes against the necessary consequences of Scripture in the first place (leaders are not called to be indifferent to the moral situation of their subjects... : You know, I actually agree, but I also see from experience that that is impossible to do in a genuine and honest manner in the giant nation-states that are so heterogenous and expansive. But it's not like this is the only way to live, is it? I am personally in favour of abandoning a state structure altogether, but that's somewhat beside the point. The point is that I agree with this statement but also believe that any leader of a modern nation-state cannot aid the moral and religious lives of billions of people, that is simply impractical.
I do not agree with your view of the Matthew verses cited by me. It very clearly talks about *rulers lording over them*, if that's not hierarchical structure than what is it? If you say that that's just the structure of the church and not of our lives, would that not be hypocritical of us?
- For the argument about the lack of necessity of lords: yes, I personally do hold to the inferences that you made there. None is necessary in our lives but Christ, but it's not like they are to be actively shunned at all times. Meanwhile the passages you cite are simply at odds with reality. Thousands of rulers were agents of evil, Paul should know that. How aren't the rulers that captured him evil? How aren't many of today's rulers, or even past rulers evil? And as for Peter: would a Muslim man, having taken an obedient Christian wife (let us suppose she is the only one, which is not a given), want to learn about the One True God? It would take a miracle for something like that to work, which is possible, but not likely.
As for Colossians: This verse had force in that context, specifically for the Christians who were slaves and could not escape their predicament. It is not approving of the situation, it is telling a slave how to make the best of a bad situation. And need I remind that we have abolished slavery, though it was a common practice both during the OT and NT times. So this, too, seems like a novelty that got introduced into our lives despite not being a part of Scripture or its world. Surely you will not say that the abolition of slavery, which was championed by Christians, who decided based on Scripture that it was the right decision, was a mistake?
As for your final question, I answer it with a confident "No". And my basis for that is Matthew 24:3-14, especially verses 7-9, where Christ talks of nations rising against nation, and "delivering *you* up to tribulation and killing *you* ", making an opposition between the nations, who will wage war, and the Christian individuals, who will be killed by the nations. Does this sound like a Christian state? Would a Christian state deliver its own, righteous Christian people to tribulation and kill them?
@@Yan_Alkovic Well, allow me to answer some of your points.
-No, it's not a political structure, it´s a worldview. But structures flow from worldviews.
-On the scriptural evidence
1 Ch 15:16- Yes it's relevant, it's the head of state being actively involved in the worship of God
1 K 6 is about Solomon building a temple, exactly. And this was another of his responsibilities of honouring God. Can you imagine a secularist state doing the same?
1 K 15:11-Yes, to do good, and what good was that?
*"They made a covenant with the Lord, the God of their forefathers, promising to worship him with all their heart and with all their soul. They also swore that all those who would not worship him, both children and adults, both men and women, would be put to death. They swore aloud to God, the Lord, that they would be faithful to the covenant, and then they shouted for joy and blew trumpets and bugles. The people of Judah rejoiced because of this oath, which they had made with all their hearts. And because they had sought the Lord with all their good will, he let them find him and allowed them to live in peace with all the neighbouring peoples."*
Asah is not committed to a general good, but to a specific good, which is to strengthen the true religion among the Israelites
2 Ch. 14:4 is a list of names-No, it isn't, read it again
*He commanded Judah to seek the Lord, the God of their ancestors, and to obey his laws and commands.*
2 Ch 19:2 is the closest to supporting the point that you are making-No, isn´t, all the others show it
*2 Kings 14:3 (not 4) once again just says that a King was righteous and did good deeds.* And I've already explained that good works in Scripture are always linked to the strengthening of true religion and worship.
I'll move on to your last argument, since most of your objections in the others were irrelevant.
*Was that law a perfect one?* Yes. Psalm 19 says:
*The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.*
*Was that law eternal?* Yes. The moral Law is eternal and the mosaic covenant was an expression of it, abrrogated on it´s cerimonial aspect but still on full force on it´s moral aspect(or do you think the commandments against incest or homossexuality were revoked?)
*Jesus himself said that "It is finished", referring to the law that the Father had instituted, making it unnecessary for us* Nope, what was finished was the cerimonial law of sacrifices, not the moral one that God instituted Hebrews 9; 22-28 says
*For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.*
-About the inferences you make, sorry, the Scripture does not have this anti-authority view, in all the verses I quoted and many others that are contained in it. The answer is simple: was Paul persecuted? Was he. Did Paul stop seeing the State as something that comes from the natural divine Order? No. Neither did Peter or Our Lord.
Regarding your consideration of Colossians, Paul never saw slavery as sinful, his letter to Philemon shows that. And about the abolition of slavery, let's face it, it was more an expedient measure of rich countries that needed more markets and costumers than a humanitarian impulse, despite the American propaganda about the abolitionist movement (apart from the fact that the Bible doesn't command having slaves, it allows it, falling into the indifferent things that are subject to social circumstances).
