My responses:
1. So you want the state to become the church? Reread all of pilgrims posts for further insight. Nobody is arguing against the good of Christianity, but we have to deal with where we are now. Do you recommend that the government catechizes the citizens? The founders never had to make such requirements because at the very least a form of Christianity was prevalent and they wanted to flourish. That is not the reality today nor did it guarantee that the citizenry would embrace TRUE religion for even the benefit of their souls let alone the good of the state. So how do we rewind ?

2. I’m talking about now. We didn’t get here overnight. What is the political avenues to get us back to the “authority of Christ”? Are you saying that the majority of the citizenry were truly converted Trinitarians or that they were outwardly not as far gone? Were we closer to a sinless society or just more grateful for our newfound freedom? (For more on this see my last post about the danger of exchanging the freedom to embrace true religion for a new moral majority).

3. “righteous governance under Christ’s kingship.” What’s the plan? When exactly did we lose this righteous governance exactly? Why? And how do we get back there from where we are now?

4. “Calling them back” - you act like this will happen overnight. What about the media and the culture - a house divided cannot stand. What is the plan to use government to get us back? What public officials are now on board and what activity is happening. Is the motivation to promote human flourishing or spiritual conversion? It sounds like a lot of the logistics need to get worked out. If this was as easy as you make it sound why did we get so far gone? We’d have to take back schools, the media, various institutions, the families, the healthcare, the financial institutions - it would all have to get a Christian makeover for a complete stabilization - are we overtaking the present powers and principalities by force and who are the current allies we can rely on and work with to get there. How about Canada with all the cultural brainwashing that’s transpired. This all sounds very Dispensational in its optimism. Is this all part of God’s plan or will only a remnant acknowledge and honor true religion and the King of Kings.

5. The biblical vision of Christs kingship applied to civil life is a political program? Who is doing the applying here? I’m not familiar with this. I’m saying the program to do this now faithfully could be very jarring. We can’t even get people to embrace true religion for the betterment of their own souls. Is the Holy Spirit going to be involved or is this the work of men on behalf of the temporary sphere. What are the safeguards to ensure we are not sacrificing the religious for the worldly? The founders embraced natural law and the practice of (and morality associated with) Christian religion. Yes, they were a willing majority. What is the plan to transform a naturally rebellious culture outside the walls of true religion’s faithful churches TODAY?

6. In the very beginning most of the most influential were not Trinitarian and over a short period of time there were many who rejected Christ outright for the Unitarian free mason god. This did not happen overnight and to get back there is not clearly defined in scripture. Magistrates are to do good but if you look at the history of the world they often do not. They should and can be called to do so. But how much direct access do we even have - that’s in question. What have been the barriers to turn Canada back to God? How are they being dealt with ? Platitudes are easy but without a God-approved plan or avenue they can be reckless. What’s the plan in 2025?

* Why have we abandoned what our fathers knew to be good, true, and necessary for liberty?” I thought you would have that answer - how about SIN? Human Depravity? God’s hidden decree. Maybe not all of our fathers had proper intentions - they were not saints or apostles. Stop deifying all of them.

What about people like Thomas Jefferson? He was a heretic. But he was an American - his form of Christianity was closer to paganism and he would have been pleased if all states eventually embraced that form of Christless Christianity - that could much more easily become mainstream over true religion if we all aren’t careful. I feel like we are being led into a trap or setup to further vilify an already naturally hated religion via its politicization and a perceived power grab. Christianity is a refuge to souls that need to be delivered from this world. If we become too aligned with the levers of power we may no longer appear a true sanctuary to the lost, meek and lowly of this world. Some things to think about.

Originally Posted by Tom
Quote
Yes, natural law flows from the Creator’s moral order, as Romans 2:14–15 shows that the law is “written on the heart.” But it is insufficient apart from special revelation. Fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). Therefore, without the corrective light of Scripture, natural law becomes a wax nose—shaped by human reason, cultural sentiment, or even pagan philosophy.

The American Founders understood this distinction. They did not see natural law as a replacement for revealed religion but as its reflection. The same men who framed the Constitution also wrote state constitutions that explicitly acknowledged the Christian Protestant religion as foundational. This was not because they distrusted reason, but because they knew reason is fallen and must be governed by divine truth.

To affirm natural law while denying the necessity of revealed religion is to cut the flower from its root—you may preserve the fragrance for a time, but it will soon wither.

