Maybe that’s why only one institution is ordained as “Christian”, the church. A true church is just that, true and not false. False churches do what they do, they do “false”. Read BC 27 and you’ll figure it out.
I'd like to give another analogy on top of your ones that definitively shows the absurdity of their take that "Christian states always go bad, therefore we shouldn't pursue Christian Nationalism." By the exact same principle, just as human bodies all eventually decay and die, we should therefore not seek to increase our years or maintain a good quality of life. It is not sinful to eat poorly, not exercise, to become obese, and abuse your body many other ways. They basically presented the chiral left-handed version of Ecclesiastes; formally almost identical, but in effect completely different, and dangerous.
Stephen, Thank you, thank you! So much of your position has been clarified for me through this video! It is very frustrating to struggle to put these ideas into words. I have been struggling for a couple years now to do that. I believe that this video is your best effort thus far. Those who have taken a position against you and these ideas seem to have a mental barrier. I wish you articulated this way when you were interviewed by Gordon. I do not share your thoughts about his being persuaded by his network of friends but that he himself cannot and will not let himself consider the idea of operating in this world for the purpose of obeying, loving our Lord, loving our neighbor, and promoting Christ's ways as the means of loving our neighbors through whatever position we find ourselves in. Either in fulltime church vocation or any other including the political arena. What other agenda do they expect us to promote in these arena's? No one thinks its bad to have a secular career. But somehow they think its wrong to have a political oriented career and promote Christ's ways in it. because they think that we cannot help but promote His ways without "forcing" "conversions". But they have no problem for the christian to promote strictly secular ways that they would likely define as " neutral". However there is never a "neutral". Bottom line is that the best way to love our neighbor politically is with the implementation of Biblical "societal laws". This is what would lessen the pain and suffering and destruction of our neighbor's lives. The debate should be ...what should look like and how should that be determined?
Your digression into the absurdity of being morally allowed to deploy nukes…but not enforce sabbath laws is exactly why I could never take Escondido seriously. The positions reduces either to pacifism or absurdity and we’ve already eliminated pacifism.
Totally agree. This is a good example of pastors keeping to their realm, and being careful when reaching outside the ministry of Word and Sacrament. They have ministerial authority over those things, but it would be absurd for them to accuse me of sin because I didn’t change my car’s oil soon enough. There are limits on the authority of a pastor. It’s just obvious.
@@nate296 I just didn’t understand the comment. When you’re my age, your brain might not work as well as it does now either lol. I just wanted a little clarification about what you meant. I wasn’t arguing or trying to be rude. Unlike you!
I watched the whole episode you did with gordon. It was soooo painful, and I couldn’t believe you kept your cool. I find it hard to believe he wasn’t trying to be obtuse.
And yet he enjoyed the convo, what a dumb comment. Tell me “onboard” anon, my bold interlocutor, why was it so painful? Can you put together a thought for us …?
@ hey gordon, thought someone might bite. Because he clearly laid out his point, how it wasn’t what you accused him of (essentially misusing the gospel, confusing the role of the church, etc.) and you still accused him multiple times of doing it anyways. You would go back to the same argument even though he gave you multiple sound arguments why what you were accusing him of wasn’t the case. It’s kind of the typical argument and behavior of almost every one else whose opposing him. Also, aren’t you supposed to not call names, lol. Anyways, i will say, you did what literally no one else will do, which is sit down and have a conversation with him. And i did appreciate that you methodically went through lots and lots of arguments people bring against him. I think he answered them very well, i might add. And despite that, you kind of defaulted to the same tired arguments that didn’t actually represent what he’s trying to accomplish and explain.
@@AboundingGraceRadio it was painful because 1. your quick exasperated laughs when you do your gotchas was lame snideness- you’ll come across more sincere and less pent up if you don’t do that. 2. Your dad story at the end illustrates the individuals need for Jesus, but it doesn’t negate the future of people. Nations live on past you and I, and your dad. So the political is not negated, despite salvation being imperative for (every) one to end up in Christ’s arms. Pastors always complain about the “idol” of politics and America, so this creates Christians who don’t care about the past, present, or future of this nation- and what builds any nation. The apathy of heritage, history and nations is a complete capitulation of Jesus dying primarily for the “melting pot” and diversity. 3. And as for disavowals- Doug and friends will now spend the remainder of their days coming up with a new list of disavowals (or declarations), while Stephen makes more content explaining what he is FOR. 4. Crying about nazis is lame. Jews have never been safer, no one is getting hurt, and God forbid Christians finally start understanding “judeo-christian” is both historically incorrect, and self destructive to Christianity.
@@squidward3333 1. Style-ok, 2. Priorities-they are so, 3. Hero following-go for it, though not recommended, 4. Jewish stuff, yeah I like Paul’s countrymen. So.. not all that lame, a boomer word, btw
39:40 You're spot on, Stephen! The average Christian today is comfortable and doesn't want to rock the boat. In some ways I feel that our affluence is a judgement against the Western church. We're nowhere close to being exiles in the true sense.