Regarding your example of Peter's passage, the apostle doesn't ask whether something is probable or not, he just says "this is your duty, do it".
The verses from Matthew 22, I've already explained, talk about how Christians should nurture a spirit of meekness in preaching the gospel, not vainglory. It says nothing about hierarchies or commands. And about Matthew 24, Christ is warning the disciples that this would be their fate, not that persecution should be the normal or acceptable state for the church.
Your point about giant nation states is totally irrelevant, you can have small states, confederations, city states, nothing testifies against the CN.
And I answer the question with a resounding YES, based not only on every verse I've quoted, but especially on Isaiah 49, which tells about the kingdom of the Messiah, not the post-second coming as the millennialists falsely claim, but the one that exists since his ascension into heaven, especially verses 20 to 23
*The children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other, shall say again in thine ears, The place is too strait for me: give place to me that I may dwell.Then shalt thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a captive, and removing to and fro? and who hath brought up these? Behold, I was left alone; these, where had they been? Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.*
Kings and queens will serve Christ and his church, and have done so many times in the past. Now, if you prefer to stick to the liberal view of history, which has only brought us degeneration, debauchery and depression, feed your favourite pig
This was a very interesting video. Personally, as a practitioner catholic, I tend to be opposed to christian nationalism because it seems like their end goal seems to be the stablishment of a state that promotes, defends and enforces Christian values; and don't get me wrong, a country that does so is objectively good, as those are godly values, but cathecism teaches of the principle of the Ecclesiastes, meaning all humans are brothers and sisters. In that sense, I tend to reject christian nationalism because I don't see as a maximal goal to have a nation for christians in the world, I want the whole world to be christian
Would love to hear from y'all and get some clarification on the matter, as I could very well been wrong on my pre conception of christian nationalism.
In any ways, I will be praying for you Americans and for all the nations that are currently under the tyrannic thumb of that Satan called secular liberalism
Christian nationalists also want the whole world (all nations) converted.
Real
What christ taught and what christians do don't always correspond.
Stop murdering babies.
subbed
I'm not sure "Christian Natioalism" has ever existed, except in maybe Madieval Byzantine or the Papal States? From what I have heard from Apologia Church, it's basically Theonomy, which would result in a society like a theocracy whereby the Law of Moses gets legislated into civil and criminal law. That means doing things like applying the death penalty to homosexuality or to lying about your virgin status to your betrothed. It's just looks embarrassing at best and Medieval at worst. I don't believe it's well defined and can/could easily turn into oppression and if a Christian leader can enforce Christian morals on Muslims... why couldn't a Muslim leader enforce Islamic ideals on Christians (and I don't want that)... So, secularism is bad, but far better.
Well, allow me to answer some of your points.
-If biblical laws sound embarrassing or medieval to someone, that's the person's fault, not the fault of God-given Scripture;
-No, Christian nationalism does not involve the application of Mosaic judicial law. Stephen Wolfe himself writes:
*The civil law of the Mosaic law did not in itself foreshadow Christ and so did not undergo a change as to their righteousness-they are, in other words, not deadly. But they are dead; they are "no longer living in such a way as to obligate," says Junius. He continues, speaking of civil law in general:"In circumstances it undergoes as many changes as possible, and varies according to time, place, person, deeds, modes, causes, and supports-in the past, the present, or the future-as well as in public and private matters."35 In other words, whether any civil law is good depends on circumstances, which requires the discernment and prudence of man. Calvin writes, "[E]ach nation has been left at liberty to enact the laws which it judges as beneficial." Nothing about this disparages the Mosaic law-a law of God. It is a perfect example of law. But it is not a universal body of law.*
The Case for Christian Nationalism, page 248
So this claim is innocuous.
-Your question is, if the Christian can impose his morals on the Muslim, what would stop the Muslim from doing the same? I say nothing, and that's what already happens, preaching the gospel is curtailed in Islamic countries. And no, it's not a "secular state" problem - a Muslim can't take four wives in the US, because it violates, guess what, the morals of the US state.
And no, the CN does not imply or preach coercion. Wolfe already clarified this when he wrote
*"Religious belief was a matter of persuasion, not coercion, even after baptism and church membership. this is why church ministers, armed with the Word, were always first to attempt the reformation of erring minds and hearts, and civil authorities would step in only if they remained publicly obstinate and a disruption to the ordinary life of the community. The 1649 Platform of Church Discipline, written in part by New England minister John Cotton, states that "[the] objects of the power of the magistrate are not things merely inward, and so not subject to his cognizance and views: as unbelief, hardness of heart, erroneous opinions not vented, but only such things as are acted by the outward man." Cotton denied that magistrates can "compel their subjects to become churchmembers."They can restrain all outward "idolatry, blasphemy, [and] heresy," for these ordinarily disturb "the peaceable administration and exercise of the worship and holy things of God."*
As for whether there has ever been Christian nationalism apart from the examples you cited, we could list the English Anglican Establishment that reigned from 1558 until 1828 (J.C.D. Clark's book "English Society, 1688-1832: Ideology, Social Structure, and Political Practice During the Ancien Regime" details this very well) or the Christianity of Prussia in the 17th century until the 20th century. Or the any christian monarchy until WW1. Or even the entire pre-French Revolution social order.
