We’re All Christian Nationalists Now | Reformation and Revival

Рет қаралды 10,314

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 206

@Dalekzilla 10 ай бұрын

The issue of "christian" nationalism always comes back to the same thing: In four Gospels, Christ never even remotely suggests that His disciples should have dominion over others, or that non-believers should be coerced into living according to "biblical" standards. What He DOES say is "My Kingdom is NOT of this world". And of course He tells us that the Greatest Commandment is not only to love God with all one's heart and soul, but also to love your neighbor as yourself (and said on those two mandates hung ALL the law and the prophets too). You cannot simultaneously love your neighbor and force them to live according to your personal interpretation of scripture at the same time. As for what the Founding Fathers intended, I recommend checking out the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, and also considering that at least several of the Founding Fathers were not, in fact, Christians, but were Deists, and ALL of them clearly believed in a complete separation of Church and State.

@lydialutz 9 ай бұрын

Thank you so much for saying this.

@Dalekzilla 9 ай бұрын

@@lydialutz You are most welcome. God bless.

@gluckmac 9 ай бұрын

Very good comment

@wordwarrior1974 9 ай бұрын

I wrote my own comment, but this echoes my sentiments very well. All of a sudden I'm hearing a lot about Christian nationalism. It is completely against the Biblical message. Pastor John MacArthur commented on this recently.

@rollinghillsslo 9 ай бұрын

These are well-meaning, sincere but misguided Christians. If only they understand Rev XII. They are about to coerce false law. In the eyes of God, this is called lawlessness.

@alph8654 9 ай бұрын

When combining Civil and Religious powers ALWAYS brings force. Also both Sunday as the Sabbath and the Triune God you talk about come from the great apostate Roman Catholic Church, the beast power of Revelation.

@davidmoorman7062 9 ай бұрын

Revelation 13:11-18 kinda stuff right there! But it's true. These people, unbeknownst to themselves, are building an image of the Papacy and by extension, Satan himself. I can hear Jesus already, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

@merg-vh5sx 9 ай бұрын

@@manager0175The RCC is the extension of the Roman Empire. The institution itself is a corrupt evil mess, it's all about power, politics, and banking. They don't care how many they harm along the way.

@ryankielas5359 2 ай бұрын

Cringe take, my man. Justin Martyr wrote to the Roman emperor long before Constantine, explaining that Christians celebrate their rites on the “Day we call the Day of the Sun”, which is Latin for Sunday. Before any reformation, before any revival, or imagined revelation appended to the New Testament.

@solascriptura6429 10 ай бұрын

Amen! Everyone all together now pray for revival 🙏 from 🇨🇦

@PastorHan1776 10 ай бұрын

This is my prayer as well and from CA also. Vice just did hit piece on my church calling us Christian nationalists.

@adriangeh6414 10 ай бұрын

Hallelujah! God is reading all these youtube comments in heaven!

@richh9450 9 ай бұрын

Well this seems pretty off the rails. The Constitution clearly states things about religion.Who the hell do you think you are?

@hansweichselbaum2534 9 ай бұрын

I landed on this channel by accident. Really scary stuff!

@richh9450 9 ай бұрын

@@hansweichselbaum2534 I know. These people are nutsy Nazis.

@NJHProductions512 10 ай бұрын

Many are oblivious to the last verse of the Star Spangled Banner, which says, "O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation! Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land Praise the power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto - "In God is our trust," And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. " I was literally in tears of pure patriotism upon hearing this for the first time

@1Whipperin 10 ай бұрын

In what God is our trust? Liberty according to the Preamble to the Constitution. The Lord Jesus Christ is not the God of this warrior nation.

@MetroplexAerials 10 ай бұрын

@@1Whipperinif you know ANYtHING about Francis Scott Key, you would know he was speaking of the True God - look up his other hymn - “Lord with Glowing Heard I’d Praise Thee”

@1Whipperin 10 ай бұрын

@@MetroplexAerials So you believe this nation trusts in God, Jesus Christ?

@MetroplexAerials 10 ай бұрын

@@1Whipperin it is a different question to ask if it currently believes in Him. I believe when the words were written, they did indeed and we should repent and return to that belief.

@1Whipperin 10 ай бұрын

@MetroplexAerials What makes you believe this was a Christian nation at that time?

@jackuber7358 8 ай бұрын

... and only the truly lost or blind or both cannot or choose not to see that we are most certainly living under Moloch Nationalism as so very clearly demonstrated by the citizens of the fallen state of Ohio as well as nearly every legislative, executive, or judicial action of the federal government.