I think they bring up a great point: we don’t spend enough time focusing on the spiritual and eternal things. If only we could set aside an entire day every week for just that purpose!
@@BillHirsch1417 would you be able to point me to some specific quotations of men saying we shouldn’t be involved in politics? Btw, Is your argument that because Daniel did it we can do it?
around 40:00 go back and listen to what he says. He says we are maybe too comfortable, but all his examples say that we focus on civics when we are leaders. Every place he listed Christians were a persecuted minority that held no power. Of course they focused on more heavenly issues it's all they had. His idea of "being too comfortable" based on his examples are being in a place where Christians have won the culture and have any political power at all. Of course, you will focus on early Christian leadership as well as heavenly and not just heavenly when your JOB is leadership on earth now as a Christian.
It’s always seemed to me (which is in line with covenant theology from my understanding of it) that the Adamic Covenant, the Noahic Covenant, and the great commission seem to be re-iterations of each other with each successive covenant being revealing/instructive on what it means to bring dominion and increase. With that being said I feel like the heavenly mindedness is correct, yet like Wolfe, think it doesn’t seem ‘complete’. Because it seems that God is adding revelation, while not subtracting past revelation either. So that we are to still seek dominion in earthly things yet do so with our eyes and hearts on the heavenly city. In short, The Noahic/Adamic covenants are still in effect which appeal to earthly dominion and the great commission is an extension and broadening of these commands not a cancelling of them. We have to be careful not to have the false dichotomy of either/or but instead find ways to reconcile them as both/and
The exile/sojourner theme throughout Scripture is one of the strongest objections I have against CN. The Messianic hope shone even brighter through the prophets in the context of Israel's exile. While the Jews returned to the land, they never regained a kingdom as they had but were subject to various other empires. Jesus comes, and while He reveals the kingdom of God, Peter still recognizes the believers were members of the dispersion, exiles in Babylon (Rome) until Jesus returns to establish His kingdom (as Daniel and many other Scriptures prophesied).
Listening at 13 minutes. We see the apostles not only preach but apply the gospel to various ethical situations. There's plenty of talk about government in the NT, but not what we see taught by inferences and deductions within CN. This is a foundational problem that should not be skipped over.
They will continue to conflate you with Doug because he is the easier target with with Postmil/Theonomy.. The work has been done in their minds years ago in all the NAPARC reports on Theonomy. Somehow you have to separate yourself clearly without angering Doug's group or the conflation will never end..
To redeem a city is to see and work towards evangelism, conversions and discipleship of a particular area or group of people. To plant churches and where believers are praying for-working towards building or rebuilding institutions that are honoring to Christ. These gentlemen seem to be more anabaptist than historic amil. They espouse a more radical two kingdom theology. Many passages on gentile nations coming to the LORD in the OT. Which we see in Acts. So nations, cities, tribes etc being converted and walking in obedience isn’t something that’ll only happen in glory at the end of the age.
Their perspective is limited to "this isn't working for me now, therefore it is bad or it failed..." Plato attempting to explain light to the cave-dwellers.
A common critique is if one is interested in this earth (politics or anything) , you must be an idolator because you are not seeking the heavenly good. It is not an zero sum game.
Sadly for you, in order to prevent much of the vitriol created by your book, you would have needed first to write an earlier book, prolegomenon, on classical Protestant political theory: just about every argument you have had, is grounded in either ignorance or rejection of classical Protestant political theory. People familiar with classical Protestant political theory may still disagree about whether there can or should be nations called Christian, but they wouldn't lose control over their bowels at the sight, or sound, of the word 'nationalism'.
I think radical 2 kingdoms is reacting against a coercive aspect of the classical two kingdoms model. But the solution is not to get rid of the coercive nature of state morality, but to establish a Christian limit to that coercion. The Christian limit in religion is not blue laws (though Christian can differ on this state enforcement question as we do in theology), but it the limit is state enforced Christian belief. The R2K starts with religious liberty of conscience but then blows that sphere up so large as to cover the entire “spiritual kingdom” and this creates an impossible separationist ethic. The reality is that in a society the moral majority is going to create the system of civil obligation. In a Christian system that is going to allow a lot more freedom than in a non-Christian system like Islam, but also a more flourishing and just system than a libertine “modernist/postmodern” state. I agree with you about the above. Where I seem to differ with you and Doug Wilson is that you hold to the more traditional Reformed view of the state as a protector of church doctrine, whereas I am more Reformed Baptist and see religious liberty as part of a Christian view of the state. This is not because the state is not Christian but rather because it is Christian. I see religious liberty as an element of the Christian state not as a secular defect. I don’t think one should formally require Christian belief for office. This can be enforced by a culture of voting and the beliefs of the populace, but to make it a requirement makes too close of an association between Christianity and the power of the state to be safe. It will corrupt the authenticity of belief. Doug Wilson acts as if the definition of what is “Christian”can be set at a later time. But I don’t think it can be. I think the Christian state should promote religious liberty and have no formal requirement for civil office (Doug seems to waver at times on his principle, which if I understand it, is for restriction of the civil office to Christians). But as Chief Justice John Jay said, it is the duty of Christians to prefer Christian leaders. But to mandate it is to Lord civil power over the unbeliever. Better to persuade the non-Christian of the fruits of the Christian view.
