# Is there such a thing as a Christian Nation?



## Pergamum

Now that the civil state of Israel is over and done with forever is it accurate to labels nations as "Christian" or not?

Also, the whole "Christendom" concept... is it Biblical?


----------



## RamistThomist

In terms of Vosian redemptive-history, no.

As to the possibility of the Spirit doing a mighty work in the people, converting them, and them those people transfering their values to every area of life, quite possibly.


----------



## Pergamum

What percentage then must be Christian before it is then a Christian nation?


----------



## RamistThomist

Oliver O'Donovan has done the best work on this area that should give hope to the Christian secularist and temper the zeal of the fanatic. Simply put, Christendom was the West's cultural response to the Gospel. Granting certain abuses, it represented a high-mark in civilization and hinted at exciting possibilities.

Given the current death of the West--and the godless EU Europe deserves worse--Christendom is over. However, a new page in history can turn...

The following reads are very difficult, but very rewarding:
The Desire of the Nations (in all honesty, I don't really care for the first half of the book, since it is technical, weighty, and never really gets to the point. The second half, however, is brilliant)

Ways of Judgment (these are deeper reflections on what a post-Christendom Christendom civilization would look like)

Bonds of Imperfection (these are essays on Christian politics from a medieval perspective). Opened a new world for me.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> What percentage then must be Christian before it is then a Christian nation?



50% + 1, maybe? Seriously, that would depend more on the locale, values, and population of the nation. I have to go to work, but that's a good question.


----------



## Kevin

Pergamum said:


> What percentage then must be Christian before it is then a Christian nation?



Only the King!


----------



## Pergamum

ha, interesting stuff.


----------



## Pergamum

Kevin said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage then must be Christian before it is then a Christian nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the King!
Click to expand...



Would this mean that since Christ is king over all nations, then every nation is a Christian nation?


To take it further...what then is a nation? Isit an ethne....perhaps closer to a tribe or clan? This might be closer to the Biblical concept of nation than the modern nation state.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Pergamum said:


> What percentage then must be Christian before it is then a Christian nation?



Even assuming an affirmative answer (in some sense) to the initial question, would this follow-up question about what percentage of professing Christians could warrant "officially" considering it a "Christian" nation even be one of the right questions to ask in regard to it (rather than simply asking more about the fruits to look for in such a nation)?


----------



## AV1611

Pergamum said:


> Now that the civil state of Israel is over and done with forever is it accurate to labels nations as "Christian" or not?



In times past then I think that it can be correct. England is called a Christian country mainly because (1) Monarch is head of Church, (2) 71% of population profess to be Christian, (3) laws are based upon Judeo-Christian principles.

However, this is increasingly a mythical romaticism. (1) is correct but HM does not really hold power, (2) quite what that 71% believe "Christianity" to be is another matter indeed and (3) this is becoming progressively eroded.

I look forward to great conversions within this nation whereby we can covenant nationally with God as did Israel of old.


----------



## Poimen

Pergamum said:


> Now that the civil state of Israel is over and done with forever is it accurate to labels nations as "Christian" or not?
> 
> Also, the whole "Christendom" concept... is it Biblical?



No. 

Hebrews 13:14 "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come."

But if we did the only one I want to be a part of is a Cromwellian state that gives me the power to take the turkey out of your oven on Christmas day.


----------



## Pergamum

Can we "covenant nationally with God as did Israel of old" did? 

Those days ended at 70 AD, right? No such covenant CAN be done now, right?


----------



## AV1611

Pergamum said:


> Can we "covenant nationally with God as did Israel of old" did?



The National Covenant of Scotland.
The Solemn League & Covenant: Exhortation by the Westminster Assembly
The Solemn League & Covenant


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pergamum said:


> Can we "covenant nationally with God as did Israel of old" did?
> 
> Those days ended at 70 AD, right? No such covenant CAN be done now, right?



According to Isaiah 19 Gentile nations will covenant with God.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Poimen said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the civil state of Israel is over and done with forever is it accurate to labels nations as "Christian" or not?
> 
> Also, the whole "Christendom" concept... is it Biblical?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Hebrews 13:14 "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come."
> 
> But if we did the only one I want to be a part of is a Cromwellian state that gives me the power to take the turkey out of your oven on Christmas day.
Click to expand...


Citing a verse at random proves nothing; that interpretation of the verse causes Scripture to contradict Scripture. Psalm 2 forever settles the question of whether or not there should be a Christian state. The king of kings and Lord of lords demands it.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the civil state of Israel is over and done with forever is it accurate to labels nations as "Christian" or not?
> 
> Also, the whole "Christendom" concept... is it Biblical?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Hebrews 13:14 "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come."
> 
> But if we did the only one I want to be a part of is a Cromwellian state that gives me the power to take the turkey out of your oven on Christmas day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citing a verse at random proves nothing; that interpretation of the verse causes Scripture to contradict Scripture. Psalm 2 forever settles the question of whether or not there should be a Christian state. The king of kings and Lord of lords demands it.
Click to expand...


So citing a _chapter_ at random proves something?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Me Died Blue said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Hebrews 13:14 "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come."
> 
> But if we did the only one I want to be a part of is a Cromwellian state that gives me the power to take the turkey out of your oven on Christmas day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Citing a verse at random proves nothing; that interpretation of the verse causes Scripture to contradict Scripture. Psalm 2 forever settles the question of whether or not there should be a Christian state. The king of kings and Lord of lords demands it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So citing a _chapter_ at random proves something?
Click to expand...


Read the chapter. The kings of the earth must "kiss the Son, lest He be angry". The political pluralist argument reminds me of the Arminian who cites John 3:16 but ignores John 10 and 17 - the argument sounds plausible, until you read other Scriptures.


----------



## Poimen

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the civil state of Israel is over and done with forever is it accurate to labels nations as "Christian" or not?
> 
> Also, the whole "Christendom" concept... is it Biblical?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Hebrews 13:14 "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come."
> 
> But if we did the only one I want to be a part of is a Cromwellian state that gives me the power to take the turkey out of your oven on Christmas day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citing a verse at random proves nothing; that interpretation of the verse causes Scripture to contradict Scripture. Psalm 2 forever settles the question of whether or not there should be a Christian state. The king of kings and Lord of lords demands it.
Click to expand...


Did I cite that verse at random?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Poimen said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Hebrews 13:14 "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come."
> 
> But if we did the only one I want to be a part of is a Cromwellian state that gives me the power to take the turkey out of your oven on Christmas day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Citing a verse at random proves nothing; that interpretation of the verse causes Scripture to contradict Scripture. Psalm 2 forever settles the question of whether or not there should be a Christian state. The king of kings and Lord of lords demands it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I cite that verse at random?
Click to expand...


The verse does not address the issue of whether or not there should be a Christian state, all it proves is that the believer's ultimate hope is the eternal city. To build a political theory on it is, at best, an argument from conjecture.


----------



## AV1611

Poimen said:


> Did I cite that verse at random?



Perhaps you would like to explain how the verse you cited proves your argument


----------



## Me Died Blue

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Me Died Blue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citing a verse at random proves nothing; that interpretation of the verse causes Scripture to contradict Scripture. Psalm 2 forever settles the question of whether or not there should be a Christian state. The king of kings and Lord of lords demands it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So citing a _chapter_ at random proves something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the chapter. The kings of the earth must "kiss the Son, lest He be angry". The political pluralist argument reminds me of the Arminian who cites John 3:16 but ignores John 10 and 17 - the argument sounds plausible, until you read other Scriptures.
Click to expand...


I've read it. I would simply point out that there are of course arguments against your interpretation of Psalm 2 just as much as there are arguments against Daniel Kok's (implicit) interpretation of Hebrews 13:14. And if those two interpretations of those two passages contradict each other, then of course it needs to be asked _which one_ is being wrongly interpreted. And of course that's where the exegetical and systematic issues need to be fleshed out - and I wanted to clarify that simply mentioning the chapter and assuming your interpretation of it right after accusing Daniel of doing the exact same thing with the verse didn't consistently offer anything in that regard.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Me Died Blue said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me Died Blue said:
> 
> 
> 
> So citing a _chapter_ at random proves something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the chapter. The kings of the earth must "kiss the Son, lest He be angry". The political pluralist argument reminds me of the Arminian who cites John 3:16 but ignores John 10 and 17 - the argument sounds plausible, until you read other Scriptures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read it. I would simply point out that there are of course arguments against your interpretation of Psalm 2 just as much as there are arguments against Daniel Kok's (implicit) interpretation of Hebrews 13:14. And if those two interpretations of those two passages contradict each other, then of course it needs to be asked _which one_ is being wrongly interpreted. And of course that's where the exegetical and systematic issues need to be fleshed out - and I wanted to clarify that simply mentioning the chapter and assuming your interpretation of it right after accusing Daniel of doing the exact same thing with the verse didn't consistently offer anything in that regard.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, but the pluralist has no way to get around Psalm 2 - which directly addresses the issue of the magistrate's submission to Christ - while Hebrews 13:14 does not directly address that subject, and so it is an argument from conjecture.


----------



## RamistThomist

Psalm 2 mentions "kings of the earth," which means God's lordship extends outside the covenant community of Israel. This doesn't prove Christendom, but it puts the pluralist in a tough situation. 

Said kings, then, are required to kiss the Son. This doesn't prove Christendom, but it puts the pluralist now in an impossible situation. 

Sure, there are multiple interpretations, but most strain credulity given the laws of grammar and inference.


----------



## RamistThomist

We also need to distinguish between Christendom and a Christian nation. A Christian nation is just that. Christendom is a multi-national (I hate the word nation because it didn't always mean what it means today) society predicated upon the Christian tradition. Christendom is a most legitimate concept. Would you rather be ruled by the EU/UN? Would you rather be ruled by Sharia law? Or would you prefer peace based on the Christian tradition, allowing that tradition to inform society? 

Hey, I will even say that Christendom is natural law theory applied to politics in the Christian context. I am now appealing to natural law. That means I am definitionally correct! 

Another irony: Most of the modern Klinean 2kingdomz people who argue against Christendom using 2kingdomz and natural law forget that the people who originally formulated these concepts (Gelasius and others) used them to argue specifically for Christendom!


----------



## MW

Ivanhoe said:


> In terms of Vosian redemptive-history, no.



Vos spoke of the Christianisation of the nations. You must be referring to the modern R-H misappropriation of Vos.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Pergamum said:


> Now that the civil state of Israel is over and done with forever is it accurate to labels nations as "Christian" or not?
> 
> Also, the whole "Christendom" concept... is it Biblical?



We already have a Christian nation. 



> 1 Peter 2:8-9
> 9But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, *a holy nation*, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we "covenant nationally with God as did Israel of old" did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National Covenant of Scotland.
> The Solemn League & Covenant: Exhortation by the Westminster Assembly
> The Solemn League & Covenant
Click to expand...


Strictly speaking, these are corporate vows to God, not covenants with God. Only God can institute a covenant with man. Men do not institute covenants with God. Don't forget you covenant theology. 

Furthermore, in Israel, they renewed the Mosaic covenant which was already in place. They did not make new covenants as a nation with God. Again, only God can institute new covenants.


----------



## RamistThomist

armourbearer said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of Vosian redemptive-history, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vos spoke of the Christianisation of the nations. You must be referring to the modern R-H misappropriation of Vos.
Click to expand...


I gladly stand corrected.


----------



## MW

Puritan Sailor said:


> Strictly speaking, these are corporate vows to God, not covenants with God. Only God can institute a covenant with man. Men do not institute covenants with God. Don't forget you covenant theology.



The Bible calls these corporate vows "covenants," and to distinguish them from the covenants of special revelation theologians call them "personal" or "social." Certainly we cannot tie God to promise anything concerning our particular situation in the world by entering into a personal or social covenant with Him, but we can confirm our commitment to walk in His ways and to trust to the promises He has given us in His Word.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

As a reminder, here is Thomas Case on the subject of Christian nations:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f35/thomas-case-government-Christ-15178/


----------



## MW

AV1611 said:


> (1) is correct but HM does not really hold power



Her power is in the ideal she represents. At present that ideal is still constitutionally Protestant. Whether it's the mind of the people or not it's still the constitutional basis of our commonwealth. We are Protestant nations. Our civil freedom as a commonwealth depends upon it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strictly speaking, these are corporate vows to God, not covenants with God. Only God can institute a covenant with man. Men do not institute covenants with God. Don't forget you covenant theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible calls these corporate vows "covenants," and to distinguish them from the covenants of special revelation theologians call them "personal" or "social." Certainly we cannot tie God to promise anything concerning our particular situation in the world by entering into a personal or social covenant with Him, but we can confirm our commitment to walk in His ways and to trust to the promises He has given us in His Word.
Click to expand...


Do you think this is possible with any other form of government than a Monarchy?

I've gotten the impression in some of your other posts that American attempts to port this idea that kind of meld the primacy of personal liberties in the American experience into the Westminster ideas don't really work in your view.


----------



## RamistThomist

SemperFideles said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strictly speaking, these are corporate vows to God, not covenants with God. Only God can institute a covenant with man. Men do not institute covenants with God. Don't forget you covenant theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible calls these corporate vows "covenants," and to distinguish them from the covenants of special revelation theologians call them "personal" or "social." Certainly we cannot tie God to promise anything concerning our particular situation in the world by entering into a personal or social covenant with Him, but we can confirm our commitment to walk in His ways and to trust to the promises He has given us in His Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think this is possible with any other form of government than a Monarchy?
> 
> I've gotten the impression in some of your other posts that American attempts to port this idea that kind of meld the primacy of personal liberties in the American experience into the Westminster ideas don't really work in your view.
Click to expand...


That would be really interesting to flesh out. My own political thinking has taken a turn lately and you mentioned some things that mirror it. I would be interested in any of Rev Winzer's comments.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Do you think this is possible with any other form of government than a Monarchy?
> 
> I've gotten the impression in some of your other posts that American attempts to port this idea that kind of meld the primacy of personal liberties in the American experience into the Westminster ideas don't really work in your view.



Not only is it possible, it's a reality. Our modern constitutions are religious covenants. The only problem is that they barely promise obedience to God.

It's not so much the American idea of personal liberty, but the idea of "equality" which is inimical to biblical reformation. Such "equality" does away with permanent societal structures which guarantee stability of values over generations. The biblical pattern is to acknowledge "superiors, inferiors, and equals," and then each one knows what is their place and duty in society. As it stands the modern notion of "equality" cares little either for traditional institutions or for the character of the individual.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think this is possible with any other form of government than a Monarchy?
> 
> I've gotten the impression in some of your other posts that American attempts to port this idea that kind of meld the primacy of personal liberties in the American experience into the Westminster ideas don't really work in your view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is it possible, it's a reality. Our modern constitutions are religious covenants. The only problem is that they barely promise obedience to God.
> 
> It's not so much the American idea of personal liberty, but the idea of "equality" which is inimical to biblical reformation. Such "equality" does away with permanent societal structures which guarantee stability of values over generations. The biblical pattern is to acknowledge "superiors, inferiors, and equals," and then each one knows what is their place and duty in society. As it stands the modern notion of "equality" cares little either for traditional institutions or for the character of the individual.
Click to expand...


Interesting and very true. I completely agree with that assessment that, by some immature men, would only be interpreted as being some sort of license for racism or sexsim but I know you're not saying that at all.

I think a perfect example would be Americans and Australians. Australians really need to learn their place and start speaking properly.

Seriously, you have really hit on a nerve that I've been bothered by for a long time that finds itself infecting the life of a Church. The idea of submission to authority is absolutely key to Christian growth. It flows out in concentric circles in our relationships with parents, our elders in the Church, our government (in another sphere), and then ultimately to God Himself. Our fidelity to Confessions is, in large measure, a "Show Me" attitude that is even celebrated as being the motto of a State.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Seriously, you have really hit on a nerve that I've been bothered by for a long time that finds itself infecting the life of a Church. The idea of submission to authority is absolutely key to Christian growth. It flows out in concentric circles in our relationships with parents, our elders in the Church, our government (in another sphere), and then ultimately to God Himself. Our fidelity to Confessions is, in large measure, a "Show Me" attitude that is even celebrated as being the motto of a State.



Yes, it's hard to call the modern levelling movement in the church anything less than the rebellion of Korah. 2 Peter 2 and Jude both speak out powerfully against it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

armourbearer said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strictly speaking, these are corporate vows to God, not covenants with God. Only God can institute a covenant with man. Men do not institute covenants with God. Don't forget you covenant theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible calls these corporate vows "covenants," and to distinguish them from the covenants of special revelation theologians call them "personal" or "social." Certainly we cannot tie God to promise anything concerning our particular situation in the world by entering into a personal or social covenant with Him, but we can confirm our commitment to walk in His ways and to trust to the promises He has given us in His Word.
Click to expand...


They may be covenants between men, to be faithful to God, but not a covenant with God. That was my point. And since they are taking the form of vows, they are held accountable to it by God. I only stress this point, so that our covenant theology does not get confused.


----------



## MW

Puritan Sailor said:


> They may be covenants between men, to be faithful to God, but not a covenant with God. That was my point. And since they are taking the form of vows, they are held accountable to it by God. I only stress this point, so that our covenant theology does not get confused.



They are said to be made WITH God. 2 Chron. 29:10, "Now it is in mine heart to make a covenant with the LORD God of Israel, that his fierce wrath may turn away from us."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, you have really hit on a nerve that I've been bothered by for a long time that finds itself infecting the life of a Church. The idea of submission to authority is absolutely key to Christian growth. It flows out in concentric circles in our relationships with parents, our elders in the Church, our government (in another sphere), and then ultimately to God Himself. Our fidelity to Confessions is, in large measure, a "Show Me" attitude that is even celebrated as being the motto of a State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's hard to call the modern levelling movement in the church anything less than the rebellion of Korah. 2 Peter 2 and Jude both speak out powerfully against it.
Click to expand...


I've also heard it argued (accurately I believe) that Calvinism sort of died off in America as she became more prosperous and ruggedly individualistic. The ideas of Manifest Destiny and that success is built by men who pull themselves up by their bootstraps doesn't really meld well with an idea of depravity. Try telling a successful entrepeneur that he's dead in his sins and trespasses.

The theology of Finney caught on incredibly fast because the ground for accepting that theology was plowed and ready for reception by the masses: God helps those who help themselves.

All kidding aside about Australians, your large frontiers bear a lot of parallels and one of the reasons Americans and Australians get along so very well is there is a pretty common ethos. We sort of talk the same language and I'm not talking about English. I would imagine you face some of the same struggles we do.

I'm sure you would agree that it would take a reformation in the thinking about the nature of the human spirit for a national covenant to work - namely a resurgence of Reformed thinking and away from a trust in ourselves first. Before we could hope to reform a government, we would have to reform the Church and families first and get our thinking about the nature of authority screwed on correctly.


----------



## Pergamum

Whether a national covenant would work or not, is the very idea even legitimate? 