@jmrdrgz 8 ай бұрын

Didn't Thomas Jefferson advocate for separation of Church and State?

@wishuhadmyname 8 ай бұрын

Yes, a very Biblical concept. What neither Jefferson nor Scripture support a separation between God and the state, which is His servant afterall (Romans 13:4)

@ryankielas5359 2 ай бұрын

Cringe take, my man. Jefferson isn’t any sort of an authority. I’ll take 1500 years of Christendom. Any idea that’s new enough to have been “discovered” in America isn’t old enough to be a Christian principle. Best example: the Rapture.

@nashsi 9 ай бұрын

Jared Longshore sounds to me like the "image of the beast" of Revelation 13.

@StoryscapeDesign 10 ай бұрын

In a nutshell, the goal of those who accept the term Christian Nationalist, in addition to redeeming souls through Christ alone, is simply advocating for Christian Leaders in each sphere of society who obey the principles of God's Word to define the basic rules for their sphere, while respecting proper sphere boundaries: Family, Church, and Civil Law & Order... Thus, the institution of the church is not to legislate, but to serve as "the conscience of the state" as Bonhoeffer put it, and a Civil Servant ought to set rules that do not conflict with the ethical principles of God's Word... The American Founding was, in fact, a Christian Nation in this regard, and can be again, but only if the church begins to raise up Christians who can lead our local, state, and nation with Biblical Ethics as their highest standard.

@ShiniGuraiJoker 10 ай бұрын

Would you see same-gendered preferences be outlawed and possibly a jailable offense based on the chrisitan god? Do you think adultery should be jailable as well? How do you think god's law should be legislated without infringing on the rights on non-Christians?

@oracleoftroy 10 ай бұрын

@@ShiniGuraiJoker I don't see imprisonment as a punishment prescribed in scripture. I don't think any country thinks people have the right to break the law, and ignorance of the law isn't an excuse in any country, so I'm not sure what you are trying to claim.

@ShiniGuraiJoker 10 ай бұрын

@oracleoftroy the bible calls it a sin. Sin is a crime against god. You have Christians who will advocate for this. Their constant rethoric of calling the pride community child predators. The question becomes, if you get your Christian state, where do you draw the line of sins becoming punishable offenses? Many percieve that Christ called the end to capital punishment for specific crimes and use the story of the woman being stoned as an example. Yet many of the prophets and god himself out to death countless for their alleged sins. People like the crazy Creatiomist museum have spoken on this countless times with their Amswers in Gensis podcast.

@oracleoftroy 10 ай бұрын

@@ShiniGuraiJoker _"the bible calls it a sin. Sin is a crime against god."_ _"The question becomes, if you get your Christian state, where do you draw the line of sins becoming punishable offenses?"_ The Bible makes distinctions between sin and civil crimes. Murder for example is a sin _and_ a crime in scripture. Jesus teaches that hatred of another is murder, but you never see it punished with civil authority. The civil law is written as case law and so works much the way English common law works, you examine the facts of the case before the court, compare it to prior cases (like those found in scripture) and use that to show what appropriate remedy ought to be taken, if any. _"You have Christians who will advocate for this."_ For prisons? True, but they aren't getting it from scripture. _"Their constant rethoric of calling the pride community child predators."_ A disproportionate amount of them are. But we ought to try their degeneracy separately from any cases of child harm they are committing. _"Many percieve that Christ called the end to capital punishment for specific crimes and use the story of the woman being stoned as an example."_ They do, but it is a bad example. One, there is some question as to whether the passage is original or a later insertion. Two, the issue mostly seems procedural. In Biblical law, she is supposed to be stoned with her partner. Where is he? He isn't there. The moment the people cast the first stone, they would be guilty of sin for not properly following justice procedures. Then once everyone has left, Jesus could not condemn her civilly either, as Biblical law requires multiple witnesses to condemn and execute a person. Many "Christians" seem to hold the exact same opinion of scripture as the world and don't read it. Jesus never once condemns the death penalty in the passage.

@ShiniGuraiJoker 10 ай бұрын

@@oracleoftroy That is the problem. The people they vote for express these messages and hope for the promise of said message. Christianity should not be the law of the land as anyone ideology should be. Especially when it is so fractured that it will most certainly do more harm than good.