I too believe in religious liberty… For Nicene Christians. Otherwise you loose cohesion in society and have demonic nonsense gaining toeholds and footholds everywhere. That cannot be allowed.
If we have room to say God can make a Christian President or King or Emperor, or 2nd in command over the entire nation, we have room to say he can do Christian law stuff. Why else did God put him there? To do a good job? Implenting Godly laws and running things in a Godly way *is* doing a good job. God is not mocked. Doing things His way is how to get the best results.
11:35-11:55 Peter was writing to the diaspora in Rome, not to modern day Christians. Jews often used Babylon as a euphemism for Rome. i.e. the book of Revelation.
It appears to me that their apolitical anabaptist stance on political engagement is just an excuse for their lack of desire to actually face the difficult work to confront the problems of modern society in order to build a suitable environment for their progeny and community, all in the name of piety.
and they aren't "apolitical" rule them sodomy, abortion, and evil and they will point you to romans 13 and offer no resistance. rule them with Chrisitan principal and watch as they become an entirely political, energized, and bestial form to stop you.
The paradigm for Escondido amillennials is almost only suffering. The Sojourner alien trope is emphasized because of its pedagogical convenience. For them, postmillennialism is low hanging fruit because their conviction is that we were promised suffering. That is why they also have no vision for a positive or prosperous political will. Seeking the good of the commonwealth can be anything they need it to be, but it can never be Christian nationalism. This is key: suffering is the lens.
@ Promised suffering, but not *only suffering. The imbalance is unhelpful. Christ also promised to be with us in His mission “always to the end of the age.” He’s not distracted, absent, indifferent, or impotent, but is actually growing his kingdom and ruling “over all things to the Church.” Postmil=we’ve already won, the godless are just too foolish to see it, yet we have eyes of faith. Witness Christ subdue his enemies and save his people in every age; even if our influence ranges from age to age. And advance the gospel with mirth and might, for Christ is in and with us, and do not be afraid to build things because the building itself is good and God glorying even if we leave the houses and gardens we’ve built in “exile.” Also, “redeeming culture” or “nations” describes to Christian effort to redirect whatever comes into out hands toward the glory of God. Which includes civic life; which you already conceded in several talks, “We should seek to affect government.” Some are simply more comfortable attempting to specify what others are comfortable leaving vague.
@AboundingGraceRadio I am not going to dox myself but I will say that my name is a combo of song lyrics, my job title (research fellow and steel metallurgist,) and one of my favorite aircraft (F105) rolled into one. I have had ~12 scientific publics in the last 4 odd years You committed at least 4 fallacies in your response. 1. Bulverism/Tone Policing - just because I was dismissive doesn't mean I am wrong 2. Appeal to Authority - having a PhD from a certain institution doesn't make you better by default, I don't plan to wave my degrees around for clout. 3. Ad hominem - teasing me for daring to question your intellectual rigor 4. McNamara Fallacy - Quanties=/=qualities i.e. in this case a long counter does not make your position solid or true
@@AboundingGraceRadio this is rich- who exactly is this posting under the abounding grace banner? Seems to a degree . . . anonymous. Also, complains about immaturity but does the same like telling people not to be softies, or getting worked up that someone didn’t you know had tragedy in your life, all while offering arguments that guys in their basements (apparently us?) can refute while still twitch-streaming their goldeneye tournament. If i had to guess, based on my extensive experience directing my mom to make mac n cheese for me, leading my half-life team mates in lan party warfare all while checking my myspace posts, i’d say you’ve got alot going on right now, are a little stressed, or something else, and it might be best to lay of the “interwebs” for awhile (if this isn’t the intern like i surmised). It happens to the best of us But if not, i’m enjoying the show
Please dont reference the book of Revelation to make a doctrinal point from the idealist perspective. Yes Revelation is full of symbols but they are symbols from OT books talking about specific geo political and liturgical realities. Revelation is mostly fulfilled but I can respect some futurism. I cant take serious the cursory idealist reading. Also dont pick and choose what in Revelation is future out side Rev. 20. Revelation directly says “the kingdoms of this world have become the Kingdoms of our God
These guys look miserable. Gordon with his perpetually worrying mom demeanor and the guest and his perma-scowl. These things are clear position indicators.