Sctoland may have covenanted with God (or at least a small portion of Scots did) and her country still went down the tubes fairly quickly.


Who would have to do the covenanting before God honored this covenant anyway? The church? Which one? The king?


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> All kidding aside about Australians, your large frontiers bear a lot of parallels and one of the reasons Americans and Australians get along so very well is there is a pretty common ethos. We sort of talk the same language and I'm not talking about English. I would imagine you face some of the same struggles we do.



We definitely face the same struggles. Secularisation is a great enemy to every nation. Regrettably many Christians welcome it as if it somehow makes the church look more genuine; as if having a State turn against Christian morals makes the church's task of preaching the gospel easier. They don't realise that the more secular the State becomes, the less "common-ground" the Christian has with his neighbour, and so there are fewer opportunities to actually preach Christ to the nation. What passes for "evangelism" today is nothing more than bridge-building, trying to find some common-ground with the unbeliever. Our so-called "post-Christian societies" are in fact nothing more than "post-societies." The apostles had the benefit of societal structure; Christianity purged those structures; now anti-Christianity tears down the very structures themselves, leaving nations with nothing but an empty notion of "liberty."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> All kidding aside about Australians, your large frontiers bear a lot of parallels and one of the reasons Americans and Australians get along so very well is there is a pretty common ethos. We sort of talk the same language and I'm not talking about English. I would imagine you face some of the same struggles we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We definitely face the same struggles. Secularisation is a great enemy to every nation. Regrettably many Christians welcome it as if it somehow makes the church look more genuine; as if having a State turn against Christian morals makes the church's task of preaching the gospel easier. They don't realise that the more secular the State becomes, the less "common-ground" the Christian has with his neighbour, and so there are fewer opportunities to actually preach Christ to the nation. What passes for "evangelism" today is nothing more than bridge-building, trying to find some common-ground with the unbeliever. Our so-called "post-Christian societies" are in fact nothing more than "post-societies." The apostles had the benefit of societal structure; Christianity purged those structures; now anti-Christianity tears down the very structures themselves, leaving nations with nothing but an empty notion of "liberty."
Click to expand...


Interesting analysis.


----------



## R Harris

*Wow, where does one start*

Daniel Ritchie barely even scratched the surface with Psalm 2.

Try also Psalm 22:27-31, Psalm 67, Psalm 72, Psalm 86:9, Psalm 89, Psalm 110(read very carefully), Psalm 138:4, Daniel 4, Daniel 7:13-14 (at Christ's ascension, all nations and governments were given to Him as His inheritance), Isaiah 2, Isaiah 9, Isaiah 11, Isaiah 49:23 (this verse was THE proof text given by the Westminster delegates in the original Section 23:3 regarding the civil magistrate), Isaiah 60 (especially verse 12), Zechariah 14, Matthew 28:18, Acts 17:6, Romans 13:1-6 (the Covenanters and Puritans held to a very different interpretation than we hear today regarding those verses. They believed the verses speak of God's DESIGN for the civil magistrate - not that every government that comes down the pike is to be obeyed nor is pleasing to Him. Note especially the Greek word used for "minister" in verse 4 - diakonos. In other words, the State is to be a DEACON or SERVANT of God. Tell me - how can a State truly be a deacon or servant of God without being covenanted with Him? It is impossible. If a government is not covenanted with Him and serving Him faithfully, it stands in REBELLION against Him. Yes, that would cover about all 163 nations currently on earth. But God laughs at their rebellion (Psalm 2)), I Cor 15:20-27, Revelation 1:5 (He is the RULER of the kings of the earth - how could that possibly be misunderstood?), Revelation 11:15, Revelation 15:4, Revelation 19 (He is the King OF kings).

THE book to read about Christ's mediatorial reign over the nations is "_Messiah the Prince_" by William Symington, written in 1838. Covers the concept about as thoroughly as it can be covered, detailed and unsurpassed to this day (In my humble opinion).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

R Harris said:


> THE book to read about Christ's mediatorial reign over the nations is "_Messiah the Prince_" by William Symington, written in 1838. Covers the concept about as thoroughly as it can be covered, detailed and unsurpassed to this day (In my humble opinion).



 Available online here.


----------



## RamistThomist

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE book to read about Christ's mediatorial reign over the nations is "_Messiah the Prince_" by William Symington, written in 1838. Covers the concept about as thoroughly as it can be covered, detailed and unsurpassed to this day (In my humble opinion).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Available online here.
Click to expand...


Very warm and heart-stirring.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Rev. Winzer,

It occurs to me that, over the past several years, I've had to reform my thinking that had once un-critically equated American thinking with the way God thinks about things. Living in a foreign culture and seeing American ideas (especially our tastes for praise choruses) exported into the Church has really highlighted this for me.

It seems like part of the job of the Church should be to teach people to start to forget some of the lessons that they've learned from their society about the nature of things.

One of our Chief Justices, Antoni Scalia, made an interesting observation though. Americans are very odd among many developed nations that we even have a concept to say that something is "un-American". You never hear an idea is "un-French" or "un-German". Especially in the American Church to be "un-American" is akin to not being a real Christian in many corners.

I wish I could describe it better but I find myself being, as Paul states, crucified to the world (America) and the world becoming crucified to me. I'm realizing that if Christians in America would want to really grow in a Church then they would have to cast off some ideas that, to some, would make them seem un-American to reject. This is a very big problem.

I hope I'm not trashing this Christian nation thread by focusing on this but it seems our assumptions about the nature of God and His word are especially impacted by our culture and I can scarcely think of a culture that has tangled up its ideas of the Gospel with her ideals more than America has.


----------



## RamistThomist

SemperFideles said:


> Rev. Winzer,
> 
> It occurs to me that, over the past several years, I've had to reform my thinking that had once un-critically equated American thinking with the way God thinks about things. Living in a foreign culture and seeing American ideas (especially our tastes for praise choruses) exported into the Church has really highlighted this for me.
> 
> It seems like part of the job of the Church should be to teach people to start to forget some of the lessons that they've learned from their society about the nature of things.
> 
> One of our Chief Justices, Antoni Scalia, made an interesting observation though. Americans are very odd among many developed nations that we even have a concept to say that something is "un-American". You never hear an idea is "un-French" or "un-German". Especially in the American Church to be "un-American" is akin to not being a real Christian in many corners.
> 
> I wish I could describe it better but I find myself being, as Paul states, crucified to the world (America) and the world becoming crucified to me. I'm realizing that if Christians in America would want to really grow in a Church then they would have to cast off some ideas that, to some, would make them seem un-American to reject. This is a very big problem.
> 
> I hope I'm not trashing this Christian nation thread by focusing on this but it seems our assumptions about the nature of God and His word are especially impacted by our culture and I can scarcely think of a culture that has more gotten its cultural ideas confused with the Gospel than America.



As much as I am a patriotic Southron, I agree. I have spent the time from Christmas (or Christ-mass) onward studying outside American things/stuff, including relearning several foreign languages I used to know. 

I also became a monarchist reading an Austrian scholar. That is why I was interested in whether a monarchy more easily favors a Christian nation. My answer is a good, decisive, firm "yes and no."


----------



## Vytautas

SemperFideles said:


> One of our Chief Justices, Antoni Scalia, made an interesting observation though. Americans are very odd among many developed nations that we even have a concept to say that something is "un-American". You never hear an idea is "un-French" or "un-German". Especially in the American Church to be "un-American" is akin to not being a real Christian in many corners.



I think if people start to see their culture go haywire, then they start to look outward to a better place because they do not want to be in the mess they are in.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Vytautas said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of our Chief Justices, Antoni Scalia, made an interesting observation though. Americans are very odd among many developed nations that we even have a concept to say that something is "un-American". You never hear an idea is "un-French" or "un-German". Especially in the American Church to be "un-American" is akin to not being a real Christian in many corners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think if people start to see their culture go haywire, then they start to look outward to a better place because they do not want to be in the mess they are in.
Click to expand...


 I'm not sure how your response relates to the portion cited.


----------



## MW

Rich, we have a saying, that it's unAustralian to not give a person a fair-go. Migrants used to come here and say how open we Aussies were. I like that about my country. I think it's becoming increasingly less apparent, but I still think it's an Australian ideal. On the down side, "she'll be right mate" is another Australianism, and it's far from biblical. I don't think its prejudicial to speak of national virtues and vices. We read in the NT of the Cretan slow-belly.

Philippi was one place where Roman citizenship was regarded with passion. It's interesting that in this letter the apostle speaks about partnership (koinonia) in the gospel and citizenship (politeuma) in heaven. So as Christians we're dual citizens. We have a love for country, but the highest ideals we have for our country is to see it reflecting the values of the gospel. No doubt we often find ourselves ashamed whenever our country fails to reflect those values, but here we should not become cynical or sceptical; the apostle says to the same patriotic church, "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."


----------



## Zenas

I don't think a Christian nations exists. I doubt our Lord will afford us that blessing when there's so much of the world that needs to hear the Gospel. We are the church universal, and I think that's all we're getting.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Rich, we have a saying, that it's unAustralian to not give a person a fair-go. Migrants used to come here and say how open we Aussies were. I like that about my country. I think it's becoming increasingly less apparent, but I still think it's an Australian ideal. On the down side, "she'll be right mate" is another Australianism, and it's far from biblical. I don't think its prejudicial to speak of national virtues and vices. We read in the NT of the Cretan slow-belly.
> 
> Philippi was one place where Roman citizenship was regarded with passion. It's interesting that in this letter the apostle speaks about partnership (koinonia) in the gospel and citizenship (politeuma) in heaven. So as Christians we're dual citizens. We have a love for country, but the highest ideals we have for our country is to see it reflecting the values of the gospel. No doubt we often find ourselves ashamed whenever our country fails to reflect those values, but here we should not become cynical or sceptical; the apostle says to the same patriotic church, "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."



Don't get me wrong Matthew, I think there are some things to love about American ideals that are proverbially noteworthy. Not everything is bad.

But some people take the good with the bad as a package and have a hard time separating out and taking captive to the Word those ideals that need to be Reformed. These ideals, in some cases, will cause them to run counter to the cultural stream and can be misinterpreted as hating the culture and the nation.

If I really despised American culture then I would certainly be a huge hypocrite for being in her military.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Don't get me wrong Matthew, I think there are some things to love about American ideals that are proverbially noteworthy. Not everything is bad.
> 
> But some people take the good with the bad as a package and have a hard time separating out and taking captive to the Word those ideals that need to be Reformed. These ideals, in some cases, will cause them to run counter to the cultural stream and can be misinterpreted as hating the culture and the nation.
> 
> If I really despised American culture then I would certainly be a huge hypocrite for being in her military.



Understood, Rich. Blessings!


----------



## Iconoclast

R Harris said:


> Daniel Ritchie barely even scratched the surface with Psalm 2.
> 
> Try also Psalm 22:27-31, Psalm 67, Psalm 72, Psalm 86:9, Psalm 89, Psalm 110(read very carefully), Psalm 138:4, Daniel 4, Daniel 7:13-14 (at Christ's ascension, all nations and governments were given to Him as His inheritance), Isaiah 2, Isaiah 9, Isaiah 11, Isaiah 49:23 (this verse was THE proof text given by the Westminster delegates in the original Section 23:3 regarding the civil magistrate), Isaiah 60 (especially verse 12), Zechariah 14, Matthew 28:18, Acts 17:6, Romans 13:1-6 (the Covenanters and Puritans held to a very different interpretation than we hear today regarding those verses. They believed the verses speak of God's DESIGN for the civil magistrate - not that every government that comes down the pike is to be obeyed nor is pleasing to Him. Note especially the Greek word used for "minister" in verse 4 - diakonos. In other words, the State is to be a DEACON or SERVANT of God. Tell me - how can a State truly be a deacon or servant of God without being covenanted with Him? It is impossible. If a government is not covenanted with Him and serving Him faithfully, it stands in REBELLION against Him. Yes, that would cover about all 163 nations currently on earth. But God laughs at their rebellion (Psalm 2)), I Cor 15:20-27, Revelation 1:5 (He is the RULER of the kings of the earth - how could that possibly be misunderstood?), Revelation 11:15, Revelation 15:4, Revelation 19 (He is the King OF kings).
> 
> THE book to read about Christ's mediatorial reign over the nations is "_Messiah the Prince_" by William Symington, written in 1838. Covers the concept about as thoroughly as it can be covered, detailed and unsurpassed to this day (In my humble opinion).



Randy,
Thank you for your post and recommending this book.
Does Mr.Symington offer up a post-mill view? Judging by the verses offered it would seem to be so. Does he speak to the amill view also?
The whole of this thread comes down to a persons escatological position.
I myself am drifting in between these two positions at this point in time.

Ps. Matthew, thank you for the links,on Pastor Case


----------



## RamistThomist

Iconoclast said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie barely even scratched the surface with Psalm 2.
> 
> Try also Psalm 22:27-31, Psalm 67, Psalm 72, Psalm 86:9, Psalm 89, Psalm 110(read very carefully), Psalm 138:4, Daniel 4, Daniel 7:13-14 (at Christ's ascension, all nations and governments were given to Him as His inheritance), Isaiah 2, Isaiah 9, Isaiah 11, Isaiah 49:23 (this verse was THE proof text given by the Westminster delegates in the original Section 23:3 regarding the civil magistrate), Isaiah 60 (especially verse 12), Zechariah 14, Matthew 28:18, Acts 17:6, Romans 13:1-6 (the Covenanters and Puritans held to a very different interpretation than we hear today regarding those verses. They believed the verses speak of God's DESIGN for the civil magistrate - not that every government that comes down the pike is to be obeyed nor is pleasing to Him. Note especially the Greek word used for "minister" in verse 4 - diakonos. In other words, the State is to be a DEACON or SERVANT of God. Tell me - how can a State truly be a deacon or servant of God without being covenanted with Him? It is impossible. If a government is not covenanted with Him and serving Him faithfully, it stands in REBELLION against Him. Yes, that would cover about all 163 nations currently on earth. But God laughs at their rebellion (Psalm 2)), I Cor 15:20-27, Revelation 1:5 (He is the RULER of the kings of the earth - how could that possibly be misunderstood?), Revelation 11:15, Revelation 15:4, Revelation 19 (He is the King OF kings).
> 
> THE book to read about Christ's mediatorial reign over the nations is "_Messiah the Prince_" by William Symington, written in 1838. Covers the concept about as thoroughly as it can be covered, detailed and unsurpassed to this day (In my humble opinion).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy,
> Thank you for your post and recommending this book.
> Does Mr.Symington offer up a post-mill view? Judging by the verses offered it would seem to be so. Does he speak to the amill view also?
> The whole of this thread comes down to a persons escatological position.
> I myself am drifting in between these two positions at this point in time.
> 
> Ps. Matthew, thank you for the links,on Pastor Case
Click to expand...


That nomenclature wasn't operative until after Kuyper. He said things postmils would say, sure. But it would be anachronistic to say he was postmil (or amil).

And I am premil and believe in Christian nations.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

armourbearer said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> They may be covenants between men, to be faithful to God, but not a covenant with God. That was my point. And since they are taking the form of vows, they are held accountable to it by God. I only stress this point, so that our covenant theology does not get confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are said to be made WITH God. 2 Chron. 29:10, "Now it is in mine heart to make a covenant with the LORD God of Israel, that his fierce wrath may turn away from us."
Click to expand...


This example, as well as the 3 others in 2 Chronicles are all clearly renewals of the Mosaic covenant, as the context shows. The covenant was already in place. The old covenant church returned to God. That covenant has expired and been replaced by the new covenant. 

So which covenant are modern nations suppose to renew?


----------



## Stephen

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citing a verse at random proves nothing; that interpretation of the verse causes Scripture to contradict Scripture. Psalm 2 forever settles the question of whether or not there should be a Christian state. The king of kings and Lord of lords demands it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I cite that verse at random?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The verse does not address the issue of whether or not there should be a Christian state, all it proves is that the believer's ultimate hope is the eternal city. To build a political theory on it is, at best, an argument from conjecture.
Click to expand...


Daniel is correct on this point. The hope of the believer is to set his sights on that continuing city. We must realize that this present world is not our eternal home, but we are citizens of both the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man, and we are to work to bring the kingdom of God to earth.


----------



## N. Eshelman

FROM FISHER'S CATECHISM:

Q. 61. What is a social vow?

A. It is the joint concurrence of several individuals in the same exercise as in a personal one, openly avouching the Lord to be their God, Deut. 26:17; where Moses, speaking of all Israel, says, "Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, to walk in his ways," &c.

Q. 62. When doth such a social vow commonly get the name of a NATIONAL COVENANT?

A. When the representatives of a nation, or the better part of them, concur in a covenant of duties, as ingrafted upon the covenant of grace, Jer. 50:4, 5 -- "The children of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together, -- saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten." See also Neh. 9:33, and 10:1, 30.

Q. 63. How do you prove that national covenanting is a warrantable duty under the New Testament?

A. From its being promised in the Old Testament that this shall be a duty performed under the New, Isa. 19:21 -- "The Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and -- they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and shall perform it." Besides, if it was a moral duty upon special occasions, under the Old Testament (as appears from 2 Chron 15:12, and 34:31, 32; Neh. 9:38), it must remain to be the same, upon the like occasions, still; because Christ came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfil them, Matt 5:17.

Q. 64. Is our obligation to moral duties increased, by our vowing or engaging to perform them?

A. Although it is impossible that our obligation to moral duty can he increased by any deed of ours, beyond what it is already by the law of God, which is of the highest authority; yet by reason of our own voluntary and superadded engagement, this obligation from the law may make a deeper impression than before, Psalm 44:17, 18, and our sins receive a higher aggravation, if we either omit the duty engaged to, or commit the evil opposite to it, Deut. 23:21, 22.

What are your thoughts on the idea of a nation being covenanted to God? What would be an equivalent in the Dutch Reformed tradition? Is there a way that the people of God could covenant to God in a country that does not allow for an established church?


----------



## kvanlaan

> The Bible calls these corporate vows "covenants," and to distinguish them from the covenants of special revelation theologians call them "personal" or "social." Certainly we cannot tie God to promise anything concerning our particular situation in the world by entering into a personal or social covenant with Him, but we can confirm our commitment to walk in His ways and to trust to the promises He has given us in His Word.





> Not only is it possible, it's a reality. Our modern constitutions are religious covenants. The only problem is that they barely promise obedience to God.





> They may be covenants between men, to be faithful to God, but not a covenant with God. That was my point. And since they are taking the form of vows, they are held accountable to it by God. I only stress this point, so that our covenant theology does not get confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are said to be made WITH God. 2 Chron. 29:10, "Now it is in mine heart to make a covenant with the LORD God of Israel, that his fierce wrath may turn away from us."
Click to expand...




> I've also heard it argued (accurately I believe) that Calvinism sort of died off in America as she became more prosperous and ruggedly individualistic. The ideas of Manifest Destiny and that success is built by men who pull themselves up by their bootstraps doesn't really meld well with an idea of depravity. Try telling a successful entrepeneur that he's dead in his sins and trespasses.