@wordwarrior1974 9 ай бұрын

Sir, you are gravely mistaken. Jesus Christ said his kingdom is not of this world. Christians should not expect to wield the powers of the state in this fallen world. When the Jews commanded Peter and the disciples not to preach the gospel, Peter's response was, "We must obey God rather than men," and he went on preaching. What he did not do was lobby to be appointed to the Sanhedrin, or try to get elected to the Roman senate. It is quite telling that you would quote Thomas Aquinas. The Roman Catholic church-state system ruled Europe for a thousand years, and the blood of many saints was spilled as a result. What you are advocating is anti-Biblical, and if you and your fellow "Christian nationalists" succeed, you will be working for the Antichrist, not God.

@merg-vh5sx 9 ай бұрын

Well said!

@ryankielas5359 2 ай бұрын

Cringe take, my man. Aquinas argues by “steel-manning” opposing arguments. Disagreeing with his arguments simply because he made them, means you’re anti-logic, and are a cafeteria Christian, picking and choosing your favorite scriptures.

@nonameguy4441 10 ай бұрын

Thank you, Pastor. As we say in my part of Florida, keep diggin’ the harvest will come to ya”

@COMALiteJ 9 ай бұрын

What Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence is, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men [Natural Persons] are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with -inherent and- _certain_ unalienable Rights, and that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” (I -struckthrough- “inherent and” and _italicized_ “certain” because his initial draft had the former but not the latter, and he was persuaded, sadly, to weaken that language for the final version [that a professional scribe did the actual handwriting of]. As you can see, “… endowed by their Creator with *inherent and* unalienable Rights…” is much stronger wording about the nature of Rights than the wimpified “… endowed by their Creator with *certain* unalienable Rights…”) Notice that he didn’t specify the nature of this “Creator.” If he’d intended it to be the Biblical God of Abraham, he would’ve used the formal language suitable for that: “endowed by their Creator, the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” or “… the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Israel,” or, for a more militaristic connotation (and the Declaration was kind of militaristic since they were declaring the colonies independent of British Crown rule), “… the Lᴏʀᴅ Sabaoth of Hosts.” Of course, any of those would’ve included Jews and Muslims (Mussulmen or Mahometans as they were called back then), so if he’d wanted to establish the USA as a _Christian_ nation and shut out the Jews and Musssulmen/Mahometans from having a role in its governance, he would’ve written, “… our Lord and Saviour¹ Jesus Christ.” (¹ Yes, with a “u,” because Noah Webster was still decades away from inventing “U.S. English” spellings.) No, what Jefferson meant by that (especially as made clear in his initial draft) is that our Rights are _inherent in us,_ in all Natural Persons, _just because_ we’re Natural Persons, and in fact, legally speaking, Rights are what _define_ Personhood. A Person is an entity with Rights, period. Because the Rights are inherent, they aren’t granted nor bestowed by any human agency, and that makes them _unalienable,_ meaning cannot be revoked nor rescinded by any human agency since they weren’t granted nor bestowed by any human agency. “Endowed by their Creator” is just a fancy way of saying that the Rights are in all Natural Persons because of the nature of Natural Personhood, endowed to them by Whoever _or whatever_ caused Natural Persons to exist. Their Creator, whether that’s the Biblical God, some other god worshiped by some other nation of humans, some god that nobody ever heard of nor worshiped, or even some completely natural scientific process such as Darwinian evolution (of course Jefferson never heard of that because it was after his time, but the concept would’ve applied even with _that_ as “their Creator”). Actually, Jefferson gave himself _four chances_ to bring the Biblical God into the Declaration. _Four times_ he referenced functions of deity, and _all four times_ he used _generic_ Deistic euphemisms for deities *in general,* _not_ specific to any particular religion: • “… the Laws of nature and nature’s God…” - any nature deity, such as Gaia. That “God” has a capital “G” does _not_ mean that that’s referring to the _Biblical_ God, it’s just that _most_ nouns were capitalized, even if not a proper noun, in formal documents back then (such as, “… with certain unalienable Rights, and that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” - _none_ of those capitalized nouns are _proper_ nouns referring to a _named_ entity). • “… endowed by their Creator with …” - any creator deity, or Whoever _or whatever_ caused humans (and any other Natural Persons) to exist. • “… supreme Judge…” - any deity who has the power and responsibility of judgment, usually after death. Anubis, for example, would qualify. • “… divine Providence…” - any deity that can be invoked to intercede by means of prayer or ritual or rite of any kind, or that on its own initiative provides “providence” to some endeavor. _None_ of those are references to the Biblical God, and those are the _only_ references to deistic functions in the Declaration.

