Church and state should remain separate institutions, however there should still be cooperation between them. The state shouldn't appoint religious priests and neither should the church priests and bishops hold political office. This makes the most sense to me
@@VictoriousCatholicThe Catholic Church should be a political force in a country but it should be separate from the Government itself, like how the medieval church had its own Ecclesiastical courts outside of the Civil courts for trying their own priests and bishops
I object. You can separate morality from theology, and I’m saying this as a Christian. Look into Utility; essence of normative properties; Kantian universalizability; Kantian ends in themselves; contractualism; virtue ethics; care ethics; ideal observer; railtons naturalistic account; discourse ethics; pluralism; natural law; and the work of GE Moore, William Ross, Christine Korsgaard, Thomas Scanlon, Derek Parfit, Phillipa foot, David Enoch, Russ Shafer-Landau, Rosalind Hursthouse, John McDowell, Johnathon Dancy, HA Prichard, Riger Crisp, Joseph Raz, and Rey Wedgewood
The biggest issue with "Christian Nationalism" is that it's invariably about nationalists using and twisting Christianity for their own purposes and never the other way around.
The test for whether a person believes in a Christian nation or is a "Christian" nationalist is their view of immigrants, refugees and ethnic minorities. If they remotedly hold to antibiblical "conservative" views of those 3 groups then they are the latter.
@@jermoosekek1101 easiest test is the movement's views towards immigrants, refugees and ethnic minority groups. If the movement is hostile to brethern in faith of a different languages, ethnicities, or nationalities, then it just nationalism with a faux biblical paint job. "Christian" movements covered with national flags is just as blasphemous as "Christian" movements covered with the pride flag.
The problem with a state church is that it cannot oppose the actions or ideology of the nation from a position of strength, because to place itself in opposition to its own nation would be suicide. Hence the church becomes a proxy battleground for national rivalries (e.g. Ukrainian Orthodox Church vs Orthodox Church of Ukraine) or conforms itself to state ideology (e.g. Church of Scotland or German Evangelical Church). The church must be both unified and international.
In regards to science and Christianity, inspiring philosophy has a great episode explaining how atheists have pushed Christians out of these fields because of prejudice. Edit : for all asking, it's called "Is Christianity Anti-science" and I heard it on Spotify.
Interesting fact: In 1833, Massachusetts was the last U.S. state to end official state support for a Christian denomination. Until then, Congregationalism was the official church in Massachusetts and tax payer dollars went to support it. Also, in 1892 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that America has throughout its history been “a Christian nation.”
Christians should move to states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Arizona, for the same reasons that Christians in 1850s moved to Kansas.
@@eb0632 Newsom just put into law that teachers in public schools have a right to hide information from parents regarding their “gender identity.” It is now legal for public schools to teach kids about gay sex, transgenderism, and false genders in public schools, then when a kid believes in these things per propaganda and brainwashing, teachers can now legally lie to parents about it. Of course, keep in mind these are schools which these parents pay taxes for. Which is straight from the USSR
And yet the founders firmly disagreed with them. Hence the successes by Thomas Jefferson of getting separation and the nonestablishment clause in the Constitution.
@madisondines7441 not all the founders disagreed. Nor were they all firm, as stated in the video, the separation of church and state is not part of our legal founding documents, and, the only intention of separation was to protect the church, not the state.
I don't think they logically can. Even looking at it Biblically, every civilization that did not have God as their center, failed. Having God as their establishment flows into how we treat each other. Separation of Church and State is LITERALLY how we failed everytime.
I feel like you are missing the point, original commenter. The separation of church and state means the state can't tell the church what to do, and that church leaders shouldn't really be politicians. What happened to King Uzziah of Judah is a good example as to why those two positions should not mix. Secularism is a different thing, as RZ says in the video
@SydneyBell-eh6jeI think in the Christian world only the Vatican should be a Theocracy, the rest of the nations should be Christians and have their legal system reflect that. I believe that’s the most “realistic” way to go about it.
That's not true. When American slowly changed from the original model of the Separation of Church and State to the French version, that's when we started to go wrong.
The Church in much of Europe has not been separate from the state in most situations, causing their withering. When religion is institutionalized into the state, your approach to Jesus is institutionalized and political, and not personal like it is supposed to be.
If the US declares itself to be a Christian state, what happens to the various Jews, Muslims, Hindus and atheists in the population and the government? Is their consent not necessary?
