The whole point of the Bill of Rights prohibiting an established religion wasn't to keep Christianity from being imposed on people. It was to keep any specific denomination from being imposed or for the government to discriminate between denominations. Christianity was a given as far as the founders were concerned.
It was to prevent the establishment of any religion with penalty or the prohibition from free exercise of religion. The Mathew 28 charge does not justify imposing Christianity- Christ never imposed religion. He preached and allow man to choose. Isn’t the free will and choice of man why we have plan of salvation - so all of a sudden God will dispense with freedom of choice and free will and allow for establishment of religion by law. There would be hypocritical Christianity because persons will obey for fear of penalty. God is looking for change in our hearts not just profession ( Ezekiel 36:25-27;Hebrews 10:16). Your establishment of religion would lead to the persecution of the persons who don’t agree the same problem Paul and the disciples and the founding fathers experienced why they ran to the shores of the United States. Look at thé examples of God working with the disciples, when they were oppressed God freed them showing prohibition of religion is not supported and therefore establishment of religion is not supported either.
The founding fathers were clear. The government can't force or pick what religion should be applied to citizens. Each citizen picks their own religion and government can't get involved.
@@jacobwatson3781 Yeah, it was to allow the free practice of any religion. It had nothing to do with keeping your religious views away from your politics. You can't establish a particular faith, but you absolutely can base political decisions on the principles of your religion. Christian nationalism is entirely viable within the framework of the Constitution. It's not about forcing people to convert. It's about basing laws on the values of the Christian faith.
@Shmeebs How do you square that with the Treaty of Tripoli? Also, In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill “establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” Madison wrote his “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” in which he presented 15 reasons why government should not become involved in the support of any religion. In his first term as president, Thomas Jefferson declared his firm belief in the separation of church and state in a letter to the Danbury, Conn. Baptists. He said: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” What you're saying is 100% incorrect and rewriting of history, also very dangerous. You view is exactly what the founding fathers were afraid of.
I'm a Roman Catholic but I will say Doug Wilson is one of the only top Protestants carrying his side on his back. This channel is really one of the very very few Protestant channels I entertain watching because Doug is consistent, funny and most of all he is actually God fearing.
@@PatristicRecluse I'm not a "Protestant" I'm a born again believer in Jesus Christ and his blood, and yeah I'm very bitter that millions and millions of people could be with Jesus forever in heaven yet are being led astray by Gospel perverters. By the way your Pope is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
@@bman5257 No clue who Clark is, but since Babylon Bee seems to have a bunch of different types of "Christians", one guy who "identifies as reformed" doesn't make the company reformed
They do a pretty good job, and some people there are of the reformed persuasion. Notice that they were actually questioning his premises, not just nodding and smiling
😂😂😂 I am looking forward to eternity with you Pastor Doug! Also, my heart does grieve for the current state of the modern church, that has turned its back to Christ and adopted the idols of the pagans. May God rain down holy fire and consume the idols of this world and place each and every enemy under the feet of King Jesus!
I have found, in all my years of "ministry", that someone who has a wishy-washy position like this often has skeletons in their closet that they know would be exposed should they either commit to a course of action or idea and have to walk it out. If you keep things confusing you never have to explain yourself and can keep going back into the closet to play...
Some of the most hardcore christians and Catholics are known to be sexually abusive and/or have covered up sexual abuse of minors in their ministries. So there is also the "he doth protest too much." concept at play as well. Doug Wilson himself had notably married a child sex abuser/pedophile to someone in his church. The abuse in fundy churches is at absurd and shocking levels.
@@TopJazzCat with the recent innumerable revelations coming out about sexual abuse in both the Catholic and Protestant churches, absolutely. You don't believe the numerous reports, testimony, police investigations, etc.?
@@TopJazzCat ?? I replied saying, "absolutely" to your question. You don't think that King David used his power/status to do what he wanted with Bathsheba?
@@thehashbrowns6505 coexisting with Christian rulers means enjoying the fruits of being the blessed nation whose God is the Lord. You can keep your private sins if you want to, but must give up your public ones. You're welcome in advance.
@@thehashbrowns6505 you would be submitting to Christ, not “you guys”. This country was founded on biblical values and truth and that is why it flourished for so long. We have begun the divorce proceedings from God over the past 60-100 years and are seeing the fruits of that break up. If you’re a “non-Christian”, I recommend studying God’s Word and turning to the Truth. Don’t let the current cultural confusion trick you into eternal enmity with the one true and living God. “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live.”” Ezekiel 18:23, 32 ESV
@@jlettizard6465 I have read "God's word", and I still do, I just clearly came to a different conclusion than you. The fact that you are unable to see other perspectives as valid is what I'm worried about. I want a country where no one is made to submit to any one religion. I do believe that very value was also principle to the founding of the US.
I absolutely love how you pull back the layers of arguments and hold them up to the light of God’s reality! I realize it is not only good to do this in these moments like this, but it is excellent and righteous for our quite moments to reflect our hearts and mind against the same light. Thank you professor Wilson!
I'm not familiar with the Monopoly Guy, but I would enjoy hearing Doug interviewed by the Babylon Bee so that he can put forward a counter argument to MG.
The fact they are "elites" should have been the first clue. For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
@@thehashbrowns6505 Doug’s point is that actually everyone is asking for an “established religion”, including you. As Christians we should have enough common ground to be able to come together and establish a pretty decent political/social solution, as our founding fathers did. It won’t be everything Doug wants it to be, it won’t be everything I want it to be, and it won’t everything you want it to be, but it has the potential to be far better than what we have now. That is what Doug is trying to accomplish, and I stand with him.
@@wyattmartin7078 I'm not Christian. This "solution" sounds terrible to me. My ideal would be not holding anyone to the values of one group --how is that an established religion?
13:14 WE HAD BISHOPS OVER HERE!!!! The anglicans and the confessionalists and the presbyterians we were all getting along until we rebelled. We did this out of desire for independence as one people, not because “the bishops were coming” i’m surprised clark can’t even recognize this
Exactly. He also fails to realize that the Constitution gave allowance for states to establish an official state church, which for many areas easily could have been Episcopal/Anglican.
@@dbruh936 that’s true! Idk I can’t wait until the entire nation turns to Christ and trusts him with both salvation, and the benefits of just weights and measures, and punishing the evildoer, and rewarding the good.
@@dbruh936 Maryland was catholic, Maryland is name after Mary mother of Jesus. It’s also you had the black rode that one of the most influential groups in the revolutionary era.
Clark (and the Episcopalians) wondered onto a battle field by mistake. He was shot with an arrow that is now stuck in his chest. He's looking at the arrow, admiring the nice feathers. If he's going to live, one of us needs to remove the arrow for him. The rest of us can remain fighting the battle together like the post resurrection disciples we are .
We do not live in a religiously neutral country as you may think. There will always be an established religion. Which one would you like ? Is the current religion of secularism good for you?
