30:26 "You could actually blame [the RCC for] 'religious liberty' in Continental Europe in the Enlightenment. Actually the opposition to the Roman Catholic Church explains religious liberty in Continental Europe and that's because of the the nature of the Roman Catholic system." Yes! This is also what William Cunningham argues for the origins of Socinianism. More work needs to be done pointing out examples of this because Rome always accuses Protestants of destroying Western Civilization, but it was mostly them (and of course the schismatics and heretics).
I love Stephen's office/studio, but the thumbnail makes me want to see some laid back videos with the Dr. sitting at the kitchen table sipping on a glass of whiskey while discussing a topic.
I hate it. First for it being completely samples of film not of his own work. Second for Confederacy seen along side other Christian or patriotic scenes. Just pathetic.
@@YTTraveler777 Many Confederate generals were very Godly men if you took the time to read anything they wrote or what was unbiasedly written about them.
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."--Unam Sanctum, 1302 A.D.
Do you think it would be possible to build a coalition of churches of any denomination to petition/pressure a state government for an established church status? I’m fairly new to the idea of CN and I was wondering exactly how we could return to that or even how the original Protestant churches were established in the states to begin with.
This was a very interesting listen. It's interesting because I have some self-reflection on my own dogmatic convictions that I hold to. And then I wonder where is the line of where you accommodate too much, versus what are the things that we don't want to allow heresy in?
I've been an advocate for CN since before it was trendy, but even I have some reservations about it. Imagine if it's the Catholics who are the "Christains" who take charge, and they get to decide if your speech about the "truth" of Christianity is hurting souls or not. And that goes for the denominations as well. Some might want to make it illegal to question the concept of the trinity, even though Paul never tells us we must believe in the concept of the trinity to be saved (1 cor. 15:3-4). One might say you're simply not a Christian if you don't believe in the trinity, but belief in the trinity is not a part of the saving gospel of grace. So this brings us to a philosophical question: What is a Christian? Where do we draw the line? Mormons and JW - not Christians, and in my view, RCC are not saved. There needs to be some kind of freedom of speech with regards to the debates that occur within Christianity. We need, as a group of Christian nationalists, to define the basic common denominators, the "mere Christianity" that such a culture, society and nation can be built on. There are problems everywhere. For example, at this point in my life (51), I think it's wrongheaded to create a sabbath day out of Sunday, because this is not a "Judeo-Christian" nation, and the Sabbath was for Jews. We are not under the law, at all, so I don't like the idea of foisting the law upon Christians in any way. So even among us non-Catholics, there's a potential for serious divide.
Well the Declaration is based upon Lockes liberalism which is his protestant religion from what ive understood. As far as blaspheme laws.. that could overlapp with religious liberty. I did recommend some books on Locke if anyone is interested.
I think you are correct in that there needs to be a baseline to what can be incorporated in a CN. Catholics and other cults like Mormons, SDA, etc. can make their own state.
@EverEverOn everyone is guilty of blaspheme...not just non protestants.. Lockean dissenting Christianity is the best approach and is what the republic is based upon as far as how it's christian..and the type of protestant religion.
@@TheMorning_Son what the current 'republic' is based on is irrelevant, because it is breaking apart. What comes post-US is what matters, to me anyway.
In VT I need some ideas......I do say I am a chirstian...Its sad about the Catholic Church.....yet many people are unlearned in the catholic church...you prolly know more than them ..its a bunch of words on a piece of paper for the Vatican 2? contradiction. yes .its a ll a magic and ritual practice and writing documents is their MO....modus operandi Thanks Stephen for interesting Liberty of Conscience.....and how the catholic Church binds your conscience...yet we must be gracious as they are anti-abortion and to win them to Christ we must win them for life in Christ....to show them the way out for lack of a better term....Be well ...and thanks so much for I am in great darkness here in VT ..if you only knew how isolating and crazy it is....
I think it depends on the brand of Arminianism. The central concern with an Arminian doctrine is that it would remove from God a knowledge of all things that is resident to His nature. Open Theism is an example of Arminian theology taken too far, where it becomes unorthodox. At the end of the day, things like our doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation are the points of union in protestant churches, among the various differences. Soteriology is one of those theological categories that in some ways is primary, and in others is secondary. It rides the line.
@@naterpotater7739 I see your point however, when one states openly that it is up to them to decide their final destination i.e. acceptance of Christ, they are heretical.
