Discussion with David VanDrunen on Christian Nationalism, Stephen Wolfe & Doug Wilson

[@MrTimoteo1981]

David VanDrunen: "If we are really thinking about the way the New Testament instructs us to be living, I think we need to ask ourselves, is that consistent with a kind of a Christianity, one of whose main emphasis is we need to fight in order to take back from evil people what is rightfully ours in this present life?" Chris Gordon: "Which is about power." VanDrunen: "Yeah, it is about power." I admire both of you men. You're incredibly intelligent, and it's clear that you are striving to be faithful to the Lord. One kind critique I would give is that I believe that you're not always representing the other side fairly in this conversation. It's true that there are many factions within the Christian Nationalism camp, but the vast majority of them would not agree that they are fighting to take back from evil people what is rightfully theirs in this life. They are not hungry for power, but they are convinced from Scripture that they are being Biblical. When the majority of them take that approach, they lead in a way that is attractive to young men and women, and it's clear to see this movement is growing. On the other hand, again I say this kindly, when they are misrepresented in conversations like these I believe it hurts the case you are trying to bring. My recommendation is to be more fair in representing the other side and go after their arguments from Scripture. God bless you both.

[@tseongjay7574]

You are describjng theonomy, which is unbiblical if you have time to study its pretense.

[@cynthiarobinsmith3712]

Biblical orthodoxy does not need to "babysit" christians that go off the rails (for whatever reason.) The New Testament explains the Berean discernment process linked to church discipline. Any innovation/new theology has burden of proof. And of course there are zillions of nuances in all false teachings. Yet the Lord has protected His flock and agenda with a simple (not easy) remedy: the right understanding of God's Holy Word. The Sword of the Spirit and Truth. Wilson's heresy is "late to the party" - Rome has been around a lot longer and imposed its idea of the church dominating world governments. Church history is helpful to get perspective. Never underestimate the Power of Rome.

[@MrTimoteo1981]

@@tseongjay7574 Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. The majority of Christians within this movement identify as "general equity" theonomists, and this is confirmed in the Westminster Confession of Faith. In Chapter XIX it states, “Of the Law of God,” section IV: “To them also, as a body politick, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” If you study Doug Wilson, he says all the time that he does not identify with the reconstructionist theonomists of the 1980's, but rather he considers himself a general equity theonomist in step with the Westminster Confession of Faith that I cited above. I say this kindly, but can you see how the Christians within this movement view it as being biblical? Not only that, but the saints who have gone before us saw it as biblical as well. Again, thank you for dialoguing with me, as I am here to kindly engage and persuade. Here is a link to a video that Doug Wilson made about general equity theonomy if you're interested: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b5CXfHqdZ8-rgrs Blessings to you.

[@tseongjay7574]

@@MrTimoteo1981 Grace to you brother. DW and co. are just playing with words. general equity theonomy on one hand, Christian nationalism on the other but they speak the same vocabulary nonetheless. Gordon and VanDrunen are right. It all boils down to just the basic pronouncement of Jesus Christ that his kingdom is not of this world. He said to make disciples of all nations, the result is his spiritual kingdom (the church) from all tongues, tribes throughout redemptive history. It is not about christianizing the world or instituting a government system to impose a sharia-like way of living-- Christian version. It is another gospel, and it is scary.

[@MrTimoteo1981]

@@tseongjay7574 I appreciate your response. Did you happen to watch the link I sent over regarding general equity theonomy that DW produced? If you watch it, you can see that he’s not just playing word games, as he gave concrete examples of how this theology plays out biblically. He also derives this from the American version of the Westminster Confession of Faith. This means that it’s not just DW espousing this, but faithful Christian men representing synods of believers met, prayed, and voted on this in the past and so this is not a new teaching by any means. Regarding the kingdom not being of this world does not mean that it is just a spiritual kingdom. It means that its origins and the way it operates isn’t derived from our worldly and sinful order. Also, have you ever heard DW (or Sauve, Webbon, Durban, White, Sumpter, etc.) mention that he wants to impose a sharia-like way of living? I have not. I say this kindly, but you are misrepresenting his position, just as Gordan and VanDrunen are. We need to represent the other side’s position more accurately and then refute it from scripture. Regarding this movement within postmillennialism / general equity theonomy / Christian Nationalism, etc. it’s clear to see that it is rapidly growing. Even the CREC denomination has been the most rapidly growing Christian denomination within the U.S. this past year. As a result, I echo Gamaliel in that “…if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them.” I believe the Lord is raising up these men during a pivotal time in history when many weak-willed pastors are unwilling to even speak out against the d i s m e m b e r m e n t of b@bies from the pulpit due to their extreme take on two-kingdom theology. I will continue to pray for these leaders and see how the Lord will continue to use them, but grace and peace to you as well, brother, as I do appreciate your heart for the Lord.

[@drainmylawn]

19:11 "God has ordained these common institutions to be promoting peace among as many people as possible. Not trying to impose the views of one people upon the other..." How can we know or define peace apart from Scripture? Should a government not have a preference toward Christianity and Scripture as the truth?

[@howwerwoss256]

“How can we know or define peace apart from scripture.” The light of nature. “Should a government not have a preference toward Christianity and Scripture as truth?” Sure, but it has no authority to exercise a priestly office, nor can the state be consecrated as holy.

[@christopherjames1160]

​@@howwerwoss256 What is "the light of nature" and where does it define peace? Is this just an appeal for people to "look inside at their better nature and do the right thing" ?? No theonomist I've ever heard would conflate priestly and civil offices, nor make a pretense about consecration the state. This wasn't even done under the Mosaic covenant - what justification do you have for alleging that's the view now?