> Whether a national covenant would work or not, is the very idea even legitimate?
> 
> Scotland may have covenanted with God (or at least a small portion of Scots did) and her country still went down the tubes fairly quickly.



OK, I know that the discussion has taken a turn in another direction, but I am still stuck on the idea of man-initiated covenants and the question of their validity and efficacy. 

Pastor Winzer, I have a practical, historical scenario for you. I have mentioned this scenario in another context before, but it is of great interest to me in the context being discussed earlier in this thread. 

I don't mean to hijack; I think this is pertinent to the earlier thread of the discussion. If it is too far off topic, please feel free to ignore (or PM me if you would be so kind.)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to be able to ascertain from the quotes above (and your personal opinion) that:
1. Initiating covenants with God _is_ possible.
2. They require an identifiable nation/people group as the earthly party.
3. It can be inferred by the "Manifest Destiny" quote (though perhaps this is a stretch) that that Calvinists would be more ready to abide by the basic tenents of an OT type/biblically appropriate covenant (dead in sin, take God as He is revealed in all His omnipotence and omniscience, be self-denying), and not simply initiating a man-centered 'cutting (of) a deal' with God. 
4. Religious covenants of nations require a definite and unconditional obedience to God.
5. They are of a corporate nature and not simply 'personal'.

The scenario I have in mind is that of the Boers in South Africa and the Battle of Blood River. The Battle of Blood River and Monument (Yes, you may discount some of the credibility of this account. No-one should take their historical facts from a site called "funkymunky" but this particular account seemed the most comprehensive from the few sites I looked at. )

Here you have an identifiable group (as required by #2) - the Boers, though it did not include ALL of them in this particular instance, though they participated in a corporate manner in the fulfillment of their end of the proposed covenant. Though they were 'successful entrepreneurs' of a sort (3), and were the ultimate example of 'pulling one's self up by one's bootstraps', they fully assented to the fact that they were dead in sins and trespasses as they were the religious offspring of fugitive French Huguenots and Dutch Calvinists and held to the aforementioned doctrine with incredible tenacity. They saw their actions in first and foremost a Biblical light (4), and it was a corporate vow, taken first by the accepted leader of the group and acgreed to by all men in the party (from what I can gather from various sources.)

The success of this 'covenant' would be measured by the covenant people in question in that the battle of 407 Boers vs. 12,000 Zulus resulted in _thousands_ of Zulu dead (estimates are 3500) and only 3 injured Boers (non life-threatening). Claims of superior technology (the Zulus had only spears and shields, the Boers, 2 cannon and hundreds of muzzle-loaded muskets) cannot adequately account for the utter lack of Boer dead. 

So the question based on the quotes above then is this: based on the criteria proposed and the results of the battle, was this an example of covenant people participating in (and initiating a) covenant with God?

Sorry, it just seems very relevant to this discussion (several hours ago...)


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> I've also heard it argued (accurately I believe) that Calvinism sort of died off in America as she became more prosperous and ruggedly individualistic. The ideas of Manifest Destiny and that success is built by men who pull themselves up by their bootstraps doesn't really meld well with an idea of depravity. Try telling a successful entrepeneur that he's dead in his sins and trespasses.
> 
> The theology of Finney caught on incredibly fast because the ground for accepting that theology was plowed and ready for reception by the masses: God helps those who help themselves.



Early American views of freedom were based on the Calvinistic view of total depravity, which meant that if too much power was centralized in one institution it would be used for corrupt purposes (hence the separation of powers in American civil government. This can be no other way since man is fallen). Freedom (in Calvinistic political theory) is freedom under God and freedom from undue state (or church) interference. 

It may be that because God blessed America that some people abused this, and thought that her prosperity was a result of her own efforts, but on the whole I would say that the American system (originally at least) grew out of Calvinistic philosophy.


----------



## Stephen

nleshelman said:


> FROM FISHER'S CATECHISM:
> 
> Q. 61. What is a social vow?
> 
> A. It is the joint concurrence of several individuals in the same exercise as in a personal one, openly avouching the Lord to be their God, Deut. 26:17; where Moses, speaking of all Israel, says, "Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, to walk in his ways," &c.
> 
> Q. 62. When doth such a social vow commonly get the name of a NATIONAL COVENANT?
> 
> A. When the representatives of a nation, or the better part of them, concur in a covenant of duties, as ingrafted upon the covenant of grace, Jer. 50:4, 5 -- "The children of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together, -- saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten." See also Neh. 9:33, and 10:1, 30.
> 
> Q. 63. How do you prove that national covenanting is a warrantable duty under the New Testament?
> 
> A. From its being promised in the Old Testament that this shall be a duty performed under the New, Isa. 19:21 -- "The Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and -- they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and shall perform it." Besides, if it was a moral duty upon special occasions, under the Old Testament (as appears from 2 Chron 15:12, and 34:31, 32; Neh. 9:38), it must remain to be the same, upon the like occasions, still; because Christ came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfil them, Matt 5:17.
> 
> Q. 64. Is our obligation to moral duties increased, by our vowing or engaging to perform them?
> 
> A. Although it is impossible that our obligation to moral duty can he increased by any deed of ours, beyond what it is already by the law of God, which is of the highest authority; yet by reason of our own voluntary and superadded engagement, this obligation from the law may make a deeper impression than before, Psalm 44:17, 18, and our sins receive a higher aggravation, if we either omit the duty engaged to, or commit the evil opposite to it, Deut. 23:21, 22.
> 
> What are your thoughts on the idea of a nation being covenanted to God? What would be an equivalent in the Dutch Reformed tradition? Is there a way that the people of God could covenant to God in a country that does not allow for an established church?



I am not sure on this issue, because I am not well versed on it. The Westminster Divines did hold to a *National League and Covenant *and it was built into the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms (WCOF), but the American Presbyterians changed the WCOF in order to discard this position. I am not aware of any Reformed denominations that hold to a *National League and Covenan*t. Some would make the case that the war of Independence in the U.S was based on a National League and Covenant, but I am still undecided on this position.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

How can a Calvinist - who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God over men and nations - possibly deny that God's sovereign authority is supposed to be acknowledged by the nations as corporate entities?


----------



## Stephen

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I've also heard it argued (accurately I believe) that Calvinism sort of died off in America as she became more prosperous and ruggedly individualistic. The ideas of Manifest Destiny and that success is built by men who pull themselves up by their bootstraps doesn't really meld well with an idea of depravity. Try telling a successful entrepeneur that he's dead in his sins and trespasses.
> 
> The theology of Finney caught on incredibly fast because the ground for accepting that theology was plowed and ready for reception by the masses: God helps those who help themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Early American views of freedom were based on the Calvinistic view of total depravity, which meant that if too much power was centralized in one institution it would be used for corrupt purposes (hence the separation of powers in American civil government. This can be no other way since man is fallen). Freedom (in Calvinistic political theory) is freedom under God and freedom from undue state (or church) interference.
> 
> It may be that because God blessed America that some people abused this, and thought that her prosperity was a result of her own efforts, but on the whole I would say that the American system (originally at least) grew out of Calvinistic philosophy.
Click to expand...


You raise a great point. Currently in American politics the issue that is being debated is over whether we should have a centralized government or limited governement (states rights). The majority of candidates for President (with the exception of one or two, who are out of the race) are not in favor of limited government, which violates the American constitution. 

The late Dr. D. James Kennedy, who had theonomic and reconstructionist leanings, shows where Calvin and Knox influenced early American government. He makes a strong case that American government was based on a Presbyterian form of government. George Grant has shown in many of his works, the influence of the Reformation on American government. As an American I am afraid that we have departed from our roots and are no longer a republic. I pray that we do not become ruled by tyranny, if we have not already.


----------



## Stephen

Daniel Ritchie said:


> How can a Calvinist - who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God over men and nations - possibly deny that God's sovereign authority is supposed to be acknowledged by the nations as corporate entities?




I understand your point and cannot refute your argument, but the problem I have is how do we as nations make a covenant with God? You would have to put into office Christian men, correct?


----------



## AV1611

Stephen said:


> I understand your point and cannot refute your argument, but the problem I have is how do we as nations make a covenant with God? You would have to put into office Christian men, correct?



_When_ revival comes and the majority of the nation is converted then we will be enabled to covenant nationally with YHWH.


----------



## Stephen

Puritan Sailor said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we "covenant nationally with God as did Israel of old" did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National Covenant of Scotland.
> The Solemn League & Covenant: Exhortation by the Westminster Assembly
> The Solemn League & Covenant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strictly speaking, these are corporate vows to God, not covenants with God. Only God can institute a covenant with man. Men do not institute covenants with God. Don't forget you covenant theology.
> 
> Furthermore, in Israel, they renewed the Mosaic covenant which was already in place. They did not make new covenants as a nation with God. Again, only God can institute new covenants.
Click to expand...


Richard was not stating that men institute covenants but men are required to enter into covenants with God. This is clearly taught in Scripture.


----------



## Stephen

AV1611 said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your point and cannot refute your argument, but the problem I have is how do we as nations make a covenant with God? You would have to put into office Christian men, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _When_ revival comes and the majority of the nation is converted then we will be enabled to covenant nationally with YHWH.
Click to expand...



I agree with you on this point, brother. I am a post-millenialist, so I believe that as the kingdom is advanced through the preaching of the gospel, people and nations are converted. I am not sure this is the totality of what is affirmed in the League and Covenant.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Daniel Ritchie said:


> How can a Calvinist - who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God over men and nations - possibly deny that God's sovereign authority is supposed to be acknowledged by the nations as corporate entities?



No one denies his authority over the nations. We disagree as to how that sovereignty is to be recognized and applied. Isreal was under a national covenant instituted by God with them, as his special covenant people. Where is that covenant with modern nations?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Puritan Sailor said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can a Calvinist - who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God over men and nations - possibly deny that God's sovereign authority is supposed to be acknowledged by the nations as corporate entities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one denies his authority over the nations. We disagree as to how that sovereignty is to be recognized and applied. Isreal was under a national covenant instituted by God with them, as his special covenant people. Where is that covenant with modern nations?
Click to expand...


Nowadays all nations have the duty to enter into covenant with God (Isaiah 19).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Stephen said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can a Calvinist - who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God over men and nations - possibly deny that God's sovereign authority is supposed to be acknowledged by the nations as corporate entities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your point and cannot refute your argument, but the problem I have is how do we as nations make a covenant with God? You would have to put into office Christian men, correct?
Click to expand...


Yes. Those men would be required to swear the national covenant as a condition of office.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Puritan Sailor said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can a Calvinist - who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God over men and nations - possibly deny that God's sovereign authority is supposed to be acknowledged by the nations as corporate entities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one denies his authority over the nations. We disagree as to how that sovereignty is to be recognized and applied. Isreal was under a national covenant instituted by God with them, as his special covenant people. Where is that covenant with modern nations?
Click to expand...


Moreover, if we don't have a formally Christian nation, then how can we say that the nation is recognising God's sovereign authority?


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can a Calvinist - who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God over men and nations - possibly deny that God's sovereign authority is supposed to be acknowledged by the nations as corporate entities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one denies his authority over the nations. We disagree as to how that sovereignty is to be recognized and applied. Isreal was under a national covenant instituted by God with them, as his special covenant people. Where is that covenant with modern nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nowadays all nations have the duty to enter into covenant with God (Isaiah 19).
Click to expand...


NT example please Daniel. And what type of covenant? Man 'making' a covenant with God does not a blood bought covenant make. I believe in the absolute Sovereignty of God, therefore your premise is faulty. How can one who believes in the AS of God, try to make a cov with the same God, or deny that God, if sovereign is not getting what He wants? 


you again state:
_
Moreover, if we don't have a formally Christian nation, then how can we say that the nation is recognising God's sovereign authority?_

Daniel, man has never recognized His authority. Man crucified His son, all according to His Sovereignty. Salvation of His sheep is the revelation of scripture, not a Christian nation making a pact with God..


----------



## RamistThomist

There is a difference between man *descriptively* recognizing God's sovereignty and _prescriptively_ recognizing God's sovereignty.

As to the former, who cares? 

As to the latter, God's word via Psalm 2 (+ 100 more passages) says men are to recognize Christ as king. That's all that matters.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one denies his authority over the nations. We disagree as to how that sovereignty is to be recognized and applied. Isreal was under a national covenant instituted by God with them, as his special covenant people. Where is that covenant with modern nations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nowadays all nations have the duty to enter into covenant with God (Isaiah 19).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NT example please Daniel. And what type of covenant? Man 'making' a covenant with God does not a blood bought covenant make. I believe in the absolute Sovereignty of God, therefore your premise is faulty. How can one who believes in the AS of God, try to make a cov with the same God, or deny that God, if sovereign is not getting what He wants?
> 
> 
> you again state:
> _
> Moreover, if we don't have a formally Christian nation, then how can we say that the nation is recognising God's sovereign authority?_
> 
> Daniel, man has never recognized His authority. Man crucified His son, all according to His Sovereignty. Salvation of His sheep is the revelation of scripture, not a Christian nation making a pact with God..
Click to expand...


Isaiah 19 is a prediction of what will happen in the NT. And besides, I believe that "All Scripture is breathed out by God, and is profitable for teaching" not just the NT. Moreover, Calvinists believe in human responsibilty. Thus saying that nations are meant to enter into covenant with God - as the result of the advance of the gospel - is not denying God's absolute sovereignty.

Yes, it is true that fallen sinners have never acknowledged God's sovereignty, but that does not mean that they should not. Moreover, are we to believe that God is incapable of bringing men to acknowledge His sovereignty (as a result of the Holy Spirit's Sovereign work)?


----------



## RamistThomist

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Isaiah 19 is a prediction of what will happen in the NT. And besides, I believe that "All Scripture is breathed out by God, and is profitable for teaching" not just the NT.



Interestingly, when Paul wrote Timothy, he could not have had the NT in mind, since it wasn't written. 

Anyway, such a hermeneutic is incipient Marcionism.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowadays all nations have the duty to enter into covenant with God (Isaiah 19).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NT example please Daniel. And what type of covenant? Man 'making' a covenant with God does not a blood bought covenant make. I believe in the absolute Sovereignty of God, therefore your premise is faulty. How can one who believes in the AS of God, try to make a cov with the same God, or deny that God, if sovereign is not getting what He wants?
> 
> 
> you again state:
> _
> Moreover, if we don't have a formally Christian nation, then how can we say that the nation is recognising God's sovereign authority?_
> 
> Daniel, man has never recognized His authority. Man crucified His son, all according to His Sovereignty. Salvation of His sheep is the revelation of scripture, not a Christian nation making a pact with God..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isaiah 19 is a prediction of what will happen in the NT. And besides, I believe that "All Scripture is breathed out by God, and is profitable for teaching" not just the NT. Moreover, Calvinists believe in human responsibilty. Thus saying that nations are meant to enter into covenant with God - as the result of the advance of the gospel - is not denying God's absolute sovereignty.
> 
> Yes, it is true that fallen sinners have never acknowledged God's sovereignty, but that does not mean that they should not. Moreover, are we to believe that God is incapable of bringing men to acknowledge His sovereignty (as a result of the Holy Spirit's Sovereign work)?
Click to expand...


Israel was returning to the Mosaic covenant as God's people. Which covenant are modern nations to return to?


----------



## RamistThomist

And to make clear, not all who believe in a Christian nation believe that nations ought to covenant with God. I am in that category. So refuting the notion of modern covenants (which I think Patrick is capable of doing) doesn't address the idea of a Christian nation. 

And for an example, the nation of Serbia, until modern times and even to a degree today, was a Christian, if Greek Orthodox, nation. It has subsequently been bombed by the Clintons and raped by NATO/EU. Still, they fight for their identity, if only with words. God avenge them.


----------



## Civbert

Pergamum said:


> Now that the civil state of Israel is over and done with forever is it accurate to labels nations as "Christian" or not?
> 
> Also, the whole "Christendom" concept... is it Biblical?



[bible]Gal 3:25-29[/bible]

Once there was Israel and the other nations. Now there are no "nations" in God's eyes except the Church.

However, I know many theonomists and I'm still working out my views in that area. Most of them believe there are "Christian" nations. My view on the issue is not dogma. I have _other _dogmas I am proud to hold.


----------



## AV1611

Puritan Sailor said:


> Israel was returning to the Mosaic covenant as God's people. Which covenant are modern nations to return to?



When the majority of a nation are converted is it wrong for them to make a vow unto God that they will order their national affairs in accordance with his will of command?


----------



## AV1611

Civbert said:


> Once there was Israel and the other nations. Now there are no "nations" in God's eyes except the Church.



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


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Ivanhoe said:


> And to make clear, not all who believe in a Christian nation believe that nations ought to covenant with God. I am in that category. So refuting the notion of modern covenants (which I think Patrick is capable of doing) doesn't address the idea of a Christian nation.
> 
> And for an example, the nation of Serbia, until modern times and even to a degree today, was a Christian, if Greek Orthodox, nation. It has subsequently been bombed by the Clintons and raped by NATO/EU. Still, they fight for their identity, if only with words. God avenge them.




Im not opposed to a government vowing to uphold and protect the church, and seeking to obey the one true God. Just to make that clear. My point is more fundamental, especially with this use of "covenant." The NT makes clear that the promises of the new covenant are fulfilled by the Church. She is the holy nation constituted by this new covenant. The only way to become part of the new covenant is by faith. The only way to truly submit to the rule and reign of Christ is by faith. All which are supernatural blessings by the Spirit. 

I don't see how a national leader is capable of believing on behalf of a nation because God demands individual faith to join the new covenant. Unless everyone in that nation professes faith, without the threat of a sword, I don't see how you can properly call it "Christian" when Scripture defines "Christian" as those who profess faith in Christ. 

I can certainly see a case where a national leader or government declares Christianity to be the true religion and that the moral law will be the law of the land, and that the Church will be protected from physical violence, and any opposing Christianity must at least respect the laws of the land if they wish to continue living there. But to say they are entering into a covenant with God like old Israel, doesn't that completely confuse the biblical understanding of Christ and the new covenant?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Puritan Sailor said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> NT example please Daniel. And what type of covenant? Man 'making' a covenant with God does not a blood bought covenant make. I believe in the absolute Sovereignty of God, therefore your premise is faulty. How can one who believes in the AS of God, try to make a cov with the same God, or deny that God, if sovereign is not getting what He wants?
> 
> 
> you again state:
> _
> Moreover, if we don't have a formally Christian nation, then how can we say that the nation is recognising God's sovereign authority?_
> 
> Daniel, man has never recognized His authority. Man crucified His son, all according to His Sovereignty. Salvation of His sheep is the revelation of scripture, not a Christian nation making a pact with God..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isaiah 19 is a prediction of what will happen in the NT. And besides, I believe that "All Scripture is breathed out by God, and is profitable for teaching" not just the NT. Moreover, Calvinists believe in human responsibilty. Thus saying that nations are meant to enter into covenant with God - as the result of the advance of the gospel - is not denying God's absolute sovereignty.
> 
> Yes, it is true that fallen sinners have never acknowledged God's sovereignty, but that does not mean that they should not. Moreover, are we to believe that God is incapable of bringing men to acknowledge His sovereignty (as a result of the Holy Spirit's Sovereign work)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was returning to the Mosaic covenant as God's people. Which covenant are modern nations to return to?
Click to expand...