I probably imagine for jews, Hindu, and Muslims. Life for them would simply be akin to a non-jew living in the state of Israel in which they have all the same rights and legal protections. But there would be an explicit understanding that they are living in a Christian state and therefore the government won't make a public celebration of things like Ramadan
Good luck being in the UK and being a (im assuming) Christian. I remember seeing this news that a Christian woman, praying outside of an abortion clinic, went to jail or fined.
The separation of church and state is there so the state can't interfere with the church, not the other way around. It would be impossible for people in government to separate their personal beliefs in the decisions they make on a daily basis.
@@bignoob1790I think that is why there is a separation of church and state in the USA so that no single denomination dominates the others whilst Christianity generally influences US society and politics as a whole.
Church and state should absolutely be seperate, people deserve the right to live their own life without being governed by religions they don't believe in. Laws should be based on facts and logic, not mythology.
For people who want for them to not be separated, I live somewhere where they are quite mixed. As a result the church is very corrupt and people s view of religion in general is tainted by it. It s best that they stay separate. Also the law shouldn’t t be based on religious morality, the law of a state should be useful for it s citizens. Morallity is something one should follow by their own free will, not imposed by law.
You’re actually incorrect about not having state churches. Article 1 section 8 explains legitimate per views of the federal government. Article 1 section 10 explains explicitly the powers which the states do not have Yes, it’s true. The first amendment of the federal constitution demands that Congress pass no law respecting any religion. But in the eyes of the founding fathers, when states still had civil rights. States were perfectly fine to establish their own religions. It was just explicitly mentioned that the federal government could not do so
So in your ideal world, do people that don't follow the particular brand of Christianity of the nation have to leave? Pay a tax? Are all things considered sinful by the state church illegal?
I love these videos but i feel we need to start a petition to get this man a better computer. Let’s be honest. Man deserves it. How many of us has he helped.
Can I get a prayer request for my friend? He's my closest friend. And he has heart cancer. His name is Rex. And he's the Most best friend you could ever ask for. Please pray for him. Please
Corrections: 1. Separation of Church and State Founding fathers believed in enforcement of ecclesiastical matters should be handled by the church and civic matters should be by the state, "not telling each other what to do". This is not that different than Roman Catholics. 2. State Religion Most Founding fathers believed that each state should decide on the state religion. It was not the Federal gov't who decide on the whole nation's religion. How they saw was each state is it's own nation. That's why we care called United States. 3. Methodist believe That's just modern Methodists. Methodists always followed episcopal polity. When they sent missionaries in the olden days (till the early 1900s), all missionaries (except Baptists) always tried their best to convert kings and leaders because they believed in Christianized nations. For example, when missionaries Horace Grant, Henry Appenzeller (Methodist), Horace Allen, Samuel Moffet, etc. went to Korea, first thing they did was to ask for an audience with the king. Their approach was always top down. Look at the effort...in Korea, all presidential candidates declare "Christian faith" to have any chance of winning. Of course, radical Baptists and their rebellious independent congregational polity ruined the concept... :-)
Church and State should be separate in constitution, as in their institutional makeup. Just like how throughout the middle ages there was the ecclesiastic institutions and the secular institutions. They should not be separate in imperative, as both should be striving to realize Chrisitan ideals in the world.
@@graysonguinn1943 Oh they were definitely intertwined, I was more making the point that while there are still strong secular institutions but the ecclesiastic institutions have atrophied away. They need to both exist and be influential, which will result inevitably result in political struggles but that's just human nature.
@@graysonguinn1943The Pope mostly ever emphasized on the ecclesiastical matters like how King Philip or King Henry II started taxing churches, and bishops only ever served as advisors if I’m not wrong and if they had land it was always tied to their noble birth, no monarch ever appointed land to bishops or priests
Just to give some context to the Methodist view on evangelism: at the time of our views being established, we weren't evangelizing to nations because the individuals we were evangelizing to were already a part of a Christian nation (the British empire) and most of the known world that we could travel to belonged to European Christian empires. There wasn't a question as to whether we should have Christian nations because we already lived in a Christian empire. I don't think Wesley would have argued against evangelizing to nations in the present day.
Hello Redeemed Zoomer, Kind of off-topic but I would appreciate your help. I’m looking for some recommendations on the best books a Christian can read to effectively argue for the existence of God when debating with secularists. I know you’re well-read in evolution and mathematics, so any suggestions you have would be of tremendous help. Thanks in advance for your guidance!
We don't have to amend the constitution, because it is already legal precedent for individual states to have state churches. We just need each state to establish it's own official church. That's why a federal church was never established- the majority of the original 13 states already had official churches.