[@cardboard8206]

Every Christian will say that abortion is evil and should be outlawed, but by what standard to we make that moral claim? According to what authority should governments legislate morality? If we say "by their own authority as given by God," then does God allow each nation to decide what is best in their own eyes? Surely, by no means is this the case! All roads lead to Biblical rule

[@longllamas]

I think you're confusing authority to enforce law of God and the authority to determine what that law is. Those are two very different things. Of course God reveals his moral will through the scripture, but he also reveals it to non-christians through general revelation (the light of nature), hense why Paul can say that the civil magistrate is God's servant for your good (Rom 13). Paul says that the magistrate is God's agent of wrath to punish evil doers, yet the civil magistrate at the time was most definately not a Christian and the likelihood that he was judging according the scriptures is close to zero. God does not need a christian ruler or special revelation to restrain evil. BTW, it's poor form to comment on videos you havent watched.

[@cardboard8206]

​@@longllamas "Common grace," the answer provided by DVD (unless I missed something, I believe that is what he accounted for), is neither a standard nor authority, but a retainer unto the standard - one, mind you, that people can silence in their hearts. Rom 1, the chapter that most explicitly describes natural revelation, shows this revelation to have no positive effect upon those who are perishing. Sinful man cannot properly create, tend to, or enforce good laws consistently, "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be." And again, "To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled." Paul, in Rom 13, is speaking on the office, not the person in that office, and the submission is in kind to a wife submitting to an unbelieving husband, or a slave submitting to his wrathful master. God certainly does use wicked rulers unto His own purposes, but this is *always* only for a short time in Scripture.

[@christopherjames1160]

​​ God's Word literally gives government the standard and authority to enforce the law... did you not read those chapters, oorrr?

[@oracleoftroy]

@@longllamas In appealing to Romans 13, what do you make of Paul explicitly appeal to a law? Verses 8ff - Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, *“You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,”* and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: *“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”* Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of *the law.* Was this Roman law? Where could Paul possibly be looking to get such a law? Surely not God's word in the OT if the R2K position is to be believed, right? Insofar as common grace and natural law are true, they aren't standards in and of themselves that can be appealed to apart from God, rather, they point us back to Christ and God's revealed word. Paul, in calling wicked Roman magistrates "God's servants", directly appeals to God's law as the standard of goodness they are to enforce. Yet somehow, Christians ought not to do that today, and instead we should enforce whatever seems right in the eyes of godless men? No, I will stand with Paul in Romans 13 and call all government to accord with what God has commanded.

[@MATTHEWJOHNBELL]

@@christopherjames1160 Do governments have the authority to enforce wicked laws? If they do, is that authority legitimate (from God). If it is legitimate, does God care that governments are using the authority He gave them to enforce wicked laws? If He does care, do His people have any responsibility before God to do anything about it?

[@McFilA]

“Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.” Obey the Word of God and pray for the repentance and Christianization of your nation.

[@johnking9161]

Amen Brother! May we keep faithful to the Scriptures which command Nations to bow the knee to Christ!

[@masondepew6961]

According to the biblical theology that VanDrunen and many Reformed hold to, these kinds of passages are fulfilled by the NT Church. So yes, there is a Christian nation dwelling amongst all the earthly nations: the Church. Her members, though to earthly eyes they appear as the lowest of the low (like the Jewish exiles in Ezra-Nehemiah that are the first-level fulfillment of Isaiah 49), are treated as heavenly royalty (see Ephesians 2:6; we have already been seated to reign with Christ over all things). Following that logic, there is nothing here about the Christianization of your earthly government. It's about how God will delight in exalting the people he draws from every nation to the heights of heavenly glory with Jesus Christ.

[@danjoconway]

Wow! Pastor Chris really gives his guests time to think and speak. Great hosting. Who was that other guy who hosted Wilson and Longshore?

[@johanoncalvin87]

Seriously. He let David ramble off for extended periods.....

[@masondepew6961]

I think your clue was in the titles of the videos, one being a "debate" vs. this one being a "discussion."

[@tgoodmanii]

How about “Welcome David, I want to start out by noting how controversial you are in your novel approach to the Noahic Coventant.”

[@alsteiner7602]

DOH!!!

[@lewislibre]

He is brown nosing the guest so hard it’s cringe.

[@CultureDweeb]

Excited to watch this, and hoping you will have Stephen Wolfe himself on as a guest soon.

[@tropicalpines4585]

I would like to see someone who disagrees with Wolfe have him on as a guest. It would be nice to see whether or not people would attempt some of the inflated rhetoric that’s used against him online, or if they wouldn’t accuse him of things they know are just silly. E.g. “Wolfe is a kinist.” “Wolfe wants to kill heretics.” “Wolfe wants a Protestant pope.”

[@CultureDweeb]

I finished watching this, VanDrunen spoke wisps of air. I wonder how they think they are going to gain the conversation over and against the brave and logical with this strategy? They say nothing of substance against the Establishment Principle position and do nothing but yap for clicks. It was boring. Like listening to an argument about Calvinism from Calvary Chapel dudes.

[@JustinH-he5ne]

Excited to listen. The questions I would ask this station in regards to its theological beef with DW would be. 1. Would the attitude you are suggesting have caused the reformation, 2. Why not have DW and Wolfe on at the same time so you can field these questions. The first conversation with DW seemed filled confirmation bias vs what was actually being presented.

[@loganross1861]

Everyone I hear criticizing Doug Wilson don’t seem to understand what he’s saying, or even what they themselves are saying. It’s ironic hearing them say that the side of CN hasn’t thought through the logic, when it’s pretty clear they’re the ones who aren’t thinking things through…

[@johanoncalvin87]

@@loganross1861 agreed.

[@apsandlin]

Come on, bro. They haven’t thought through it? The level of scholarly work Van Drunen has put out dwarfs the very lay level interactions of guys like Wolfe. “You just don’t understand Wilson.” That’s a broken record. No matter how much DW is interacted with that’s always where the conversation ends when the Moscow crowd can’t defend their novel theologies. Federal Vision, dominionist preterist theonomic premillenialism, presuppositionalism…these are the novelties in church history (even more novel than dispensationalism) and so DW et al. have the burden of proof upon them to prove why their novelty is biblical. Just because someone is skilled in rhetoric and will dunk on the libs doesn’t mean they’re above critique. Quarrelsomeness is a disqualifying sin for pastors.