⸻

2. You said:
Quote
Christian Nationalists are a distraction from the corruption in culture.

This accusation misunderstands both history and the biblical mandate for civil order.
When Christians affirm that rulers must “kiss the Son” (Psalm 2:12), they are not distracting from corruption—they are confronting its cause. The culture is corrupt precisely because rulers and citizens alike have rejected the authority of Christ over the nation.

The early American founders, from Massachusetts to Delaware, recognized that true religion was essential to good governance. That conviction did not distract them from the moral decay of their time—it was their remedy for it.
To dismiss this today as a “distraction” is to treat spiritual obedience as political overreach. But as Proverbs 14:34 declares, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” The problem is not that Christians want to see righteousness applied to law; the problem is that many modern Christians have surrendered that vision.

⸻

3. You said: [quote]They seek to make every citizen acknowledge the Lordship of Christ.

That’s a distortion.
No faithful Christian—past or present—believes civil law can regenerate hearts. The goal is not coerced conversion but righteous governance under Christ’s kingship.
Early Americans did not punish unbelief; they simply expected that public servants uphold the moral and religious framework consistent with the gospel that shaped their civilization.

The Founders knew there is no neutrality in public life. Every government serves a god—either the true God or a false one. To claim the state can be “secular” is itself a religious statement—it deifies man. Christian Nationalism, in its historic sense (Voddie Baucham agrees), simply insists that nations have a duty to recognize Christ’s authority (Psalm 2:8–10; Matthew 28:18–20).

⸻

1. You said:
Quote
What will the nationalists do that has not already been established in our long-standing history?

Quite a lot, actually—but not in the way critics imagine.
Christian Nationalists, properly defined, are not inventing something new; they are calling America back to her own history—a time when her constitutions, laws, and moral expectations reflected a Protestant framework. (this is an important point).
In 1778, South Carolina declared the Christian Protestant religion to be the official religion of the state. Massachusetts empowered its legislature to fund the “public worship of God.” Delaware and Vermont required public officials to profess faith in Christ.

If that heritage is “long-standing,” then the real innovation came not from Christian Nationalists but from 20th-century secular revisionism. The 1947 Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of the First Amendment was the radical break—not those who wish to restore the founding order.

⸻

5. You said:
Quote
Christian Nationalism is building a boogeyman.

That’s an ironic charge, given that the supposed “boogeyman” is nothing more than the biblical vision of Christ’s kingship applied to civic life.
The Founders did not fear that idea—they legislated from it. They saw the magistrate as a “nursing father” to the church, in line with Isaiah 49:23. They knew civil government is a minister of God (Romans 13:4), not a morally neutral referee.

Modern critics call this dangerous, but the danger lies not in a government that acknowledges God—it lies in one that denies Him. A state that refuses to honor Christ inevitably honors idols: human autonomy, sexual perversion, or statism.

The call to restore a distinctly Christian order is not the creation of a monster; it is the return of sanity.

⸻

6. The Real Question

The issue is not whether nations will be religious—it’s which religion will govern them. The American Founders chose Christianity, not paganism.
Modern secularists have merely swapped one orthodoxy for another: the worship of man instead of the worship of God. Those who appeal to “natural law” while rejecting Christ’s Lordship end up enthroning human reason, which history shows is the cruelest master of all.

Thus, to insist on the Lordship of Christ over nations is not fanaticism—it is faithful stewardship. Anything less is rebellion disguised as moderation.

⸻

Conclusion

The American Founders were Christian nationalists in principle if not in label. They did not fear the union of Christianity and civil order, so long as it was bounded by Scripture and reason.
Their vision was not a theocracy but a Christian Constitutional Republic—a free society governed by laws that reflect God’s moral order. To reject that today is to reject the very foundation on which America was built.

So the question isn’t, as you stated: “What will Christian Nationalists do that hasn’t already been done?”
It’s, “Why have we abandoned what our fathers knew to be good, true, and necessary for liberty?”

What about people like Thomas Jefferson?

The First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”) was written to limit Congress, not the states. It prevented the federal government from creating or prohibiting religion, while leaving the states free to support or establish Christianity as they saw fit. Jefferson himself affirmed this in his correspondence after his presidency.

Last edited by Anthony C.; Tue Oct 21, 2025 8:32 PM.