The judicial law still applies in terms of general equity according to Westminster. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
Seperation of church and state even in a secular context doesn’t equate to separating religion from state. However, what I don’t agree with is the idea of weaponizing the Christian faith to be a form of government worship through Christian Nationalism. As someone who is Southern Baptist we oppose this ideology based off the very Baptist tenant of freedom of religion and related topic of soul liberation. For example: someone could be another Christian sect, a Jew, even a Muslim and that’s between them and God what religion they are. That means we disagree with trying to force the Christian religion on believers and non believers. When the faith is weaponized as a means of fueling government worship which nationalism ends up it stokes sectarian divisions amongst the public. This form of nationalism only appeals to wannabe theocrats in high church Anglicans and apostolic churches not even the evangelical circles where it originated. Christianity isn’t about forcing religion on others through state policy but making disciples out of the nations by spreading the good news. Unlike Christian Jesus’s kingdom isn’t of this world and the one true church is invisible. All while his kingdom on earth if one wants to put it that way and more importantly in heaven is the church.
So… what does a “christian state” look like to you? You didn’t really talk about that, and I’m not sure how to judge your suggestions here without understanding what they are.
While sure the church was the first institution to recognize slavery was bad it doesn't exactly help that the very god they worship was at least condoning the act as you will see in this video: ruclips.net/video/MFE_qz47zjY/видео.htmlsi=ojlsvWUOYQsEHqvo This clip is also help full: ruclips.net/video/j7rtkLJqbxM/видео.htmlsi=vyK0LELInefciY3v this clip was taken from this debate: ruclips.net/video/yspPYcJHI3k/видео.htmlsi=lVZ4C5C3YT-ZBVkH It also doesn't help that the theologians in the south were arguing the exact opposite using the same bible. While sure the north realized this the south didn't. From my point of view is evidence that culture changes faith rather than the other way around. Many (specially white people) in the north didn't think slavery was a moral issue but instead an economic issue. source ruclips.net/video/tsxmyL7TUJg/видео.htmlsi=SNUhAlNY-WFHt9NK at 9:00. prior in the video it was also mentioned how the culture was had aldready changed between the north and south. In the south people became reliant on slavery while in the north people were not. They became industrius. The reason why slavery was outlawed was not that people realized that it was morally evil but that they figured it was economically not as viable as giving these slaves education and a job in the factory. While religion sure did spear head the whole thing you can't forget the underlying cultural shift away from slavery. If it weren't for industrialization there would still be slavery as that free unpaid labor was often required to have society before industrialization. I am trying to say you are trying to give credit for the abolishment of slavery to religion which sure did help a bit but not to the extent that the industrialization. You can claim that the industrialization was caused by christianity but my point still stands that christianity didn't win a moral victory, at the very beast it aided in it's destruction unknowingly (which is still not a moral victory) and at the very worse it gave justification for the abominable practice. I mean the church sure had a major issue in terms of reading comprehension because they were not able to come to the conclusion that slavery is bad given that the god they pray to so clearly tells them it's bad in the bible for the majority of the churches existence. Like seriously the majority of the church misunderstood God's will for more than a millennium of biblical scholar ship. Is it truly reasonable to say it was Christian morals that gave us the knowledge that slavery is bad; the same morals that at an earlier point defended the owners "right" over the slave? also I'd recommend this debate ruclips.net/video/UMKkX8qRHsw/видео.htmlsi=2KdlL8_RfPkE6gQB the Christian is catholic but the arguments are not specific to Catholics. I think i can make a theological case for a fully secular America as in faith should be an entirely personal matter and thus have no barring on the governence but It's late and i am tired.
Yes. Since the Church is only those in God's Kingdom, a separate institution is needed to govern the people as a whole. As the Church, we must strive to make the secular government as God-honoring as possible, while still acknowledging its distinct role. We also must remember that, whether it's God-honoring or not, God is still totally sovereign over it.
I was wondering... what if there was a Fallen Kingdom series with Zoomer as the king? The Future Mrs. Zoomer would be the queen and their child would be the Prince and it takes place in the KingdomCraft server. Just throwing in an idea.
Real life is not a Netflix show for your entertainment. They are real people. Why would an adult transfer his actual life to a minecraft scenario for other people to watch. If you are older than 16, you need some grip on reality, bro. If you are younger: you'll get it later what you wished for.
I'm not a native speaker, but I will try to relate what I understand and you help me to know if understand everything right: 1) Church and state should be separate, but the State has to be christian 2) There should be one church by country 3) The mainline protestant denominations filled the role of the institutional churches of Europe Did I get this right? If yes, I have a question: how can the church be just one if not stablished and ruled by the State? The only way I can imagine an national church in this case is with the power of the State.