[@harrystred7350]

I used to get annoyed with other people on the right when they would talk about people to the left being “low IQ”, but it really makes you wonder when you can repeatedly explain to someone what you believe in detail and they will still not be able to articulate it. Are you lying, or are you just not very smart?

[@janszeneri1750]

Well, I can tell you where he hasn’t studied enough. This “secular” movement is pagan, not secular. Go look at the things those trying to “reset” things are doing. It is out n out paganism to the last detail. And, whether you acknowledge it or not, they are coming for you. The Church is their target.

[@christopherjames1160]

@@apsandlin "even more novel than dispensationalism" 🤣🤣 That's a good one, ah man, thank you for that. Read more :)

[@waynemershon4622]

Honest question to consider? 50 years from now, which version of Christianity is most likely to still be standing with little to no varation from where it is today, the Doug Wilson ball busting, screw sin version or the Sean McDowell, nice, sweet big tent version that bends over backwards to avoid offense? Which side had you rather be on when thinking long term? CN has a lot of problems, but it is much more desirable than the limp-wristed soy boy trend so prevalent among the "nuanced" and "winsome".

[@howwerwoss256]

You’re a bit too excited about Wilson, balls, and the male form. How do you reconcile that with Doug Wilson being a lard ass?

[@howwerwoss256]

Or is visceral fat not a good indication of low-T?

[@Naomi_OB]

Excellent question and conclusion. 100% agree. We suffer from weak men in leadership within the Church. Strong men are the only way to overcome the feminized church we now have. It isn't complicated at all.....they make it complicated as an excuse. Great comment and observation.

[@stalker7892]

@@Naomi_OB Jesus is the alpha example.

[@stalker7892]

Neither. You'd better come to terms with whatever the truth in the Bible in an honest unbiased as possible way.

[@alsteiner7602]

Why do you not have Stephen Wolfe on?

[@Auz87]

“The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”

[@ryangallmeier6647]

That's Rev. 11:15. It's referring to the "Seventh Trumpet". We're not there quite yet.

[@Auz87]

@@ryangallmeier6647 Proves Christ does want the nation's to be Christian.

[@ryangallmeier6647]

@@Auz87 Nope. Not what the text is saying.

[@washedclay]

@@ryangallmeier6647 Dude you believe the reformation was prophesied about in the book of Revelation. That’s the most heretical, eisegesis ever. Don’t talk about what Revelation is about. You’ve already lost that privilege.

[@janszeneri1750]

Actually, Jesus said it happened at the resurrection. “All authority in Jean n earth” was given unto Him. Matt 28

[@noanapoleon474]

Why does the host use anecdotal arguments? The host seems to not know the fundamental Biblical definition of a nation and how the Bible coalesses around the idea of nations to begin with. To many anti CN folk view this issue from an American perspective. Not all nations are pluralistic. The Bible doesn't support pluralism and the two kingdom theology is riced with problems to begin with.

[@jahnvantuttlesma8215]

The bible never defines nation. In fact, the idea of a "nation-state" wouldn't enter the historical scene until centuries later

[@noanapoleon474]

@@jahnvantuttlesma8215 Genesis 10 describes the early nations and later Israel is defined as a nation in covenant with God. The bible Chronicles the nation's that interact with Israel to give readers a orientation to what Biblical nations should look like. This serves as a standard for what Biblical nationalism should look like. Otherwise you are suggesting that nationalism must start with NO historical definition/example at all.

[@maxwellkendall8391]

Wasn’t he reading straight from books?

[@noanapoleon474]

@@maxwellkendall8391 Pulling stuff out of context is what people do to win a debate. Not to mention that he is arguing with people who are new to the issue. He would get absolutely destroyed if he debated someone who knows this issue well.

[@jahnvantuttlesma8215]

@@noanapoleon474 Nations in Gen. are entirely different than the modern day nation state. During the time of Gen. you had some kingdoms, but largely there were only city states.

[@josiahspencer2736]

Eschatology is definitely a big issue here. To contrast our mission with the mission of Christ (right at the end) is odd. Postmillenialists believe that Christ will accomplish the eradication of idolatry through the spread of the Gospel. To act as if that idea is laughable is a bit hopeless.

[@masondepew6961]

It would be really encouraging, just once, to see arguments for Wilson or Wolfe or whatever form of Christian Nationalism presented without a painfully obvious false dichotomy. These comments are riddled with them.

[@glennjones9236]

That is exactly right. It is painful to watch such lack of understanding presented when criticism is made of Moscow and the CN movement.

[@thekirkwoodcenter]

I saw Dr. VanDrunen speak at the Bahnsen conference in Orange County a few years ago, I think in 2022. Joe Boot was also there defending the more "Wilsonian" view, or, the one-kingdom view. Unfortunately, a debate did not ensue because Dr. VanDrunen had a prior engagement and had to leave quickly after his talk. I will say, as smart and well-read as men like Boot or Wilson may be. And as many correct insights as they do make, I believe Dr. VanDrunen is more correct with regard to how Christians are supposed to live in the world. Yes, we can try to influence politics. Yes, we can run for office and try to influence policy toward the good. But, we have seen how corrupt explicitly Christian societies can become, meaning, that the Church becomes corrupt in lieu of the nation being explicitly "Christian." The powers of the world and the spiritual power of the Church simply do not mix well. Does that kind of politically corrupt Christianity look different than the paganized Christianity we have right now, sure. But, it is still corruption. Now, all that said, that the Church needs to recover some voice of authority to hold the State in check is clearly the case. But, we cannot make the State the Church. God gave the nations universal moral laws by which even pagan nations could, were they to follow them, thrive under. The Rabbis identified the Noahide law, that would prevent most of the things we are worried about today, all of which revolved around human sexuality, by the way. If we could reestablish a realistic and responsible sexual ethic, then most of our social ills would begin to fade, and we would be able to live relatively peacefully again with each other. Everything right now revolves around the question of theological anthropology, or "what is man?" Fortunately, God's design in the universe always brings us back to reality, even if nations and cultures will always push the boundaries. We are either approaching the end time, or just in a really, really bad historical moment. Still, we must as the Church do what we can to restrain evil. The fight is not about saving a place for "us" in society, the fight is about making conditions so that others, non-Christians, can live in the best possible world they can.

