One nation under God" is a phrase from the American Pledge of Allegiance, added in 1954 to distinguish the U.S. from "godless" communism. The phrase is also the title of several books, films, and albums, and is used in a religious context to mean that the nation is subject to the authority of God.
Covid compliance was enabling the State to lead the church - the churches that complied were wrong. No argument from me there.
Did you listen to the 3 concerns that the author claims the 2kT-proponents asserted? How would you answer them? Should the Roman Catholic Church be the primary state supported true church?
I thought this comment under the video was solid mostly…. at least what was relevant to the topic/discussion at hand….
Quote
@toddstevens9667 17 hours ago I don’t think we should fool ourselves here: 1) Baird is a Presbyterian. He got the idea for this book by reading Calvin on civil magistrates. Even though Baird claims that we aren’t talking about a state church, Calvin certainly is. And none of this really works without a state church. 2) Baird might be excited about Vance quoting the Nicene Creed, but what if Vance started quoting the Marian Dogmas, or the articles from the Council of Trent anathematizing those who teach salvation by faith alone? “True Religion” is often in the eye of the beholder. I do not think Vance has the “True Religion.” 3) Since none of this really works without a state church, do we really want Donald Trump or Joe Biden deciding which “True Religion” to promote? Don’t be silly. 4) We have a democratic republic form of government. The state is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Does anyone really trust the American people to put the right people in office to make these sorts of decisions? That’s even more insane than letting Trump or Biden decide the outlines of “True Religion.” 5) None of this means that Christians shouldn’t be active and outspoken for Jesus in the public sphere. We need to vote for the candidate that best reflects our views and even run for office ourselves. But government-promoted religion is not the NT way. The Apostles lived in a pagan tyranny. They didn’t depend on government-promoted religion. They went out and preached the Gospel, obeyed the government when they could, ignored it when they couldn’t, and offered their lives in martyrdom as testimonies to the power of Jesus Christ. You see Paul evangelizing government officials, but you don’t see him trying to get them to promote Christianity through government power.
The problem with adopting reformed theology is that it’s really hard to divorce it from the historical context in which it was created. All the Reformers were creating doctrine and theological systems for state churches. None of the Reformers could even have conceived of a separation of church and state. It would have been incomprehensible to all of them. Going to Calvin to learn about civil magistrates and church/state relations makes absolutely no sense 500 years later in the United States. It’s a different historical time and context. We are clearly in a post-Christian nation at this point. And trusting Donald Trump, JD Vance, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, or AOC to promote “true religion”is pretty crazy.
Last edited by Anthony C.; Fri Oct 17, 20256:46 PM.
Tom, you seem invested in this issue, even if it’s on the level of assent or the theoretical. I have no problem with that. You may use your Christian liberty to discern these things. I don’t take these guys seriously, in particular, this author. Voddie I like very much. That’s about the only endorsement I can offer. Have a good weekend, thanks for the exchange.
Last edited by Anthony C.; Fri Oct 17, 20256:43 PM.
Actually, it is very clear that America does not advocate for a state Church. It would not matter whether or not Calvin advocated for a state Church or not. America, however according to the Pledge of Allegiance is “One Nation under God”.
It would appear then that you agree with some Christians and secularist that say, “the American experiment is dead.” Why does Scripture (particularly Romans 13) state that the magistrate get’s its authority from God? And why does it indicate that the magistrate is accountable to God? I have listened to quite a few sermons on Romans 13 now. One really good one was a series by Samuel Waldron,on the passage. They indicate the same thing. Yet, I have also listened to the other side on Romans 13, that disagree with Samuel Waldron. One in particular by a prominent figure in T4G, that indicated that the government was in their right to do what they did during Covid. In the process the slamming John MacArthur.
England however had one state Church and that is why people like non compliant Baptist pastors like John Bunyan were thrown into prison in the mid 1600s. America still was founded with the law of God as the founding principle. Yet, stayed away from a state Church, for reasons like that.
My understanding also, is many of states originally had their own constitutions. That were very straightforward about God being their foundation. I maintain that, a country does not need to have a state Church for these principles to work.
Actually, it is very clear that America does not advocate for a state Church. It would not matter whether or not Calvin advocated for a state Church or not. America, however according to the Pledge of Allegiance is “One Nation under God”.