Just because modern nations do not enter into the Mosaic covenant (with its ceremonial stipulations), does not mean that they should not enter into a national covenant in which they swear to obey the Lord and to submit to Christ. Since the duty of covenanting is moral, and obliges one to moral duties, then it must be entered into today.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowadays all nations have the duty to enter into covenant with God (Isaiah 19).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NT example please Daniel. And what type of covenant? Man 'making' a covenant with God does not a blood bought covenant make. I believe in the absolute Sovereignty of God, therefore your premise is faulty. How can one who believes in the AS of God, try to make a cov with the same God, or deny that God, if sovereign is not getting what He wants?
> 
> 
> you again state:
> _
> Moreover, if we don't have a formally Christian nation, then how can we say that the nation is recognising God's sovereign authority?_
> 
> Daniel, man has never recognized His authority. Man crucified His son, all according to His Sovereignty. Salvation of His sheep is the revelation of scripture, not a Christian nation making a pact with God..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isaiah 19 is a prediction of what will happen in the NT. And besides, I believe that "All Scripture is breathed out by God, and is profitable for teaching" not just the NT. Moreover, Calvinists believe in human responsibilty. Thus saying that nations are meant to enter into covenant with God - as the result of the advance of the gospel - is not denying God's absolute sovereignty.
> 
> Yes, it is true that fallen sinners have never acknowledged God's sovereignty, but that does not mean that they should not. Moreover, are we to believe that God is incapable of bringing men to acknowledge His sovereignty (as a result of the Holy Spirit's Sovereign work)?
Click to expand...



I believe the same as well Daniel. Yet I also believe that some are for nation Israel and not the church. I hope you do as well. and this is one example


----------



## Stephen

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can a Calvinist - who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God over men and nations - possibly deny that God's sovereign authority is supposed to be acknowledged by the nations as corporate entities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one denies his authority over the nations. We disagree as to how that sovereignty is to be recognized and applied. Isreal was under a national covenant instituted by God with them, as his special covenant people. Where is that covenant with modern nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moreover, if we don't have a formally Christian nation, then how can we say that the nation is recognising God's sovereign authority?
Click to expand...


Ok, I am starting to see your point. A godless nation like Canada would not bind itself to the League & Covenant because it does not recognize the LORD as its king. Therefore that nation is under judgment.


----------



## Stephen

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE book to read about Christ's mediatorial reign over the nations is "_Messiah the Prince_" by William Symington, written in 1838. Covers the concept about as thoroughly as it can be covered, detailed and unsurpassed to this day (In my humble opinion).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Available online here.
Click to expand...


Is this book out of print?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Stephen said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE book to read about Christ's mediatorial reign over the nations is "_Messiah the Prince_" by William Symington, written in 1838. Covers the concept about as thoroughly as it can be covered, detailed and unsurpassed to this day (In my humble opinion).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Available online here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this book out of print?
Click to expand...


Kessinger Publishing reprinted it last year. Otherwise, there are National Reform Association, Still Water Revival Books and antiquarian 1880's editions available on the marketplace.


----------



## RamistThomist

Puritan Sailor said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> And to make clear, not all who believe in a Christian nation believe that nations ought to covenant with God. I am in that category. So refuting the notion of modern covenants (which I think Patrick is capable of doing) doesn't address the idea of a Christian nation.
> 
> And for an example, the nation of Serbia, until modern times and even to a degree today, was a Christian, if Greek Orthodox, nation. It has subsequently been bombed by the Clintons and raped by NATO/EU. Still, they fight for their identity, if only with words. God avenge them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not opposed to a government vowing to uphold and protect the church, and seeking to obey the one true God. Just to make that clear. My point is more fundamental, especially with this use of "covenant." The NT makes clear that the promises of the new covenant are fulfilled by the Church. She is the holy nation constituted by this new covenant. The only way to become part of the new covenant is by faith. The only way to truly submit to the rule and reign of Christ is by faith. All which are supernatural blessings by the Spirit.
> 
> I don't see how a national leader is capable of believing on behalf of a nation because God demands individual faith to join the new covenant. Unless everyone in that nation professes faith, without the threat of a sword, I don't see how you can properly call it "Christian" when Scripture defines "Christian" as those who profess faith in Christ.
> 
> I can certainly see a case where a national leader or government declares Christianity to be the true religion and that the moral law will be the law of the land, and that the Church will be protected from physical violence, and any opposing Christianity must at least respect the laws of the land if they wish to continue living there. But to say they are entering into a covenant with God like old Israel, doesn't that completely confuse the biblical understanding of Christ and the new covenant?
Click to expand...


What is interesting is that Bahnsen/Rushdoony/Demar never advocated national covenanting. I agree with your last paragraph.


----------



## RamistThomist

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Available online here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this book out of print?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kessinger Publishing reprinted it last year. Otherwise, there are National Reform Association, Still Water Revival Books and antiquarian 1880's editions available on the marketplace.
Click to expand...


There is also audio for it somewhere on PB.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

The whole covenanting issue is perhaps a little off-topic; let's get back to the question:



> Is there such a thing as a Christian Nation?



Perhaps a more fundamental question is this: "Is there such a thing as an idolatrous nations?"

If the answer is "yes", then is this wrong? If the answer is also "yes", then what is the alternative?


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The whole covenanting issue is perhaps a little off-topic; let's get back to the question:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there such a thing as a Christian Nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps a more fundamental question is this: "Is there such a thing as an idolatrous nations?"
> 
> If the answer is "yes", then is this wrong? If the answer is also "yes", then what is the alternative?
Click to expand...


What is the litmus test for a Christian nation Daniel? % of people and Doctrines confessed. What ye think?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole covenanting issue is perhaps a little off-topic; let's get back to the question:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there such a thing as a Christian Nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps a more fundamental question is this: "Is there such a thing as an idolatrous nations?"
> 
> If the answer is "yes", then is this wrong? If the answer is also "yes", then what is the alternative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the litmus test for a Christian nation Daniel? % of people and Doctrines confessed. What ye think?
Click to expand...


That is a good question. There would be a number of factors that would determine this:

The faith of the citizens?
What religion is established?
What ethical system do the civil laws reflect?
Is Christ recognized as supreme over the nation?

You see where I am going?


----------



## RamistThomist

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole covenanting issue is perhaps a little off-topic; let's get back to the question:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there such a thing as a Christian Nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps a more fundamental question is this: "Is there such a thing as an idolatrous nations?"
> 
> If the answer is "yes", then is this wrong? If the answer is also "yes", then what is the alternative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the litmus test for a Christian nation Daniel? % of people and Doctrines confessed. What ye think?
Click to expand...


That's a good question that probably deserves another thread. The short answer, that would make a good term paper, is that it is different for different cultures. EG, if a culture already has a largely Christian-value consensus: call it natural law, judeo-christian legal codes, etc--then a nation could be Christian in outlook in practice even if it did not have an overwhelming Christian population.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Ivanhoe said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> And to make clear, not all who believe in a Christian nation believe that nations ought to covenant with God. I am in that category. So refuting the notion of modern covenants (which I think Patrick is capable of doing) doesn't address the idea of a Christian nation.
> 
> And for an example, the nation of Serbia, until modern times and even to a degree today, was a Christian, if Greek Orthodox, nation. It has subsequently been bombed by the Clintons and raped by NATO/EU. Still, they fight for their identity, if only with words. God avenge them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not opposed to a government vowing to uphold and protect the church, and seeking to obey the one true God. Just to make that clear. My point is more fundamental, especially with this use of "covenant." The NT makes clear that the promises of the new covenant are fulfilled by the Church. She is the holy nation constituted by this new covenant. The only way to become part of the new covenant is by faith. The only way to truly submit to the rule and reign of Christ is by faith. All which are supernatural blessings by the Spirit.
> 
> I don't see how a national leader is capable of believing on behalf of a nation because God demands individual faith to join the new covenant. Unless everyone in that nation professes faith, without the threat of a sword, I don't see how you can properly call it "Christian" when Scripture defines "Christian" as those who profess faith in Christ.
> 
> I can certainly see a case where a national leader or government declares Christianity to be the true religion and that the moral law will be the law of the land, and that the Church will be protected from physical violence, and any opposing Christianity must at least respect the laws of the land if they wish to continue living there. But to say they are entering into a covenant with God like old Israel, doesn't that completely confuse the biblical understanding of Christ and the new covenant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is interesting is that Bahnsen/Rushdoony/Demar never advocated national covenanting. I agree with your last paragraph.
Click to expand...


Let me get your take on this. Read the last chapter of Amos. Then read Acts 15. Note especially how James interprets how God takes for himself a people from the nations. Any implications for this discussion? Perhaps we can start another thread...


----------



## MW

kvanlaan said:


> So the question based on the quotes above then is this: based on the criteria proposed and the results of the battle, was this an example of covenant people participating in (and initiating a) covenant with God?



Sorry, Kevin, but South African history is not a forte of mine, so I'll just have to try to answer the question in the abstract.

Let's be clear that the validity of every covenant depends upon the truth of its terms, and this is the case whether the covenant is made with God or men. We can reduce this principle down to a more basic belief: any dealing between man and God or man and man must be based on truth. A covenant provides solemn and specific recognition of the terms on which we are to deal with another party. In the case of a religious covenant, what we promise to do must be based on God's revealed will in Scripture. In so far as what is promised can be proven to be Scriptural then there is no reason why men cannot promise to fulfil their duty, but on the contrary, there is every reason to encourage it. And in the case of a group of men -- be they citizens of their country or members of their church -- unity is deemed a virtue in Scripture. Speaking the same things and being of the same mind is positively enjoined upon us. Hence there can be no valid objection to brethren joining together to bind themselves in covenant with God in order to fulfil what the Word of God requires of them.

Given what has been said about the terms of a covenant depending on truth, the answer to your question depends entirely on whether the terms of the Boer covenant were biblical. I will leave it to those better versed in the history to ascertain this fact. Blessings!


----------



## MW

Ivanhoe said:


> And to make clear, not all who believe in a Christian nation believe that nations ought to covenant with God. I am in that category. So refuting the notion of modern covenants (which I think Patrick is capable of doing) doesn't address the idea of a Christian nation.



How would you know if it is a Christian nation if it has no constitution (covenant) which explicitly recognises it as such?


----------



## RamistThomist

Puritan Sailor said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not opposed to a government vowing to uphold and protect the church, and seeking to obey the one true God. Just to make that clear. My point is more fundamental, especially with this use of "covenant." The NT makes clear that the promises of the new covenant are fulfilled by the Church. She is the holy nation constituted by this new covenant. The only way to become part of the new covenant is by faith. The only way to truly submit to the rule and reign of Christ is by faith. All which are supernatural blessings by the Spirit.
> 
> I don't see how a national leader is capable of believing on behalf of a nation because God demands individual faith to join the new covenant. Unless everyone in that nation professes faith, without the threat of a sword, I don't see how you can properly call it "Christian" when Scripture defines "Christian" as those who profess faith in Christ.
> 
> I can certainly see a case where a national leader or government declares Christianity to be the true religion and that the moral law will be the law of the land, and that the Church will be protected from physical violence, and any opposing Christianity must at least respect the laws of the land if they wish to continue living there. But to say they are entering into a covenant with God like old Israel, doesn't that completely confuse the biblical understanding of Christ and the new covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is interesting is that Bahnsen/Rushdoony/Demar never advocated national covenanting. I agree with your last paragraph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me get your take on this. Read the last chapter of Amos. Then read Acts 15. Note especially how James interprets how God takes for himself a people from the nations. Any implications for this discussion? Perhaps we can start another thread...
Click to expand...


What about it? I certainly couldn't use this verse as a proof-text for some ideas of covenanting advocated here, but I wouldn't have done that anyway. Neither, though, do I see these two chapters (which parallel Ezekiel 36) as referring exclusively to the church nor having their exclusive fulfillment in the era before the millennial age.


----------



## MW

A simple observation -- those who are making a case against the possibility of Christian nations seem to do so by arguing against the distinction of nations in general. The NT acknowledges the sovereignty of States and the authority of their rulers, Matt. 28:19; Rev. 1:5. The "holy nation" of the church does not nullify the existence of geopolitical nations in the world. Redemption does not negate God's claim of right on the earth by virtue of creation, Ps. 24:1, 2.


----------



## Coram Deo

Armourbearer,

I really like your take on all of this.... I never realized how a constitution was and is a national covenant abeit our U.S. constitution is not a strong covenant... 

So what would a biblical national constitutional covenant look like? What shape would it take?

In your opinion what would the biblical civil government model? a sanhedrin assembly of elders of the land, a monarchy, or other?




armourbearer said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> And to make clear, not all who believe in a Christian nation believe that nations ought to covenant with God. I am in that category. So refuting the notion of modern covenants (which I think Patrick is capable of doing) doesn't address the idea of a Christian nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you know if it is a Christian nation if it has no constitution (covenant) which explicitly recognises it as such?
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> A simple observation -- those who are making a case against the possibility of Christian nations seem to do so by arguing against the distinction of nations in general. The NT acknowledges the sovereignty of States and the authority of their rulers, Matt. 28:19; Rev. 1:5. The "holy nation" of the church does not nullify the existence of geopolitical nations in the world. Redemption does not negate God's claim of right on the earth by virtue of creation, Ps. 24:1, 2.



I don't disagree with this statement at all.

I think my problem is, with all the back and forth, trying to figure out what a Christian nation _is_ if it exists.

Are we simply stating that, Constitutionally (or Covenantally if you prefer), a State sovereignly aligns itself to do the things that God's Word says States should be doing for its people? That is to say that the State has been given ministerial authority by God in a certain domain and it promises, in its Covenantal document, to do those things that God commanded it to do.

Is it now a Christian Nation once it has a Covenantal document that promises to do this regardless of whether or not its leaders are actually all Christians?


----------



## MW

thunaer said:


> So what would a biblical national constitutional covenant look like? What shape would it take?
> 
> In your opinion what would the biblical civil government model? a sanhedrin assembly of elders of the land, a monarchy, or other?



I would consider the National Covenant of Scotland to provide the essential elements. There is a commitment to the true Christian faith, reference to the confession of faith established by legal statute, a rejection of Popery as false religion, an acknowledgment of the spiritual independence of the church, and an undertaking to support the higher powers in upholding the distinctive Christian constitution of the nation.

Biblical civil government can take any form -- monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy. They are all liable to abuse when maintained by unprincipled men, and so they are all only as good as the characters who occupy office. Hence the importance of a religious constitution binding them to fulfuil their public trust in subservience to God and to the good of the society.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Are we simply stating that, Constitutionally (or Covenantally if you prefer), a State sovereignly aligns itself to do the things that God's Word says States should be doing for its people? That is to say that the State has been given ministerial authority by God in a certain domain and it promises, in its Covenantal document, to do those things that God commanded it to do.



It must at the very least profess Christian faith. It's also worth pointing out that this is not a distinctively Scottish notion, nor is it tied to the original WCF. The American revision only limits the power of the magistrate with relation to favouring a certain denomination; it still acknowledges the obligation of the magistrate with reference to Christian religion, and old school Presbyterian divines maintained this as a duty of the magistrate.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we simply stating that, Constitutionally (or Covenantally if you prefer), a State sovereignly aligns itself to do the things that God's Word says States should be doing for its people? That is to say that the State has been given ministerial authority by God in a certain domain and it promises, in its Covenantal document, to do those things that God commanded it to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must at the very least profess Christian faith. It's also worth pointing out that this is not a distinctively Scottish notion, nor is it tied to the original WCF. The American revision only limits the power of the magistrate with relation to favouring a certain denomination; it still acknowledges the obligation of the magistrate with reference to Christian religion, and old school Presbyterian divines maintained this as a duty of the magistrate.
Click to expand...


Right, but in your view, one of the things that would constitute something that God has commanded States to do is to uphold and protect true religion so that would be among the things that would have to be in the Covenantal document.

I guess what I'm asking is that the nation is considered Christian because it has constitutionally promised to do so. Men who lead this nation may be more or less faithful to the constitution they frame but it's still, by definition, a Christian nation. Yes?


----------



## Coram Deo

I agree with all that.. But wouldn't it need to have more.. The boundaries of power of the Legislative, and Executive branches of government, How Judges are set up in the land, monetary matters, etc?






armourbearer said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what would a biblical national constitutional covenant look like? What shape would it take?
> 
> In your opinion what would the biblical civil government model? a sanhedrin assembly of elders of the land, a monarchy, or other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would consider the National Covenant of Scotland to provide the essential elements. There is a commitment to the true Christian faith, reference to the confession of faith established by legal statute, a rejection of Popery as false religion, an acknowledgment of the spiritual independence of the church, and an undertaking to support the higher powers in upholding the distinctive Christian constitution of the nation.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> I guess what I'm asking is that the nation is considered Christian because it has constitutionally promised to do so. Men who lead this nation may be more or less faithful to the constitution they frame but it's still, by definition, a Christian nation. Yes?



If you're asking whether the "Christianity" of the nation depends on its constitution rather than its leaders -- the answer is yes; as long as the leaders are bound in by a Christian constitution then it is a Christian nation, even if the leaders care nothing for true Christianity.


----------



## MW

thunaer said:


> I agree with all that.. But wouldn't it need to have more.. The boundaries of power of the Legislative, and Executive branches of government, How Judges are set up in the land, monetary matters, etc?



These seem to me to be procedures which are dependent on what "form" the government takes rather than the "character" of the government. Judges could be appointed by a king, or by a bench, or by popular vote, and it wouldn't make any difference as long as they were bound to maintain statutes which honoured the ten commandments.


----------



## Coram Deo

So in other words a country or nation would need a National Covenant and A Form of Civil Government? Sort of like the Document A Form of Presbyterian Church Government? Which would take care of all the procedural issues of the nation?





armourbearer said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with all that.. But wouldn't it need to have more.. The boundaries of power of the Legislative, and Executive branches of government, How Judges are set up in the land, monetary matters, etc?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These seem to me to be procedures which are dependent on what "form" the government takes rather than the "character" of the government. Judges could be appointed by a king, or by a bench, or by popular vote, and it wouldn't make any difference as long as they were bound to maintain statutes which honoured the ten commandments.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

thunaer said:


> So in other words a country or nation would need a National Covenant and A Form of Civil Government? Sort of like the Document A Form of Presbyterian Church Government? Which would take care of all the procedural issues of the nation?