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 you’re saying we don’t have a religion with blasphemy laws being written into bills now? With cultural laws that are intolerant of other religions, we dont have that right now? You don’t realize that secularism is the religion of the USA right now?
So good to hear ya'll taking up the old Covenenter cause. You are rightly picking up where modern Covenanters and Seceeders seam to have left off. Perhaps they can renew their vision of Messiah, Lord of the natuons and re-engage, joining with you in the good fight? Will the horn sound once more in Healms Deep? I pray so.
What struck me about that is that he doesn’t adequately recognize the secular left as the bullies. He doesn’t see that the REASON they want to call him a “Christian Nationalist” is to get him to deny it so they can accelerate their program of making “Christian Nationalist” into an epithet - an irredeemable sin. Since they will have won the war to define “Christian Nationalist”, they will use that epithet to defame, discredit, and marginalize ALL professing Christians - including temporarily-useful dolts like him, Russell Moore, Matt Chandler, David Platt, and the coterie of soup sandwiches that make up The Gospel Coalition.
Secularism is a religion. James Lindsay is closer to understanding this than Clarke and Lindsay is an atheist. I've met too many Christians who live as though they hope the day will never come when all his neighbors are God fearing, faithful people.
So is Eric Weinstein. Religion is going to find its way to you and affect you whether you give a shit or not. And I'd you're going to be an atheist you need to be honest about that. Paraphrased from his modern wisdom interview. Secularism, and noq materialism and now trains are the religion were all too worship. But it really seems like we're all just supposed to worship the dnc
Clark reminds me of myself when I was living in CT going to public school being raised in a liberal church. The Scriptures and the pursuit of truth and practiced humility led me to realize I was trying to please a culture that I regarded as Americanism and libertarianism but I always felt pluralism was off a bit. I see Clark concerned about engaging with the truth being afraid to find himself agreeing with Christian Nationalism. But Secularism is also a form of Christian Nationalism (most Democrats are Christians) but it has been preached into and introduced false doctrines and ironically the fear of being called a bad name is one of the mechanisms used by these wolves. My thinking is ‘we need less politics in Christianity but more Christians in politics’, to be salt and light and to call out secularism pointing all men to the truth of the gospel and its liberating power from sin and fear.
Doug, don't feel bad. You aren't the only person who R. Scott Clark refuses to debate. One of my best friends in the entire world is married to R. Scott Clark's wife's cousin, and he has been trying to engage Dr. Clark on this very point for years. Dr. Clark is convinced in his own mind that he knows everything, and is right about everything, even when it can be easily shown from Scripture that he is wrong. Dr. Clark needs to repent before he finds out the hard way that Jesus Christ can and does smash His enemies like a potter's vessel. If you stand in the way of Jesus Christ and His authority... watch out!!!
@@kliniac3564 No I don't. What I can say is that Doug would win since not only does Scripture say that Jesus is "the ruler of the kings of the earth" and the "King of kings, and Lord of lords" but the Belgic Confession, to which Dr. Clark claims to subscribe, ASSUMES a Christian nation. "We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, has appointed kings, princes, and magistrates; willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose He has invested the magistracy with the sword for the punishment of evil-doers and for the protection of them that do well. Their office is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also to protect the sacred ministry, that the kingdom of Christ may thus be promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, as He commands in His Word." (Belgic Confession XXXVI) In theory, the URCNA could bring Dr. Clark up on charges of heresy for NOT being a Christian nationalist.😁
@@danreichenberg5249 I believe Clark refused to debate because Doug’s teaching has been judged heretical and striking at the vitals of the confessions by extensive study committees received by many reformed denominations.
@@kliniac3564 It may be true that he may be using Doug's association with the Federal Vision as an excuse to not debate him. That doesn't change, that on this point, Dr. Clark is both wrong Scripturely, and out of accord with the Confession he claims to subscribe to. But, it is my experience that Dr. Clark pontificates, he doesn't debate.
This was great! It’s a mystery to me why so many mushy headed Christians don’t understand the Dominion Mandate and/or the Great Commission, and/or American History, and/or Church History (especially those who claim to be great Church History scholars. Just quoting Matt. 28:16-20, blows their argument out of the water. It’s no wonder they won’t debate Doug Wilson. It doesn’t take a Doug Wilson to rip their guts out. It takes a 12 year old versed in the Bible. I’m greatly disappointed in the Babylon Bee. I thought they were better than this tripe. 17:20
Some patients is required here. And letting the means of grace deal with the Babylon bee and other real Christians, to deal with all this. Remember we are coming to a point where we are seeing the dominant false church fail and all the baggage that is left from the , call it what you will, false church era that the boomers created. Hopefully we are entering a revival and the the dominance of the church era. This will take time. God is a player of the long game. He moves in generations. We certainly should hope for better from christians. Let's be faithful with the truth. However let's rely on the holy Spirit to change the hearts of men.
Told my Christian friends that if you own a construction company that you should refuse to build mosques,kingdom halls,latter day temples etc and they they said that's too far. Absolute wimpyness
No because I'm not a retreatist amishman, I'm an offensive warrior, either join our side and bow the knee to Christ or perish in the way and get put under his feet.
No because I'm not a retreatist amishman, I'm an offensive warrior, either join our side and bow the knee to Christ or perish in the way and get put under his feet.
I remain very Baptist in the matter of liberty of conscience and the two kingdoms. Or, in the words of John Leland, the particular Baptist pastor, who pressed for the 1st amendment, "The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever...Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians."
Christians absolutely have a right to hire and fire based on common interests, trust, & loyalty. That's what you do with dissenters. That alone would destroy the secular left.
Is it just me, or is Doug using a scripture that clearly deals with witnessing/sharing the gospel as a proof text for the "magistrate" (government) being asked to impose Christianity...... off base? Am I missing something?
that’s essentially the point. All the people freaking out about so-called Christian nationalism Don’t realize that it’s not about imposing anything. It’s about preaching the gospel with one of the INTENDED GOALS being that the laws of this nation eventually reflect the laws of God. Because they are the only righteous laws. God’s law is the standard. but it happens from the ground up. Beginning with witnessing and sharing the gospel. and that’s what Doug believes. We don’t believe in a top-down solution
@@siebenboy Your explanation is much clearer than his response in the video. I think this also overlooks that many of the people freaking out about Christian “nationalism”, are freaking out not because they think the church will some day influence the government, but that in the current political climate the political systems have infiltrated the church. In other words, the real fear is not Christian nationalism, but instead nationalistic Christianity (I may have made this term up). It is the fear that many people in Christian leadership positions/churches have let their political desires and positions become more important than the gospel in there ideologies, teachings, and by extension their life styles. I have watched as many prominent leaders have seemed to be more pro Trump than pro Jesus. Many conservative Christian leaders have embraced conspiracy theories, propagated falsehoods, and at times have been more ideologically influenced by QAnon than the Bible. It is a problem when our churches become rhetorical vehicles for stolen election, or anti vaccination conspiracy theories in the name of political ideology. I still hear certain leaders in Christian camps saying that trump is the president, and will be restored into the office in the near future. In many Christian spaces they have traded truth for political alignment. So in short, I think we have a lot to fear from nationalistic Christianity/Christian nationalism. It is not truth seeking, it is corrupted political allegiance.