It would appear then that you agree with some Christians and secularist that say, “the American experiment is dead.” Why does Scripture (particularly Romans 13) state that the magistrate get’s its authority from God? And why does it indicate that the magistrate is accountable to God? I have listened to quite a few sermons on Romans 13 now. One really good one was a series by Samuel Waldron,on the passage. They indicate the same thing. Yet, I have also listened to the other side on Romans 13, that disagree with Samuel Waldron. One in particular by a prominent figure in T4G, that indicated that the government was in their right to do what they did during Covid. In the process the slamming John MacArthur.
England however had one state Church and that is why people like non compliant Baptist pastors like John Bunyan were thrown into prison in the mid 1600s. America still was founded with the law of God as the founding principle. Yet, stayed away from a state Church, for reasons like that.
My understanding also, is many of states originally had their own constitutions. That were very straightforward about God being their foundation. I maintain that, a country does not need to have a state Church for these principles to work.
I’m not seeking anything different. I do not claim the American experiment is dead. I do not deny where anyone gets their authority. I don’t deny the power of the states. I believe the author in the video and others like him are seeking radical changes or reforms along certain precarious lines. If not, what exactly are they recommending? They haven’t really clarified themselves. Can you do so for them possibly, cause you and they are unclear about what exactly you’re promoting. I think I’ve remained pretty consistent…
Quote
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE In Congress, July 4, 1776 THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION of the THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Natural law is derived from the Bible and biblical principles - it’s where morality and civil laws are derived. I do not hide from this reality of the human experience. Those who do and are of powers and principalities that seek to circumvent and radically usurp the common good are purposely promoting things/activities/ideas that disrupt natural law to the detriment of the people. Then hopefully well intended Christians seek to double down with pre-American political philosophy derived from another place and time. That will just make things worse, especially when they propose a radical change in the form of government by suggesting a monarchy (in passing @ 32:45 in the video) can be workable, which is exactly what our founders had fled from in the first place.
Last edited by Anthony C.; Fri Oct 17, 20259:43 PM.
Omygoodness... No one is asking the government to be the Church. But I think we all want our government to be the government that wields the sword righteously to reward good and punish evil - that's all.
But just a few months ago, when our government was calling evil good and good evil, would we want the government to enforce it's own standards and definitions of good and evil? Of course not.
This is where the Church needs to be the Church, so that the State can be the State, by teaching and preaching what God says is good and evil, and relying on God for that message to do it's work in the hearts of our civil magistrates.
Working for candidates that affirm God's standards of good and evil is important as well. Political advocacy isn't always as brutal as most people think. Most of what I do is just plain fun anyway. Currently working with Article V Convention of States project in my little corner of South Georgia. I do so as a Christian citizen of a secular nation.
Robin, you’re not following. The author in the video is promoting a Calvinistic theocracy in a kind of sly way. I’m trying to pin Tom down if that is also what he’s advocating. If the author in the video said what you said that would be fine. But maybe that wouldn’t sell books in a day when many are gung ho about Christian Nationalism and fighting fire with fire following Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
The description of the book does not really follow the author’s rhetoric which is practically devoid of any realistic or practical implementation in our day.
So, Tom posted the video and that is what I’m responding to. I’m assuming Tom doesn’t agree with every single thing the author said, but maybe he does. I’m just saying I don’t agree with the author - that’s it, conversation over I guess.
Last edited by Anthony C.; Sat Oct 18, 20251:26 PM.
Just so you guys understand that I’m on your “side,” I think the movement I can get behind is exposing how the government is not neutral and typically promoting another religion, basically pagan, but definitely anti-Christian. Unnatural Law that is for the common bad is definitely the new standard. That would be a good starting point but we need to neutralize the media and powerful institutions and the culture at large that is being corrupted. That is not a Christian Church mission. Maybe some Christian organizations can take on that task and let the Church and Christian citizens expose the darkness with their light.
Last edited by Anthony C.; Sat Oct 18, 20252:42 PM.