We have it good so we aren't heavenly minded? How can a good man leave an inheritance and also be heavenly minded? Pray without ceasing applies to everyone. Repent of the boomer ziocringe, Gordo
The way Chris uses "Babylon" from Peter is a category error. "Babylon" doesn't represent the Earth it represents the sinful system of the world. Indeed we should be exiles to that system, but that truth does not negate the call that Christ has something to say about all of life. The nations are Christ's inheritance, and His Kingship isn't hypothetical, it's real and comes to bear on the rulers of this Earth. Nations should be Christian and rule with God's Word as the standard precisely because nations owe their allegiance to Christ.
The issue is that Christians are to exercise authority in the spheres of influence God has called them to. We are not all called to be governing authorities, and the church is called to teach the word of God, not exercise justice. We are concerned with justice wherever we are but we are not called to establish justice in the political sphere. A king or politician can, but not every individual Christian. As a Father I am called to disciple my kids, not every kid in the neighborhood. Should I love my neighbor and seek justice for him? Yes, but am I to Lord it over him and establish authority over his life? No. It has to do with authority and calling and this sounds like a call to all Christian’s everywhere to activism and that is not biblical stewardship and servanthood, that’s revolution and sinful. Our times are in Gods hands and the church has been fulfilling the great commission for 2,000 years. The work is our responsibility and the results belong to God. Stop grumbling!
In a Republic? Yes it’s going to inevitably be a sweeping call to activism because of the nature and theoretical rationale behind republican forms of governance. If all the people wear part of the crown then all must share in the directing of its power.
@@1689LBC Sounds like a reason to throw out the whole thing to me. If your book justifies the evil that is the American empire, it's a shitty book. This abdication of responsibility for the future of your people is also really convenient for you. I'm sure you police the activity of churches just as much as you police the activity of Stephen Wolfe.
@ God’s word, or “a book” as you call it, transcends all empires and governments. The events recorded in the Bible took place during the Roman Empire which was way worse than anything going on today and yet it doesn’t justify revolution, or “throwing” anything over or out. It calls Christians to fear God and obey His law. Stephen calls himself a Christian so he needs to uphold a biblical standard. You obviously do not fear God so I’m sure you think anything is permissible, but we will all give an account to God for everything done in life whether it was good or evil. So I would just warn you to fear God and flee from the wrath to come by repenting of your sin and believing in Jesus Christ as your Savior according to the Gospel.
But some Christians are called to be civil magistrates, right? Judges, local board members, senators, etc. All kinds of roles of authority as discussed in the video. Each of these ought to be done to the glory of God and according to his precepts. It's not as though there's nothing then revolution with no stops in between. It's called doing the work of government. Also, there is a difference between revolution and lawful interposition on the part of the lesser magistrate with and for those under his charge, ie: Magdeburg confession, vindiciae contra tyrannos.
If we have room to say God can make a Christian President or King or Emperor, or 2nd in command over the entire nation, we have room to say he can do Christian law stuff. Why else did God put him there? To do a good job? Implenting Godly laws and running things in a Godly way *is* doing a good job. God is not mocked. Doing things His way is how to get the best results.
I have yet to hear anyone accuse someone of "focusing too much on politics" unless that person was someone they consider a political opponent.
They don't say this whenever there's a witch hunt for "ists" and "phobes," only when someone is critical of the post-war liberal consensus.
“If it was Christian, why did it fall?”
Apply that logic to every church.
Maybe that’s why only one institution is ordained as “Christian”, the church. A true church is just that, true and not false. False churches do what they do, they do “false”. Read BC 27 and you’ll figure it out.
I'd like to give another analogy on top of your ones that definitively shows the absurdity of their take that "Christian states always go bad, therefore we shouldn't pursue Christian Nationalism." By the exact same principle, just as human bodies all eventually decay and die, we should therefore not seek to increase our years or maintain a good quality of life. It is not sinful to eat poorly, not exercise, to become obese, and abuse your body many other ways.
They basically presented the chiral left-handed version of Ecclesiastes; formally almost identical, but in effect completely different, and dangerous.
This is a handy argument.
Stephen, Thank you, thank you! So much of your position has been clarified for me through this video! It is very frustrating to struggle to put these ideas into words. I have been struggling for a couple years now to do that. I believe that this video is your best effort thus far. Those who have taken a position against you and these ideas seem to have a mental barrier. I wish you articulated this way when you were interviewed by Gordon. I do not share your thoughts about his being persuaded by his network of friends but that he himself cannot and will not let himself consider the idea of operating in this world for the purpose of obeying, loving our Lord, loving our neighbor, and promoting Christ's ways as the means of loving our neighbors through whatever position we find ourselves in. Either in fulltime church vocation or any other including the political arena. What other agenda do they expect us to promote in these arena's? No one thinks its bad to have a secular career. But somehow they think its wrong to have a political oriented career and promote Christ's ways in it. because they think that we cannot help but promote His ways without "forcing" "conversions". But they have no problem for the christian to promote strictly secular ways that they would likely define as " neutral". However there is never a "neutral". Bottom line is that the best way to love our neighbor politically is with the implementation of Biblical "societal laws". This is what would lessen the pain and suffering and destruction of our neighbor's lives. The debate should be ...what should look like and how should that be determined?