@adivorceddaddiary 9 ай бұрын

Good work bro

@eugeniemartin6630 10 ай бұрын

You have given wonderful clarity to the issue! Thank you!❤

@danelmendorf5765 10 ай бұрын

Good for you, Jared. Great posting.

@NJHProductions512 10 ай бұрын

There is much work to be done in restoring that blessed 1894 ruling. Let's getr dun

@1Whipperin 10 ай бұрын

The assertion that the United States is a Christian nation, often referenced in the 1894 Supreme Court case "Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States," has been subject to criticism and scrutiny due to several errors in its interpretation and application. While the ruling itself upheld the idea that the United States is a Christian nation, critics argue that this conclusion was reached through flawed reasoning and misinterpretation of historical and constitutional principles. Here are some of the errors identified in the 1894 Court ruling: Historical Inaccuracy: One of the primary errors in the Court's ruling is its reliance on a selective and narrow interpretation of historical evidence. While the Court cited various historical sources to support its assertion that the United States is a Christian nation, critics argue that this interpretation overlooks the pluralistic and secular foundations upon which the nation was founded. The Founding Fathers deliberately established a secular government with a separation of church and state, as articulated in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Misinterpretation of Intent: The Court's ruling in "Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States" misrepresented the intent of the Founding Fathers regarding the relationship between religion and government. While many of the Founding Fathers were indeed Christians and acknowledged the influence of Judeo-Christian values in shaping American society, they also recognized the importance of religious freedom and tolerance for individuals of all faiths, as evidenced by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Violation of Separation of Church and State: Critics argue that the assertion of the United States as a Christian nation in the Court's ruling undermines the principle of separation of church and state, which is enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. By endorsing a specific religious identity for the nation, the ruling potentially marginalizes religious minorities and violates the rights of individuals to practice their faith freely without government interference. Disregard for Pluralism: The Court's ruling fails to acknowledge the religious diversity and pluralism that characterize American society. While Christianity may have been influential in shaping the cultural and moral values of the nation, the United States is home to individuals of various religious beliefs and non-believers. By privileging Christianity in its ruling, the Court overlooks the contributions and rights of religious minorities, thereby undermining the principle of religious freedom upon which the nation was founded. Failure to Recognize Secular Foundations: Finally, critics argue that the Court's ruling neglects the secular foundations of American government and law. The Constitution establishes a secular framework for governance, with no religious test for public office and explicit protections for religious freedom. By asserting the United States as a Christian nation, the Court overlooks the secular principles that underpin the nation's legal and political system. In conclusion, while the 1894 Court ruling in "Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States" asserted the United States as a Christian nation, critics argue that this conclusion was reached through flawed reasoning and misinterpretation of historical and constitutional principles. The ruling overlooks the secular foundations of American government, violates the principle of separation of church and state, and disregards the religious diversity and pluralism that characterize American society.

@coffeeandrage686 10 ай бұрын

Oh gosh, copypasta is copypasta.... This absolutely reads like a news article from some cringe online article. Considering you "typed up" all this in a few minutes after another comment on someone else's comment above, this is not an original thought... "In conclusion..." Lol. Definitely term paper-ish.

@MeanBeanComedy 10 ай бұрын

@@1WhipperinStop posting Reddit copypastas.

@manager0175 10 ай бұрын

@@1Whipperin What about the 1st amendment? Where in the Bible is freedom of religion and freedom of speech? In fact, the first Amendment is a violation of the first 4 of the 10 commandments. So much for "Christian Nationalism". The fact is, our laws and Constitution are based upon Locke's political philosophy. We left "Christian Nationalism" behind with the words "We The People" rather than "As God has ordained" or "As God has ordered". Our governmental powers are clearly stated in the Constitution as a derived from "consent of the governed" not from any divine power (Christian or otherwise). That is aside from the fact that "All men are created equal" certainly did not include black men, nor women. Try again, bruh. I have plenty of quotes from the founding fathers that further established that were never a Christian Nation.

@andrewbrowne5557 10 ай бұрын

@@1Whipperinwhat kind of whine goes with that copypasta?