That's right; it would still need to sort out its own management and internal structure. I don't see that structure as being prescribed in Scripture, so there is a freedom to do what best suits the situation of the nation. It seems to be a law of civilisation that as numbers grow the feudal structure is undermined because a merchant class is created on which higher powers become dependent; so there is a natural movement towards popular representation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess what I'm asking is that the nation is considered Christian because it has constitutionally promised to do so. Men who lead this nation may be more or less faithful to the constitution they frame but it's still, by definition, a Christian nation. Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're asking whether the "Christianity" of the nation depends on its constitution rather than its leaders -- the answer is yes; as long as the leaders are bound in by a Christian constitution then it is a Christian nation, even if the leaders care nothing for true Christianity.
Click to expand...


OK, thanks for clarifying. I thought I understood you correctly and I do.

I think the wrangling, for the most part, has to do with what constitutes a Christian nation - everything from a fear that categories of authority are being confused to assuming it means that everybody in the nation must be a Christian.

I have absolutely no problem conceiving of a Christian nation in the above sense nor can it be argued that it would be unrighteous or outside the bounds of a State's authority to create a Constitution which proclaimed itself as upholding the Christian religion and no other and vowing to uphold the principles of government that God has set forth in His Word.


----------



## Coram Deo

Ok, I can agree with that but....

I do think I see alittle more structure of civil government being prescribed in scripture... The civil sanhedrin and the church sanhedrin.. The church sanhedrin is what the presbyterian system is based upon.... I can also see the same working with the civil sanhedrin with a national covenant for a nation. The civil sanhedrin was given by God through the Prophet Moses...




armourbearer said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words a country or nation would need a National Covenant and A Form of Civil Government? Sort of like the Document A Form of Presbyterian Church Government? Which would take care of all the procedural issues of the nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right; it would still need to sort out its own management and internal structure. I don't see that structure as being prescribed in Scripture, so there is a freedom to do what best suits the situation of the nation. It seems to be a law of civilisation that as numbers grow the feudal structure is undermined because a merchant class is created on which higher powers become dependent; so there is a natural movement towards popular representation.
Click to expand...


----------



## Amazing Grace

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


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Amazing Grace said:


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



I think Romans 13 would be a classic text to provide not only the believer's responsibility to submit to government as God's ordained authority in the civil sphere but, also, the notion that civil magistrates are God's "ministers" in their own realm.

I assume you believe that the government sanctioning the killing of the unborn or not doing anything about it is wicked but you have to ask the question "Why?" if the government bears no responsibility to God for protecting life.

As R.C. Sproul once put it (paraphrase): "When we ask the State to protect the life of the unborn we're not asking the State to be the Church, we're asking the State to be the State." That's because the State has been instituted by God to be a terror to evildoing.

The reason I asked Rev. Winzer to clarify is that I am a firm believer that the Church has a specific sphere of authority as does the State and there have been a lot of sidebar discussions. As far as his definition of what constitutes a Christian State, I don't have any problem with the notion. We can wrangle about the term we would use to label it.

The point is that you cannot state, on any principle, that it would be _wrong_ for the State to declare that the official religion of the State is Christianity nor to craft a Constitution around the idea that it wanted to uphold, precisely, what the Scriptures define the role of the magistrate to be.

Now, we can discuss what the role of the magistrate should be. I believe there is some confusion of spheres of authority at times. Nevertheless, the Scriptures certainly don't have a mixed message about what that authority is. Were we able to distill those principles and put them into a Constitutional document then I have no problem with that idea. One could certainly not state that it was immoral for a government to create such a document if the Scriptures themselves were accurately utilized in the crafting of such a document.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Here are links to a few resources on social covenanting for anyone interested:

William Symington:
http://covenantedreformation.com/EssaysCR/Duty of Social Covenanting/PublicVows.pdf

Thomas Houston (Irish Covenanter):
Memorial

G.H. Milne (this is a summary):
Duty Social Covenanting


----------



## kvanlaan

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



Thanks for bringing that up. I was just getting back to reading through this thread and was coming to the same question.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


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



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


----------



## Stephen

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am just having a hard time finding any scriptural evidence of a Christian nation. What makes this thought differ from a Dispensational thought of a literal earthly kingdom? The principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One is a top-down bureaucratic regime run from Jerusalem; the other is the result of a bottom-up reformation which is built by the power of the Spirit.
Click to expand...


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am just having a hard time finding any scriptural evidence of a Christian nation. What makes this thought differ from a Dispensational thought of a literal earthly kingdom? The principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One is a top-down bureaucratic regime run from Jerusalem; the other is the result of a bottom-up reformation which is built by the power of the Spirit.
Click to expand...



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

Scripture says Christ is alread reigning King. 

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


----------



## Stephen

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am just having a hard time finding any scriptural evidence of a Christian nation. What makes this thought differ from a Dispensational thought of a literal earthly kingdom? The principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One is a top-down bureaucratic regime run from Jerusalem; the other is the result of a bottom-up reformation which is built by the power of the Spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But the end result is still the same no? A literal Christian kingdom on earth seperate form any eschalogical focus. I do not know about this Daniel. Scripture says Christ is the Lord of all regardless if they recognize it. Heb. 1:3, 2:7, 10:12, Rev. 3:21, Phil. 2:5, Acts 2:36), And reigns in heaven. I agree with replacement theology, but this goes beyond the thought and reconstructionism enters into the mix. TO think that the Sovereign Lord of all would employ man to complete the task He alone will do when he comes back is absurd to me. A Christian nation that would wrongly import nation israel covenant and law onto a world government giving them dominion over the civil and spiritual ladscape in order to receive the covenantal promises made to nation Israel alone for an earthy kingdom is not the answer scripture gives. When are we going to realize that earthly elements of the world cannot coexist with the Gospel of Christ? its like oil and water. The grace of Christ that came by His own blood on the cross is what the world needs. I do not want to be one "who say they are Jews but are not" are liars, of the synagogue of Satan, and using "doctrines of demons".
> 
> Scripture says Christ is alread reigning King.
> 
> Colossians 1:13 "Who hath delivered us from the Power of darkness, and hath translated us into The Kingdom of His dear Son."
> 
> Luke 1:33 "and He shall reign over the House of Judah for ever, and of His Kingdom there shall be no end."
> 
> Christ 'Is' a king right Now, not will be..
> Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All Power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
> 
> Christ 'Does' Reign in His Kingdom, not will..
> 1st Corinthians 15:25 "For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His foot."
> Romans 15:12 "and again Isaiah saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and He that shall rise to reign over the gentiles, in him shall the gentiles trust."
> 
> 
> We Reign with Christ in His Kingdom already
> Ephesians 2:6'"and hath raised us up together, and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."
> 
> 
> * Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
> *
> 
> If the kingdom of God is within the believer already, then why would we need some civil governing authority to do what Christ has already accomplished? Perhaps I am missing the whole point of a Christian nation, if that is the case then i'll sit and learn.
Click to expand...


What about Calvin's Geneva or Puritan New England? They did not seek to build a Christian nation by human effort but society was established be the word of God.


----------



## RamistThomist

For those who want "evidence" for a Christian nation, can I spin the question?

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


----------



## Amazing Grace

Stephen said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> One is a top-down bureaucratic regime run from Jerusalem; the other is the result of a bottom-up reformation which is built by the power of the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the end result is still the same no? A literal Christian kingdom on earth seperate form any eschalogical focus. I do not know about this Daniel. Scripture says Christ is the Lord of all regardless if they recognize it. Heb. 1:3, 2:7, 10:12, Rev. 3:21, Phil. 2:5, Acts 2:36), And reigns in heaven. I agree with replacement theology, but this goes beyond the thought and reconstructionism enters into the mix. TO think that the Sovereign Lord of all would employ man to complete the task He alone will do when he comes back is absurd to me. A Christian nation that would wrongly import nation israel covenant and law onto a world government giving them dominion over the civil and spiritual ladscape in order to receive the covenantal promises made to nation Israel alone for an earthy kingdom is not the answer scripture gives. When are we going to realize that earthly elements of the world cannot coexist with the Gospel of Christ? its like oil and water. The grace of Christ that came by His own blood on the cross is what the world needs. I do not want to be one "who say they are Jews but are not" are liars, of the synagogue of Satan, and using "doctrines of demons".
> 
> Scripture says Christ is alread reigning King.
> 
> Colossians 1:13 "Who hath delivered us from the Power of darkness, and hath translated us into The Kingdom of His dear Son."
> 
> Luke 1:33 "and He shall reign over the House of Judah for ever, and of His Kingdom there shall be no end."
> 
> Christ 'Is' a king right Now, not will be..
> Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All Power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
> 
> Christ 'Does' Reign in His Kingdom, not will..
> 1st Corinthians 15:25 "For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His foot."
> Romans 15:12 "and again Isaiah saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and He that shall rise to reign over the gentiles, in him shall the gentiles trust."
> 
> 
> We Reign with Christ in His Kingdom already
> Ephesians 2:6'"and hath raised us up together, and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."
> 
> 
> * Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
> *
> 
> If the kingdom of God is within the believer already, then why would we need some civil governing authority to do what Christ has already accomplished? Perhaps I am missing the whole point of a Christian nation, if that is the case then i'll sit and learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about Calvin's Geneva or Puritan New England? They did not seek to build a Christian nation by human effort but society was established be the word of God.
Click to expand...




Besides the fact the they did not work, it is not scriptural. Both examples have men thinking they have to help God out to bring about and prepare the world for His second coming. Whenever 'clergy' for lack of a better term try to run the government, corruption and abuses are the fruit. Scriptures teach that absolute power given to any man or group of men is prone to be abused and used for corrupt ends, no mater how well intentioned those ends may be. Total depravity of man always results around his own self-interest and desire to enrich and empower himself. Absolute power, in which a man is accountable to no one but himself, is to great a temptation for any man to resist. 

Micah 6;8 is all I ask leaders to do. 

I side with Roger williams on the matter:

Williams preached "there was never civil state in the world that ever did or ever shall make good work of it, with a civil sword in spiritual matters."


----------



## Amazing Grace

Ivanhoe said:


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




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


----------



## ChristianTrader

Amazing Grace said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who want "evidence" for a Christian nation, can I spin the question?
> 
> Is it wrong for a magistrate, along with the moral consensus of the people, to say, "We recognize the moral principles found in the Christian tradition to be the only true foundation of civil law." If it is wrong for him to say that, on what grounds? Merely responding, "Oh, but it doesn't say that in the Bible" is like saying Republicanism is wrong because the Bible doesn't prescribe that. You need a better argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with this Jacob. As long as it is not strecthed to the point of branding me or putting me in the pillory for hitching my wagon to ride to church if the place of meeting was far away, because that would be considered a breach of the Sabbath.
> .
Click to expand...


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

CT


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am just having a hard time finding any scriptural evidence of a Christian nation. What makes this thought differ from a Dispensational thought of a literal earthly kingdom? The principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One is a top-down bureaucratic regime run from Jerusalem; the other is the result of a bottom-up reformation which is built by the power of the Spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But the end result is still the same no? A literal Christian kingdom on earth seperate form any eschalogical focus. I do not know about this Daniel. Scripture says Christ is the Lord of all regardless if they recognize it. Heb. 1:3, 2:7, 10:12, Rev. 3:21, Phil. 2:5, Acts 2:36), And reigns in heaven. I agree with replacement theology, but this goes beyond the thought and reconstructionism enters into the mix. TO think that the Sovereign Lord of all would employ man to complete the task He alone will do when he comes back is absurd to me. A Christian nation that would wrongly import nation israel covenant and law onto a world government giving them dominion over the civil and spiritual ladscape in order to receive the covenantal promises made to nation Israel alone for an earthy kingdom is not the answer scripture gives. When are we going to realize that earthly elements of the world cannot coexist with the Gospel of Christ? its like oil and water. The grace of Christ that came by His own blood on the cross is what the world needs. I do not want to be one "who say they are Jews but are not" are liars, of the synagogue of Satan, and using "doctrines of demons".
> 
> Scripture says Christ is alread reigning King.
> 
> Colossians 1:13 "Who hath delivered us from the Power of darkness, and hath translated us into The Kingdom of His dear Son."
> 
> Luke 1:33 "and He shall reign over the House of Judah for ever, and of His Kingdom there shall be no end."
> 
> Christ 'Is' a king right Now, not will be..
> Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All Power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
> 
> Christ 'Does' Reign in His Kingdom, not will..
> 1st Corinthians 15:25 "For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His foot."
> Romans 15:12 "and again Isaiah saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and He that shall rise to reign over the gentiles, in him shall the gentiles trust."
> 
> 
> We Reign with Christ in His Kingdom already
> Ephesians 2:6'"and hath raised us up together, and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."
> 
> 
> * Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
> *
> 
> If the kingdom of God is within the believer already, then why would we need some civil governing authority to do what Christ has already accomplished? Perhaps I am missing the whole point of a Christian nation, if that is the case then i'll sit and learn.
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


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



Of course, a nation which persecutes Christianity might do alot worse.


----------



## RamistThomist

Amazing Grace said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who want "evidence" for a Christian nation, can I spin the question?
> 
> Is it wrong for a magistrate, along with the moral consensus of the people, to say, "We recognize the moral principles found in the Christian tradition to be the only true foundation of civil law." If it is wrong for him to say that, on what grounds? Merely responding, "Oh, but it doesn't say that in the Bible" is like saying Republicanism is wrong because the Bible doesn't prescribe that. You need a better argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with this Jacob. As long as it is not strecthed to the point of branding me or putting me in the pillory for hitching my wagon to ride to church if the place of meeting was far away, because that would be considered a breach of the Sabbath.
> .
Click to expand...


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


----------



## RamistThomist

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



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


----------



## Pilgrim

Ivanhoe said:


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


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

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


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nicholaus,
> A better translation would be "the kingdom of God is within you." The other brings to mind gnostic connotations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean "among you" or "in your midst"?
> 
> Gnostic type cultists do indeed cite "within you" as a proof text for their errors.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## MW

Ivanhoe said:


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



The context plainly demands "within you." "In your midst" still leaves open the possibility of saying "here it is," which is the very thought being opposed.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Ivanhoe said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who want "evidence" for a Christian nation, can I spin the question?
> 
> Is it wrong for a magistrate, along with the moral consensus of the people, to say, "We recognize the moral principles found in the Christian tradition to be the only true foundation of civil law." If it is wrong for him to say that, on what grounds? Merely responding, "Oh, but it doesn't say that in the Bible" is like saying Republicanism is wrong because the Bible doesn't prescribe that. You need a better argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with this Jacob. As long as it is not strecthed to the point of branding me or putting me in the pillory for hitching my wagon to ride to church if the place of meeting was far away, because that would be considered a breach of the Sabbath.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why would I, as a proponent of Christian nationhood, do that? I fear that some people invent horror stories and use those horror stories to determine the nature of hte debate.
Click to expand...



Perhaps. But they give good amunition Jacob..


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> One is a top-down bureaucratic regime run from Jerusalem; the other is the result of a bottom-up reformation which is built by the power of the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the end result is still the same no? A literal Christian kingdom on earth seperate form any eschalogical focus. I do not know about this Daniel. Scripture says Christ is the Lord of all regardless if they recognize it. Heb. 1:3, 2:7, 10:12, Rev. 3:21, Phil. 2:5, Acts 2:36), And reigns in heaven. I agree with replacement theology, but this goes beyond the thought and reconstructionism enters into the mix. TO think that the Sovereign Lord of all would employ man to complete the task He alone will do when he comes back is absurd to me. A Christian nation that would wrongly import nation israel covenant and law onto a world government giving them dominion over the civil and spiritual ladscape in order to receive the covenantal promises made to nation Israel alone for an earthy kingdom is not the answer scripture gives. When are we going to realize that earthly elements of the world cannot coexist with the Gospel of Christ? its like oil and water. The grace of Christ that came by His own blood on the cross is what the world needs. I do not want to be one "who say they are Jews but are not" are liars, of the synagogue of Satan, and using "doctrines of demons".
> 
> Scripture says Christ is alread reigning King.
> 
> Colossians 1:13 "Who hath delivered us from the Power of darkness, and hath translated us into The Kingdom of His dear Son."
> 
> Luke 1:33 "and He shall reign over the House of Judah for ever, and of His Kingdom there shall be no end."
> 
> Christ 'Is' a king right Now, not will be..
> Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All Power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
> 
> Christ 'Does' Reign in His Kingdom, not will..
> 1st Corinthians 15:25 "For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His foot."
> Romans 15:12 "and again Isaiah saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and He that shall rise to reign over the gentiles, in him shall the gentiles trust."
> 
> 
> We Reign with Christ in His Kingdom already
> Ephesians 2:6'"and hath raised us up together, and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."
> 
> 
> * Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
> *
> 
> If the kingdom of God is within the believer already, then why would we need some civil governing authority to do what Christ has already accomplished? Perhaps I am missing the whole point of a Christian nation, if that is the case then i'll sit and learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we to believe that Christ is the Sovereign Lord but that the nations are not to submit to Him? The Sovereign Lord does do things through men (i.e. the gospel is preached by men). The concept of a Christian nation does not mean that we establish the kingdom (that has been done already as you correctly point out), but that the nation submits to the commands of the King of kings. Is it too hard to believe that the preaching of the gospel results in the submission of the nations to Christ?
Click to expand...


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

This is ONLY eschalogical in focus Daniel.


----------



## Amazing Grace

ChristianTrader said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who want "evidence" for a Christian nation, can I spin the question?
> 
> Is it wrong for a magistrate, along with the moral consensus of the people, to say, "We recognize the moral principles found in the Christian tradition to be the only true foundation of civil law." If it is wrong for him to say that, on what grounds? Merely responding, "Oh, but it doesn't say that in the Bible" is like saying Republicanism is wrong because the Bible doesn't prescribe that. You need a better argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with this Jacob. As long as it is not strecthed to the point of branding me or putting me in the pillory for hitching my wagon to ride to church if the place of meeting was far away, because that would be considered a breach of the Sabbath.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because bad laws could be made does not negate the right for someone to make laws at all.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...




I am using all of history here hermon, not Mass Bay colonie. It amazes why one immediately runs to the anarchy option. This is exactly why Catholics speak of no marriage for priests. They took Pauls words "Its good to be single" to equal it is bad to be married. The opposite is not always the case, as in this situation


----------



## Amazing Grace

I need to ask another question. Why do we speculate this option when nothing in scripture even remotely promotes it. The Apostle Peter, in one letter : 1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Semper Fidelis

You're still confusing spheres Nicholas. Nobody is arguing that the State become the Church and be responsible for the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments. Nobody is arguing that the State be responsible for ordaining clergy or disciplining Church members.

The only thing that has been argued is that the State is God's minister for civil government. You seem to have a notion of what the State _shouldn't_ be. What is the basis for that? Further, what is your basis for what the State _should_ be?