James Baird @james_d _baird • Jun 20 three views acceptable within the PCA's Standards: • established churches are good in principle • the 1788 revisions didn't change much • Christian nationalism is biblical https://x.com/james_d_baird/status/1936049770142814617
Quote
Anti-monarchical Puritans, “thinking to have ended the isolation from the Continental churches which the king had imposed on them, and expecting international endorsement of their cause, found themselves scorned by Europe’s Protestants for their political disloyalty and their religious radicalism.” Tellingly, Worden notes, a “frosty reception greeted Cromwell’s attempts of the 1650s to mobilise the evangelical cantons of Switzerland against the Popish threat.” Differences among British Reformed Protestants—the Scots and the English approached political theology differently—and between Britons and their French, German, Hungarian, and Swiss Reformed brethren meant significantly different conceptions of the state marked international Calvinism. Those differences increased during the Glorious Revolution, American Revolution, and the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Dutch Reformed Protestants welcomed the institution of their firmly establishmentarian monarchy in 1813, fifteen years after Presbyterians in the United States concurred with Thomas Jefferson that the federal state could not be cognizant of religion, much less make choices about what was true religion. Where I disagree with Baird is that I do not see a seamless unity in Reformed political theology–across a given chronology, or transmitted generationally from one era of Reformed thinkers to the next–that can be pressed on American clerics or laity, much less the American state. The rejoinder, I imagine, would be that this is not about the state perse, but the religious people of the American Union electing men who will favor Christianity within the United States’ constitutional framework. I’m sympathetic to that argument, but unconvinced. Politics is the art of the practical, and I don’t see how the federal government or one of the 50 constituent states as they are can uphold true religion, especially when conservative Protestants make common political cause with, to pick one example, Oneness Pentecostals in the Trumpist Coalition. If the state can excise Oneness Pentecostals from its dutiful upholding of true religion–I assume Mormons and other heterodox Revivalist groups don’t make the cut–then the state is thinking in a Trinitarian manner. Fair enough, but the Trinity is only authoritative because it is in a Creed–a creed Im thankful for and consider binding as an Anglican–but a Creed nonetheless that not even Southern Baptists find binding. What is the reason for including non-creedal Southern Baptists and not various forms of Pentecostals? The reason seems to be that, well, Southern Baptists have numbers, and are sort of Calvinists, and many conservative PCAers are ex-SBCers. All well and good, but Anglicans and Lutherans, unlike the Reformed, find Southern Baptists views on baptism revolting, if not worthy of anathematization. Anglicans feel similar about Reformed ecclesiology; Lutherans about Reformed sacramentology; the list goes on. If state personhood makes it capable of judging theology on a basic level, what keeps it from operating as a more sophisticated theological person? Calvin, Cranmer, and Luther certainly thought it could. These questions aren’t meant to nitpick, but to ask questions about what the American state is, a question that still seems unanswered by Protestant thinkers interested in resourcement. Baird appeals to Protestant divines and their appeals are compelling. But the United States constitutionally does not make clerical admonitions politically binding. However the voice of the people of the United States, in congress assembled, is politically binding. I think Mr. Baird’s thesis would be strengthened if say Dwight Eisenhower or George W. Bush could be shown to make similar arguments as Hodge Murray about the state’s duties towards religion. - Miles Smith
Last edited by Anthony C.; Sat Oct 18, 20254:30 PM.
I will also add, don’t let me shame you if you identify or support the term or idea of Christian Nationalism. That’s not necessarily for me to judge. If you are ok with that concept you shouldnt necessarily let anyone shame you into disavowing it. (Maybe Pilgrim can & will ????)
I reject it but that’s just my personal (and well contemplated) opinion as a Reformed Christian and American citizen.
Last edited by Anthony C.; Sun Oct 19, 202512:20 PM.
Don’t worry about that. I think I gave a link already showing you what I believe about ‘Christian Nationalism’. In case you missed it, it is a video of a panel discussion on Christian Nationalism with Tom Ascol and Voddie
I would like Pilgrim to comment on the 27min mark of the video. I’m not sure how to rectify that. We don’t want the state promoting PC(USA) so how would that work?
Okay Anthony, I listened to that portion of the podcast and more. Believing that everyone's views are based upon a presupposition, that's what I try to discern first and foremost when trying to evaluate someone's or some groups views on everything. Soooooo, my impression is that the 'author' and perhaps the 'hosts' are of the view that not just believers but the entire world is to think, do and love with the purpose of "glorifying God". On the surface that sound so holy and biblical (cf. 1Cor. 10:31), right? However, I reject that premise on the basis of one of the most fundamental biblical principles of sound exegesis; CONTEXT. Paul's words are addressed strictly to believers and not to the world in general. It is true that ALL THINGS glorify God in some manner, for God has ordained ALL THINGS, even the most wicked, for it demonstrates His holiness and perfect justice which will be fully revealed in the end. It is God's eternal plan for time and eternity that cannot be changed for it is perfect. Therefore we look to His "revealed will" for answers to our questions concerning ALL THINGS. Does Scripture in any way shape or form teach that it is His purpose that "government glorify God via the appointment by whatever means of men (women?) perfectly adhere to and demand and enforce the law of God upon all others living under their rule?" I find no such pretext.