@okellojeremy2700 9 ай бұрын

“Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” In these words Christ has established a clear distinction between Cæsar and God,-between that which is Cæsar’s and that which is God’s; that is, between the civil and the religious power, and between what we owe to the civil power and what we owe to the religious power. That which is Cæsar’s is to be rendered to Cæsar; that which is God’s is to be rendered to God alone. With that which is God’s, Cæsar can have nothing to do. To say that we are to render to Cæsar that which is God’s, or that we are to render to God, by Cæsar, that which is God’s, is to pervert the words of Christ, and make them meaningless. Such an interpretation would be but to entangle him in his talk,-the very thing that the Pharisees sought to do. As the word “Cæsar” refers to civil government, it is apparent at once that the duties which we owe to Cæsar are civil duties, while the duties which we owe to God are wholly moral or religious duties. And Again, From Thomas Jefferson in The Revised Code Of Virginia, "An Act For Establishing Religious Freedom": “Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that ALL ATTEMPTS to influence it by TEMPORAL punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy Author of our religion, who, being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow-citizens, he has a naturalright; that it tends to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it; that, though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because, he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with, or differ from, his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt actions against peace and good order; and, finally, that truth is great, and will prevail if to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. “Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. “And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable, would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”

@BattleGn0me 10 ай бұрын

Does she believe in Human Rights? If so, what would she do if a judge or governor were to move to deny somebody their human rights? If they don't have the authority do deny those human rights, are those rights not then immutable? If so, by whom are these human rights granted?

@TheInfokey 9 ай бұрын

So who gets to run the show the Lutherans , the Protestants, the Methodists, the Baptists …… maybe the 87 year old Pope?

@ryankielas5359 2 ай бұрын

All of those are Protestants tho. Except the 87 year old pope, I mean. I’d settle for a Christian government that bans blasphemy and public expressions of paganism, which includes all non-Christian superstitions and folk-beliefs.

@sawyeranderson1394 10 ай бұрын

Christ or chaos!

@Pacdoc-Oz 10 ай бұрын

Each Christian has a spiritual interest in everything; power, sex, money, commerce, nature and everything else of importance in human living, thriving and interacting.

@t81629 9 ай бұрын

Of what spirit are you of?

@alph8654 9 ай бұрын

He is of a satanic spirit and knows it not.

@michaellautermilch9185 10 ай бұрын

That video cover is amazing

@KelvinFalconer 9 ай бұрын

Christian Fascism is more like it !

@RobertSmith-gx3mi 10 ай бұрын

As far as following any biblical law goes you can just consider me a sovereign citizen who does not recognize those type of laws.

@wgterry73ify 10 ай бұрын

There is no such thing as a Christian nationalist. My king's kingdom is not of this world.

@StoryscapeDesign 10 ай бұрын

@wgterry73ify 10 ай бұрын

@@StoryscapeDesign I'm almost positive that you understand history.... With that obvious statement out of the way I propose a question ❓❓was God sovereign over Nero? Did God put him in authority? Did the church tell Nero that he needs to respect Christian values? No, they were about the gospel even unto death. We Americans have become spoiled by our "freedom" (infringed as it is) , this to shall pass away. That's a very short answer and it is a very complex issue that goes way beyond,but that's the essence of it.

@oracleoftroy 10 ай бұрын

@@wgterry73ify _"Did the church tell Nero that he needs to respect Christian values? No, they were about the gospel even unto death."_ Isn't part of the problem that you seem to think these are two separate things? Look at Romans 13. Paul tells us to "do good". But what standard does Paul offer people living in a pagan Roman world to do good by? Roman law? No, he points to scripture: "Be indebted to no one, except to one another in love. For he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and any other commandments, are summed up in this one decree: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." _"My king's kingdom is not of this world."_ If your king isn't the same one who said he has been given all authority in heaven _and on earth,_ I'm not sure you are speaking of Christianity. Christ doesn't tell us that his kingdom is not of the earth as if to justify doing whatever seems right in our own eyes.

@markkozlowski3674 10 ай бұрын

@@StoryscapeDesign In a nutshell, those who accept the term Christian Nationalist are possessed of a lust for earthly power.

@matt3024 9 ай бұрын

Then somebody needs to tell these clowns.

@ideologicalfather9650 10 ай бұрын

This clip will be studied hundreds of years from now as a watershed moment in western civilization. I wonder how the G3 people will respond to this....

@scottyyoch3537 10 ай бұрын

Could have made that last part even stronger God commands the King write his own copy of the law and read it in either Exodus of Deutoronomy Why root an argument in man's words when that of God does even better?