Arminianism is heresy. There is a sense in which Arminianism can really and actually damn depending on the degree of knoweldge, and awareness that it is inconsistent with grace and faith alone because it denies some vital aspects of grace/faith alone. To call not call it heresy is too weak because it can actually damn. At the same time to always call it heresy in every case is too strong as though there could never be a genuine believer, who is an Arminian . Whether it damns or not depends on the degree of knowledge. Arminianism is an error inconsistent with the fundamantal articl faith alone. Not only does denying the funamental damn but also errors inconsistent with the fundamantal can damn. If you hold to Arminianism practically you can and will be damned. Whether it damns depends on whether you are aware, know that it denies faith alone logically, and you continue to persevere in that error and deliberately reject it, in favour of your works righteousness. However there are those who innocently hold to it, and those should be accepted as brothers. Compare it to going to the mass. Going to the mass is an error inconsistent with the fundamental article, yet , according to Witsius the elect, during popery, were saved. He also says the mass is a virtual renounciation of the once for all sacrifice of Christ. So that it also damns, if you do it knowingly , consciously and deliberately rejecting Christ, and not trusting his once for all Sacrifice. There is a difference between going to the mass, because its the only church, and you dont know what the mass really is, but we just do this mass thing, but I do not know what it is, I am ignorant of it, vs knowing I am going to mass because I do not believe Jesus is enough. In like manner Arminianism, if held to, knowing what it is, logically, then you are damned. So hypothetically and potentially it can damn, though not in all cases and every instance. In the early church it was a lot more excusable to be an Arminian because it was not thought out in as much depth and as clearly condemned as it has been since then. To consider all those Arminians unbelievers would be too harsh a standard, but that does not mean the standard cannot change. I think as an objective standard it is good to say Arminians are not believers, though that is not literally true all the time.
@@RebuilderofZion I do agree. I will say that if one is aware of arminianism and still refuses to leave the ranks of it, then they are heretics. I never wish to use a broad brush when it comes to it as we do not know who the elect are. However the question must be posed: Is someone elect knowing full well that they reside in a heretical church/have heretical beliefs? I can only state that I do not believe the Lord would allow it to happen.
Religious Laws are laws that protect, preserve, promote or privilege one class of religious opinions, faith, teachings and practices above all others. It is intended to put an end to competition between the religion of the majority and that of the minority or vice versa. This is evil. Attaching penalties to those who act out a religion unrecognized by the law of the land is evil. It is not the office of civil order to determine whether a particular religious belief will lead people to hell or not. Leave that to God. He will sustain the religion which He started and preserve it from corruption. Not us. The office of civil order is to protect men's rights which preexisted it. Jesus Christ is the Author of Religious Liberty, and it is not given to any man on earth to narrow or limit its operation to whosoever Jesus Christ grants it. It is not the office of civil government to suppress heresy or false religious belief, except in cases where that false religion undermines the constitution and invades another man's rights. Our right of free religious expression was given us by God alone , and it is not the office of any creature to determine when, where, how or even if that right shall be exercised.
Does liberty of conscience apply to faith beliefs? Do we actually have this liberty in Christ, or is this a Protestant invention? Wouldn’t this be free will, which would make Calvinism wrong?
@ calvinists believe in predestination. Wouldn’t that mean that the conscience is not always free to believe as it pleases since our nature is depraved?
@@mamimalista7924Calvinism teaches the common sense belief that will is predicated upon nature, therefore if a person has a depraved nature, then there will is depraved yet free, because the desire of the man is not subverted.
@@mamimalista7924 Luther's bondage of the will, the unregenerate has free agency to freely chooses the depravity their will is bound to. Search "the distinction between free will and free agency," article from Monergism that comes up that's clarifying.
I grew up Catholic baptized as an infant in the Catholic Chirch, became a professing believer as an adult in College in a duthc reformed church in Queens Christian Reformed Chirch ...sprinkled in baptism as an adult professsing my faith...I consider myslef a reformed protestant ...i had also been dunked in an ABC church just to be gracious....yet I dont agree with adult baptism ...God is a covenantal God....I do believe that my infant baptism is accepted de facto by God....even though the Cathollic Church is mistaken in many things...I see being baptised in the trinty the first step in the Christian life....we are to make good our baptisms.....the fact that i was baptized in the triune God is enough.....
thumbnail from ad is next level
30:26 "You could actually blame [the RCC for] 'religious liberty' in Continental Europe in the Enlightenment. Actually the opposition to the Roman Catholic Church explains religious liberty in Continental Europe and that's because of the the nature of the Roman Catholic system."
Yes! This is also what William Cunningham argues for the origins of Socinianism. More work needs to be done pointing out examples of this because Rome always accuses Protestants of destroying Western Civilization, but it was mostly them (and of course the schismatics and heretics).
I love Stephen's office/studio, but the thumbnail makes me want to see some laid back videos with the Dr. sitting at the kitchen table sipping on a glass of whiskey while discussing a topic.
Your intro gets me every time.
If you see this Mr. Wolfe, an upload of just your intro would be much appreciated.
I hate it. First for it being completely samples of film not of his own work. Second for Confederacy seen along side other Christian or patriotic scenes. Just pathetic.