[@spartakos3178]

@thekirkwoodcenter The most corrupt 'Christian' nation.... is and will always be, by definition, so much better than a godless communist state..... and the body count is clear on that.

[@Dan-s6s]

The history of Calvin in Geneva is a little difficult to follow at first glance but here: The way was now prepared for the recall of Calvin. The best people of Geneva looked to him as the saviour of their city. His name meant order, peace, reform in Church and State.

[@Dan-s6s]

Augustine biographical note: his fame and position brought requests for advice from Christians and non Christians alike which involved him in voluminous correspondences ... he presided over the episcopal court... heard civil cases as well as ecclesiastical cases.

[@tacostacos5]

This wasnt very helpful because it is obvious you agree with everything he says. So the only way you can come to any conclusions from this interview is by being an expert in the topic already. Kind of a disservice to not have DW on at the same time or someone else to challenge him

[@AboundingGraceRadio]

Everyone knows how to sell tacos, from the stands.

[@tacostacos5]

@@AboundingGraceRadio is my critique/suggestion not valid for some reason?

[@kathleen6349]

I'm confused how the views discussed here correlate to the 'Magisterial Reformers' & their views of partnering/working with the state & embracing an interdependent relationship with local secular authorities. Were they wrong for example to favor punishing heretics?

[@erc9468]

What is ironic is that all of those reformers who these folks quote as being "2 kingdoms" guys, were also in favor of the state being the sponsor and protector of the church and Christian morality.

[@SilversRayleigh03]

Sounds like some of Pro Christian Nationalism will not even try to finish the podcast(1 hr and 37 mins). We have to fully finish the podcast before we discuss our biases.

[@carlgobelman]

Wonderful conversation. Thank you for sharing!

[@Dan-s6s]

one thought, one can not negate categories because one thinks that they don't belong in the Christians life e.g. politics. Both Calvin and Augustine were involved in politics. Those two men were involved in their cities affairs, and one can say that they ruled them. So, to say that Christians should stay out of politics is not the trend that church has ever been a part of.

[@spartakos3178]

Disciple the nations and teach them to obey. it's part of the great commission.

[@longllamas]

Um no, The word "disciple" occurs 261 times in the NT, and not a single one of those occurances refers to anything other than to individuals. A nation cannot be a disciple.

[@washedclay]

@@longllamas This didn’t help ur argument at all. The same weak, straw arguments as this host is displaying.

[@spartakos3178]

@longllamas Disciple in context is an action verb, not a subject... your argument is not relevant. You also miss the "teach them to obey." If we disciple people of all nations and teach them to obey all that Jesus commands.... those nations will absolutely change how they operate politically. Also, Politicians need Jesus too, so there is absolutely no reason we should not be loudly proclaim the Gospel and all of it's implications to every Politician and political entity.... just like how Paul preached the Gospel to Caeser himself.

[@christopherjames1160]

​@@longllamasexcept for that time the word appears in conjunction with "the nations." There's that 🤷‍♂️

[@tropicalpines4585]

Vandrunen’s comment at 44:00 is telling. He sees being “focused on things of this Earth” as worldly. Scripture does tell us to set our minds on things above, but I think Vandrunen needs to be willing to parse this out more. Is working hard to provide for your family being “Earthly minded?” If you participate in a country that has representative government, is that participation being worldly? From what I see in Scripture, the Bible is primarily speaking about immorality when it talks about worldliness. So perhaps a better definition of worldliness would be an undue focus on things of this world to the exclusion of Godliness and God-ordained priorities for this life. I don’t think saying “our nation should really get back to its Christian roots, for its own good” is necessarily giving undue focus to something of this world. It could be…. But so can any good pursuit if you take it outside of a God-ordained order of priorities.

[@Dsquareddyson]

@53:40 - "What Wolfe's quote is getting at.... and I haven't seen it in context..."

[@Dsquareddyson]

@1:07:00

[@jason.martin]

So if there is a majority of people in a nation you don't want them to bring in laws that reflect Gods holiness? I watched the Douglas Wilson discussion and will watch this one later. When we look at the OT we have the macro look on God's ordinance for governance. This does not get nullified. Were talking about theonomy not CN as well. When you look in history it was the gospel that changed people that then changed the laws of the land over time. Do you not want abortion to be ended at some point? or marriage back to how God has defined it?

[@stalker7892]

The Gospel!!! Jesus was confronted by Pilate on this exact issue when he asked him if he was a king. He answered: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place" It's the revelation of the flesh that the populace when given the choice the populace (those who followed self serving religious leaders) Jews chose Barabbas, a violent insurrectionist. Jn.18:36/40.

[@cardboard8206]

Any internal reality *must* have an external manifestation lest it be false.

[@jason.martin]

@@stalker7892 your not getting it at all, you completely avoid the OT and missed my points, so what your saying is in spite of a Christian majority voting population you would be ok with the laws of the land that are contrary to God's law? Jesus did not abolish the law as he stated but fulfilled the penalty of the law. What we are talking about is men of faith going into the govt and making changes with laws that promote evil not some violent insurrection. DO you want the governing laws to reflect Gods law? yes or no?

[@stalker7892]

@@cardboard8206 Our Constitution is based on the consensus of the majority of the people. Sure it would be nice to have Christian values at the forefront. That's the government we live under. How do you think the true Jews felt living in Babylon, the others did just fine. The Jews under Greek and Roman rule wanted violent take over through the Maccabees war in the case of the Greeks. And they wanted to over throw Rome but Jesus would have none of it.