@@siebenboy point well taken….lol…..my criticism here isn’t aimed at the reformed crowd, but it does context/frame the bigger questions/concerns regarding Christian nationalism that is referred to in the video.
I wish I could spam the like button on this video, as once doesn’t seem enough! Keep exposing the myth of neutrality, the religious nature of secularism and the foolishness of ignoring the great commission!
Someone asked me once, "what christian place would you like to most visit in the world?" The correct answer was Israel, but I answered, "doug wilsons church." I stand by that statement.
Pls. I am old enough to remember The Cold War and parents who were atheists because of Communism. I remember having a Bible because I had to write a paper for school (in America). My father saw it and screamed as loud as I had ever heard him, "GET THAT BOOK OUT OF MY HOUSE!" If I was scared of the status quo, I wouldn't have even humored turning to Christ. If that guy, R. Scott Clark wants to play games with history maybe he should really examine how America is different from other countries and why.
When I recently heard Pastor John MacArthur say he couldn't ever be for "religous freedom" from his pulpit I felt, as I've often felt listening to him, as if my rock (brian) was relieved of another layer of hardness. Sin is a hardener in the putty of my intellect far too often and far, far to efectively. Praise the Lord, He is stronger than my inherent weakness.
I'm glad you brought this up. After I heard from pastor MacArthur about this comment, I was intrigued and wasn't sure if it is Biblical. (I'm usually agreeing with pastor MacArthur 99.99% of the time) If we're not for "religious freedom", aka, the free will to choose, does it mean we're for "no religious freedom", which really comes down to who holds the power to be the enforcer. Is that really God's will before the return of Christ?
@@smallwei76 (AND ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED IN THIS): I'd suggest editing your response with more clarity and explanation of what you are asking... BTW, quoting only that phrase from MacArthur's sermon can give others who never listen the the whole CONTEXT a very wrong impression. There are _two very different categories_ at play here! A true Believer who wants to follow God's will in witnessing to "the lost" on how to be saved will never, cannot, be satisfied with only, "Well, I'm glad you're free to believe whatever you want to!" And will want to have the freedom to publicly present the Gospel to whomever is sinning against God's clear Word. _But_ in the category of politics, we must fight very much for the Federal GOV to maintain the original "religious freedoms" the USA was founded upon to _not force_ all of its citizens to pledge their lives to any particular Christian denomination, nor jail or expel someone even for not believing in God... _HOWEVER_, today we live in times where many US citizens are attempting to literally replace those early "religious freedoms" with "Anything but Christianity" or even outright "Only atheists can be trusted to run the country!!!" Doing that will only finally result in the country being controlled by the devil, laws that you can kill anyone the state deems 'unproductive' and on and on! In Canada, it's already a crime to "witness" to many people; to call sinners to repentance!! I very much do NOT want a country run by the hypocritical R.C. hierarchy of the Middle Ages and all the way up to long after "the Reformation" in some countries; nor how a number of so-called "Protestant" countries were run either; with some of their own atrocities! BUT if the USA is not led back to maintaining true rights, equally, for ALL who live here, without hypocrisy, and laws end up becoming based only on what atheists want (such as even killing 1 month old babies! Yes some politicians have actually called for that!!) it will be doomed to be only whatever most want to do; or what only those in power (like the Nazis) or a tyranny or anarchy, but not true freedom.
@@Dan123TheStarman Just for whoever is interested to hear the whole sermon, here is the link: ua-cam.com/video/_8kk3-mMgHk/v-deo.html The portion pastor MacArthur talks about regarding religious freedom is at around 44:40 ua-cam.com/video/_8kk3-mMgHk/v-deo.html?t=2677
@@smallwei76 all the righteous kings of the Old Testament (Hezekiah, Josaiah, Jehoshaphat) explicitly destroyed pagan groves and built up the Jewish temple (with public taxpayer funds no less). They are explicitly lauded by God for doing so. This type of theocracy is the ideal.
@@mosesking2923 Agree. I'm looking forward to theocracy with the perfect God Jesus Christ on the throne. Until then, not sure if I want any sinful human as my temporary "king".
the trouble with "Christian nationalism" is the implied focus. when you say nationalism, the focus is the nation. for some people that word evokes thoughts of government. the government should not be to focus of the Church; the people should. we are called to make disciples. disciples, in turn, change government. you don't change the government to create disciples. you create disciples and the nation changes.
Correct me if I'm wrong: R. Scott Clark says he doesn't know what Christian Nationalism is, but then uses arguments from Stephen Wolfe's The Case for Christian Nationalism?
This canard, that "Christian Nationalism" is about a top down imposition of religion, by force, has been the "go to" position of evangelicals since some Christians began saying "enough" back in the 80's. No matter how many times, writers, preachers and ministries have stated that the postmillennial hope is based on conversion, not coercion - they'd rather create a strawman than honestly deal with the actual arguments. That says something either about their basic literacy skills, or their character - take your pick - it has to be one or the other.
@@thereisnopandemic Some of it is not Biblical. It reminds me of a movie that is based off of something, but it is not the True Book. Although, it is better to have some kind of foundation that reflects some of the Bible, then to have no foundation. But... The Book is better “Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence”. First wrong, that is, if they believe in “providence” as being that God willed and purposed all things to be as they are before the foundation of the world, then the confession is wrong. The original intent of the Bible does not show us that. The second wrong part, being this: “those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.“ God has told us in His Word that “and of His kingdom there shall be no end”. This means that all that is of His kingdom, which happened, and which He gave unto His church to continue His work while He is physically away, there is no end to. Everything that He has showed to us, and all things that reflect that same nature and way, and which will bring glory unto His Name, in which the Scriptures do not contradict; these are not done away with. A cessation is not biblical, but theological and traditional. I don't have a problem with the confession helping to establish some truths, and it is better than having no knowledge at all. But, the Bible is the Bible, and the westminster is not. Can God use it to bring people unto the knowledge of the truth? Yes. But, just like with the concordance, it is not a replacement for what God has shown unto us in His Word. It can help. It can be a guide, but the guide is not the Bible. “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;a so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.b But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,c therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,d that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner,e and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.” Nope sorry, all languages are a vulgar tongue, for they proceed forth from the Babel, when God confused the people. And all languages, since the fall have become vulgar. The Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc, tongues are all vulgar. God gets the glory because, He can even illuminate all nations and peoples, and tribes, because He uses the vulgar tongues, which the Scriptures were even originally written in, to bring glory due His Name and to sanctify people unto Himself.
"Modern Christians aren't grieved." Amen. Over our own sin (nominal "Christians" can't see their sin, etc) and by extension our countries grievous, heinous sins.
