Christian Nationalism: The Danger and the Draw | Dr. William Roach
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- With Liberty & Justice For All, Session 7
Christian Nationalism is a divisive movement within evangelical circles, with some seeing it as a stabilizing force in a turbulent society while others argue it blurs the separation between Church and State, resembling totalitarian regimes. Defining Christian Nationalism is challenging, as various factions offer local interpretations, leaving room for manipulation by progressive movements through linguistic tactics. Some Reformed Christian Nationalists criticize the Woke movement's subjectivity but inadvertently adopt their own form of subjective epistemology. Popular expressions of Christian Nationalism often mix elements of Scholastic Reformed Protestantism with Hegelian social and governmental ideas and draw influence from theonomists seeking to impose ancient Israel's laws, even advocating for new blasphemy laws. These positions ignore America's foundations of religious freedom and free speech. Some segments of the movement risk undermining the Reformation's core principles in pursuit of political expediency, forgetting that the Reformation emphasized grace, faith, Christ, Scripture, and the glory of God alone, not compromising these principles for political gain.
-Dr. William Roach.
PDF versions of the PowerPoint slides from this presentation are available here: williamroach.o...
sovereignnatio...
Support Sovereign Nations:
paypal.me/sovn...
/ sovnations
Follow Sovereign Nations:
sovereignnatio...
© 2023 Sovereign Nations. All rights reserved. #sovereignnations #williamroach #christiannationalism
![Lord of Spirits - The Devil(s) [Ep. 94]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/R4frkSwKby8/mqdefault.jpg)
I haven’t heard of any ‘Christian Nationalism’ except from corporate media & Some Dems-> which seems like an uptick in their attack of Christianity to associate w/ Nazism (which was NOT Christian or right wing).. So I figured that this whole thing was an attempt to get out ahead of a pendulum swing from radical leftist-> a fair point..
But this so far doesn’t seem to be that either. Nor is Christian Nationalism (which has many definitions, yet oddly, this focuses on one non-Christian guy’s book which media has seemingly also used (ie similar to how media has defined Intelligent design as being young earthers, though young earther’s are a very small % of those who believe in ID).
19:58 - This is missing a whole lot of important context & even more facts.
21:09 - this is not accurate. Constantine did NOT outlaw paganism (heck, he didn’t even get baptized until his death bed). Pagans were permitted to practice their beliefs as long as they didn’t force Christians to partake.
Wrong. Theodosius destroyed pagan temples and outlawed all forms of religious spirituality besides Abrahamism.
He's so quick to link CN with Nazi's while completely overlooking how Aquinas, "classical", and the Nazi's embraced pagan thinking about how the mind isn't fallen.
Well said @saintlybeginnings6296 *except* for the premise that young earthers are "a very small % of those who believe in intelligent design".
*This is false. Most people who believe in ID are, by definition, young earthers*
The ludicrous notion that The Almighty took millions of years to create anything is simply unscriptural.
Therefore, it is those who do not believe in the accuracy and historicity of The Bible, those who want to belong to the scientism cult, those who want to appease and get along with the cult's high priests (or those so called "scientists") who are the miniscule minority amongst ID proponents.
Can't not point out the bad history in this. It was Emperor Theodosius I that made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in the year 380 CE with the Edict of Thessalonica. Constantine's Edict of Milan, issued in 313, enacted official tolerance of Christianity and ended the state persecution of Christians. Constantine DID NOT make Christianity the official religion of the Empire, even though this is popularly repeated in error, and most grievously by Protestants authors who regurgitate older, incorrect protestant histories without doing any historical research for themselves.
These kinds of errors need to be corrected, because for one it doesn't disqualify the larger argument so there's nothing to concede in making the correction, but second doing the actual historical research would provide more meaningful and better documented historical examples, even if they aren't as salacious as the oft repeated myths about Constantine.