[@stalker7892]

@@jason.martin You are unable to accept the fact that we live in a pluralistic society. And the Constitution is what it is. You don't like it change the law. But like I said the Constitution it's by consensus of the majority. What are you going to do about that? As far as the law goes to make it simple we are saved by faith We live in another kingdom. Paul makes it clear that the law does not trump faith. It was given 430 years after God's covenant with Abraham. In other words God's law was given to a hard hearted people called the Israelites at that time and it was given ONLY to them. What laws did God give Abraham?? What law was he required to keep. No mention of the Sabbath, ritual law, or the 10 commandments. Please show me where Abraham was required to keep any of them. The law was put in place to show people that they are born in sin and have no salvation under law. You don't seem to understand the purpose of the law. Read Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews.

[@hectorfalcon1867]

What is the principal intention of this commission; to disciple all nations. Matheteusate-“Admit them disciples; do your utmost to make the nations Christian nations;” not, “Go to the nations, and denounce the judgments of God against them, as Jonah against Nineveh, and as the other Old-Testament prophets” (though they had reason enough to expect it for their wickedness), “but go, and disciple them.” Mathew Henry on the Great Commission.

[@noanapoleon474]

Racial distinctions which the Lord has brought about by providence. It testifies to such distinctions in at least seven categories: 1. Ancestry. We saw this already in Genesis 9-10. The Bible does not speak scientifically of genetics, but it does tell us that man’s “families” (races) and “nations” are produced by natural procreation, “after their generations” (Gen. 10:32). Race may be more than blood, but it is never less. 2. Appearance. The Bible recognizes that God in providence has made races look starkly different. It acknowledges some men are permanently black in skin, and uses it as an image of how all men are permanently black in heart: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil” (Jer. 13:23). The Hebrew there for “Ethiopian” is more literally “Cushite,” but the parallel New Testament Greek term “Ethiopian” (Acts 8:27) means by etymology, “scorched face.” Compare the likely etymology of the name “Ham” (father of Cush, Gen. 10:6), from a Hebrew root signifying heat or sun. The Bible lends weight to the ancient and modern speculation that black men turned black because of generations of life under the hot African sun. Compare Song 1:5-6, “I am black, but comely…. Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me.” Note moreover the change observed from white skin to black in Lamentations 4:7-8, “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies…. Their visage is blacker than a coal.” It should be clear from these things, not only that Scripture recognizes racial color difference, but that it passes some aesthetic judgment on it. The Bible celebrates David as “ruddy” (a description proper only to fair skin), “and withal of a beautiful countenance” (1 Sam. 16:12; 17:42). It also praises Christ’s purity and excellence under the image of white skin, “My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand” (Song 5:10). 3. Geography. We already saw regarding nations that God “hath determined…the bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:26). Deuteronomy 32:8 confirms this, “When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people.” As he gave to ancient Israel the promised land, so he apportioned to other nations their own places. Genesis 10:5 says specifically of Japheth’s sons, “By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.” Even the promises of salvation for nations outside Israel presume they live in different places. Gentile salvation thus is pictured as a pilgrimage: “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” (Isa. 2:3), “They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the LORD” (Jer. 50:5). 4. Language. Scripture freely recognizes language as a marker of racial difference. Non-Israelites are “people of a strange speech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not understand” (Ezek. 3:5-6), and even within Israel, the pronunciation of one Hebrew word, “Shibboleth,” marked tribal boundaries (Judg. 12:6). Revelation uses “tongue” as a synonym of other more distinctly ethnic terms: “every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (5:9; 7:9; 14:6). Consider also how Genesis 11 describes the origin of distinct languages. As man was just beginning to diversify into the separate races, still “the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech,” (v. 1). Linguistically-united man presumed at Babel to build a tower to reach heaven, and God punished his pretension with linguistic confusion: “Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech” (v. 7). The result of linguistic division was geographic division, and therefore racial division, by the course of isolated procreation over generations: “So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth” (v. . Pentecost was not, as many assert, a reversal of Babel, at least insofar as it did not remove the natural diversity of language (or of race; note those speaking in tongues were Jews, and Galileans, Acts 2:1, 5-7), but only temporarily overcame it for spiritual ends, by an extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit. The division of man’s races, as it was caused in part by the division of his languages, so it is proved by that division, which has only deepened since Babel. Moreover, it may be argued from Revelation 5:9 that diversity of tongues will remain in heaven, but whether or not this is so, though distinction of language did come in part as punishment, it is not sinful in itself, or any barrier in itself to spiritual unity among believers. 5. Character. Scripture also freely recognizes that, just as distinct nations reproduce, appear, are located, and speak distinctly, so also do they live and act distinctly. This is evident in their distinct national sins. In Isaiah 33:9, “a people of a deeper speech than thou canst perceive” are also called “a fierce people.” So in Deuteronomy 28:50, “A nation of fierce countenance.” So also for Israel itself, which is distinguished in both Old and New Testament as “stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears,” a people who “do always resist the Holy Ghost,” as their fathers did (Acts 7:51; cf. Deut. 9:6; 1 Thess. 2:14-16). Remember the Canaanites, a race so grossly wicked beyond others that the just solution to their evil was annihilation (Deut. 7:1-4; cf. 9:5; Lev. 18:12). Compare Paul, who when speaking to the pastor of a church of Cretians, says of them without qualification, “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:12-13). Clearly in Christ there is hope that men of the most godless races may repent and “be sound in the faith.” But just as clearly, men are not sound in the faith by nature. By nature, all men are dead in sins (Eph. 2:1; Rom. 3:23), and some races of men reveal that deadness in ways peculiar to their race. 6. Power. In recognizing such moral distinctions between nations, Scripture is decidedly not egalitarian: at least in some distinct respects, some nations are superior or inferior in virtue. This is also true regarding power. Over the course of history, some nations rule, others are ruled. Some are weak, others are strong. Though Israel was relatively small in number (Deut. 7:7), God made her “a great and mighty nation” (Gen. 18:18; cf. Deut. 4:7), and under Solomon, exceeding great, even over other nations (1 Kings 4:21). God also singles out certain heathen nations as particularly mighty: for example, Daniel’s prophecy describes the Roman empire as “strong as iron, forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things” (Dan. 2:40), and Luke gives us a glimpse of the fulfillment of that prophecy when Caesar Augustus decreed the taxation of “all the world” (Luke 2:1). It seems evident to us that this is also a fulfillment of the ancient promise to the grandfather of the European race: “God shall enlarge Japheth” (Gen. 9:27). Compare also in Genesis 9 the notable lack of blessing upon Ham, who shamed his father (v. 22), and the just curse of abject slavery pronounced upon Ham’s son, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren” (v. 25, again in vv. 26 and 27). Opinions differ on this passage, and agreement on its interpretation is not essential to maintaining race realism, but if later history sheds any light, it appears this curse on Ham’s son Canaan is rightly taken also as a curse upon the father, and on his other children by extension. Whatever the case, “servant of servants” would aptly describe the future fate of many of Ham’s black African children. 7. Religion. Not surprisingly, according to its peculiar religious purpose, Scripture also identifies distinct races by their distinct religions. Consider the continual contrast of the LORD God of Israel over and against “all the gods of the nations” (Ps. 96:5) and “the idols of the heathen” (Ps. 135:15). Scripture recognizes the “gods of the Egyptians” (Jer. 43:13), and similarly the gods of Babylon (Isa. 21:9), and of the Sepharvaim (2 Kings 17:31; 18:34; cf. 19:12), though they are properly “no gods, but the work of men’s hands” (19:18; Gal. 4:8). And it also recognizes that such distinctive national idolatry is typically permanent: “Hath a nation changed their gods?” (Jer. 2:11). The Bible does hold out hope that the nations one day will abandon their false gods, but that will be a marvelous exception to the present state of things, only made possible by God’s extraordinary grace (Ezek. 36:25), grace such as is evident in measure in the present ingathering of the nations under the New Testament (Matt. 28:19).