You are spot on. The 57ish minute mark seems so obvious. I pray these brothers come around.
Your digression into the absurdity of being morally allowed to deploy nukes…but not enforce sabbath laws is exactly why I could never take Escondido seriously. The positions reduces either to pacifism or absurdity and we’ve already eliminated pacifism.
Huh?
Totally agree. This is a good example of pastors keeping to their realm, and being careful when reaching outside the ministry of Word and Sacrament. They have ministerial authority over those things, but it would be absurd for them to accuse me of sin because I didn’t change my car’s oil soon enough. There are limits on the authority of a pastor. It’s just obvious.
@@toddstevens9667 At least 19 other people got it maybe the problem is with you.
@@nate296 I just didn’t understand the comment. When you’re my age, your brain might not work as well as it does now either lol. I just wanted a little clarification about what you meant. I wasn’t arguing or trying to be rude. Unlike you!
I get it, but it does sound at first like you’re talking to wolfe, not gordon
I watched the whole episode you did with gordon. It was soooo painful, and I couldn’t believe you kept your cool. I find it hard to believe he wasn’t trying to be obtuse.
And yet he enjoyed the convo, what a dumb comment. Tell me “onboard” anon, my bold interlocutor, why was it so painful? Can you put together a thought for us …?
@ hey gordon, thought someone might bite. Because he clearly laid out his point, how it wasn’t what you accused him of (essentially misusing the gospel, confusing the role of the church, etc.) and you still accused him multiple times of doing it anyways. You would go back to the same argument even though he gave you multiple sound arguments why what you were accusing him of wasn’t the case. It’s kind of the typical argument and behavior of almost every one else whose opposing him. Also, aren’t you supposed to not call names, lol.
Anyways, i will say, you did what literally no one else will do, which is sit down and have a conversation with him. And i did appreciate that you methodically went through lots and lots of arguments people bring against him. I think he answered them very well, i might add. And despite that, you kind of defaulted to the same tired arguments that didn’t actually represent what he’s trying to accomplish and explain.
@ but what doni know, bold, sage wisdom, i’m just an anon in my mom’s basement with a random screen name
@@AboundingGraceRadio it was painful because 1. your quick exasperated laughs when you do your gotchas was lame snideness- you’ll come across more sincere and less pent up if you don’t do that. 2. Your dad story at the end illustrates the individuals need for Jesus, but it doesn’t negate the future of people. Nations live on past you and I, and your dad. So the political is not negated, despite salvation being imperative for (every) one to end up in Christ’s arms. Pastors always complain about the “idol” of politics and America, so this creates Christians who don’t care about the past, present, or future of this nation- and what builds any nation. The apathy of heritage, history and nations is a complete capitulation of Jesus dying primarily for the “melting pot” and diversity. 3. And as for disavowals- Doug and friends will now spend the remainder of their days coming up with a new list of disavowals (or declarations), while Stephen makes more content explaining what he is FOR. 4. Crying about nazis is lame. Jews have never been safer, no one is getting hurt, and God forbid Christians finally start understanding “judeo-christian” is both historically incorrect, and self destructive to Christianity.
@@squidward3333 1. Style-ok, 2. Priorities-they are so, 3. Hero following-go for it, though not recommended, 4. Jewish stuff, yeah I like Paul’s countrymen. So.. not all that lame, a boomer word, btw
I like the speeding up the conversation! 😂
39:40 You're spot on, Stephen! The average Christian today is comfortable and doesn't want to rock the boat. In some ways I feel that our affluence is a judgement against the Western church. We're nowhere close to being exiles in the true sense.
Excellent response video
I think they bring up a great point: we don’t spend enough time focusing on the spiritual and eternal things. If only we could set aside an entire day every week for just that purpose!
Daniel worked his way up to be the 2nd most powerful civil magistrate -- while in exile in Babylon
Having just begun this podcast, What conclusion are you drawing?
@@jeffdowns1038to combat the argument that since we are exiles in a foreign land, we shouldn’t be involved in politics
@@BillHirsch1417 would you be able to point me to some specific quotations of men saying we shouldn’t be involved in politics? Btw, Is your argument that because Daniel did it we can do it?
@@jeffdowns1038 just pointing out the impracticality of the radical 2 kingdoms mindset
@you asked what the point of his comment was. I assumed that was his point. That’s all i’m saying.