Early examples of bluring church and state are abundant, Emperor Justinian I developed a doctrine of Symphony between church and state, with the idea being that, while separate, the two would work in harmony with each other. This led to what is sometimes called Caesaropapism where the Byzantine Emperors would take it on themselves to act like Popes in directing the business and doctrines of the Byzantine church. The Iconoclastic emperors are an example of how this can go wrong, and a less egregious example is the Photian Schism where Emperor Michael III deposed, without the authority to do so, Patriarch Ignatius and replaced him with a layman named Photios.
Dr Roach, I am tracking with you. However, isn’t capital punishment for some kinds of murder today, a form of Biblical law?
?maybe. Wouldn't you think capital punishment was a well established practice before Christian doctrine was solidified?
Capital punishment is first given to Noah in Genesis 9 and reiterated in Romans 13. It is not unique to the Law of Moses.
He only argued against capital punishment for "religious" crimes, as if to punish other expressions of religion/doctrine.
The founding fathers never intended us to be a Theocracy we were at liberty and it was separate but equal. This was done to avoid the Theocracy of the Papists and of the King of England and its Theocracy. That is the concept of the founding fathers and why Congress can make no laws concerning Religion setting up a National Theocracy. We are at Liberty of and to Religion not from it.
Classical liberalism works, but only when the two broad coalitions (liberal and conservative) agree on basic moral principles. Presently, moral principles have completely diverged. DQSH is a good example of this. Perhaps I missed it, but what would Dr. Roach do with DQSH if one side sees it as a clear moral outrage and one side holds it up as a semi-sacrament?
If this gentleman is asserting that Presuppositionalism is Hegelian, he is grossly misrepresenting the method. Hegelian dialectic requires the synthesis of two equally substantiated yet apparently contradictory propositions. In what way does Presuppositionalism synthesize two purportedly contradictory propositions? The whole point of Presuppositionalism is to demonstrate the impossibility of such synthesis. To hold to Presuppositionalism is to deny Hegelian dialectic and any kind of tertium quid.
False. I claim it is Kantian (i.e., the source of the Transcendental Method). I was very clear about that.
@@DrBillRoach I will relisten to the episode. I will point out, however, that I did not make a false statement. I said that IF this is what you were saying, then you were misrepresenting Presuppositionalism. Apparently that is not what you were saying. I apologize for my misunderstanding.
@@DrBillRoachIn the following clip, you specifically state that Presuppositionalism today is based on both Kantian and Hegelian philosophical idealism:
ruclips.net/user/clipUgkxWXE1D8T2auOZhbwQqWC7fwaerFNjmL0l?si=_WSgVIjC9jhgtNiM
@@DrBillRoachConsider the following lecture series by Dr. Lane G. Tipton in which he demonstrates Van Til's rejection of Kantian Transcendentalism and Hegelian idealism:
ruclips.net/p/PLt5DwS6MFoBC3kgriV-Q0_vO15mEJSnGq&si=uii8cPCXnQov5lIz
Good. But I think people are trimming knowledge to fit the fears of the present age. How long will this chaotic age last? That will change our understandings of this same knowledge.
Why can't we come up with a non-Hegelian-a Classical Liberal culture & system that solidly respects Christianity and also set guardrails and responsibilities in the secular sphere: revolutionary impulses do not get special treatment as they appear to have now.
This kid is sharp. I had never known anything about CN other than I have heard the term more since Biden than ever before. I was told as a kid that it was bad but wasn’t encountered by it but going forward I think we are going to be faced with it in the near future. Thank you for doing this young man
yikes
Mystery
This is awesome and very detailed. I am curious to see if anyone will respond to the content or just call you names! Bill Roach is keeping apologetics strong.
Please...Dr. Roach may be very learned but he is also a lousy speaker.
Thanks for this detailed explanation. I am reading Samuel Rutherford now and he disagrees with much of the basis of CN thought.
Yes, because we should not love our country and we should not desire the laws of the land to be based upon the Law of God, rathe they should be based upon the laws of idolatry. Bravo.