[@matthew15604]

“And in every station in which God hath placed me, let my care be in all things to live honestly, and to cry mightily that the kingdoms of this world may quickly be made the kingdoms of my Lord and of his Christ.” -John Brown intro to Ps. 82

[@noanapoleon474]

II. Israel’s Civil Law by Michael Spangler In the introduction we considered various testimonies to God’s creation of man, and his providential distinguishing of mankind into races. Now we look specifically to the Mosaic civil law. This is not because we believe it must be copied and pasted intact into modern constitutions-it was a specific law for a specific people in specific circumstances, according to the nature of all civil law. However, it is still to be admired, studied, and imitated according to its general equity, that is, the universal natural and moral justice inherent in it. We are to look on ancient Israel’s God-given civil law and say, “What nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law?” (Deut. 4:9). And at the least, we must assert that anything the holy God commanded for ancient Israel is in itself entirely free from sin. Therefore in principle it could never be immoral to enact similar laws in modern nations, if done with prudence according to their peculiar circumstances.1. Nationalism. A profound Scriptural testimony to race realism is that Israel’s divinely inspired civil polity is explicitly nationalist. Throughout it discriminates between native Hebrew Israelites, often identified in family terms as “the children of Israel,” or “brethren,” and others who were “strangers” or “sojourners” (see e.g. Deut. 4:44; Lev. 25:47; Deut. 1:16; 15:3; etc.) To put this another way, when their constitution spoke of the people for whom it was written, it spoke of them in terms of blood. By analogy with the Constitution of the United States, the Israelites could say their national founding document was written for “ourselves and our posterity.” This does not mean assimilation of certain foreigners was never possible (as we will see below), but it does mean that foreigners never defined the essence of the people.2. Tribal land ownership. One specific proof of the nationalist character of the civil law regarded land ownership. Israel, defined by blood, was also in some respect defined by soil, though less essentially (for the nation still existed when in exile). Moreover, the ownership of this soil was tied to specific bloodlines in a unique manner, God allotting not only large portions to each tribe, but also more narrow portions “by their families” (Josh. 13-17), which they were legally forbidden from transferring to other families or tribes, a restriction applied with careful prudence in the hard case of the daughters of Zelophehad (Num. 27; 36), and maintained also by the requirement of restoration of purchased land in the forty-ninth year Jubilee to the families that originally held it (Lev. 25:8-10). Compare Naboth’s noble resistance unto death when Ahab desired his vineyard, “The LORD forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee” (1 Kings 21:3). 3. Protectionist economics. There were further measures in Israel’s polity that righteously discriminated along racial lines. Nowhere in Scripture is slavery ever described as sinful; indeed, the holy God himself sanctioned it in his holy nation, but he did so with ethnic distinction. Foreigners could be enslaved for life, even in their generations (Lev. 25:44-46; cf. Josh. 9:23, 27; 1 Kings 9:20-21); however, “If thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee” (Deut. 15:12), unless the Hebrew slave remained of his own will (Ex. 21:2-6). So also for charging interest on loans: it was lawful to charge “a foreigner,” but unlawful to charge an Israelite “neighbor” or “brother” (Lev. 25:35-37).4. Rule by kinsmen. So far we have seen that the polity God himself appointed recognized Israel as a distinct nation of men, defined by blood, and gave to that nation distinct privileges above ethnic foreigners. This becomes all the more clear when considering the legal requirements for leaders. The king had to be “one from among thy brethren,” and “brethren” should not be spiritualized here to mean only a believer in the Lord: God specifies, “Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee” (Deut. 17:15). In the first king, Saul, and in David’s hereditary line that followed in the kings of Judah, this law was strictly kept, under strictly ethnic terms. Similarly, lesser magistrates were to be chosen from wise men “among your tribes” (Deut. 1:13-16), just as Jethro wisely counseled Moses after the Exodus to “provide out of all the people able men” (Ex. 18:21; cf. v. 25, “out of all Israel”). The equity of these requirements is evident: a people will be best ruled by their own men, who more than others will have a natural affection and interest in their peculiar good. Also evident is the inequity when strangers rule instead of kin. God counts it as a curse: “The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low” (Deut. 28:43; cf. v. 13; Isa. 1:7; Lam. 5:2).