@Lysimachus78 9 ай бұрын

It all depends on how Christian Nationalism is exercised. If Christian Nationalism to you means, you impose religious laws that go against people's conscience, then no, this is not true Christian Nationalism. True Christian Nationalism means it is a nation founded on Godly principles, and a nation founded under God that OFFERS religious freedom. But does not IMPOSE religion. If it imposes religion, it is exercising the law of state, for which while the state must cooperate with religion and offer them their religious freedom, it is not to impose religion. A true Christian nation, offers a platform for religious liberty and to worship God and believe the doctrines they are convicted about. The danger posed is how Christian Nationalism will end up going in a direction to impose laws that cause people to violate their conscience. Such as, imposing going to church on Sundays, all the while violating the consciences of seventh-day Sabbath keeping Christians. So make sure you don't ever cross that line, or there will be more trouble than you ever imagined.

@matt3024 9 ай бұрын

Christian nationalism also supports oppression in numerous categories Including education civil rights, women's rights... I don't know where you get this "true Christian nationalism" stuff since it's based on no more than ignorant opinions and there seem to be so many different ones but the one thing they all have in common is hate and intolerance!

@troyanderson1650 10 ай бұрын

Thank you my brother for your clarity in sharing truth.

@davidmoorman7062 9 ай бұрын

Triune God? Is that even remotely Biblical? Of course it isn't. And just as asssuredly it isn't, your one day in seven worship God on the "first day" (Sunday) isnt either. You want total power to enforce your completely unbiblical doctrines that you mirror that of Rome. Our Heavenly Father won't stand in your way and neither will Satan of who you construct that image to the beast. The Papacy.

@JesseStevenPollom 10 ай бұрын

Very helpful Pastor!

@notsure2105 10 ай бұрын

Covid showed where ALL our leaders even pastors believe our rights come from.

@nonaccount4684 10 ай бұрын

Excellent

@MeanBeanComedy 10 ай бұрын

I love that Christian Nationalism is growing and becoming mainstream.

@markkozlowski3674 10 ай бұрын

Read Galatians 3:27-28 and repent of this sinful love.

@mchonkler7225 10 ай бұрын

@@markkozlowski3674 Oh look, a subversive.

@markkozlowski3674 10 ай бұрын

@@mchonkler7225 Your post does not express a coherent thought. It therefore wastes my time and yours.

@gluckmac 9 ай бұрын

Christian Nationalism will become another authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorship. Plus they will take God’s name in vain to justify their sins and crimes.

@fishhy9720 9 ай бұрын

So what rights did God give us? Do I ask an Evangelical pastor? Maybe the Catholic archbishop? There are so many denominations, each with a different interpretation of the Bible and our 'rights'. The only time I'll agree with you is if Jesus personally comes down and rules. In the meantime, all our rights come from men.

@adivorceddaddiary 9 ай бұрын

You have missed the point. It is incumbent upon anyone who asserts an impersonal, material, naturalistic universe in which man is autonomous from God in his reasoning, to first explain WHAT A RIGHT COULD EVEN BE in that (imaginary) world. Such a thing is incoherent. "Rights", dependent as they are on an 'intent', and thus a 'personality' (i.e. will) behind the world, only make sense in the Christian universe. MSNBC has no 'right' to talk of rights. Period. You're welcome.

@jermoosekek1101 3 ай бұрын

Even in the Protestant, Catholic theological debates, it’s hardly about the interpretation of natural law, or Church and State relations. Even the differences would let Kuyperians and Integralists work together. This lacks knowledge about the disagreements of denominations.

@fcrum 10 ай бұрын

Amen!

@jmrdrgz 8 ай бұрын

Revelation 13: 11 And I beheld *another beast coming up out of the earth;* and he had two horns like a lamb, and *he spake as a dragon.* 12 And he *exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,* and *causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast,* whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And *deceiveth them that dwell on the earth* by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that *they should make an image to the beast,* which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And *he had power to give life unto the image of the beast,* that the image of the beast should both speak, *and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16 And *he causeth all,* both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, *to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:* 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had *the mark, or the name of the beast,* or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. Here, my friends, is the fulfillment of this prophecy starting to be fulfilled in this presentation of how the image of the beast is to be formed.

@pyckiparen 10 ай бұрын

Best one yet!