@@stegokitty nonsequitur
@@rhesabrowning Nope. If you're a Christian and you love your country, and you want the laws to have their final authority in the Word of God, then you are, by definition, a Christian Nationalist. If you don't want the laws of the land to have the true and living God as their final authority, then which other god do you want as the final authority behind the laws of the land? It's not whether, but which. Fact.
This was AWESOME!!!! ❤
I'm not a Christian Nationalist and share O'Fallon's concerns about it.
That said, presuppositionalism existed and exists outside the realm of CN, as found with the Puritans and ministries like Answers in Genesis or Grace to You today.
I agree with the other commentator: get a debate going with someone like James White but if only to stop putting up straw men which cover most of the reformed world today.
Dr Roach speaking through clenched teeth and the way he positioned those that would disagree was very telling.
It would also be telling to know how many of those in the audience have actually considered the binlical differences between "classical" and "covenantal" theology or how Aquinas opened the door for paganism into the church with the reasoning that the mind isn't fallen. Apparently he was hired to combine Aristotelian thinking with Gid's word.
“Danger?”
You didn’t watch
17 yrs. old is a young man. Nowhere near a boy. SON
Dr Roach should sit down and have a discussion/debate with leaders in CN or CN adjacent. Sovereign Nation's atheist James Lindsay has even pointed out that cults don't embrace robust pushback and those against the CNers consistently refuse to get together for sit downs.
Check out the recent Conversations That Matter where this is made clear.
We are to disciple nations. Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and teach them to observe all things Christ commands. How then do they NOT become Christian nations?
"Nations" is neuter but "them" is masculine, so it's generally taken to mean individuals within the nations who have been made disciples.
@ShiroiNihonjin okay, so, let's say we're successful. Hypothetically, 70% of the nation is converted to orthodox Christianity. What should these converted Christian people of these nations vote for? What policies ought they support? Are they now a "Christian" nation?
First of, you can't baptize a nation. It's not a concrete, three dimensional object you can immerse in water.
Second, even if you want to use the rethoric of a "Christian goverment", such goverment would, necessarily respect God's imposed bounds on State authority, and would not restrain people's freedom of belief, conscience, assembly, etc.
@@ShiroiNihonjin Individuals make up nations.
Oh wowowow!! I love this so much! Thank you Dr. Roach!! So very very good.
If your contention is we were not founded as a Christian Nation then what do you do with
Tocqueville on Christianity and American Democracy or the first official act of Washington being sworn in as President Consecrating America to God?? and all of the history of the founding fathers who declared us a Christian Nation??
Very informative thanks, so much to think about. Totalitism is so sneaky, one must be vigilant to the extrem.
_"Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves."_
"Charlemagne the great" is a Christian hero not a villain. Christians who talk like that may not know it but they are under the influence of a secular narrative. That's why we've all been taught that "Constantine the Great" was a bad guy and that the Crusades we're rooted in greed. But George Washington and the u.s. rebels we're heroes because they went to war against tyranny
(supposed over-taxation) Honest Abe is a hero because he fought to end slavery but in the process pulverized the Southern Culture. We think this way because only theists, secularists and atheists are allowed to be heroes. Christians are just crazy murdering greedy tyrants. How many American children know the names of the "founders" of the Thirteen Original Colonies, how many know the names of the "founding fathers" why is that??
I'm only listening to this to figure out why i'm going to be targeted for being a patirotic catholic. I'm just waiting for the trucks to gather up all the Catholics at this point since the FBI has been going out of it's way to target us.
I do think the characterisation of prepositional apologetics from Fesko is inaccurate here.
Does anyone sees connection between Christian Nationalism and Thomas Hobb’s Leviathan?
There is no true freedom without God's moral law. Only when that law takes root in the heart. Jesus called it born from above. John 3:5,6. By the way, God has a moral bond with all nations of men.
“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be…..”
Ecclesiastes 1:9 KJV