These pastors need an introductory logic class.
please Part 2 NOW
around 40:00 go back and listen to what he says. He says we are maybe too comfortable, but all his examples say that we focus on civics when we are leaders. Every place he listed Christians were a persecuted minority that held no power. Of course they focused on more heavenly issues it's all they had. His idea of "being too comfortable" based on his examples are being in a place where Christians have won the culture and have any political power at all. Of course, you will focus on early Christian leadership as well as heavenly and not just heavenly when your JOB is leadership on earth now as a Christian.
The book of Jonah seemed to be absent from the discussion with reference to cities being redeemed.
Hi Jeff. Small world over here in Reformed YT.
@ yes sir
It’s always seemed to me (which is in line with covenant theology from my understanding of it) that the Adamic Covenant, the Noahic Covenant, and the great commission seem to be re-iterations of each other with each successive covenant being revealing/instructive on what it means to bring dominion and increase.
With that being said I feel like the heavenly mindedness is correct, yet like Wolfe, think it doesn’t seem ‘complete’. Because it seems that God is adding revelation, while not subtracting past revelation either. So that we are to still seek dominion in earthly things yet do so with our eyes and hearts on the heavenly city.
In short, The Noahic/Adamic covenants are still in effect which appeal to earthly dominion and the great commission is an extension and broadening of these commands not a cancelling of them. We have to be careful not to have the false dichotomy of either/or but instead find ways to reconcile them as both/and
Jeremiah told the Israelites to plant gardens, have children, and flourish -- while in exile in Babylon
The exile/sojourner theme throughout Scripture is one of the strongest objections I have against CN. The Messianic hope shone even brighter through the prophets in the context of Israel's exile. While the Jews returned to the land, they never regained a kingdom as they had but were subject to various other empires. Jesus comes, and while He reveals the kingdom of God, Peter still recognizes the believers were members of the dispersion, exiles in Babylon (Rome) until Jesus returns to establish His kingdom (as Daniel and many other Scriptures prophesied).
The anabaptist position would be more consistent with their views.
Are they conflating redeemed with perfect?
Maybe we should start calling R2K anabaptist. Might wake some people up
Is that white oak, or "woke right" oak? lol
Listening at 13 minutes. We see the apostles not only preach but apply the gospel to various ethical situations. There's plenty of talk about government in the NT, but not what we see taught by inferences and deductions within CN. This is a foundational problem that should not be skipped over.
I bet if you built pulpits they would sell
I actually have a pulpit, want to see?
They will continue to conflate you with Doug because he is the easier target with with Postmil/Theonomy..
The work has been done in their minds years ago in all the NAPARC reports on Theonomy.
Somehow you have to separate yourself clearly without angering Doug's group or the conflation will never end..
Is it too early for a revised edition of your book in order to address some of the recurring misinterpretations of your critics?
The Escondido sect's emphasis on eschatology comes from Kline who liked to say, "Eschatology precedes soteriology" (it doesn't).
That’s Vos, actually
To redeem a city is to see and work towards evangelism, conversions and discipleship of a particular area or group of people. To plant churches and where believers are praying for-working towards building or rebuilding institutions that are honoring to Christ.
These gentlemen seem to be more anabaptist than historic amil. They espouse a more radical two kingdom theology.
Many passages on gentile nations coming to the LORD in the OT. Which we see in Acts. So nations, cities, tribes etc being converted and walking in obedience isn’t something that’ll only happen in glory at the end of the age.
Their perspective is limited to "this isn't working for me now, therefore it is bad or it failed..." Plato attempting to explain light to the cave-dwellers.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on O.P. Robertsons book: God's People in the Wilderness: The Church in Hebrews
You and Doug are closer than you and Gordon.
A common critique is if one is interested in this earth (politics or anything) , you must be an idolator because you are not seeking the heavenly good. It is not an zero sum game.
Sadly for you, in order to prevent much of the vitriol created by your book, you would have needed first to write an earlier book, prolegomenon, on classical Protestant political theory: just about every argument you have had, is grounded in either ignorance or rejection of classical Protestant political theory. People familiar with classical Protestant political theory may still disagree about whether there can or should be nations called Christian, but they wouldn't lose control over their bowels at the sight, or sound, of the word 'nationalism'.
I think radical 2 kingdoms is reacting against a coercive aspect of the classical two kingdoms model.
But the solution is not to get rid of the coercive nature of state morality, but to establish a Christian limit to that coercion.
The Christian limit in religion is not blue laws (though Christian can differ on this state enforcement question as we do in theology), but it the limit is state enforced Christian belief.
The R2K starts with religious liberty of conscience but then blows that sphere up so large as to cover the entire “spiritual kingdom” and this creates an impossible separationist ethic.