@@gabrielferreira1531 The embarrassment isn't about who wrote what. The embarrassment is about the severity of the punishment. The death penalty for lying about being a virgin or for a homosexual act.
You might suppose that there will be a distinct separation between establishing Christian Nationalism and imposing the Law of Moses. Yet, right now, Apologia Church is trying to legislate for incarcerating women for having an abortion and they base this mainly on the Law of Moses. They support Christian Nationalism, they are kind of the same thing. So, I think that Stephen Wolfe's assessment of Christian Nationalism, even after his research, is deficient.
"Your question is, if the Christian can impose his morals on the Muslim, what would stop the Muslim from doing the same? I say nothing," That is only true if secularism is abandoned. I live in a secular state and there are laws that limit my Muslim neighbours from breaking the crosses on my church, no matter how fundamentalist crazy those Muslim neighbours might be. It doesn't matter what they imagine Allah says to them through their book. If they damage property, they get fined (not the death penalty).
I am interested in your final paragraph. I don't rate books as somehow intrinsically more objective than any other media. Of course, some media platforms are more academic than others, I grant you that, yet academia is arbitrarily often rejected by those who do claim to rate academic sources above non-academic sources (e.g. the academic work of Bart Ehrman). So, I just don't get intimidated by people who want to scream.. 'he's not academic'..ummm, take a look in the mirror. I haven't come across any UA-cam channels that have bothered to try to prove Medieval Europe (or even up until WW1) was full of Christian Nationalistic type of nations. I suspect that if I drilled into the specific examples provided I would find evidence to demonstrate that they probably were not Christian Nationalism. One of the major difficulties for Christian Nationalism is about how Christianity relates to the Law of Moses and what obligations Christians have to implement the Law of Moses. That is an unsettled contention within Christianity - I mean within the Episcopacy, within the Fellowship.
@@HJEvan Why this insistence on Apologia church? If it has these standards, it is their activity. Furthermore, if we believe that abortion is murder, nothing could be fairer than punishing women who kill their foetuses
On the question of the laws of Moises, and I've already explained the question, and if you want to read more, read Question 34 of Turrentin's institutes of elenctic theology, he gives a good overview of civil government and its relationship with the church.
@@gabrielferreira1531 The only reason for raising Apologia Church is because tangible circumstances prove the reality of an abstract idea. The abstract idea is, 'Christian Nationalism'.. what is 'Christian Nationalism' in reality though? What does it look like when implemented? A book can't demonstrate that, only the reality of it can demonstrate that. Okay, in my opinion (and I kind of admit that my comments are always an opinion to lesser or greater degree), Christian Nationalism can't exist, at all, without legislating some form of Mosaic Law, because there's no other civil law in the whole of Christian religious sources. Nations are built on civil/criminal law. Jesus didn't build a nation state and so didn't make civil law. Moses did that. Jesus didn't do that. So, the only kind of Christian Nation that could be a Christian Nation, would have to appeal heavily to the Law of Moses. Apologia Church are my first example because I don't find, can't find, other Christians today, trying to make national laws/ civil laws. I see Christians at protests and stuff, but I only see Apologia Church getting involved with state legislation. I think that would necessarily have to be the starting point for any Christian Nationalism. How else do these morals get to be forced on the whole population? How else do Christian morals 'form the 'fabric' of a nation?
"if we believe that abortion is murder, nothing could be fairer than punishing women who kill their foetuses".. I think that's a fair comment. I was trying to use that example only to demonstrate that Christian Nationalism is going to bring with it legislating of the Law of Moses and it's happening now (or it's trying to happen now). The fear is not just that people will get punished. The fear is that religious leaders will be able to legislate. That is a fear because, since nations these days try to be objective.. If Jeff Durbin, a Christian pastor, can provide legislation based only on his religious sources, that sets a precedence for other religious leaders from other religions to present their legislation... Now, if I want to be objective, I have to permit that... Yet, I just don't want to invite the opportunity for Imams to establish elements of Sharia on the whole of the population of any given state. If that means I forego the opportunity to force Christian morals, so be it. Anyway, the good thing about Christian morals is they are intrinsically good which means that anyone can implement them without needing them to be legislated. I can chose to not have an abortion, irrespective of whether or not an abortion is illegal.