----------



## RamistThomist

Amazing Grace said:


> I need to ask another question. Why do we speculate this option when nothing in scripture even remotely promotes it. The Apostle Peter, in one letter : 1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen
> 
> 9But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
> 
> 10for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.
> 
> 11Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.
> 
> We are called
> 1) strangers
> 2) Aliens
> 3) Scattered
> 
> Yet we are chosen as God's nation. Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, are not Christian nations, yet the elect are a nation of royalty, saved by the blood of Christ. The elect are, by the highest authority, called a kingdom. Christ gave it this title, "My kingdom is not of this world. Had My kingdom been of this world, My servants would have fought, and I should not have been delivered to the Jews. But now is My kingdom not from hence." We have no Christian nation or kingdom in the world, but Christ has one grand kingdom composed of all the Elect in the world, of which He is Himself the sovereign, and king. What the God of Abraham did with Abraham, Jacob, or by any others, to govern the earthly world, before He gave up the scepter and the crown to His Son, Jesus Christ, is of no binding authority now.



Reverend Winzer said it best on the last page: The fact of the church does not negate geopolitical entities. In fact, on your reading, one could say that since the NT speaks of the church as a holy nation, modern day states shouldn't even try to be holy! (read: civic righteousness).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the end result is still the same no? A literal Christian kingdom on earth seperate form any eschalogical focus. I do not know about this Daniel. Scripture says Christ is the Lord of all regardless if they recognize it. Heb. 1:3, 2:7, 10:12, Rev. 3:21, Phil. 2:5, Acts 2:36), And reigns in heaven. I agree with replacement theology, but this goes beyond the thought and reconstructionism enters into the mix. TO think that the Sovereign Lord of all would employ man to complete the task He alone will do when he comes back is absurd to me. A Christian nation that would wrongly import nation israel covenant and law onto a world government giving them dominion over the civil and spiritual ladscape in order to receive the covenantal promises made to nation Israel alone for an earthy kingdom is not the answer scripture gives. When are we going to realize that earthly elements of the world cannot coexist with the Gospel of Christ? its like oil and water. The grace of Christ that came by His own blood on the cross is what the world needs. I do not want to be one "who say they are Jews but are not" are liars, of the synagogue of Satan, and using "doctrines of demons".
> 
> Scripture says Christ is alread reigning King.
> 
> Colossians 1:13 "Who hath delivered us from the Power of darkness, and hath translated us into The Kingdom of His dear Son."
> 
> Luke 1:33 "and He shall reign over the House of Judah for ever, and of His Kingdom there shall be no end."
> 
> Christ 'Is' a king right Now, not will be..
> Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All Power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
> 
> Christ 'Does' Reign in His Kingdom, not will..
> 1st Corinthians 15:25 "For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His foot."
> Romans 15:12 "and again Isaiah saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and He that shall rise to reign over the gentiles, in him shall the gentiles trust."
> 
> 
> We Reign with Christ in His Kingdom already
> Ephesians 2:6'"and hath raised us up together, and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."
> 
> 
> * Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
> *
> 
> If the kingdom of God is within the believer already, then why would we need some civil governing authority to do what Christ has already accomplished? Perhaps I am missing the whole point of a Christian nation, if that is the case then i'll sit and learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we to believe that Christ is the Sovereign Lord but that the nations are not to submit to Him? The Sovereign Lord does do things through men (i.e. the gospel is preached by men). The concept of a Christian nation does not mean that we establish the kingdom (that has been done already as you correctly point out), but that the nation submits to the commands of the King of kings. Is it too hard to believe that the preaching of the gospel results in the submission of the nations to Christ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will submit when He has determined to have them submit Daniel. Either way, He is still King and Savior. And scripture says this will not happen until He comes again. Phil 2:9-11
> 
> This is ONLY eschalogical in focus Daniel.
Click to expand...



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


----------



## RamistThomist

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we to believe that Christ is the Sovereign Lord but that the nations are not to submit to Him? The Sovereign Lord does do things through men (i.e. the gospel is preached by men). The concept of a Christian nation does not mean that we establish the kingdom (that has been done already as you correctly point out), but that the nation submits to the commands of the King of kings. Is it too hard to believe that the preaching of the gospel results in the submission of the nations to Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will submit when He has determined to have them submit Daniel. Either way, He is still King and Savior. And scripture says this will not happen until He comes again. Phil 2:9-11
> 
> This is ONLY eschalogical in focus Daniel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to Psalm 2 it is there duty to submit before Christ's return. Even if you don't believe that they ever will that still does not impact on what their duty is.
Click to expand...


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

And it is NOT just eschatological in orientation. It is primarily ethical. I think Daniel--and probably most everyone else on PB--is wrong on eschatology because they are not premillennial, but notice how Daniel and I have roughly the same position. That means it is ethical in orientation.


----------



## timmopussycat

Daniel Ritchie said:


> How can a Calvinist - who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God over men and nations - possibly deny that God's sovereign authority is supposed to be acknowledged by the nations as corporate entities?



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

Although the OT talks about nations coming to God, those references are either not era specific, or else they do they do not mention covenanting with God. When covenants are mentioned, we don't know if those covenants are to be made in the church age or in the new heaven and new earth of Christ's return. Or those covenants might have been made in the time of the OT. Certainly many in the gentile nations did "convert" to Judaism around the time of Christ. I have been told that it has been estimated that up to 25% of the population of the Roman empire were either Jews or Jewish prostelytes.


----------



## timmopussycat

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> One is a top-down bureaucratic regime run from Jerusalem; the other is the result of a bottom-up reformation which is built by the power of the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snip....
> Scripture says Christ is alread reigning King.
> 
> snip....
> We Reign with Christ in His Kingdom already
> snip....
> 
> * Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
> *
> 
> If the kingdom of God is within the believer already, then why would we need some civil governing authority to do what Christ has already accomplished? Perhaps I am missing the whole point of a Christian nation, if that is the case then i'll sit and learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we to believe that Christ is the Sovereign Lord but that the nations are not to submit to Him? The Sovereign Lord does do things through men (i.e. the gospel is preached by men). The concept of a Christian nation does not mean that we establish the kingdom (that has been done already as you correctly point out), but that the nation submits to the commands of the King of kings. Is it too hard to believe that the preaching of the gospel results in the submission of the nations to Christ?
Click to expand...


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

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



Daniel Ritchie said:


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



And that passage has been fulfilled many times since the NT era began. And it is being filled today.


----------



## RamistThomist

"State backing" is an ambiguous phrase, though I largely agree with your point. State backing could mean that the state doesn't penalize the gospel by means of persecution, rules, regulations, democrat and republican parties, etc. 

Or state backing could be state funding the church, which I utterly oppose.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Let us ask another question:

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

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

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

Is God pleased with the fact that the nations have established false religions as the established religion of that nation? If not, then how can a Christian nation possibly be wrong?


----------



## RamistThomist

When we say "Establishment" we need to be a bit more specific. Do we mean an established denomination (ala Church of England or PCA)? DO we mean an established religion (Christianity in general)? Do we mean an established consensus on values (e.g., broadly Christian orientation)?


----------



## Civbert

AV1611 said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once there was Israel and the other nations. Now there are no "nations" in God's eyes except the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are misapplying these verses for they are refering to the issue of salvation.
Click to expand...


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

P.S. 
 Jingoism -

 I pat myself on the back for remembering that word - but I still had to look it up to spell it. 
g-i-n-g ... nope. 
g-h-n-g-o ... argh! 
j-i-n-g -o  ...


----------



## Amazing Grace

Ivanhoe said:


> When we say "Establishment" we need to be a bit more specific. Do we mean an established denomination (ala Church of England or PCA)? DO we mean an established religion (Christianity in general)? Do we mean an established consensus on values (e.g., broadly Christian orientation)?




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

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


----------



## RamistThomist

Amazing Grace said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we say "Establishment" we need to be a bit more specific. Do we mean an established denomination (ala Church of England or PCA)? DO we mean an established religion (Christianity in general)? Do we mean an established consensus on values (e.g., broadly Christian orientation)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point. This is what I have missed but attempted to grasp Jacob. I honestly have no problem with the later. It is the covenenting part makig it obligatory that scrpture does not speak of.
> 
> Could this thought be further developed Jacob? IF we are only talking moral values, then any denomnation would fit the bill. On paper at least
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Amazing Grace

Ivanhoe said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we say "Establishment" we need to be a bit more specific. Do we mean an established denomination (ala Church of England or PCA)? DO we mean an established religion (Christianity in general)? Do we mean an established consensus on values (e.g., broadly Christian orientation)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point. This is what I have missed but attempted to grasp Jacob. I honestly have no problem with the later. It is the covenenting part makig it obligatory that scrpture does not speak of.
> 
> Could this thought be further developed Jacob? IF we are only talking moral values, then any denomnation would fit the bill. On paper at least
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, both Rushdoony and Bahnsen decidedly opposed establishing a state denomination. They held to a voluntarist model. I am with them. On the other hand, I do not believe the state should give credence to "all varieties of faith expression." For example, I oppose the American Government sanctioning the spread of Islam in America and in Europe.
Click to expand...




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


----------



## RamistThomist

Amazing Grace said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point. This is what I have missed but attempted to grasp Jacob. I honestly have no problem with the later. It is the covenenting part makig it obligatory that scrpture does not speak of.
> 
> Could this thought be further developed Jacob? IF we are only talking moral values, then any denomnation would fit the bill. On paper at least
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, both Rushdoony and Bahnsen decidedly opposed establishing a state denomination. They held to a voluntarist model. I am with them. On the other hand, I do not believe the state should give credence to "all varieties of faith expression." For example, I oppose the American Government sanctioning the spread of Islam in America and in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just looking to further the understanding of what you said earlier. Is christian nation a percentage of the people and leadership that have denominational ties or coul dit be more general?
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## Mushroom

Interesting aside:

The Serbian National Anthem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Through five hundred years of durance
We have knelt before Thy face,
All our kin, O God! deliver,
Thus entreats the Serbian race!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Ivanhoe said:


> When we say "Establishment" we need to be a bit more specific. Do we mean an established denomination (ala Church of England or PCA)? DO we mean an established religion (Christianity in general)? Do we mean an established consensus on values (e.g., broadly Christian orientation)?



For the purposes of this discussion let us stick to an established religion, rather than to a theory of church establishment (that is something for another day).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Ivanhoe said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we say "Establishment" we need to be a bit more specific. Do we mean an established denomination (ala Church of England or PCA)? DO we mean an established religion (Christianity in general)? Do we mean an established consensus on values (e.g., broadly Christian orientation)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point. This is what I have missed but attempted to grasp Jacob. I honestly have no problem with the later. It is the covenenting part makig it obligatory that scrpture does not speak of.
> 
> Could this thought be further developed Jacob? IF we are only talking moral values, then any denomnation would fit the bill. On paper at least
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, both Rushdoony and Bahnsen decidedly opposed establishing a state denomination. They held to a voluntarist model. I am with them. On the other hand, I do not believe the state should give credence to "all varieties of faith expression." For example, I oppose the American Government sanctioning the spread of Islam in America and in Europe.
Click to expand...


As an aside (let's not debate this here) you can have a church establishment without having a denominational establishment - see Stephen Perks' book _A Defence of the Christian State_ for more on this (I discuss this in _A Conquered Kingdom_ as well).


----------



## Gesetveemet

Pergamum said:


> Now that the civil state of Israel is over and done with forever is it accurate to labels nations as "Christian" or not?





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



.


----------



## RamistThomist

Gesetveemet said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the civil state of Israel is over and done with forever is it accurate to labels nations as "Christian" or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without reading all the other posts here is my . The only Christian nation is the church and there is an antithesis between them and the unregenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


And _reading_ the other posts would show that the statements to the affirmative, particularly those of Rev. Winzer, that the reality of the church does not rule out geopolitical entities that could with all good faith call themselves "Christian."


----------



## MW

Another simple observation -- people are arguing against the possibility of a Christian nation by confining the adjective "Christian" to the church. Are you sure you want to conclude that the church is the only entity that can be called "Christian" in the world. Is the Puritanboard Christian? Are there Christian publishing houses, Christian bookshops, Christian schools, Christian charities, Christian families, etc.? If so, then there can be no principled objection to applying the adjective "Christian" to a nation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Another simple observation -- people are arguing against the possibility of a Christian nation by confining the adjective "Christian" to the church. Are you sure you want to conclude that the church is the only entity that can be called "Christian" in the world. Is the Puritanboard Christian? Are there Christian publishing houses, Christian bookshops, Christian schools, Christian charities, Christian families, etc.? If so, then there can be no principled objection to applying the adjective "Christian" to a nation.



...Christian Australians, etc...?


----------



## Christusregnat

Poimen said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the civil state of Israel is over and done with forever is it accurate to labels nations as "Christian" or not?
> 
> Also, the whole "Christendom" concept... is it Biblical?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Hebrews 13:14 "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come."
> 
> But if we did the only one I want to be a part of is a Cromwellian state that gives me the power to take the turkey out of your oven on Christmas day.
Click to expand...


This is an interesting thought; no Christendom. WOW, how far the church has fallen.

First, in Hebrews 13:14 the same language is used of the saints of the Old Covenant who had no "continuing city" (Hebrews 11:10). And yet, Abraham was the patriarch of a theocracy, and is held up as an example to us. 

Did Moses look for a continuing city? If you answered yes, then that is what we call dispensationalism. If you answered no, then you are Reformed.

Now, if Moses was in the same case as us, was it wrong to have a holy nation? Was it wrong for Jehovah to be King of kings and LORD of lords? Was it wrong for the kingdoms of the world to become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ? 

If you don't believe in Christendom, then I believe you may be out of accord with the Confession:

"III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet *he has authority*, and *it is his duty*, to *take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church*, that the *truth of God be kept pure and entire*, that *all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed*, all *corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed*, and *all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed*. For the better effecting whereof, he has *power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God*."

The Reformed faith is the restoration, not the abolition of Christendom. Leonard Verduin, and other anabaptist fanatics aside, all nations are to be Christian, and will one day be so. Alterations to this portion of the WCF do not mean that we've gained ground; they merely prove how much ground we've lost.

Cheers,


----------



## Christusregnat

William, 

You said:

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

William, this is the typical Anabaptist / anti-nomian mode of thinking, but it really has no root in the Scriptures. Because the Anabaptist assumes the "inferiority" (express or implied) of the Old Testament, he, of necessity, must deny every form of theocracy, and affirm pluralism at every level (see Leonard Verduin's "The Reformers and their Stepchildren" for more detail on the consistent Anabaptist position).

What if I were able to quote from the prophets and show you that heathen nations, after the coming of Christ, would obey His laws? What if I showed you that this coming Messiah would be the Ruler of all Civil Rulers? What if I showed you in the prophets that all magistrates are called Deacons and servants of Jesus Christ? Oh wait, that's in the New Testament! Shux! I gave away my hand.

Anywho, here's a sampling of the riches of Scripture on why all nations MUST BE, and one day WILL BE Christian:

Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass *in the last days*, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and *all nations *shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of *his ways, and we will walk in his paths*: for out of Zion shall go forth *the law*, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge *among the nations*, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. 

Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall *five cities *in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; *one *shall be called, The city of destruction. 19 In that day shall there be an *altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt*, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD...24 In that day shall *Israel be the third with Egypt *and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: 25 Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be *Egypt my people*, and *Assyria the work of my hands*, and *Israel mine inheritance*.

Romans 13:4For he is *the minister of God *to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is *the minister of God*, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For this cause pay ye tribute also: for *they are God's ministers*, attending continually upon this very thing. 

A few notes, when Christ comes, the theocracy doesn't end; it's just the beginning. Egypt and Assyria are included, and then, at the end, Israel is recalled with the Gentiles (see Romans 11 for more detail).

Christ commanded that all of the worlds nations be made His disciples, and that they learn everything that He has commanded. He is given the title of "King of kings". Paul takes up this theme by calling Caesar (who thought himself lord and god over all) a mere deacon (minister or servant) of Christ.

This is the failure of the Anabaptist socio-political philosophy: it cuts the guts out of Christendom, and asks the barbarians to take up their rightful place as our "unregenerate" rulers. The Spirit of God, however, says "Be wise now therefore, *O ye kings*: be instructed, *ye judges of the earth*. *Serve the LORD with fear*, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." All kings and judges are to fear Christ; to be instructed by His laws, to worship Him, and be blessed. This is not the us vs. them dichotomy of anti-nomianism, but it is biblical Christianity.

Cheers,


----------



## RamistThomist

For those who disagree with Christendom, it is only fair that you read the finest expression of Christendom: Oliver O'Donovan's _The Desire of the Nations_. O'Donovan is arguably the top evangelical ethicist living today. 
Amazon.com: The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology: Oliver O'Donovan: Books


----------



## Christusregnat

Thanks Jacob!

By the by, that doesn't look like your "public profile" picture; is it?

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## RamistThomist

Christusregnat said:


> Thanks Jacob!
> 
> By the by, that doesn't look like your "public profile" picture; is it?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam



That's a pic of Ray Stevens. Not me.


----------



## RamistThomist

Some more thoughts:

Intestingly,
Outside the Reformed world, almost all readers of Augustine's _City of God_ see Augustine advocating, if cautiously, the triumph of the Church over culture. But they placed this triumph in history. Us modern Reformed folk spiritualize it and place the triumph in "heaven."

Anyway, if the church stays faithful--which God promised us it will on some level (Mt. 16:18ff)
And if civil society continues on its suicidal path (which the West is)
And sin and stupidity are necessarily connected (see Van Til's critiques)
It follows (1) that long-term cultural and political stupidity cannot triumph.
And the church is left-standing when the rubble clears,
It follows (2) that there is a Christendom.

I am not saying this because I am some meanie theonomist who desperately wants a Christendom. I say this because looking at the suicidal path we are on, and the advance in missionary work, I don't see how, whether we like it or not, there can not be a Christendom.


----------



## Pergamum

Christusregnat said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the civil state of Israel is over and done with forever is it accurate to labels nations as "Christian" or not?
> 
> Also, the whole "Christendom" concept... is it Biblical?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Hebrews 13:14 "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come."
> 
> But if we did the only one I want to be a part of is a Cromwellian state that gives me the power to take the turkey out of your oven on Christmas day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an interesting thought; no Christendom. WOW, how far the church has fallen.
> 
> First, in Hebrews 13:14 the same language is used of the saints of the Old Covenant who had no "continuing city" (Hebrews 11:10). And yet, Abraham was the patriarch of a theocracy, and is held up as an example to us.
> 
> Did Moses look for a continuing city? If you answered yes, then that is what we call dispensationalism. If you answered no, then you are Reformed.
> 
> Now, if Moses was in the same case as us, was it wrong to have a holy nation? Was it wrong for Jehovah to be King of kings and LORD of lords? Was it wrong for the kingdoms of the world to become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ?
> 
> If you don't believe in Christendom, then I believe you may be out of accord with the Confession:
> 
> "III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet *he has authority*, and *it is his duty*, to *take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church*, that the *truth of God be kept pure and entire*, that *all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed*, all *corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed*, and *all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed*. For the better effecting whereof, he has *power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God*."
> 
> The Reformed faith is the restoration, not the abolition of Christendom. Leonard Verduin, and other anabaptist fanatics aside, all nations are to be Christian, and will one day be so. Alterations to this portion of the WCF do not mean that we've gained ground; they merely prove how much ground we've lost.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...