OT Israel was given to us as an example, both good and bad of how a Theocracy exists on this present corrupt world. Israel had every advantage that man could dream of for it was under God's direct favor in that He gave Israel His holy law to govern them. How did that work out? Was the law imperfect? Absolutely not in its intent, i.e. to reveal what truth and holiness is and that all who did not keep that law perfectly in mind, body and soul would suffer punishment. But it was not given nor could it accomplish what was most needed by fallen mankind; the salvation of one's soul, to be reconciled to God by the appeasement of His wrath and the receiving of the punishment due for the transgression of that law. That fulfillment was obviously impossible for any man due to Original Sin (imputed guilt and the inherit corruption of nature). Christ fulfilled the law and received the punishment vicariously for those whom God predestined to be saved in Him. INDIVIDUALS, therefore, are called OUT OF this world and INTO the kingdom of God. They in turn are called together as God's "church" (the called out ones) which is given the responsibility, as the ordained means, of preaching the Gospel throughout the world by which the Spirit regenerates the elect and they likewise are CALLED OUT of this world and become members of the Church and of the Kingdom of God. Secondly, but primarily, the Church is to preach the Word for the purpose of upbuilding the saints so that they may be prepared for the New World and New Earth to come.
I agree with Anthony's sentiments and several of his comments showing skepticism and even rejection of what both the 'author' and 'hosts' of that podcast are promoting. The law of God as stated above is the means by which the elect are convicted of their guilt and sin(fulness) and their need of redemption and reconciliation with God in the Lord Christ. And it is also the standard of what is right, true and holy to which they are called to live. But the law was never given as the means to establish governments, agencies or other ruling bodies under which ALL men are to live. The world is not ever going to be "Christianized" in any way, shape or form for it's very existence is corrupt and based upon a hatred of God and all that is good. And, of so much importance is the truth that God's plan is not to save the world, but rather a remnant OUT OF this world and to judge all else and cast it into hell.
Governments are agents of God, for good or worse, to protect the good and punish the evil. But again, no where do I find that God has ordained that those who occupy governments are to be "Christians" or those who exact all judgments, rules, regulations nor punishments based solely upon the The Commandments. Should all men bow before the law? Yes... but as individuals. Those who perfectly keep that law are rewarded. And those who fail to keep the law will be punished. Since no man, but Christ, can and did keep that law, the only thing due to ALL MEN is punishment for it is impossible for any man, woman or child to keep the law as a rule of life. Therefore, no government can be expected to be formed, for it has no where been mandated by God Himself, that such be formed upon the foundation of His moral law. Learn from Israel... they failed miserably and suffered God's wrath and rejection and thus the Gentiles were given the favor of God. But not ALL Gentiles, as was the case in Israel, have been ordained to be saved, but rather a remnant OUT OF Israel and the Gentiles showed by saved and who are glowing examples of God's love and mercy in Christ, God their righteousness.
To put it in simple terms, in my estimation, all such views are being espoused in that broadcast, called by whatever term one chooses, are unbiblical and in truth end up being a form of B.F. Skinner's Walden Two. They all end up with some group of "elites" that govern all others which can only fail. The U.S. Constitution prohibits the "establishment of religion", but any bias whatsoever toward any religion, whether a deistic one or secular one, is a violation of what the founding fathers' intent for the formation of this country. Yet, they took the principles of Christianity as their personal view of what is good but they didn't demand that all government officials, employees, etc. adhere perfect to the Ten Commandments. The problems all nations, countries, etc. have and why they fail is because NO ONE CAN keep the moral law of God. Learn from Israel and history.
Believing that everyone's views are based upon a presupposition, that's what I try to discern first and foremost when trying to evaluate someone's or some groups views on everything. Soooooo, my impression is that the 'author' and perhaps the 'hosts' are of the view that not just believers but the entire world is to think, do and love with the purpose of "glorifying God". On the surface that sound so holy and biblical (cf. 1Cor. 10:31), right? However, I reject that premise on the basis of one of the most fundamental biblical principles of sound exegesis; CONTEXT. Paul's words are addressed strictly to believers and not to the world in general. It is true that ALL THINGS glorify God in some manner, for God has ordained ALL THINGS, even the most wicked, for it demonstrates His holiness and perfect justice which will be fully revealed in the end. It is God's eternal plan for time and eternity that cannot be changed for it is perfect. Therefore we look to His "revealed will" for answers to our questions concerning ALL THINGS. Does Scripture in any way shape or form teach that it is His purpose that "government glorify God via the appointment by whatever means of men (women?) perfectly adhere to and demand and enforce the law of God upon all others living under their rule?" I find no such pretext.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)