The reality is that in a society the moral majority is going to create the system of civil obligation. In a Christian system that is going to allow a lot more freedom than in a non-Christian system like Islam, but also a more flourishing and just system than a libertine “modernist/postmodern” state.
I agree with you about the above. Where I seem to differ with you and Doug Wilson is that you hold to the more traditional Reformed view of the state as a protector of church doctrine, whereas I am more Reformed Baptist and see religious liberty as part of a Christian view of the state.
This is not because the state is not Christian but rather because it is Christian. I see religious liberty as an element of the Christian state not as a secular defect.
I don’t think one should formally require Christian belief for office. This can be enforced by a culture of voting and the beliefs of the populace, but to make it a requirement makes too close of an association between Christianity and the power of the state to be safe. It will corrupt the authenticity of belief.
Doug Wilson acts as if the definition of what is “Christian”can be set at a later time. But I don’t think it can be.
I think the Christian state should promote religious liberty and have no formal requirement for civil office (Doug seems to waver at times on his principle, which if I understand it, is for restriction of the civil office to Christians).
But as Chief Justice John Jay said, it is the duty of Christians to prefer Christian leaders. But to mandate it is to Lord civil power over the unbeliever. Better to persuade the non-Christian of the fruits of the Christian view.
I too believe in religious liberty…
For Nicene Christians. Otherwise you loose cohesion in society and have demonic nonsense gaining toeholds and footholds everywhere. That cannot be allowed.
If we have room to say God can make a Christian President or King or Emperor, or 2nd in command over the entire nation, we have room to say he can do Christian law stuff. Why else did God put him there? To do a good job? Implenting Godly laws and running things in a Godly way *is* doing a good job. God is not mocked. Doing things His way is how to get the best results.
11:35-11:55 Peter was writing to the diaspora in Rome, not to modern day Christians. Jews often used Babylon as a euphemism for Rome. i.e. the book of Revelation.
It appears to me that their apolitical anabaptist stance on political engagement is just an excuse for their lack of desire to actually face the difficult work to confront the problems of modern society in order to build a suitable environment for their progeny and community, all in the name of piety.
and they aren't "apolitical" rule them sodomy, abortion, and evil and they will point you to romans 13 and offer no resistance. rule them with Chrisitan principal and watch as they become an entirely political, energized, and bestial form to stop you.
The paradigm for Escondido amillennials is almost only suffering. The Sojourner alien trope is emphasized because of its pedagogical convenience. For them, postmillennialism is low hanging fruit because their conviction is that we were promised suffering. That is why they also have no vision for a positive or prosperous political will. Seeking the good of the commonwealth can be anything they need it to be, but it can never be Christian nationalism. This is key: suffering is the lens.
Kind of everything Jesus said, you know, “though much tribulation we enter the kingdom…”
@ Promised suffering, but not *only suffering. The imbalance is unhelpful. Christ also promised to be with us in His mission “always to the end of the age.” He’s not distracted, absent, indifferent, or impotent, but is actually growing his kingdom and ruling “over all things to the Church.”
Postmil=we’ve already won, the godless are just too foolish to see it, yet we have eyes of faith. Witness Christ subdue his enemies and save his people in every age; even if our influence ranges from age to age. And advance the gospel with mirth and might, for Christ is in and with us, and do not be afraid to build things because the building itself is good and God glorying even if we leave the houses and gardens we’ve built in “exile.”
Also, “redeeming culture” or “nations” describes to Christian effort to redirect whatever comes into out hands toward the glory of God. Which includes civic life; which you already conceded in several talks, “We should seek to affect government.” Some are simply more comfortable attempting to specify what others are comfortable leaving vague.
@ Even so, peace be with you.
@@allthingsforgood theologia crucis > theologia gloriae
@ A theology of the resurrection separates not the two.
I have the feeling that Gordan and Co. are just not serious people intellectually
@AboundingGraceRadio I am not going to dox myself but I will say that my name is a combo of song lyrics, my job title (research fellow and steel metallurgist,) and one of my favorite aircraft (F105) rolled into one.
I have had ~12 scientific publics in the last 4 odd years
You committed at least 4 fallacies in your response.
1. Bulverism/Tone Policing - just because I was dismissive doesn't mean I am wrong
2. Appeal to Authority - having a PhD from a certain institution doesn't make you better by default, I don't plan to wave my degrees around for clout.
3. Ad hominem - teasing me for daring to question your intellectual rigor
4. McNamara Fallacy - Quanties=/=qualities i.e. in this case a long counter does not make your position solid or true
@@AboundingGraceRadio this is rich- who exactly is this posting under the abounding grace banner? Seems to a degree . . . anonymous.
Also, complains about immaturity but does the same like telling people not to be softies, or getting worked up that someone didn’t you know had tragedy in your life, all while offering arguments that guys in their basements (apparently us?) can refute while still twitch-streaming their goldeneye tournament.