The Bible itself teaches that Satan is the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 2:2, and Rev. 12:9. Jesus also repeatedly referred to Satan as the "prince/ruler of this world" in John's Gospel account. And if you choose to believe what Jesus Himself said in Luk. 11:21-22, no one can kick Satan off that throne except someone who is stronger than he is. No Christian is stronger than Satan, therefore this claim makes 0 sense.
I would love it if Doug would write a skit based on That Hideous Strength-it would be R Scott Clark’s version of St Anne’s on the Hill vs Doug’s. What kind of Ransom would R Scott Clark prefer ? The Ransom in the book as it is now, or a sort of neutered Ransom? Will the real Ransom please stand up?
I usually follow Doug's arguments but he quotes the great commission which as he clearly indicates "teaching them to obey" not "legislate them to obey". There's a pretty big difference and he just glossed over it.
Q: aren’t there Nation’s under the Christ’s reign (pre-mil friendly wording) Q2: Aren’t there Nations paying tribute to the new Jerusalem? ....so, those aren’t Christian? Isn’t the goal to bring others to Christ? Don’t they warrant representative government?How would believing in success, having faith in God for promised outcome be cosplay?
Growing up in the '50s and '60s, the general cultural consensus was Christian. It was reflected in government, law, education, popular entertainment (either explicitly or in what it did not present) and patterns of behavior that even non-Christians subscribed to. Even as we saw this slipping away in the late '60s and through the '70s, the changes that came were still viewed against a backdrop of an earlier standard. I would submit that we were living with elements of Christian nationalism. Clark says it would be wrong for us to desire and to work in the name of Christ toward a nation that looked like that again. By wrong, I assume he means sin. Sooooooo ... were our grandparents sinning by living, enjoying and -- as the attack on it became evident -- defending that culture? Should they have repented for attempting -- intenionally or unintentionally -- to build the kingdom here on earth? Did God want them to intentionally abandoned the culture to world? Should they have taken the lead on legalizing gay marriage and abortion? Should they have made America what it is now, 50 years ago? If we are to accept the present evil as neutral and we are forbidden to yearn and work to build a nation that honors Christ, shouldn't we be purging any remaining vestige of our grandparents' presumption? If it would be wrong in 2050, it was wrong in 1950 ...
I've had this same discussion when people pull out the boogeyman of theocracy, usually saying we'll turn into Iran. I ask, " Were we Iran in 1850? Or 1950?" We recognized God throughout the culture and government. No witches were burned.
@@YSLRD What about in the 1600's when witches were being burned in the name of God? Also, obviously America wasn't exactly like Iran in the 1950s but in terms of women's rights it wasn't far off.. Women in the 1950's were not allowed to make contracts or wills, could not buy or sell property, had little control of their earnings in most situations, and basically very limited rights.
The foundation of Christendom was right and it was capable of reforming itself. So many evangelical elites argue the whole structure was wrong but the foundation was right and produced freedoms the likes of which the world has never seen before.
![ОРБАН приехал к ПУТИНУ и "отчитался" о поездке в Киев 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_0ukDovOWq8/mqdefault.jpg)
I AM SOOOOO HAPPY I SAW THE INTERVIEW YOU DID WITH TUCKER. HOW HAVE I JUST NOW FOUND YOUR CHANNEL. My kind of guy. And definitely my kind of Pastor.
“No they’re scared, because we’re going back.”
What a battle cry, Doug. Amen. Let’s do it.
"The only choice is which 'Theo', which God, is going to be the God of the regime" - love that point.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights prohibiting an established religion wasn't to keep Christianity from being imposed on people. It was to keep any specific denomination from being imposed or for the government to discriminate between denominations. Christianity was a given as far as the founders were concerned.
It was to prevent the establishment of any religion with penalty or the prohibition from free exercise of religion. The Mathew 28 charge does not justify imposing Christianity- Christ never imposed religion. He preached and allow man to choose. Isn’t the free will and choice of man why we have plan of salvation - so all of a sudden God will dispense with freedom of choice and free will and allow for establishment of religion by law. There would be hypocritical Christianity because persons will obey for fear of penalty. God is looking for change in our hearts not just profession ( Ezekiel 36:25-27;Hebrews 10:16). Your establishment of religion would lead to the persecution of the persons who don’t agree the same problem Paul and the disciples and the founding fathers experienced why they ran to the shores of the United States. Look at thé examples of God working with the disciples, when they were oppressed God freed them showing prohibition of religion is not supported and therefore establishment of religion is not supported either.
The founding fathers were clear. The government can't force or pick what religion should be applied to citizens. Each citizen picks their own religion and government can't get involved.
@@jacobwatson3781 Yeah, it was to allow the free practice of any religion. It had nothing to do with keeping your religious views away from your politics. You can't establish a particular faith, but you absolutely can base political decisions on the principles of your religion.
Christian nationalism is entirely viable within the framework of the Constitution. It's not about forcing people to convert. It's about basing laws on the values of the Christian faith.
@Shmeebs How do you square that with the Treaty of Tripoli? Also, In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill “establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” Madison wrote his “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” in which he presented 15 reasons why government should not become involved in the support of any religion.
In his first term as president, Thomas Jefferson declared his firm belief in the separation of church and state in a letter to the Danbury, Conn. Baptists. He said: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” What you're saying is 100% incorrect and rewriting of history, also very dangerous. You view is exactly what the founding fathers were afraid of.
I'm a Roman Catholic but I will say Doug Wilson is one of the only top Protestants carrying his side on his back. This channel is really one of the very very few Protestant channels I entertain watching because Doug is consistent, funny and most of all he is actually God fearing.
I'm not reformed, but Doug really does want to please God and he us fighting against the machine. I applaud him. Thanks for sharing God bless you.
Roman Catholics and your pope are teaching a false gospel that will lead millions to hell.
@@Wiseguy-tw9tf ahh yes, the typical bitter and toxic Protestant who has to seize every opportunity for being an ignoramus. Peace be to you :)
@@PatristicRecluse I'm not a "Protestant" I'm a born again believer in Jesus Christ and his blood, and yeah I'm very bitter that millions and millions of people could be with Jesus forever in heaven yet are being led astray by Gospel perverters. By the way your Pope is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
@@Wiseguy-tw9tf your very words scream "Protestant" lol there's no other way about it.
Someone once asked me why I appreciate Doug Wilson so much. Answer: Because I want to be a Christian like that!
I enjoyed Doug showing some anger and frustration, he's passionate, passionate about Christ. I strive to be like that one day.
It's videos like this that show how much we need a reformed version of Babylon Bee.
Clark identifies as Reformed, so it seems that you would want something even more specific.
haha wow I want to make this happen
@@bman5257 No clue who Clark is, but since Babylon Bee seems to have a bunch of different types of "Christians", one guy who "identifies as reformed" doesn't make the company reformed
yeah I still think there the best tho
They do a pretty good job, and some people there are of the reformed persuasion. Notice that they were actually questioning his premises, not just nodding and smiling
Doug is all kinds of fired up about this.
Really so
It's annoying to endure stupidity.
I was here to say the same.