@Richard-es6nb 10 ай бұрын

👊🏼🔥🙏🏼

@pmcclaren1 10 ай бұрын

Such a cute post this is, my, my. I also suggest a title: "(How to put) god IN A BOX"----- I will ask you a question: 'John's baptism, was it from heaven or from men? (Oh, yes, newsflash! JESUS is Not a nation! This is purely blasphemous!!---- (JOSHUA 5.13-15)--(read Immediately)(paraphrase-'are you for us or our enemies?' 'No, I come as captain of the host of the LORD.')--

@modifiedmod9123 10 ай бұрын

Hallelujah! No King But Jesus!

@chrisclark7170 10 ай бұрын

US has no need for a king, especially a fictional one like Jesus.

@MeanBeanComedy 10 ай бұрын

No, we also need a King. We can call Jesus something like "The King of Kings."

@Drew15000 9 ай бұрын

Shut up and render unto ceasar

@robertwheeler1158 10 ай бұрын

The main problem with the argument here is that Romans 13 was written in the context of the pagan Roman Empire. The emperor Nero was being described as a minister of God.

@Postmillhighlights 10 ай бұрын

No sir. Nero is described as a beast. Civil government as an institution is described as a minister (diakonos). Whether it is obedient in that charge or not is another matter - but that is it’s role.

@oracleoftroy 10 ай бұрын

How is that a problem? Doesn't it all the more highlight Paul's point when he doesn't cite Roman law, but biblical law when he lays out the good the pagan Romans were to uphold in the very same passage?

@robertwheeler1158 10 ай бұрын

@@Postmillhighlights I would basically agree.

@robertwheeler1158 10 ай бұрын

@@oracleoftroy The problem is that you can't use Romans 13 as a proof text for a theocratic government. Yes, as human beings, we are all obligated to obey God's moral law; and ideally that will be reflected in the civil laws of any political entity. But that is not the point being made in that particular passage.

@oracleoftroy 10 ай бұрын

@@robertwheeler1158 _"The problem is that you can't use Romans 13 as a proof text for a theocratic government."_ Why not? Paul directly appeals to God's law, not Roman law, in that chapter. _"Yes, as human beings, we are all obligated to obey God's moral law; and ideally that will be reflected in the civil laws of any political entity. But that is not the point being made in that particular passage."_ And the point is what then? Obey Roman law? But God's law, not Roman law, is what is cited as good. 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. Again I ask, where does this come from? Is this Roman law? One would think if your premise is true, Paul wouldn't be citing God's law, but Roman law. Yet this is straight OT. It really clarifies what it means when Paul says "For there is no authority *except from God,* and those that exist have been *instituted by God.* " Why look to what is instituted by Rome? Paul doesn't.

@hansweichselbaum2534 9 ай бұрын

Scary stuff!!

@johnsatterlee763 10 ай бұрын

Any person who is a true Christian would prefer to go up in the Rapture than to stay in this world which is broken and falling apart.

@jaihummel5057 10 ай бұрын

If only the rapture was biblical...

@Postmillhighlights 10 ай бұрын

Some Christians understand that we may go through periods of great unrest and rebellion as we progress towards a world where: “For the earth will be filled With the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, As the waters cover the sea.

@Pacdoc-Oz 10 ай бұрын

the same world the precious son of Almighty God consented to enter into and suffer the consequences. Christians are servants and intrinsically counter-cultural.

@davidmoorman7062 9 ай бұрын

What rapture?

@alph8654 9 ай бұрын

There is no rapture.

@Darcyholte 10 ай бұрын

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

@jmrdrgz 8 ай бұрын

You forgot team D Civil laws can come from God and enforced by mankind, but religious laws are not given to be forced upon man by other man. Both Christian and Baal nationalism is from Satan. Don't stop in Revelation 13, but continue on and read Revelation 14 which clearly states a separation of Church and State.

@price724 9 ай бұрын

Wacky

@robinpage2730 10 ай бұрын

Are you willing to submit to a religious government based on a religion you don't believe in, like Islam? No? If you're not willing to submit to a religious government of a religion you don't believe in, you have NO RIGHT to demand that the rest of us do so.

@robinpage2730 10 ай бұрын

@Reformed1646 you are a perfect example of everything wrong with Christian Nationalism

@jaihummel5057 10 ай бұрын

False equivalence. There is one true God on one hand and then falsehood on the other.

@Postmillhighlights 10 ай бұрын

Are you suggesting there can be a government that has no god at the center? Surely you see that’s an impossibility. For your sake - you should also hope for a nation submitted to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

@ShiniGuraiJoker 10 ай бұрын

@Reformed1646 So, non-believers don't have to convert, but would you outlaw same-genered practices to see the jailable? Would adulterors be forced judicial appeasement? How does a christian nation NOT infringe on non-belierv rights?