Anabaptists are all fanatics? Every one of them?


This sounds like you are saying, "All nations will be Christian...or ELSE!"


----------



## BertMulder

The whole idea, seems to me, starts with the premise of a unity, rather than separation of church and state.

Now in an ideal world, there would indeed be such a thing. Such as the Scots claimed with their 'covenant'

Such as many of the Dutch from the 16th century on liked to believe... And look where it got them. From a church dominated state, they went, though not officially until the 19th century, to a state dominated church, where they did not even hold a National Synod until the state permitted the Synod of Dordt 1618-19. That synod had to contend with the heresy allowed into the church because... you guessed it, the doctrine had to be watered down as ... there were secular benefits (like jobs) attached to church membership...

The church and the state are each sovereign in their own sphere. And yes, in their sphere, the state is also responsible for the first table of the law. As such, the government of a truly 'christian nation' would all be members of the 'true church' as defined in the Netherlands (Belgic) confession... But now we are talking utopia...

From Scripture, in Revelations, we learn that the church dwells in the wilderness...


----------



## RamistThomist

Is the situation of the church in Revelation normative? That is assumed in your post, but it is not proven. Also, throughout most of church history the church was not in the wilderness (unless we assume the church from Augustine to Luther to be false). 

Secondly, my observations--second to last post on page 4--were empircial in nature. Perhaps the church is the wilderness church (again, assumed not proven). That doesn't stop society from falling. And when society falls, the (wilderness) church is the last thing left standing. Irony of ironies, the church, despite her best efforts, triumphs in history (again!).

And I hold to separation of church and state. See Pope Gelasius' 2 swords.


----------



## Poimen

BertMulder said:


> Such as many of the Dutch from the 16th century on liked to believe... And look where it got them. From a church dominated state, they went, though not officially until the 19th century, to a state dominated church, where they did not even hold a National Synod until the state permitted the Synod of Dordt 1618-19. That synod had to contend with the heresy allowed into the church because... you guessed it, the doctrine had to be watered down as ... there were secular benefits (like jobs) attached to church membership...





And this was repeated in 1816 which brought about the crisis (Afscheiding) in 1834.


----------



## RamistThomist

I don't think anyone here is advocating a state-dominated church or a church-dominated state. This is too easy a straw man to knock down (hence its popularity).

Unless you associate Christian moral teaching with exclusively ecclesiastical activities, one can hold to separation without the boogeymen mentioned above.


----------



## Christusregnat

BertMulder said:


> The church and the state are each sovereign in their own sphere. And yes, in their sphere, the state is also responsible for the first table of the law. As such, the government of a truly 'christian nation' would all be members of the 'true church' as defined in the Netherlands (Belgic) confession... But now we are talking utopia...
> 
> From Scripture, in Revelations, we learn that the church dwells in the wilderness...



Howdy Bert,

I thought I'd pass along a sermon delivered to the church on its way to the "Howling Wilderness" (to use Cromwell's term), delivered by a Puritan hero:

The Winthrop Society: Descendants of the Great Migration

By the by, the church in wildnerness is also spoken of in Acts 7:38, and refers to a holy theocracy: a Christian nation.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## BertMulder

The Conflict Between The Woman And The Dragon



> Chapter 31 from the Book "Behold He Cometh" [by kind permission of Reformed Free Publishing Association]
> 
> 
> 
> (Revelation 12:13-17)
> 
> 
> 
> 13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
> 
> 14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
> 
> 15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
> 
> 16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
> 
> 17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> The beginning of this passage calls to our mind what immediately precedes: "And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth..." We will remember that these words refer to the battle which was fought in heaven, as pictured in the words immediately preceding those of the present passage. We found that this war was a battle between spirits. For that very reason we also drew the conclusion that it was indeed a very real war, but nevertheless one which must not in all respects be compared to the battles fought among men. It was not fought with sword and cannon, and it did not leave the battlefield strewn with wounded and killed. But it was a spiritual battle, fought with spiritual weapons of intellect and argumentation, of righteousness and law, a war which could only end in the casting away from the battlefield of one of the opposing parties.
> 
> Michael, so we found, was the general on one side. He is not to be identified, so we found, with the Christ; but Scripture pictures him to us as an angel who is a prince over other angels, and whose special task it is to fight the battle against Satan in behalf of the people of God. This is also true of the passage we studied in the last chapter. In this instance he was fighting against the devil, the old serpent, the great red dragon and opponent of God.
> 
> As to the time of this battle, we concluded that it would not have been the time before the entrance of sin into paradise, and therefore could not refer to the first rebellion of Satan and his angels in heaven, for the simple reason that the text calls him the accuser of the brethren and that also in other ways it indicates that already during the time of this battle there were people of God, saved in Christ Jesus, upon the earth, saints who loved not their lives even unto death. Nor is it the time of the end in the strictest sense of the word that is referred to in the preceding passage. For even after this war has been fought, there are still saved of God who have the testimony of Jesus and keep the commandments of God on earth, which certainly could not be the case were the war that is here fought one that must be placed after the glorification of the saints in Christ. We concluded, therefore, that it is a war which is fought all during the time of the old dispensation. Only in the old dispensation there are brethren on earth that love not their lives even unto death, as is so beautifully recorded in the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is a war fought between Michael and his angels and the devil and his angels all during the time of the old dispensation, and that too, for the prize of the saints who had died and had been glorified in heaven in the days of the old dispensation.
> 
> Thus understood, all is clear. Then we understand that the devil had to fight this war just as well as the battle to prevent the coming of the Great Seed was fought by him on earth. For Christ had not yet come. And the devil, on the one hand trying to prevent His first coming, on the other hand claimed that the dead who died before He had come and before their sins were atoned belonged to him and had no right to glory. Then we could also understand why the devil is called the deceiver and the accuser of the brethren, the slanderer of God's people. For all during this period he must have slandered the people of God who had died in the days of the Old Testament and accused them of their sins before the countenance of God. And then, finally, we also understand that when the man child is brought forth and caught up to God's throne in glory, the battle between the spirits ,in heaven must come to an end, and the devil must be defeated.
> 
> For it was exactly through the suffering and exaltation of the Lord Jesus Christ, the man child, that Michael and his angels were placed in the right as they defended the right of the Old Testament saints to their glory in heaven. And the result was, on the one hand, that the devil and his angels were cast out from heaven, so that he can no more carry on this war there; but at the same time the result,is that he is cast down to the earth, so that he will pay all his evil attention to the church in the world. Here our text begins, and it speaks of the tremendous conflict between the woman and the dragon.
> 
> 
> The Woman In The Wilderness
> 
> 
> We must call attention, in the first place, to the fact that in the words of this passage we have a continuation of the symbolism which we met with in verses 1 to 6. Here we have no plain reality, but a symbolical representation of the things that are mentioned here. That was not the case in verses 7 to 12. In that passage there was nothing to indicate symbolism; and therefore without any difficulty we took it as plain reality, as a real war fought between real beings with a real purpose and with real results. Literally we explain that portion. But that is not the case here. There is no one who takes this woman for a real woman. Nor are there any interpreters who understand the dragon as a real animal, or the stream which he casts out of his mouth as a real stream, or the wings which the woman receives as real wings. In so far there is no difficulty.
> 
> But in spite of this, it is necessary that we remind you of the fact that here we have no literal presentation of facts, but rather an allegory, which does not allow of literal interpretation. For although all agree that this is not a real woman with real eagle's wings, and that the dragon mentioned here is not a real dragon, and that the stream of water he casts out after the woman is not a real stream of water, yet there are interpreters who make the mistake of singling out that wilderness and of maintaining that it, at all events, must be taken in a literal sense of the word. The woman, so they say, is at this time evidently in Jerusalem, the Old Testament holy city. And as she is attacked by the enemy, she flees into a literal wilderness somewhere in the vicinity, where she is hidden twelve hundred sixty days, even as at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem the disciples fled to Pella. Now this is violating one of the most fundamental rules of interpretation, and especially of the interpretation of the Apocalypse. And we must guard against it. There is no right to single out one element in an allegorical representation of things and to take it in the literal sense. And therefore it is well that we remember from the outset and bear in mind throughout our interpretation of this passage that here we have a continuation of the symbolism we met with in the first portion of this chapter.
> 
> In the second place, it may also be said that the symbolical representation as such is very clear. There is no difficulty in obtaining a picture of it in our minds. The woman who has brought forth the man child, - of whom we have lost sight for a moment because of the record of the war in heaven that intervened, - is still on earth. And as is plain from the seventeenth verse of this chapter, she brings forth still other children. For that verse speaks of the rest of her seed, that keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. The dragon now comes down to the earth. He has failed in every respect thus far. He failed to prevent the birth of the man child, and he failed to devour it when once it was born. And he also failed to gain his point in the war which he fought with Michael and his angels in heaven for the possession of the saints of the old dispensation. And because of this absolute failure, on the one hand, and because of the fact that he also realizes that he cannot continue to fight indefinitely and that his time henceforth is short, he is filled with raging fury. And thus he comes down to the earth for the purpose of persecuting the woman who brought forth the man child. But the woman receives wings of a great eagle. Already in the sixth verse we read that the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God. But now we are told once more, and definitely, that she received wings of a great eagle and that with them she flees into the wilderness. The idea is clear. She cannot outrun the dragon. If she comes into contact with him, she cannot stand in the battle. And therefore there is but one place of escape, and that is the wilderness. There the dragon cannot live, for there is nothing for him to feed on. There the woman is nourished in a miraculous way, and there she is hid from the face of the serpent. And at the same time, there is but one way of escape, and that is through the air. And therefore it is in perfect harmony with the symbolism of the entire passage that the woman received wings, and that she flees away from the face of the serpent into the wilderness. The serpent pursues her up to the very edge of the desert, but cannot follow farther. And therefore in his rage he casts a stream after her, not to drown her exactly, but evidently to carry her away and out of the wilderness, so that he may be able to approach her. But the earth opens her mouth and swallows up the stream, which again is in perfect harmony with the idea of the arid desert, where the water easily disappears. And finally, the dragon, seeing that also now his efforts are vain and that all his attempts to destroy the woman meet with failure, turns to her individual children, in order that at any rate he may destroy them. Thus is the,symbolism.
> 
> In the third place, there are also some elements in the symbolism which we understand immediately and with which we have met before and which we do not have to interpret again. The woman, so we have learned, is the church. In the first part of the chapter we have become acquainted with her. But there is a little difference between the woman as she appeared in the first part of this chapter and as she appears in the present passage. In the first passage she was still travailing to bring forth the man child; and therefore she represented the church of the old dispensation. There she was the symbol of the people of God, of the church, as the mother of Christ. But here she appears after she has brought forth the Christ, and therefore in the new dispensation, as the mother of the New Testament believers, the rest of her seed. In parentheses, we may notice that also here the Word of God teaches us the essential unity of the church of all ages. It is the same woman all the time, representing the same church, only in different dispensations. And therefore it will not harmonize with Scripture to maintain that there was an essential difference between the church of the Old and of the New Testament days. But this in passing. The second element in the symbolism with which we are acquainted is that of the dragon. He is the devil. He is the great opponent of God. And we must remember that as the opponent of God his great and only purpose is to prevent the establishment of the kingdom of God and to maintain his own sovereignty. It is for that purpose that he battled against the woman in the Old Testament, to prevent the birth of her man child. It is for that same purpose that he went to heaven to question the right of the Old Testament saints to enter into glory. And it is again for that same purpose that he now attacks the woman as we meet her in our present passage. The devil does not care for the woman as such. He does not care for her seed as such. But he knows that she must be instrumental in the completion of the kingdom of God and in the realization of God's counsel, and therefore fights her to the last ditch.
> 
> 
> The Attack Of The Devil
> 
> 
> This last thought brings us to the next question: why does the devil persecute the woman after she has brought forth the man child? Why does the devil still persecute the church after she has given birth to the Christ?
> 
> Was it merely a streak of vengeance that led him to do so? That is sometimes the impression that is received from the symbolism in the text. The dragon, so the idea often is, has failed twice in his attempts to thwart the plan of God. He failed to devour the man child, and he also failed in his war in heaven to bring down the saints of the old dispensation to hell. And now he is just raving mad. The woman really has served her purpose, and she is of no account to him any more. But in spite of that fact, and in spite of the fact that the dragon well knows that he is defeated and that his attack upon the woman will not help him even if he should succeed to destroy her, he just means to wreak vengeance and to empty his raving madness and fury upon the head of the poor woman.
> 
> But we might know from the very outset that this is not the case. The devil is not a mad fool. He certainly is a fool, and he also is mad. But he is not a mad fool in this sense, that he does things that have nothing to do with the plan of God Almighty. And you may depend on it, if the woman after she has brought forth the man child was of no account any more, the devil would not trouble himself about her. He has but one purpose, and he lives from but one principle. It is the purpose and the principle of opposition against God Almighty. This principle he never denies. And whatever has nothing to do with that principle he leaves severely alone. That is already plain in the individual lives of the people of God on earth and in the church. If you are of no account to the coming of God's kingdom and are in no way related to the glory of God, the devil does not trouble his head about you. It is only when he begins to surmise that you also are one of the followers of Christ and that you confess Him that he begins his action against you. Thus it is also with the woman. The very fact that the dragon in raving madness indeed turns against the woman, to persecute her, already causes us to surmise that she is still of great importance to the kingdom of God and the fulfillment of His plans.
> 
> Nor need we search very long to find the answer to this question. What is the motive of the devil in persecuting the woman even after she has brought forth the man child? This woman, as we have had occasion to notice before, is the church, the visible church as she exists on earth. In the former passage we noticed how she appeared as the mother of the Savior, of the King in the kingdom. The church brings forth the Christ. Christ is the great seed of the woman. He is the Son of Mary, out of the house of David, of the tribe of Judah, born from Israel, out of the loins of Abraham, in the line of Shem and Seth, and finally born from Eve as the spiritual mother of the holy seed. But this is not all. The church as she exists in the present dispensation is not only the mother of Christ, the great seed. But she is also the mother of us all. She is the mother of the true, spiritual children of God. As such it may be said that the church visible, as a visible institution on earth, brings forth the church invisible, true believers, from age to age. The church is the mother of the true children of the kingdom. These are born from her, are baptized by her, are nourished through her, receive their strength and life and all the blessings of God's covenant in her bosom. And it is as such, evidently, that the church appears in the words that we are now discussing. For as we have maintained already, the passage makes mention of the rest of her seed, of her spiritual children. She is the mother of all the true children of God, of all the subjects in the kingdom that is to be established in the future. That is her great importance.
> 
> Now the devil knows this.
> 
> He knew from the beginning that the Great Seed which this woman is to bring forth is the all-important factor in the entire war which he wages. If he can prevent His coming or devour Him as soon as He is born, he does not have to trouble himself about the rest of her seed. And therefore all his efforts are directed toward that end in the old dispensation. And because he is so certain that he will succeed in that battle against the woman and surely prevent the birth of the Great Seed, he also thinks it strange and without justice that all the saints who are born and die before the coming of Christ go into glory. But he has failed.
> 
> And now he knows too that the church still exists. He knows that even as that same woman has not only brought forth the Great Seed, but was also the mother of Abel and Enoch and Noah and the patriarchs and Moses and all the prophets and all the faithful believers of the old dispensation, so she will continue to bring forth seed in the new dispensation. Also in the New Testament day she will have children. She will bring forth children of the kingdom who will fight the battle of the kingdom here below and who will enter into the glorious kingdom hereafter. And since he cannot fight directly against the King of the kingdom any more, Who is caught up to the throne of God, and since he cannot go to heaven any more to dispute about the right of the glorified saints, he will persecute the woman and try to destroy her at all events, before she has brought forth many more children who will serve as subjects of the kingdom that is to be established. And therefore he goes and persecutes her.
> 
> Now the text tells us that when the dragon comes to persecute the woman, two wings of an eagle are given to her, in order that she might fly into the wilderness. The question as to the meaning of the eagle's wings, as if they could be interpreted to mean work and prayer, or anything else, is certainly irrelevant. The figure has perhaps been obtained from Exodus 19:4, where we read that Jehovah says: "Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagle's wings and brought you unto myself." And the idea is evidently that God Himself provides the church with means to escape the fury of the devil.
> 
> Different, however, it is with the idea of the wilderness. Also this has been obtained from the episode of the people of Israel's history in the desert. Even as there God delivered His people from the fury of the world-power in Egypt by bringing them into the wilderness, so also now He brings His people into the wilderness to escape the rage of the devil. But the difference is that in Israel's case it was a real wilderness into which they were led, while evidently in this case the figure is employed to represent something different. And the question is: what is the meaning of this wilderness into which God enables the church to fly in the new dispensation in order that she might escape the wrath and persecution of the devil?
> 
> It has been said that the wilderness is here used to depict the want and deprivation which the people of God must suffer in the world. They are the despised of the world; and there are not many noble and mighty among them. They must suffer all kinds of persecutions and deprivations in the world. And therefore that world is a real wilderness to them. And, of course, this is true in itself. But it is not the meaning of the text. For, in the first place, the church is driven into this wilderness after the birth of Christ and after His exaltation. But it cannot be said that the being subjected to want and deprivation of all kinds is peculiar to the people of God in the new dispensation only. Also the long list of witnesses mentioned in Hebrews 11 could tell you of them. And therefore, this cannot be meant. In the second place, it is difficult to see how this could possibly be a means of hiding them from the face of the devil, so that he could not attack them. Yet this is evidently the purpose of it all. The woman received these wings to fly into the wilderness in order that she might be able to escape the wrath of the devil, and so be safe. And, in the third place, the wilderness is a place prepared for her by God, where she does not suffer want and deprivation, but is nourished by God for a time, and times, and half a time, or twelve hundred sixty days. And therefore, that cannot be the meaning of the term wilderness in our present passage.
> 
> We would rather adhere to the symbolism, and derive the meaning from the representation itself. In the literal and natural sense of the word the wilderness, or desert, is a place in the world, but not of the world. It may lie right in the midst of the world, yet it is absolutely separated from the life of the world. There is no plant life, no vegetation to speak of, no animal life, no human life; there are no houses, no cities, no rivers and streams. It is a place in the midst of the world, yet separated from the world. If one is in the wilderness, he is separated from the life of the world.
> 
> If we adhere to this meaning, the explanation of the symbolism cannot be difficult. It reminds us of the words of the Savior, "In the world, yet not of the world." And it tells us that the visible church in the new dispensation is an institution separate in every respect from the worldpower as such. It exists, indeed, in the world; but it exists as a separate institution. That is not true of her children individually. They live right in the midst of the world, and they live the life of the world, even though they are spiritually separated from that life, and live it from the principle of the kingdom of God. But that is true of the church.
> 
> The church as such is a separate institution in the world. She has her own King. And as an institution the church does not recognize any other ruler. No earthly king has any dominion over her. There is no worldly ruler, be he king or president or dictator, who can exercise dominion over the church as the mother of her spiritual children. Only Christ is King. From this it follows that the church has its own laws. There may be laws established and ordained by the worldly ruler regarding the existence of the church in this world, regarding her buildings and property, etc.; but the church in this world, in regard to her real existence and life, acknowledges no other power, no other sovereignty, than that of Christ. No world-power, no emperor, or king, or president, can formulate her creed. She does so herself, in obedience to Christ her King. No world-power can regulate her worship, can compose her hymns and her forms, can dictate how she must pray and what she must preach. No world-power can tell her how and when and why she must censure her members and exercise discipline over them. The church as an institute is a separate institution. She has her own King, her own laws, her own life. She does not mingle in politics as such. She may instruct her children how to behave in regard to the powers that be; but she herself does not mingle in the politics of the world. She has no armies. She does not fight with the sword. Again, she may instruct her children that even in regard to the battles of the world they must be subject to the authorities, and obedient; but she herself, as an institute and as the mother of her spiritual children, does not take part in the battles of the world. She lives in separation. Even as the children of Israel in the desert lived in separation from the world-power in Egypt, and even as they received their own laws from their own King in that wilderness, so also the church of the New Testament is in the wilderness with regard to the world and its power and its life. The church does not do business. The church does not mingle with the affairs of this world. She owns no property for its own sake. She has no factories. She has no army or navy. She fights her own battles and does her own work. The church as an institution is separate from the life of the world. She has received a God-prepared place in the wilderness.
> 
> Only in this sense can we see, in the first place, that this condition commenced actually in the new dispensation and with the exaltation of Christ. In the old dispensation, among Israel, church and state were intertwined in the theocracy. Israel was the people of God. Israel was the church. They were not identical, but they were inseparably combined. For that reason the people of God also could have an earthly king, could fight the battles of Jehovah with bow and sword, could have an earthly country of their own, could have possessions and do business as a people of God. With the new dispensation this is changed. The church does no more live in a certain land, but is spread all over the world and among all nations. One and the same church, with the same King, with essentially the same faith, with the same life, now exists among all the nations of the earth. And as the most general confession has it, "I believe an holy catholic church." But at the same time, and for that very reason, the church is now in the wilderness. It is separated from the world-power. It does not acknowledge any other authority for her life as such than the authority of Jesus Christ.
> 
> But, in the second place, it is also very plain that this is exactly her safety in the present dispensation. The world-power is and remains on the earth, earthy. It has a temporal purpose, and ultimately shall unite, as we shall see, to make war against the Christ and His kingdom. If the church did not live as a separate institution, living her own life, acknowledging her own King, regulating her own affairs, making her own laws, establishing her own forms of belief, and controlling her own worship, she would be gone, and would ultimately unite with the power that rises against the Christ and His kingdom. No matter whether this would realize itself in one or in the other, whether the church would have dominion over the powers of the world and over the affairs of the world, - as the Romish Church would have it, - or whether the power of the world would exercise authority over the church of Christ as an institution in the midst of the world, the same result would necessarily follow, namely, the destruction of the church as the mother of the faithful subjects of the kingdom of Christ. The church is in the wilderness of this world, separated from the power of the world, and must needs be in that wilderness for her own safety.
> 
> The measure of time here indicated need not detain us very long. It is plain from the context that time, times, and half a time is the same period as the twelve hundred sixty days mentioned in the first portion of this chapter. This leads us to the conclusion that time, times, and half a time indicates three and one-half symbolic years. One symbolic year, and two symbolic years, and half a symbolic year. One symbolic year is calculated to be three hundred sixty days, which, multiplied by three and one-half, gives us the twelve hundred sixty days. And again, this is evidently. the same period as the forty-two months of the two witnesses. For, taking a symbolic month to contain thirty days, forty and two months would again give us twelve hundred sixty days, or three and one-half years. All these indications of time refer, therefore, to the time of the new dispensation, from the exaltation of Christ to the very end, as has become plain before.
> 
> Only, the three and a half times indicate this period, in the first place, from the point of view that the history of the world is divided, as it were, into two halves, because of the coming of Christ. If seven is the symbolic number indicating the completion of all that God does in time, and therefore also indicating the complete period of the history of the present world, both before and after Christ, then it is plain that three and one-half must indicate the period of one dispensation, in this case that of the dispensation after the coming and exaltation of Christ Jesus. And, in the second place, this number also indicates that the period of the church's being in the wilderness shall be cut short. The days shall be shortened for the elects' sake. But whatever this number, which also occurs in Daniel, may indicate, certain it is from a comparison of the different places in which it occurs, that it points to the entire period of the new dispensation, even to the end. In this entire period the church has to suffer from the attacks of the dragon. In this entire period God has prepared her a place in the wilderness in separation from the powers of the world, and that too, to her own safety.
> 
> 
> The Devil's Failure
> 
> 
> That this is actually so is also plain if we study for a moment the manner in which the dragon attacks this woman in the wilderness, and how he fails.
> 
> Symbolically the text indicates this by saying that the dragon, when he saw that he could not pursue her into the wilderness, cast a stream of water after the woman, in order that she might be carried away with the flood. Evidently this does not mean that the devil makes an attempt directly to destroy the woman while she is in the wilderness. On the contrary, especially the original gives us reason to believe that the purpose is different. He knows that he cannot approach the woman in her isolation in the desert. He cannot touch her. She must remain there. He must leave her alone. Hence, he casts a stream of water after her, that she might be borne up by that flood and be carried out of the wilderness. Especially the word used here in the original gives us that very idea. He does not mean to drown her: that would be impossible. But he means to lift her from her isolation. And therefore he casts a stream after her, in order that she might be carried away by the stream, and thus be borne into the world from which she fled.
> 
> Understood in that sense, the meaning is not difficult to grasp. The devil realizes that in the isolation of the church as an institution from the powers of this world lies her strength, and that as long as the church remains in this state of separation he cannot do anything against her. And therefore he makes the attempt to establish an alliance, to unite the church and the world. He tries to carry the church into the world and either offer her the dominion over the powers that be or subject her to the powers of the world. Then he may be sure that her strength is gone. Then he is certain that she will also bring up her spiritual children as subjects of the kingdom of the world, which is his kingdom. Then he is certain that the kingdom of the Christ shall at least be deprived of its subjects in the new dispensation. Clearly you may see this attempt. Now the devil tries to subject the church as an institution to the powers of the world, and establish a state church, as in various countries of Europe has been and still is the case. In that case the worldly rulers are at the same time the rulers of the church, and they establish its creeds and forms of worship and confessions. The church is ruled by the worldly power. Now he tries to gain his point along the way of offering the church dominion over the powers of the world, as in the time of Constantine the Great, and ever since, in the Romish Church.
> 
> But the devil always failed. That does not mean that he never saw results. He surely did. Church after church was affected by this stream of water he spits after the woman. Now the church is actually subject to the state; now she has absolute sway over the powers of the world. And every time she lost her true character. But it never succeeded completely. The woman always remained in her isolation. And even today, although the tendency is once more to bring the church into the service and the subjection of the worldly power, and although the church has a hard fight to remain in her God-appointed place in the wilderness, nevertheless in many places the church stands as a separate institution; and also in our own land the separation of church and state is still constitutionally established. And therefore, the devil fails in principle. And our text tells us that he will fail. Surely, also in the future many a church will be carried away, and her subjection and unification with the worldly power will be one of the factors in her apostasy. But nevertheless, the church shall always stand, shall always remain as an institution and as a separate institution, shall always bring forth and nourish her spiritual children, till the last one of God's elect shall have been gathered into the glory of the kingdom.
> 
> 
> The Devil's Turning To The Rest Of Her Seed
> 
> 
> If we have understood the text correctly thus far, it is not difficult to understand the last verse of this passage, where we read that the dragon, being enraged with the woman and yet realizing his impotency to destroy her as such, goes to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
> 
> At first sight we may think that this is a somewhat strange expression. Is the church after all not the sum-total of all her seed? And how, then, must we conceive of this idea that the devil, after he has failed to destroy the church as such, can still turn to her children, to the rest of her seed?
> 
> This is not difficult to understand, however. The woman represents the church as such, the church as a visible institution in the world. And as such she is the mother of the true spiritual children of God. At first the devil makes the attempt to destroy the church as an institution by making her part of his own kingdom and by uniting her with the power of the world. But when this fails, he turns to the individual believers, in order that he may persecute and destroy them and bring them to apostasy. These individual members move about in the world. In every sphere of life they claim that they must live according to the principles of the Word of God, that they must keep His commandments, and that they must proclaim that Jesus Christ is King over all. And so they attempt to realize these principles in the midst of the world. They have been brought up in the commandments of God by their mother, the church; and they have learned to embrace and keep the testimony of Jesus. And therefore, in every sphere of life, in the home and in society and in the state, wherever they go and whatever they do, they keep these commandments and refuse to live from the principles of the world. They come into contact with the world, and therefore the devil can approach them. He can employ that world to make life hard for them, in order that by his persecution he may bring them to destruction. It is not told us in this chapter how the devil attempts to accomplish this. The following chapter pictures to us this tremendous attempt in detail; for there we have the description of the power of the Antichrist.
> 
> Let us now close this particular passage with the application of the text. In the first place, the church is in the wilderness. Neither must she attempt to rule over the powers of the world or to mingle with the affairs of the world, nor must she subject herself to these powers. Christ is King, and no other beside Him, over the church. There are many rulers in the world; there is but one King in the church. In the second place, love the church as your spiritual mother. More than once we find this presentation of the church in relation to her members. She exists for your spiritual care and nourishment, that through her you might be strengthened with the bread of life, and that too, through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. In the third place, walk as her faithful children in the midst of the world. Keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus. And finally, be assured that all the attempts of the devil shall surely fail. He shall fail in his attempts to destroy the church as such. She shall remain, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. And if you must experience the wrath of the great red dragon as her individual children, never you fear: Christ has overcome the world!