If i had to guess, based on my extensive experience directing my mom to make mac n cheese for me, leading my half-life team mates in lan party warfare all while checking my myspace posts, i’d say you’ve got alot going on right now, are a little stressed, or something else, and it might be best to lay of the “interwebs” for awhile (if this isn’t the intern like i surmised). It happens to the best of us
But if not, i’m enjoying the show
@@steelwarrior105 good choice in planes
I feel like i am in exile......being here has been brutal isolating.....gotta move
So you’re moving to CA, I assume, to show us how to Christianize culture, right?
@AboundingGraceRadio I'm guessing he's wanting to move away from the obnoxious.
@@SaintBonifacesGhostNinevites are wretched, indeed
@@AboundingGraceRadio Ninevites aren't posting ungracious comments unprovoked.
@@AboundingGraceRadioma’am, please calm down
👀👀👀
Chris has a terracotta army of straw men.
Please dont reference the book of Revelation to make a doctrinal point from the idealist perspective. Yes Revelation is full of symbols but they are symbols from OT books talking about specific geo political and liturgical realities. Revelation is mostly fulfilled but I can respect some futurism. I cant take serious the cursory idealist reading. Also dont pick and choose what in Revelation is future out side Rev. 20. Revelation directly says “the kingdoms of this world have become the Kingdoms of our God
These guys look miserable. Gordon with his perpetually worrying mom demeanor and the guest and his perma-scowl.
These things are clear position indicators.
Indeed, step aside then, this is not for the happy clappy softies
Discounting Carl Truemans' book in your previous episode was very tacky.
We have it good so we aren't heavenly minded? How can a good man leave an inheritance and also be heavenly minded? Pray without ceasing applies to everyone. Repent of the boomer ziocringe, Gordo
The way Chris uses "Babylon" from Peter is a category error. "Babylon" doesn't represent the Earth it represents the sinful system of the world. Indeed we should be exiles to that system, but that truth does not negate the call that Christ has something to say about all of life. The nations are Christ's inheritance, and His Kingship isn't hypothetical, it's real and comes to bear on the rulers of this Earth. Nations should be Christian and rule with God's Word as the standard precisely because nations owe their allegiance to Christ.
The issue is that Christians are to exercise authority in the spheres of influence God has called them to. We are not all called to be governing authorities, and the church is called to teach the word of God, not exercise justice. We are concerned with justice wherever we are but we are not called to establish justice in the political sphere. A king or politician can, but not every individual Christian. As a Father I am called to disciple my kids, not every kid in the neighborhood. Should I love my neighbor and seek justice for him? Yes, but am I to Lord it over him and establish authority over his life? No. It has to do with authority and calling and this sounds like a call to all Christian’s everywhere to activism and that is not biblical stewardship and servanthood, that’s revolution and sinful. Our times are in Gods hands and the church has been fulfilling the great commission for 2,000 years. The work is our responsibility and the results belong to God. Stop grumbling!
In a Republic? Yes it’s going to inevitably be a sweeping call to activism because of the nature and theoretical rationale behind republican forms of governance. If all the people wear part of the crown then all must share in the directing of its power.
@ that’s why we vote, but revolution is forbidden in Romans 13.
@@1689LBC
Sounds like a reason to throw out the whole thing to me.
If your book justifies the evil that is the American empire, it's a shitty book. This abdication of responsibility for the future of your people is also really convenient for you. I'm sure you police the activity of churches just as much as you police the activity of Stephen Wolfe.
@ God’s word, or “a book” as you call it, transcends all empires and governments. The events recorded in the Bible took place during the Roman Empire which was way worse than anything going on today and yet it doesn’t justify revolution, or “throwing” anything over or out. It calls Christians to fear God and obey His law. Stephen calls himself a Christian so he needs to uphold a biblical standard. You obviously do not fear God so I’m sure you think anything is permissible, but we will all give an account to God for everything done in life whether it was good or evil. So I would just warn you to fear God and flee from the wrath to come by repenting of your sin and believing in Jesus Christ as your Savior according to the Gospel.
But some Christians are called to be civil magistrates, right? Judges, local board members, senators, etc. All kinds of roles of authority as discussed in the video. Each of these ought to be done to the glory of God and according to his precepts.
It's not as though there's nothing then revolution with no stops in between. It's called doing the work of government.
Also, there is a difference between revolution and lawful interposition on the part of the lesser magistrate with and for those under his charge, ie: Magdeburg confession, vindiciae contra tyrannos.
If we have room to say God can make a Christian President or King or Emperor, or 2nd in command over the entire nation, we have room to say he can do Christian law stuff. Why else did God put him there? To do a good job? Implenting Godly laws and running things in a Godly way *is* doing a good job. God is not mocked. Doing things His way is how to get the best results.