@@HJEvan Christians are not obliged to follow the Laws of Moses. Rather its fulffiled by Christ and therefore no longer should we need to follow it. This is also continue in the writings of Paul where he say thay the Law is cursed, idk why he said that but he definitely thinks we shouldn't practice the Law of Moses.
Anyway, what we christians should do is to make laws that are christians based and divinely inspired from scripture or tradition. Like in Matthew 16 where Jesus gives the Keys to Peter to bind and loose Laws to heaven and earth. This is the law that is given by Jesus to us. We can make any laws so long its consistent with the religion
Meme game on point
first
The very thumbnail itself is evidence that this is a bad idea.
I find it suspect that you condem a stance for being a modern and enlightenment origined viewpoint while also donning a modern and enlightenment coined term: Nationalism.
Well by your own admission you are conflating a position with a term. Sure, nationalism is a modern term, but what it denotes (as described in Wolfe's book) is essentially timeless. He doesn't rely on Enlightenment nationalist emphases like independence from monarchies. By contrast, IP's position is undeniably modern.
Okay, so why use the term "Nationalism" at all? Why not make a new term that means what you want it to mean, rather than this modernist term that has all sorts of baggage associated with it?
@@jimnicholas7334 because the term does not carry all the same enlightenment baggage today. Plenty of self-described nationalists (myself included) are pro-monarchy and even pro-empire. It's come to be a catch all for a belief in the good of national preservation, and this is easily supplemented by Christian ethics
@@TheOtherPaul My dude, nationalism has even more baggage thanks to a little known group known as the National Socialists Workers Party.
@@jimnicholas7334 ah, the classic "Hitler drank water" manoeuvre; an insurmountable objection.
You keep smuggling in this “Default Natural Good” into your argument, implying that anything like that is afforded by Christianity.
You hear your opponent’s biblical arguments, then you scrunch your face like Tucker, and say “But what about Muh self interest!? If ‘anyone’ wants to take my shirt, do you expect me to just give it to him, along with my coat?? Do you also expect me to go an extra mile for anyone who asks me to walk a mile with them, for free!? Do you expect me to actually “love”my “enemies” in the only way that makes sense of the word love: to actually, guilelessly _like them as equal images of God to myself, and siblings under God?”_
And how does this go against Christian nationalism. Loving God and neighbor is established by the law of God.
@@jermoosekek1101 Did Jesus ever say that Nationalism is the best way people are to love God and their neighbor? God never even said a monarchy was the best way for the ancient Jews to love God and neighbor.
In fact, in *1 Samuel **8:10**-22* God specifically reiterates his Deuteronomical warning against having a King, and only groaningly allows the Israelites to set up a king. But God saw this as a reduction in Love for God and man, and even as a choice to have a man as King who materially abuses the citizens in various ways, instead of God being the sole Lord of all.
If you set up a hierarchy of leaders to represent Jesus, they will inevitably distract from him.
@@alephmale3171 Then why did they get their own land called israel it was to practice their faith
I don’t want my race to go extinct not gonna lie. Why can’t we just have white Christian nationalism?
it would be bad for jewish people
"I don’t want my race to go extinct"
Just become Eastern European Slav and you will be fine, convert from Anglo-Saxonism and your white race will be fine
@@BeniaminZabojthat’s just blatant nonsense
Go and marry a white woman and have white children. There's no problem with that. But all are one in Christ. Excluding races is contradictory to the Bible and the Gospel.
Anti Christian nonsense.
Then the Reformers were anti-Christian as well.
Anti-Christian is only to tell christian official in goverment that they must being in sin and in denial of faith by refusing to live by Christian live in their work and only at their private life - it's against Scripture, logic, reason and clearly it's a tool of the enemy. Repent. Christians always was right about this, novelity destoryed nations.
Quite the opposite. Was the church anti Christian for most of its existence?
43:55
Did Jesus ever command you “recognize and preserve your national peoples” and to rule over anybody?
Or did Jesus command you to love one another and to exalt yourself through humility and meekness?
What does Jesus care about the narcissist from 4 Billion years ago during the Earth’s cooling phase who made up your nation’s name, and it’s stupid, ancient, pre-Christian cult, whose remnants constitute your distinctive nation’s cultural signifiers?
Plenty of nations have come and gone, merged and split, since Jesus came. The name you give a piece of land, or your version of the look of your favorite region of climatological human evolution, has nothing to do with what Jesus commanded and came to do.
All of that is just your own god-independent passion, and it leads to justification for overt sins throughout history, which violent hypocrisy gradually led to the abandonment of Christianity in favor of sober Humanism.
Bet you're fun at parties.
@@user-nx3vp5mq3o “We’re just having fun, bro, -jeez- heebs. Let people have their exclusive, fascist, ethnostates already.”
@@alephmale3171You could also just not murder babies. Humanism is cringy and dumb. Christ is risen☦️