AND WE ALL SHOULD BE!
He was quite angry. The way he swiped the mic away at the end of the video; classic.
😂😂😂 I am looking forward to eternity with you Pastor Doug!
Also, my heart does grieve for the current state of the modern church, that has turned its back to Christ and adopted the idols of the pagans. May God rain down holy fire and consume the idols of this world and place each and every enemy under the feet of King Jesus!
This is probably my favorite video so far. Thanks Doug Wilson!
I have found, in all my years of "ministry", that someone who has a wishy-washy position like this often has skeletons in their closet that they know would be exposed should they either commit to a course of action or idea and have to walk it out. If you keep things confusing you never have to explain yourself and can keep going back into the closet to play...
Some of the most hardcore christians and Catholics are known to be sexually abusive and/or have covered up sexual abuse of minors in their ministries. So there is also the "he doth protest too much." concept at play as well. Doug Wilson himself had notably married a child sex abuser/pedophile to someone in his church. The abuse in fundy churches is at absurd and shocking levels.
@@davidshmavid5 Are you seriously asserting that those who rigorously keep God's law are sexually abusive?
@@TopJazzCat with the recent innumerable revelations coming out about sexual abuse in both the Catholic and Protestant churches, absolutely. You don't believe the numerous reports, testimony, police investigations, etc.?
@@davidshmavid5 That's not an answer.
@@TopJazzCat ?? I replied saying, "absolutely" to your question. You don't think that King David used his power/status to do what he wanted with Bathsheba?
*Adds Mr. Clark to prayer list*
Thanks for the reminder to pray for guys like him
Clark still believes the neutrality myth. Every regime is a theocratic regime ... and all the gods are jealous gods
Amen, I was thinking just that while watching
so, do we (non-Christians) all just have to submit to you guys? is there no way to coexist?
@@thehashbrowns6505 coexisting with Christian rulers means enjoying the fruits of being the blessed nation whose God is the Lord. You can keep your private sins if you want to, but must give up your public ones. You're welcome in advance.
@@thehashbrowns6505 you would be submitting to Christ, not “you guys”. This country was founded on biblical values and truth and that is why it flourished for so long. We have begun the divorce proceedings from God over the past 60-100 years and are seeing the fruits of that break up. If you’re a “non-Christian”, I recommend studying God’s Word and turning to the Truth. Don’t let the current cultural confusion trick you into eternal enmity with the one true and living God.
“Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live.””
Ezekiel 18:23, 32 ESV
@@jlettizard6465 I have read "God's word", and I still do, I just clearly came to a different conclusion than you. The fact that you are unable to see other perspectives as valid is what I'm worried about. I want a country where no one is made to submit to any one religion. I do believe that very value was also principle to the founding of the US.
I would pay to see the debate! Christians should hold debates on this..
I absolutely love how you pull back the layers of arguments and hold them up to the light of God’s reality! I realize it is not only good to do this in these moments like this, but it is excellent and righteous for our quite moments to reflect our hearts and mind against the same light. Thank you professor Wilson!
This was a great and hilarious takedown, good stuff!
Doug you are what my generation calls BASED. Glad Ive subbed.
the phrase "same sex mirage" is prob the best inventio of Doug Wilson
Oi
"smashmouth incrementalism"'s gotta be up there
@@captain12211 I don't even know what that means, but "same sex mirage" is obvious
I think the person who came up with that over a decade ago was Michael Brown... I could be wrong tho..
I'm not familiar with the Monopoly Guy, but I would enjoy hearing Doug interviewed by the Babylon Bee so that he can put forward a counter argument to MG.
That would be so awesome. I hope they invite him!
LOL. "Monopoly Guy". :)
I think Doug has been on the Babylon bee
@@Keystoneexperience Years ago on a really bad Internet connection. They need to have him back as soon and often as possible!
Doug has been on.
He blocks me. He blocks me and I shall have him!
DuckDuckGo says that's a Wrath of Khan quote. I thought you were quoting LOTR. :)
Our elites messed up something awful. There is no middleway between God and sin. "He who is not for me is against me."
The fact they are "elites" should have been the first clue.
For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
Absolutely fantastic as always... Thanks Doug... Thanks Canon
"Recovering the bits of the Reformed Confessions that suit me as 'an American'."
Excellent responses by Pastor Doug.
Doug is fired up. And I love it!
Would be nice to see you on Babylon Bee. In the very least the verbal fencing match would be hilarious.
Ha
I enjoyed your enthusiasm on this one Pastor Doug!
Religious liberty MUST be protected at all costs!!!!
Gosh Doug, I feel your frustration. I wish more people would come to the table with you on this topic.
well it's hard to come to the table when Doug is asking for an established Christian religion. the rest of us don't feel very welcome
@@thehashbrowns6505 Doug’s point is that actually everyone is asking for an “established religion”, including you. As Christians we should have enough common ground to be able to come together and establish a pretty decent political/social solution, as our founding fathers did. It won’t be everything Doug wants it to be, it won’t be everything I want it to be, and it won’t everything you want it to be, but it has the potential to be far better than what we have now. That is what Doug is trying to accomplish, and I stand with him.
@@wyattmartin7078 I'm not Christian. This "solution" sounds terrible to me. My ideal would be not holding anyone to the values of one group --how is that an established religion?
@@thehashbrowns6505 that would require there to be no law, because law is a manifestation of somebody’s values.
@@fredjames5473 I think the idea you’re lacking is democracy
God bless you, Doug Wilson.
I’ve been waiting for this one 👀
13:14 WE HAD BISHOPS OVER HERE!!!!
The anglicans and the confessionalists and the presbyterians we were all getting along until we rebelled.
We did this out of desire for independence as one people, not because “the bishops were coming” i’m surprised clark can’t even recognize this
Exactly. He also fails to realize that the Constitution gave allowance for states to establish an official state church, which for many areas easily could have been Episcopal/Anglican.
@@dbruh936 that’s true!
Idk
I can’t wait until the entire nation turns to Christ and trusts him with both salvation, and the benefits of just weights and measures, and punishing the evildoer, and rewarding the good.
@@dbruh936 Maryland was catholic, Maryland is name after Mary mother of Jesus.
It’s also you had the black rode that one of the most influential groups in the revolutionary era.
@@doomerquiet1909 I hope it does.
Don't be surprised. Scott Clark has been making asinine arguments like this for years.
Thank you for what you do. I appreciate the knowledge. God bless you
Clark (and the Episcopalians) wondered onto a battle field by mistake. He was shot with an arrow that is now stuck in his chest. He's looking at the arrow, admiring the nice feathers. If he's going to live, one of us needs to remove the arrow for him. The rest of us can remain fighting the battle together like the post resurrection disciples we are .
Pluralism. Noun. That temporary phase through which a culture passes as it exchanges one god for another.
Good one. Thanks Pastor Doug
We do not live in a religiously neutral country as you may think. There will always be an established religion. Which one would you like ? Is the current religion of secularism good for you?