[@cardboard8206]

Christian Nationalism is not about personal liberty, but Christ's supremacy. It does say that the greatest personal liberty *will result* from Christ's rule, but as a byproduct

[@noanapoleon474]

Continued Israel’s Civil Law by Michael Spangler 5. Segregation from foreigners. The legal contrast between Israelite and stranger is also evident in the strict laws that segregated Israel from the surrounding foreigners. God built the “middle wall of partition” between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14) to be high and strong. Though properly the dietary laws were ceremonial and religious, they had serious civil consequences: Jews could barely even eat with strangers, as much of their food was declared unclean (Lev. 11; cf. Neh. 13:3; Acts 10:14, 28). In specific as regards the Canaanites, they were not only to be avoided, but utterly destroyed (Deut. 20:17). God is very specific about the Canaanite nations in Deuteronomy 7:1-5: no covenant with them, no mercy unto them, no marriages with them (cf. Neh. 10:30); rather, destroy all of them, with all their altars, groves, and images. That Israel did not carefully obey these orders brought them much distress throughout their history (e.g. Josh. 9:18; cf. 23:12-13). 6. Hospitality to strangers. Apart from the Canaanites, this ethnic segregation was not so strict that no foreigners could ever be present in Israel. The stranger and sojourner was recognized and protected (Deut. 10:18-19), could be circumcised and keep the Passover (Ex. 12:48), and could live as a servant in an Israelite home (Lev. 25:45; Ex. 12:45). Scripture highly values hospitality to strangers (e.g. Job 31:32; Gen. 19:2; Matt. 25:35), as should we. However, none of the cited passages dissolve the distinction between native and alien, but rather assume and affirm it. True hospitality, whether in a home or in a nation, never requires the dissolution of the boundaries between one people and another. 7. Assimilation of foreigners. However, in nations today there is a way in which certain foreigners can become, not mere sojourners, but more organic members of the people, namely by assimilation or naturalization. Was this true in ancient Israel? It appears this could happen in least in some respect by marriage: through her first husband, then through Boaz, Ruth the Moabitess gained certain legal standing in Israel (Ruth 1:4, 16; 4:5, 10) and became an ancestor of King David (4:17). Perhaps it could also happen in other ways, though whether and how is not always clear: for example, was David’s mighty man Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. 23:39) a resident foreign soldier, or a naturalized Israelite? And either way, how was he granted an exception to the ban on Canaanites?In whatever way strangers may have been assimilated, it is clear that it was not without restrictions, even those that were racially specific: “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation…because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt” (Deut. 23:3-4). Compare verses 7-8, “Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast as stranger in his land. The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the LORD in their third generation.” It is not the place here to explain exactly what these laws meant and how they were applied: it is enough to underline that the Israelite nation had, by God’s design, race-realist immigration policies. 8. Intra-ethnic marriage. We mentioned Boaz and Ruth, who were not the only ethnically-mixed married couple in Scripture (cf. e.g. Moses and Zipporah, Ex. 2:16, 21, and Joseph and Asenath, Gen. 41:50). So there was some legal provision for the recognition of such marriages. However, this should be recognized with the following clarifications. First, not every example of the choices of Old Testament believers is approved merely because it is recorded in Scripture, nor is passive civil toleration itself a proof that all such marriages were strictly legal. Israel often enough ignored its righteous laws. Second, the examples of mixed marriages in Scripture may be “inter-ethnic,” but are not all “inter-racial” by our modern terms: Ruth’s ancestor Moab was the son of Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen. 19:37), and Zipporah’s father was a priest of Midian (Ex. 2:16, 21), Midian being a son of Abraham himself by Keturah (Gen. 25:2). It seems mostly likely that Moses’ “Ethiopian” (in Hebrew, “Cushite”) wife whom Miriam and Aaron complain about (Num. 12:1) is Zipporah herself, called a Cushite because “Cush” was sometimes used as name for the region in which the Midianites lived. Third, even noting all exceptions, the vast majority of marriages recorded in the Scripture take place within the narrow confines of one nation, or even one tribe (see e.g. Chron. 1-9). Fourth, certain foreign marriages were explicitly forbidden in the civil law (as with the Canaanites, Deut. 7:3), to the extent that some were legally annulled even after they were contracted (as in Ezra 10:2-3, 19), perhaps even after they were consummated (as appears from v. 44). Fifth, certain specific persons were explicitly forbidden from choosing foreign spouses. The high priest could only marry “a virgin of his own people” (Lev. 21:14; cf. Ezek. 44:22). It is reasonable to think Deuteronomy 17:15 imposed similar requirements upon the king by good and necessary consequence: contrast the disaster of Solomon’s foreign wives (1 Kings 11). Moreover, for the daughters of Zelophehad, the LORD’s command was, “Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry. So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe” (Num. 36:6-7). This last restriction is instructive, teaching that marriage, though a matter of personal choice, still is not thereby permitted to harm family, tribal, or national interests. Moreover, it appears that laws against miscegenation cannot be unrighteous in themselves, as the righteous God did institute them in these cases. We will discuss racially-mixed marriages again in the application article, but here we would highlight the zeal of Abraham in seeking a wife for his son from his kindred, though they lived far away (Gen. 24:3-4), Isaac’s imitation of the same (Gen. 28:1-2), and the joy of Laban in finding a potential son-in-law in Jacob, “Surely thou art my bone and my flesh” (Gen. 29:14). Compare Adam’s joy expressed in much the same way when he first saw Eve, after she was made from his own side (2:23). In light of all these things, if some would assert that race realism in general, or in specific a preference for intra-ethnic or intra-racial marriage, is unique to the Old Testament economy, and not at all a matter of universal, permanent, general equity, we would simply say here, the burden of proof for this assertion rests entirely on them.III. New Testament The New Testament of course does not, and cannot, overturn the moral teaching of the Old, nor need it be repeated to remain in force. “One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law” (Matt. 5:17-18). We add here only a few brief new considerations.1. Incarnation. Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, took on a true human nature, and in this nature, like all men, he had a race, nation, tribe, and family. Moreover, none of these was chosen arbitrarily, but with great purpose, that he would be “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3; 2 Sam. 7:12 with Ps. 110:1). Thus Matthew and Luke both feature genealogies of Christ. It will suffice to say here, those who use religion to dismiss race as irrelevant, cannot understand this matter well.