@@YTTraveler777why are you here?
@@YTTraveler777 Many Confederate generals were very Godly men if you took the time to read anything they wrote or what was unbiasedly written about them.
@@blakelasky6893ua-cam.com/video/GeQWY4ZmP5I/v-deo.htmlsi=WsPYo44zg_qKDz_c
EMINENTLY REASONABLE
I notice that you noticed something in minute 41.
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."--Unam Sanctum, 1302 A.D.
Galatians 2:11“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”
Amen brother
At one point I heard "Calvin wasn't for execution, just for beheading" . Which is probably not what was said.
That music…. 👍
When will you debate James White ?
Do you think it would be possible to build a coalition of churches of any denomination to petition/pressure a state government for an established church status? I’m fairly new to the idea of CN and I was wondering exactly how we could return to that or even how the original Protestant churches were established in the states to begin with.
Excellent!
Well said. That helped me. Thank you.
Thought we were drinking whiskey in this episode.
This was a very interesting listen. It's interesting because I have some self-reflection on my own dogmatic convictions that I hold to. And then I wonder where is the line of where you accommodate too much, versus what are the things that we don't want to allow heresy in?
This was very good ....learned so much antithesis yes Christians are the minority I am in VT and I am so depressed and upset ..its a dark place ....
i was baptised three times ugh i was baptised as a infant then sprinkled as an adult and then dunked..lol i did it because i was being gracious
Hi Stephen have you read Rutherfords pretended liberty of conscience???
Helpful video
Commenting for algo
I love this channel! And the thumbnail!
These three are the way of man; these four recorded in scripture: to receive the law, to break the law, to abuse the law, & to know wisdom.
Stephen can you please do a more in depth video specifically on pretended liberty of conscience ? Thanks brother
39:28 Stephen Wolfe, Do you agree with the Roman Catholic Church that Liberty of Conscience is the Greatest of all Evils?
I've been an advocate for CN since before it was trendy, but even I have some reservations about it. Imagine if it's the Catholics who are the "Christains" who take charge, and they get to decide if your speech about the "truth" of Christianity is hurting souls or not. And that goes for the denominations as well. Some might want to make it illegal to question the concept of the trinity, even though Paul never tells us we must believe in the concept of the trinity to be saved (1 cor. 15:3-4). One might say you're simply not a Christian if you don't believe in the trinity, but belief in the trinity is not a part of the saving gospel of grace. So this brings us to a philosophical question: What is a Christian? Where do we draw the line? Mormons and JW - not Christians, and in my view, RCC are not saved. There needs to be some kind of freedom of speech with regards to the debates that occur within Christianity. We need, as a group of Christian nationalists, to define the basic common denominators, the "mere Christianity" that such a culture, society and nation can be built on. There are problems everywhere. For example, at this point in my life (51), I think it's wrongheaded to create a sabbath day out of Sunday, because this is not a "Judeo-Christian" nation, and the Sabbath was for Jews. We are not under the law, at all, so I don't like the idea of foisting the law upon Christians in any way. So even among us non-Catholics, there's a potential for serious divide.
Well the Declaration is based upon Lockes liberalism which is his protestant religion from what ive understood.
As far as blaspheme laws.. that could overlapp with religious liberty. I did recommend some books on Locke if anyone is interested.
I think you are correct in that there needs to be a baseline to what can be incorporated in a CN. Catholics and other cults like Mormons, SDA, etc. can make their own state.
@EverEverOn everyone is guilty of blaspheme...not just non protestants..
Lockean dissenting Christianity is the best approach and is what the republic is based upon as far as how it's christian..and the type of protestant religion.
@@EverEverOn there already is a baseline..
@@TheMorning_Son what the current 'republic' is based on is irrelevant, because it is breaking apart. What comes post-US is what matters, to me anyway.
In VT I need some ideas......I do say I am a chirstian...Its sad about the Catholic Church.....yet many people are unlearned in the catholic church...you prolly know more than them ..its a bunch of words on a piece of paper for the Vatican 2? contradiction. yes .its a ll a magic and ritual practice and writing documents is their MO....modus operandi Thanks Stephen for interesting Liberty of Conscience.....and how the catholic Church binds your conscience...yet we must be gracious as they are anti-abortion and to win them to Christ we must win them for life in Christ....to show them the way out for lack of a better term....Be well ...and thanks so much for I am in great darkness here in VT ..if you only knew how isolating and crazy it is....
You believe what you do. So saying you can believe something but cannot act it out is just not a human characteristic.
Yet arminians are not Christian via doctrine. How can one pray with and/or align with heretics?
I think it depends on the brand of Arminianism. The central concern with an Arminian doctrine is that it would remove from God a knowledge of all things that is resident to His nature. Open Theism is an example of Arminian theology taken too far, where it becomes unorthodox.