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 you’re saying we don’t have a religion with blasphemy laws being written into bills now? With cultural laws that are intolerant of other religions, we dont have that right now? You don’t realize that secularism is the religion of the USA right now?
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 the (dis)respect for marriage act if signed into law. Hate speech laws are blasphemy laws.
Lol secularism isn’t a religion 😂😂😂
So good to hear ya'll taking up the old Covenenter cause. You are rightly picking up where modern Covenanters and Seceeders seam to have left off. Perhaps they can renew their vision of Messiah, Lord of the natuons and re-engage, joining with you in the good fight? Will the horn sound once more in Healms Deep? I pray so.
For Christ's Crown and Covenant!!!!
"I don't like bullies... never have... [always been one...]"
What struck me about that is that he doesn’t adequately recognize the secular left as the bullies. He doesn’t see that the REASON they want to call him a “Christian Nationalist” is to get him to deny it so they can accelerate their program of making “Christian Nationalist” into an epithet - an irredeemable sin. Since they will have won the war to define “Christian Nationalist”, they will use that epithet to defame, discredit, and marginalize ALL professing Christians - including temporarily-useful dolts like him, Russell Moore, Matt Chandler, David Platt, and the coterie of soup sandwiches that make up The Gospel Coalition.
Very good Doug, hope he sees this.
Great video. Doug easily dismantles 💯 of the points and exposed the contradictions.
" Oh....never mind." Maybe the best line.
Secularism is a religion. James Lindsay is closer to understanding this than Clarke and Lindsay is an atheist.
I've met too many Christians who live as though they hope the day will never come when all his neighbors are God fearing, faithful people.
So is Eric Weinstein.
Religion is going to find its way to you and affect you whether you give a shit or not. And I'd you're going to be an atheist you need to be honest about that.
Paraphrased from his modern wisdom interview. Secularism, and noq materialism and now trains are the religion were all too worship. But it really seems like we're all just supposed to worship the dnc
Clark reminds me of myself when I was living in CT going to public school being raised in a liberal church. The Scriptures and the pursuit of truth and practiced humility led me to realize I was trying to please a culture that I regarded as Americanism and libertarianism but I always felt pluralism was off a bit. I see Clark concerned about engaging with the truth being afraid to find himself agreeing with Christian Nationalism. But Secularism is also a form of Christian Nationalism (most Democrats are Christians) but it has been preached into and introduced false doctrines and ironically the fear of being called a bad name is one of the mechanisms used by these wolves. My thinking is ‘we need less politics in Christianity but more Christians in politics’, to be salt and light and to call out secularism pointing all men to the truth of the gospel and its liberating power from sin and fear.
Beyond words, grateful for Pastor Wilson's crystal clear apologetics.
Doug, don't feel bad. You aren't the only person who R. Scott Clark refuses to debate. One of my best friends in the entire world is married to R. Scott Clark's wife's cousin, and he has been trying to engage Dr. Clark on this very point for years. Dr. Clark is convinced in his own mind that he knows everything, and is right about everything, even when it can be easily shown from Scripture that he is wrong. Dr. Clark needs to repent before he finds out the hard way that Jesus Christ can and does smash His enemies like a potter's vessel. If you stand in the way of Jesus Christ and His authority... watch out!!!
Do you know why Clark himself says he won’t debate Doug?
@@kliniac3564 No I don't. What I can say is that Doug would win since not only does Scripture say that Jesus is "the ruler of the kings of the earth" and the "King of kings, and Lord of lords" but the Belgic Confession, to which Dr. Clark claims to subscribe, ASSUMES a Christian nation.
"We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, has appointed kings, princes, and magistrates; willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose He has invested the magistracy with the sword for the punishment of evil-doers and for the protection of them that do well.
Their office is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also to protect the sacred ministry, that the kingdom of Christ may thus be promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, as He commands in His Word." (Belgic Confession XXXVI)
In theory, the URCNA could bring Dr. Clark up on charges of heresy for NOT being a Christian nationalist.😁
@@danreichenberg5249
I believe Clark refused to debate because Doug’s teaching has been judged heretical and striking at the vitals of the confessions by extensive study committees received by many reformed denominations.
@@kliniac3564 It may be true that he may be using Doug's association with the Federal Vision as an excuse to not debate him. That doesn't change, that on this point, Dr. Clark is both wrong Scripturely, and out of accord with the Confession he claims to subscribe to. But, it is my experience that Dr. Clark pontificates, he doesn't debate.
@@danreichenberg5249
I guess if you say so
This was great! It’s a mystery to me why so many mushy headed Christians don’t understand the Dominion Mandate and/or the Great Commission, and/or American History, and/or Church History (especially those who claim to be great Church History scholars. Just quoting Matt. 28:16-20, blows their argument out of the water. It’s no wonder they won’t debate Doug Wilson. It doesn’t take a Doug Wilson to rip their guts out. It takes a 12 year old versed in the Bible. I’m greatly disappointed in the Babylon Bee. I thought they were better than this tripe. 17:20
Some patients is required here. And letting the means of grace deal with the Babylon bee and other real Christians, to deal with all this.
Remember we are coming to a point where we are seeing the dominant false church fail and all the baggage that is left from the , call it what you will, false church era that the boomers created. Hopefully we are entering a revival and the the dominance of the church era. This will take time. God is a player of the long game. He moves in generations.
We certainly should hope for better from christians. Let's be faithful with the truth. However let's rely on the holy Spirit to change the hearts of men.
The Babylon Bee routinely dances with liberal theology. They are sometimes funny, never a source of guidance or instruction.
Bingo! Mission is central to scripture, yet most Christian’s miss it.
I cant believe it, but I am agreeing with almost everything Dougie is saying here.
That was hard for you Mr. Wilson
One thing that neocons like this guy don’t understand. You cannot win by losing.
I believe we should view our politics thru our faith. Not the other way around.
Told my Christian friends that if you own a construction company that you should refuse to build mosques,kingdom halls,latter day temples etc and they they said that's too far. Absolute wimpyness
The civil rights act was ungodly as it took away freedom of association. That will be overturned too in our upcoming theocracy
No because I'm not a retreatist amishman, I'm an offensive warrior, either join our side and bow the knee to Christ or perish in the way and get put under his feet.
No because I'm not a retreatist amishman, I'm an offensive warrior, either join our side and bow the knee to Christ or perish in the way and get put under his feet.
Awesome mic drop at the end Doug!!!
"We can't pretend that what we have is somehow nuetral." Wow.
A quick summary of Clark’s position by Doug at 9:00 ; someone needs to make a gif of that
I remain very Baptist in the matter of liberty of conscience and the two kingdoms. Or, in the words of John Leland, the particular Baptist pastor, who pressed for the 1st amendment, "The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever...Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians."
A lot of Christians in the United States have got us figured out all wrong, we are Christians first in American second not the other way around
Christians absolutely have a right to hire and fire based on common interests, trust, & loyalty. That's what you do with dissenters. That alone would destroy the secular left.