----------



## Christusregnat

My eyes hurt 

Adam


----------



## BertMulder

And why would that be?

By the way, skimmed through that 'sermon'. What was your point with that in connection with this thread?


----------



## RamistThomist

I think what he means is that it, and I mean no disrespect, is that most people don't really read "copy/paste" passages. Out of principle I never read them. It is the easiest thing in the world to press "ctrl a + ctrl c + ctrl v." It is much, much more difficult to summarize the main arguments. 

Whenever someone, even someone who agrees with me, posts a long portion from another site, I just skip it.


----------



## HaigLaw

The Great Commission says to disciple the nations.

Either we assume that's not going to succeed, with all Jesus' Lordship power behind it, or we assume it will succeed, in which event that nation will be a Christian nation.

Or am I being too simple-minded about this?


----------



## HaigLaw

*equality vs. biblical?*



armourbearer said:


> It's not so much the American idea of personal liberty, but the idea of "equality" which is inimical to biblical reformation. Such "equality" does away with permanent societal structures which guarantee stability of values over generations. The biblical pattern is to acknowledge "superiors, inferiors, and equals," and then each one knows what is their place and duty in society. As it stands the modern notion of "equality" cares little either for traditional institutions or for the character of the individual.



That's an interesting idea I'd not thought of. But what is it in the confessional terms "superiors, inferiors and equals" that implies or requires generational continuity? 

And what is it in such "permanent societal structures," such as the British landed aristocracy, I suppose, that guarantees "stability of values over generations"? It seems to me that many of them are a permanent leisure class with no values other than the preservation of their social standing and landed estates.


----------



## MW

HaigLaw said:


> And what is it in such "permanent societal structures," such as the British landed aristocracy, I suppose, that guarantees "stability of values over generations"? It seems to me that many of them are a permanent leisure class with no values other than the preservation of their social standing and landed estates.



I think that kind of criticism rises from a more materialistic view of "work." Diplomacy is hard work. Political machinery is alot like an air conditioner -- many people enjoy the cool environment and have no idea what is taking place beneath the cover.


----------



## HaigLaw

*all faiths?*



Ivanhoe said:


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



But how would you implement that legally in our U.S. constitutional context?


----------



## HaigLaw

*sphere sovereignty*



armourbearer said:


> Another simple observation -- people are arguing against the possibility of a Christian nation by confining the adjective "Christian" to the church. Are you sure you want to conclude that the church is the only entity that can be called "Christian" in the world. Is the Puritanboard Christian? Are there Christian publishing houses, Christian bookshops, Christian schools, Christian charities, Christian families, etc.? If so, then there can be no principled objection to applying the adjective "Christian" to a nation.



Rushdoony's writings are good on this -- the concept of sphere sovereignty, and the negation of the church running the civil government or vice versa.

Many folks wrongly assume that God is interested only in the church.


----------



## HaigLaw

*Christendom out of the rubble?*



Ivanhoe said:


> Some more thoughts:
> 
> Anyway, if the church stays faithful--which God promised us it will on some level (Mt. 16:18ff)
> And if civil society continues on its suicidal path (which the West is)
> And sin and stupidity are necessarily connected (see Van Til's critiques)
> It follows (1) that long-term cultural and political stupidity cannot triumph.
> And the church is left-standing when the rubble clears,
> It follows (2) that there is a Christendom.









Good thoughts!


----------



## Theoretical

armourbearer said:


> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what is it in such "permanent societal structures," such as the British landed aristocracy, I suppose, that guarantees "stability of values over generations"? It seems to me that many of them are a permanent leisure class with no values other than the preservation of their social standing and landed estates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that kind of criticism rises from a more materialistic view of "work." Diplomacy is hard work. Political machinery is alot like an air conditioner -- many people enjoy the cool environment and have no idea what is taking place beneath the cover.
Click to expand...

Especially after studying Burke and ideas of 17th and 18th Century Anglo-American jurisprudence for my thesis upon the American Declaration of Independence, I've gained a dramatically stronger respect for "elite" institutions, and the beneficial roles both monarchy and aristocracy can afford to a society. Institutions that stabilize and guide reform such as these can be extremely great blessings to a society. They certainly have huge flaws as well, but my research has at least made me far less emphatically republican (the government, not the party).

Excess noble court leisure with trivialities and high vanity is no different in principle than the "baser" pleasures a lazy tradesman indulges in (rowdy taverns, prostitutes, and the like) - both individuals are sinning, just with different appearances and social acceptability.

Just because a nobleman might not typically have done the dishes, tilled the land, or washed clothes did not mean there wasn't ample work for him to do. (1) He had a not-insubstantial household employment to maintain and support - who I might add could easily be brought up 3 or more societal/economic tiers, (2) he had extensive diplomatic and political responsibilities to match his title and lofty estate, (3) he had to keep an eye on individuals he sponsored at the universities and artists, just to name a few.

Perhaps the biggest advantage some degree of social stratification has is that it provides markets for those things that are degraded by market pressures - namely the arts, philosophy, and purely theoretical studies.

Basically, there's more to the story than just the "standard treatment".


----------



## MW

Scott, Good thoughts. There's also the benefit that society doesn't suffer from status anxiety if everyone knows their place and station. This means people can get on with being what they are instead of presenting a superficial image of what they hope to become. This makes for greater real productivity.


----------



## timmopussycat

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Let us ask another question:
> 
> Is the idea of a national religious establishment an inescapable one?
> 
> I think it is; every nation has an established religion. Hence, we read in Scripture of 'the gods of the Amorites' or 'the gods of the Egyptians' etc.
> 
> In Britain, the established religion is Secular Humanism.
> In Iran, the established religion is Islam.
> In Spain, the established religion is Popery.
> 
> Is God pleased with the fact that the nations have established false religions as the established religion of that nation? If not, then how can a Christian nation possibly be wrong?



While God is certainly not pleased by the religious practices of modern states, the answer to your second question is that in this age God is not requiring nations to swear covenants with him as was the case with Israel.

That said, given that Christians have freedom to vote and engage in political activity, it is not wrong for us to promote the idea that our nations should make the moral law/decaloge the foundation of their legal codes and conform our laws to applicable biblical standards.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

timmopussycat said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us ask another question:
> 
> Is the idea of a national religious establishment an inescapable one?
> 
> I think it is; every nation has an established religion. Hence, we read in Scripture of 'the gods of the Amorites' or 'the gods of the Egyptians' etc.
> 
> In Britain, the established religion is Secular Humanism.
> In Iran, the established religion is Islam.
> In Spain, the established religion is Popery.
> 
> Is God pleased with the fact that the nations have established false religions as the established religion of that nation? If not, then how can a Christian nation possibly be wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While God is certainly not pleased by the religious practices of modern states, the answer to your second question is that in this age God is not requiring nations to swear covenants with him as was the case with Israel.
> 
> That said, given that Christians have freedom to vote and engage in political activity, it is not wrong for us to promote the idea that our nations should make the moral law/decaloge the foundation of their legal codes and conform our laws to applicable biblical standards.
Click to expand...


Well the question of whether or not a national covenant should be signed (while related) is logically distinct from whether or not there should be a Christian nation or whether or not false religions should be established/tolerated by the magistrate. It is theoretically possible to believe that the nation should be Christian without asserting that a national covenant should be signed.


----------



## timmopussycat

HaigLaw said:


> The Great Commission says to disciple the nations.
> 
> Either we assume that's not going to succeed, with all Jesus' Lordship power behind it, or we assume it will succeed, in which event that nation will be a Christian nation.
> 
> Or am I being too simple-minded about this?



Perhaps you are excluding an alternative. The church will disciple the nations if faithful. Even if the church is unfaithful, Christ will build his church and hell will not prevail against it. But even if the gospel runs in a given nation and matches what happened in Wales in 1859 in which 25% of the population were converted in a year and the vast majority remained solid believers for decades, we may see a Christian nation culturallly without necessarily seeing one legally.


----------



## KMK

*Apologies to those who hoped this thread was dead...*

Great thread!

I have been struggling lately with an issue that has not been directly dealt with on this thread and it is this:



> Rom 11:8-10 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.



Is it possible that God could give a spirit of slumber on a national level?
Is it possible that blessings given to a nation could become a snare to that nation?

In other words,, if a nation makes vows to God (as our American forefathers did) and is blessed by God but later begins to trust in those blessings rather than the blessor (as Israel did) could God blind them on a national level? (except for a faithful remnant, of course)

Is the national blindness of Israel a fulfilment of specific prophecy or is it a 'general principle'?


----------



## KMK

The reason I ask is because it sure appears at times that the US is suffering from national blindness.

And it appears at times that the US takes from granted the blessings of having God's Word proclaimed publicly, and many laws that are based on the general equity of Mosaic Law.


----------