At the end of the day, things like our doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation are the points of union in protestant churches, among the various differences. Soteriology is one of those theological categories that in some ways is primary, and in others is secondary. It rides the line.
@@naterpotater7739 I see your point however, when one states openly that it is up to them to decide their final destination i.e. acceptance of Christ, they are heretical.
@@naterpotater7739 Not just Open Theism, also Evangelical Arminianism
Arminianism is heresy. There is a sense in which Arminianism can really and actually damn depending on the degree of knoweldge, and awareness that it is inconsistent with grace and faith alone because it denies some vital aspects of grace/faith alone. To call not call it heresy is too weak because it can actually damn. At the same time to always call it heresy in every case is too strong as though there could never be a genuine believer, who is an Arminian . Whether it damns or not depends on the degree of knowledge. Arminianism is an error inconsistent with the fundamantal articl faith alone. Not only does denying the funamental damn but also errors inconsistent with the fundamantal can damn. If you hold to Arminianism practically you can and will be damned. Whether it damns depends on whether you are aware, know that it denies faith alone logically, and you continue to persevere in that error and deliberately reject it, in favour of your works righteousness. However there are those who innocently hold to it, and those should be accepted as brothers. Compare it to going to the mass. Going to the mass is an error inconsistent with the fundamental article, yet , according to Witsius the elect, during popery, were saved. He also says the mass is a virtual renounciation of the once for all sacrifice of Christ. So that it also damns, if you do it knowingly , consciously and deliberately rejecting Christ, and not trusting his once for all Sacrifice. There is a difference between going to the mass, because its the only church, and you dont know what the mass really is, but we just do this mass thing, but I do not know what it is, I am ignorant of it, vs knowing I am going to mass because I do not believe Jesus is enough. In like manner Arminianism, if held to, knowing what it is, logically, then you are damned. So hypothetically and potentially it can damn, though not in all cases and every instance. In the early church it was a lot more excusable to be an Arminian because it was not thought out in as much depth and as clearly condemned as it has been since then. To consider all those Arminians unbelievers would be too harsh a standard, but that does not mean the standard cannot change. I think as an objective standard it is good to say Arminians are not believers, though that is not literally true all the time.
@@RebuilderofZion I do agree. I will say that if one is aware of arminianism and still refuses to leave the ranks of it, then they are heretics. I never wish to use a broad brush when it comes to it as we do not know who the elect are. However the question must be posed: Is someone elect knowing full well that they reside in a heretical church/have heretical beliefs? I can only state that I do not believe the Lord would allow it to happen.
Religious Laws are laws that protect, preserve, promote or privilege one class of religious opinions, faith, teachings and practices above all others. It is intended to put an end to competition between the religion of the majority and that of the minority or vice versa. This is evil. Attaching penalties to those who act out a religion unrecognized by the law of the land is evil. It is not the office of civil order to determine whether a particular religious belief will lead people to hell or not. Leave that to God. He will sustain the religion which He started and preserve it from corruption. Not us.
The office of civil order is to protect men's rights which preexisted it. Jesus Christ is the Author of Religious Liberty, and it is not given to any man on earth to narrow or limit its operation to whosoever Jesus Christ grants it. It is not the office of civil government to suppress heresy or false religious belief, except in cases where that false religion undermines the constitution and invades another man's rights.
Our right of free religious expression was given us by God alone , and it is not the office of any creature to determine when, where, how or even if that right shall be exercised.
Does liberty of conscience apply to faith beliefs? Do we actually have this liberty in Christ, or is this a Protestant invention? Wouldn’t this be free will, which would make Calvinism wrong?
Calvinism believes in free will, what do you mean?
@ calvinists believe in predestination. Wouldn’t that mean that the conscience is not always free to believe as it pleases since our nature is depraved?
@@mamimalista7924Calvinism teaches the common sense belief that will is predicated upon nature, therefore if a person has a depraved nature, then there will is depraved yet free, because the desire of the man is not subverted.
@@mamimalista7924 Luther's bondage of the will, the unregenerate has free agency to freely chooses the depravity their will is bound to. Search "the distinction between free will and free agency," article from Monergism that comes up that's clarifying.
I grew up Catholic baptized as an infant in the Catholic Chirch, became a professing believer as an adult in College in a duthc reformed church in Queens Christian Reformed Chirch ...sprinkled in baptism as an adult professsing my faith...I consider myslef a reformed protestant ...i had also been dunked in an ABC church just to be gracious....yet I dont agree with adult baptism ...God is a covenantal God....I do believe that my infant baptism is accepted de facto by God....even though the Cathollic Church is mistaken in many things...I see being baptised in the trinty the first step in the Christian life....we are to make good our baptisms.....the fact that i was baptized in the triune God is enough.....
Confederacy in intro says everything one needs to know.
Pathetic
See ya!