Is it just me, or is Doug using a scripture that clearly deals with witnessing/sharing the gospel as a proof text for the "magistrate" (government) being asked to impose Christianity...... off base? Am I missing something?
that’s essentially the point. All the people freaking out about so-called Christian nationalism Don’t realize that it’s not about imposing anything. It’s about preaching the gospel with one of the INTENDED GOALS being that the laws of this nation eventually reflect the laws of God. Because they are the only righteous laws. God’s law is the standard. but it happens from the ground up. Beginning with witnessing and sharing the gospel. and that’s what Doug believes. We don’t believe in a top-down solution
@@siebenboy Your explanation is much clearer than his response in the video. I think this also overlooks that many of the people freaking out about Christian “nationalism”, are freaking out not because they think the church will some day influence the government, but that in the current political climate the political systems have infiltrated the church. In other words, the real fear is not Christian nationalism, but instead nationalistic Christianity (I may have made this term up). It is the fear that many people in Christian leadership positions/churches have let their political desires and positions become more important than the gospel in there ideologies, teachings, and by extension their life styles. I have watched as many prominent leaders have seemed to be more pro Trump than pro Jesus. Many conservative Christian leaders have embraced conspiracy theories, propagated falsehoods, and at times have been more ideologically influenced by QAnon than the Bible. It is a problem when our churches become rhetorical vehicles for stolen election, or anti vaccination conspiracy theories in the name of political ideology. I still hear certain leaders in Christian camps saying that trump is the president, and will be restored into the office in the near future. In many Christian spaces they have traded truth for political alignment. So in short, I think we have a lot to fear from nationalistic Christianity/Christian nationalism. It is not truth seeking, it is corrupted political allegiance.
@@chrisharper835 mmhmm. I invite/recommend you to start hanging around reformed folks. We're not like that.
@@siebenboy point well taken….lol…..my criticism here isn’t aimed at the reformed crowd, but it does context/frame the bigger questions/concerns regarding Christian nationalism that is referred to in the video.
I wish I could spam the like button on this video, as once doesn’t seem enough! Keep exposing the myth of neutrality, the religious nature of secularism and the foolishness of ignoring the great commission!
Missed my favourite part of the interview where Clark criticizes Gov Stitt for praying in his office
Well done Doug!👊
This was an amazing reaction!
Someone asked me once, "what christian place would you like to most visit in the world?" The correct answer was Israel, but I answered, "doug wilsons church." I stand by that statement.
Does everyone know who R. Scott Clark is, except me?
No clue
Honestly thought he was just a Twitter personality. Seems bigger, I guess.
Never heard of him until today. From what I've seen here he seems very unreformed.
I only heard of him when I watched (or tried to watch) that Babylon Bee video. I was hoping Doug Wilson would respond, and he did so quite well.
I heard he was a big detractor of Reconstructionism many moons ago he used to have pops at North, Bhansen, etc without much traction ……
Ohh dr clark..... Habakkuk 2:14 ....dont u worry ....we are going back....plus more
Do y’all rally think that R. Scott Clark would deny that secularism is a religion?
This was very helpful.
Yep.
Last 5 versus of Matthew.
Also the last verses of Mark also count.
Pls. I am old enough to remember The Cold War and parents who were atheists because of Communism. I remember having a Bible because I had to write a paper for school (in America). My father saw it and screamed as loud as I had ever heard him, "GET THAT BOOK OUT OF MY HOUSE!" If I was scared of the status quo, I wouldn't have even humored turning to Christ. If that guy, R. Scott Clark wants to play games with history maybe he should really examine how America is different from other countries and why.
Love the mic throw at the end. Great video. Doug was worked up.
Something else is the fact that Christian nationalism is a natural result of ministry and obedience to Christ.
Watching Doug debate this simp would be like watching a fight between Tyson Fury and Joe Biden.
Doug Wilson should formally challenge him to a debate. Pretty sure that Clark would decline.
When I recently heard Pastor John MacArthur say he couldn't ever be for "religous freedom" from his pulpit I felt, as I've often felt listening to him, as if my rock (brian) was relieved of another layer of hardness. Sin is a hardener in the putty of my intellect far too often and far, far to efectively. Praise the Lord, He is stronger than my inherent weakness.
I'm glad you brought this up. After I heard from pastor MacArthur about this comment, I was intrigued and wasn't sure if it is Biblical. (I'm usually agreeing with pastor MacArthur 99.99% of the time)
If we're not for "religious freedom", aka, the free will to choose, does it mean we're for "no religious freedom", which really comes down to who holds the power to be the enforcer. Is that really God's will before the return of Christ?
@@smallwei76 (AND ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED IN THIS): I'd suggest editing your response with more clarity and explanation of what you are asking... BTW, quoting only that phrase from MacArthur's sermon can give others who never listen the the whole CONTEXT a very wrong impression. There are _two very different categories_ at play here! A true Believer who wants to follow God's will in witnessing to "the lost" on how to be saved will never, cannot, be satisfied with only, "Well, I'm glad you're free to believe whatever you want to!" And will want to have the freedom to publicly present the Gospel to whomever is sinning against God's clear Word. _But_ in the category of politics, we must fight very much for the Federal GOV to maintain the original "religious freedoms" the USA was founded upon to _not force_ all of its citizens to pledge their lives to any particular Christian denomination, nor jail or expel someone even for not believing in God... _HOWEVER_, today we live in times where many US citizens are attempting to literally replace those early "religious freedoms" with "Anything but Christianity" or even outright "Only atheists can be trusted to run the country!!!" Doing that will only finally result in the country being controlled by the devil, laws that you can kill anyone the state deems 'unproductive' and on and on! In Canada, it's already a crime to "witness" to many people; to call sinners to repentance!! I very much do NOT want a country run by the hypocritical R.C. hierarchy of the Middle Ages and all the way up to long after "the Reformation" in some countries; nor how a number of so-called "Protestant" countries were run either; with some of their own atrocities! BUT if the USA is not led back to maintaining true rights, equally, for ALL who live here, without hypocrisy, and laws end up becoming based only on what atheists want (such as even killing 1 month old babies! Yes some politicians have actually called for that!!) it will be doomed to be only whatever most want to do; or what only those in power (like the Nazis) or a tyranny or anarchy, but not true freedom.
@@Dan123TheStarman Just for whoever is interested to hear the whole sermon, here is the link: ua-cam.com/video/_8kk3-mMgHk/v-deo.html
The portion pastor MacArthur talks about regarding religious freedom is at around 44:40 ua-cam.com/video/_8kk3-mMgHk/v-deo.html?t=2677
@@smallwei76 all the righteous kings of the Old Testament (Hezekiah, Josaiah, Jehoshaphat) explicitly destroyed pagan groves and built up the Jewish temple (with public taxpayer funds no less). They are explicitly lauded by God for doing so. This type of theocracy is the ideal.
@@mosesking2923 Agree. I'm looking forward to theocracy with the perfect God Jesus Christ on the throne. Until then, not sure if I want any sinful human as my temporary "king".