@Postmillhighlights 10 ай бұрын

@@ShiniGuraiJoker what rights specifically? The right to murder the unborn? Yep. It will infringe on that the same way current laws infringe on one’s ‘right’ to murder their neighbor.

@christinesmith1499 10 ай бұрын

You cannot force God, it is not the way

@jermoosekek1101 3 ай бұрын

No we can’t force God, what does that even mean. But we can impose Gods morality on others, that is biblical and moral.

@edmcinnis4715 9 ай бұрын

HMMMM...are you trying to go...or...be.... a mini-Wilson...sounds like it

@danelmendorf5765 9 ай бұрын

Amen

@williamcabell142 10 ай бұрын

Yeah! I love God, and my country! When did that become a bad thing? 🤷🏻‍♂️🙏✝️❤️

@matt3024 9 ай бұрын

When you try to associate and interweave one with the other.

@TerryMcKennaFineArt 9 ай бұрын

Sorry but our rights are established under human law. God if he has done anything at all - he has fucked up re rigths. Rights emerged as humans abandoned talk of God.

@shawngillogly6873 10 ай бұрын

I agree with the sentiment. But both parties are serving up Presidential candidates who mock God's laws. So...start local, my friends. Take over the party apparatus so that candidates like this are rejected from the first. Otherwise, we get the government we deserve. And both parties are serving us judgment.

@Whomsoeverbelieveth 10 ай бұрын

Hi, can you give an example like Biden mocks God's law etc. And Trump mocks God's law etc. This would give clarity.👍

@everettlunday8855 10 ай бұрын

Unbaptized men. Read uncircumcised Philistines.😅

@mikepublic111 10 ай бұрын

I don't care what god you believe in. Just keep your religion out of the politics of my nation. How would you like it if Hindu gods were the ones that controlled our politics?

@person6768 10 ай бұрын

All policies come from morality. In saying this your forcing your views on Christians. I'm not ok with you doing it or the pagan Hindus. Edit: Furthermore what God you believe in or not affects what you believe. Everyone has presuppositions and we aren't forced to accept yours especially in a country that was built on ours and is now falling apart for moving away from ours. So no I don't accept your dictatorship.

@CyberChud2077 10 ай бұрын

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I think you mean something like, "please remove the religion that is already very clearly there since the founding, and before, when the very first people stepped off the Mayflower."

@MeanBeanComedy 10 ай бұрын

They do control the politics in India. If you want to be free from Christianity, move to a Secular nation. They tend to not last long and devolve into mass violence from the state, but...gotta break some eggs!

@Burntwaffle9699 10 ай бұрын

@@CyberChud2077 most of the founding fathers were deists at best, believed it spinozas god. They were by no means Christian. They set up a capitalist free market society which is antithetical to the Bible. You can’t have a capitalist economy if you follow the 10 commandments. You people in the comments are soo uneducated that you don’t know what you are asking for when y’all say that you want a Christian nationalist society. 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

@rolysantos 10 ай бұрын

mike, it's sad that people like you do not remember, or perhaps never knew, that the very foundation of our nation was not only founded upon the belief that God established our nation, but since many of our founders were Christians, the principles we are founded upon are from the bible. -George Washington acknowledged the providence of God in his inaugural address and he said receiving blessings from heaven goes hand in hand with obeying "the rules of heaven," and if we ever stop obeying, we will stop receiving blessings. -Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story was appointed by Madison who is "The Father of the Constitution." Do you think Story understood the intention of the founders when they wrote the Constitution? Here's what Story wrote about the first amendment; "" The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism (Islam)or Judaism, or infidelity (Atheism), by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government." In other words, the first amendment was not even meant to recognize any other religion other than Christianity, nor was it meant to acknowled atheism, but only to prevent a dominant sect of Christianity from becoming the state religion as had happened in England. -"Separation of Church and State," is not written anywhere in our founding documents and the point being made by Jefferson when he wrote about it is to prevent the state from infiltrating the Church, not the church infiltrating the state. Prayer in congress was common in our early government. Washington D.C. monuments, buildings, and landmarks have scriptures and references to God all over them. And did you know that in Isaiah 33:22 it says "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us?" Wow, that sounds just like our judicial, legislative, and exectutive branches of our government! You may not like "religion," and especially the Christian religion, but apart from Christianity, this nation would not exist and neither would the rights as a human being, made in the image of God, that you enjoy.