[@noanapoleon474]

Continued...2. Salvation. There was provision for salvation of all nations in the Old Testament (e.g. Ex. 12:48), but the international character of true religion was made more clear under the New (Matt. 28:19). However, nothing about salvation changes a man’s race, or its natural importance. Indeed, we have already seen that national distinctions will remain in heaven (Rev. 5:9; cf. 21:24), and thus it stands to reason they remain on earth, even in church. Noteworthy in this respect is the question of the salvation of the presently apostate Jews. Together with many Christians I look forward to a day when they will be engrafted back in their own olive tree (Rom. 11:23). Few confess, however, that this perspective assumes race realism. If the Jewish race is not real, it certainly cannot have promises made concerning it.3. Duty. A special love for kin and nation is a part of natural affection. No one needs Scripture to know he ought to have such love (cf. Eph. 5:29). However, Scripture does explicitly affirm it, by the fifth commandment, “Honour thy father and thy mother” (Ex. 20:12), by Paul’s example of compassion for his unbelieving “kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3), and by sharply rebuking those who are so degenerate as to be “without natural affection” (Rom. 1:31; 2 Tim. 3:3), especially within the church: “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8). A few moments of thought on what this means in our day, when the majority of professed Christians utterly despise race realism, should make the godly weep with Jeremiah (Jer. 9:1-3).4. Silence. Finally, the New Testament says nothing to reverse the race realism evident in the Old Testament. The Bible simply is not “anti-racist.” This negative could be disproven by one counter-example; however, having explored the Scriptures, we have not found a single one. This is perhaps the strongest argument of all. If Scripture defines sin as transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), and no law can be produced which race realism is proven to transgress, then it is simply not a sin, and every moral objection to it falls down of its own accord.We could address further objections here, but it seemed better to wait for the fifth article. To summarize what we have said, the Bible teaches that race is real. Yes, race is a natural reality, and Scripture a supernatural book. However, this should be no barrier to hearing what it says on race. Indeed, as the Holy Scriptures are given to make men wise unto salvation (2 Tim. 3:15-17), we ought to receive their teaching with all the more reverence and urgency, even when they tell us earthly things (cf. John 3:12).

[@lewislibre]

49:05 “courage is turning the other cheek” Is one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard come out of someone’s mouth.

[@AboundingGraceRadio]

Coming from that courageous person who is now directly criticizing the words that came out of Christ’s mouth himself 😮 Matt. 5:38 ff

[@nathanweissel9563]

How does CN make you feel? 😂

[@nathanjames7030]

Which right action does the world not owe as a duty to Jesus Christ, the supreme authority?

[@coreymckeon1867]

A lot of un-charity here

[@jaygee553]

Christian Nationalism? What's wrong with the Establishment Principle????

[@johanoncalvin87]

Weak and underwhelming... Just came across as two disconnected esoteric nerds... The troops are really going to be marshaled with this one.

[@howwerwoss256]

“You’re a nerd.” Great argument bro😂

[@loganross1861]

Seriously

[@jahnvantuttlesma8215]

@@howwerwoss256 It's not like nerds know a thing or two about academic subjects...lol

[@jtlearn1]

Is that the Moscow mood response?

[@HM-vj5ll]

😢your so tough.

[@mobilelazllc9098]

Jesus said that we should "go and disciple all nations". Psalms says "blessed are the nations whose God is the Lord". Sounds like Jesus wants the nations to become Christian to me.

[@thepeteawakens8145]

Great economic prosperity? On what planet?

[@thekirkwoodcenter]

There are, and have been, better and worse non-christian societies and cultures. What the Church needs to be involved in is not Christianizing the state, but assuring that the State is the best possible kind of non-Christian state. That is done by reinforcing the Natural Law, which is the moral law under which all human beings can live and thrive together. Unfortunately, the way things are going in America, there is not only an explicit rejection of Christianity, but a general attitude of rebellion even against the universal Natural Law. There is a new religion filling the empty ideological space of secularism, and that religion, as T.S. Eliot pointed out in 1939, is paganism. But this is no logos-centered Greek philosophical paganism: this is a much more primitive, sensate, and man-oriented form of paganism, one that embraces the divine, but explicitly rejects the transcendent; one that embraces numinous power, but rejects moral law. This is what the Wilsons, Wolfe's et al., rightly or wrongly, are reacting to.

[@AboundingGraceRadio]

Amen, at the seventh trumpet that shall happen.

[@spartakos3178]

@thekirkwoodcenter How about just exercising some Church discipline? Imagine if the Pope actually had the testicular fortitude to chastise or excommunicate allegedly 'Catholic' Democrats who are pro baby killing? You should NOT be able to be a abortionist politician and be a member of any Christian church in America or the world for that matter.

[@tseongjay7574]

Well said brother. It's called humanism. It's not only the US of A problem but of most supposedly Christian nations.

[@jaholland42]

Oliver Cromwell has "Christ not Man is King" we have had prince's but they have no succession. You both speak in a view that seems informed, but like the Reformation; it deals in part, not whole. How can you say these things when you had the man that inspired them, on your show? Strive for excellence boys. Fight on. Gain ground. Keep going. Chant the psalms. Show your children how close we are to our BROTHER. We do not fight for a job on this earth but the next.

[@thepeteawakens8145]

If God's purpose for civil government is to promote peace between the most people possible, so would this mean that the American nation should have allowed secession from the Union by the Confederacy in order to avoid conflict?

[@erc9468]

It means that civil government certainly failed in avoiding conflict in that case, and in many other cases. If intra-national war breaks out, then that's a failure. Not sure how that is a commentary on the stated purpose tho. You could say that God's purpose for family government is to raise God-fearing, righteous children. But that doesn't always happen.