Hans Fiene over at Lutheran Satire has a great video on Christian Nationalism. It is really funny, and makes some good points
the trouble with "Christian nationalism" is the implied focus. when you say nationalism, the focus is the nation. for some people that word evokes thoughts of government. the government should not be to focus of the Church; the people should. we are called to make disciples. disciples, in turn, change government. you don't change the government to create disciples. you create disciples and the nation changes.
@@Charles.Wright not sure what you're getting at here.
Correct me if I'm wrong: R. Scott Clark says he doesn't know what Christian Nationalism is, but then uses arguments from Stephen Wolfe's The Case for Christian Nationalism?
In light of John 17.20-24, was Matt 28.19 added later and not one of Jesus' actual quotes?
This canard, that "Christian Nationalism" is about a top down imposition of religion, by force, has been the "go to" position of evangelicals since some Christians began saying "enough" back in the 80's. No matter how many times, writers, preachers and ministries have stated that the postmillennial hope is based on conversion, not coercion - they'd rather create a strawman than honestly deal with the actual arguments. That says something either about their basic literacy skills, or their character - take your pick - it has to be one or the other.
☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾
Why would any American submit to the British/ westminster Confession of faith? That sounds a lot like romanism to me.
I can now see why Scott will NOT debate nor correspond with Wilson.
I don't hold to the Westminster confession, because I have read it. I hold to the Scriptures
So you believe the Westminster Confession of Faith is not Biblical? Point to where it contradicts scripture?
@@thereisnopandemic Some of it is not Biblical. It reminds me of a movie that is based off of something, but it is not the True Book.
Although, it is better to have some kind of foundation that reflects some of the Bible, then to have no foundation. But... The Book is better
“Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence”.
First wrong, that is, if they believe in “providence” as being that God willed and purposed all things to be as they are before the foundation of the world, then the confession is wrong. The original intent of the Bible does not show us that.
The second wrong part, being this: “those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.“
God has told us in His Word that “and of His kingdom there shall be no end”. This means that all that is of His kingdom, which happened, and which He gave unto His church to continue His work while He is physically away, there is no end to. Everything that He has showed to us, and all things that reflect that same nature and way, and which will bring glory unto His Name, in which the Scriptures do not contradict; these are not done away with. A cessation is not biblical, but theological and traditional.
I don't have a problem with the confession helping to establish some truths, and it is better than having no knowledge at all. But, the Bible is the Bible, and the westminster is not. Can God use it to bring people unto the knowledge of the truth? Yes. But, just like with the concordance, it is not a replacement for what God has shown unto us in His Word. It can help. It can be a guide, but the guide is not the Bible.
“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;a so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.b But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,c therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,d that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner,e and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.”
Nope sorry, all languages are a vulgar tongue, for they proceed forth from the Babel, when God confused the people. And all languages, since the fall have become vulgar. The Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc, tongues are all vulgar. God gets the glory because, He can even illuminate all nations and peoples, and tribes, because He uses the vulgar tongues, which the Scriptures were even originally written in, to bring glory due His Name and to sanctify people unto Himself.
"Modern Christians aren't grieved." Amen. Over our own sin (nominal "Christians" can't see their sin, etc) and by extension our countries grievous, heinous sins.
It is every Christian's responsibility to kick Satan out of their government!
The Bible itself teaches that Satan is the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 2:2, and Rev. 12:9. Jesus also repeatedly referred to Satan as the "prince/ruler of this world" in John's Gospel account. And if you choose to believe what Jesus Himself said in Luk. 11:21-22, no one can kick Satan off that throne except someone who is stronger than he is. No Christian is stronger than Satan, therefore this claim makes 0 sense.
Secularism explantation the best I've heard. He is absolutely correct.
This man saying "I don't think people have an understanding of American history." Duuuuuuude! No self awareness at all. 👀
I would love it if Doug would write a skit based on That Hideous Strength-it would be R Scott Clark’s version of St Anne’s on the Hill vs Doug’s. What kind of Ransom would R Scott Clark prefer ? The Ransom in the book as it is now, or a sort of neutered Ransom? Will the real Ransom please stand up?
I usually follow Doug's arguments but he quotes the great commission which as he clearly indicates "teaching them to obey" not "legislate them to obey". There's a pretty big difference and he just glossed over it.
Neutrality is the philosophical fig leaf of polytheism.
Sin is one of the reasons for the season. Repent, therefore, and kiss the Son, the only Savior.
Quick question. Didn't jesus say that my kingdom is not of this earth and my followers will not fight?
Voting for Trump involves a pen, not a pitchfork. ✌️
Not a Calvinist but I like Doug
9:58
Amen.
Q: aren’t there Nation’s under the Christ’s reign (pre-mil friendly wording)
Q2: Aren’t there Nations paying tribute to the new Jerusalem?
....so, those aren’t Christian?
Isn’t the goal to bring others to Christ? Don’t they warrant representative government?How would believing in success, having faith in God for promised outcome be cosplay?
Hence, the double headset eagle. Look at the symbolic meaning behind that.
But he doesn’t hold to the Westminster confession, right? Like he’s explicit about that, right?
Growing up in the '50s and '60s, the general cultural consensus was Christian. It was reflected in government, law, education, popular entertainment (either explicitly or in what it did not present) and patterns of behavior that even non-Christians subscribed to. Even as we saw this slipping away in the late '60s and through the '70s, the changes that came were still viewed against a backdrop of an earlier standard. I would submit that we were living with elements of Christian nationalism. Clark says it would be wrong for us to desire and to work in the name of Christ toward a nation that looked like that again. By wrong, I assume he means sin.
Sooooooo ... were our grandparents sinning by living, enjoying and -- as the attack on it became evident -- defending that culture? Should they have repented for attempting -- intenionally or unintentionally -- to build the kingdom here on earth? Did God want them to intentionally abandoned the culture to world? Should they have taken the lead on legalizing gay marriage and abortion? Should they have made America what it is now, 50 years ago? If we are to accept the present evil as neutral and we are forbidden to yearn and work to build a nation that honors Christ, shouldn't we be purging any remaining vestige of our grandparents' presumption?
If it would be wrong in 2050, it was wrong in 1950 ...
I've had this same discussion when people pull out the boogeyman of theocracy, usually saying we'll turn into Iran.
I ask, " Were we Iran in 1850? Or 1950?"
We recognized God throughout the culture and government. No witches were burned.
@@YSLRD What about in the 1600's when witches were being burned in the name of God?
Also, obviously America wasn't exactly like Iran in the 1950s but in terms of women's rights it wasn't far off.. Women in the 1950's were not allowed to make contracts or wills, could not buy or sell property, had little control of their earnings in most situations, and basically very limited rights.
Scotty used to be a unitarian universalist. That is why he favors allowing the government to impose false religion. 8:10
The foundation of Christendom was right and it was capable of reforming itself. So many evangelical elites argue the whole structure was wrong but the foundation was right and produced freedoms the likes of which the world has never seen before.