Latvia is a good example of this. The country has one mainline denomination, a Lutheran denomination with an archbishop at its head. The state is completely separate from the church, but the church is so deeply rooted in the country that it penetrates every level of society
I think Constantine I (for all his flaws) may have had a good balance on this topic. While he didn’t make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, he was very candid about his allegiances, openly supported the church, and tried to change the legal codes to reflect that. For their part, the church accepted his help, but often pushed back when necessary. They were not simply a state organ that did whatever the emperor wanted.
You're not correct about this. The view of the founders was that nobody actually knows what version is the correct way to practice, and that people who aren't necessarily Christians (such as Thomas Jefferson who was distinctly NOT a Christian, but a Deist) should not have Christian doctrines imposed upon them by the State. Thomas Jefferson worked specifically to destroy any opportunity for a State Church by writing in the Separation of the two, in order to supersede and destroy the state establishment of religion by the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as the State of Massachusetts. Secularism in government was specifically the goal of the Enlightenment founders, who are always viewed more appropriately through THAT lens than as Christians forming a new government.
In a Christian state, how do you determine which variety of Christianity the state should follow? What if the state decides your beliefs are wrong? What happens to non-Christian citizens? Secular states don’t have these problems.
@@Jesuslover2000 Here’s the problem: how do you determine what is biblical, and who should have the power to make that decision? Every denomination has different views on what the Bible teaches. There may be a lot of overlap when it comes to fundamental doctrines, but less significant differences can still cause friction. Also, the idea that a government based on biblical principles is guaranteed to be good is disproved by history. The society of Puritan-controlled colonial Massachusetts certainly had a biblical basis, but you’d be hard pressed to find anybody who would defend the Salem Witch Trials.
@@spicymilk7311you keep making the assertion the doctrinal differences will cause great discrepancies in how Gods law will be exegeted. You’ll have to give an example of how that’s true.
im glad my church focuses on spending the money it raises for missionaries and ministering to the less fortunate instead of building some large ornate structure to replace a perfect functional building
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” From Washington farewell address
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” - Treaty of Tripoli, passed unanimously and without debate or discussion through the Senate and signed by president John Adams, 1797.
Too bad that many modern Westerners interpret the separation of church and state as "it should be forbidden for politicians to even utter the word Christmas, and we should eradicate all traces of Christianity from our general culture".
The idea of a separate church and state is to protect the church. It’s to protect all religions from government restricting religion or creating its own. Many have argued that includes morality based laws and that politicians shouldn’t exercise their religion. The principle is that the government should not setup a state religion that must be worshipped or is above other religions. If constituents vote for a representative and tell that representative to sponsor a law for something that might be considered a moral law then it is not the same as a government official creating a religion or hindering other religions. But the idea is not to protect the state, it’s to protect the people from a Church of England situation where other religions and other Christians were persecuted
You said that the moral law applies to us today and that the 10 commandments apply to us today. Do believers HAVE to follow the Ten Commandments? Can a believer know what the 10 commandments are and understand they apply to us and be saved even if they purposely don’t follow them?
@@redeemedzoomer6053 I agree with you. But that’s why I don’t think the Catholic Church is wrong to say that all men may obtain salvation through faith, baptism, and observance of the commandments. I don’t understand how someone could have true faith and not do what God has asked (even if they do it imperfectly).
Redeemed zoomer. What books do you recommend to read on covenant theology? I'm newly presbyterian and I want to master covenant theology but I don't know where to start. You seem very intelligent on that. What do you recommend me?
@@nonameguy4441 I already have it but the issue is that it doesn't talk about covenant theology it is only a broad knowledge of what truly is the christian relgion and doctrine.
The ELCA is basically the de facto state Church where Im from in Minnesota and some neighboring states. One thing we have over the LCMS is the fact that we are the de facto state church in every state from Montana to Minnesota. Plus, at least we have many conservative congregations still.
Presbyterians sort of have bishops and sort of don't. Presbyterians don't have a separate office for bishops. They've always seen bishops and elders as the same thing. So I guess the cathedral would be run by some kind of regional presbyter.
Great question. In the true sense of the word, they didn't. You're absolutely right - no bishop means no seat of that bishop (i.e. a cathedral). Some cathedrals maintained their historic name (cathedrals in name only) after the Reformation even when occupied by Presbyterians/Reformed, but you're right that they still didn't build those. Of course, you could speak colloquially (albeit erroneously) about the idea of Presbyterians simply building an impressive church building that is 'Cathedral-like' to the popular imagination.
Can you please make a video explaining where from the scriptures you draw these beliefs? Or recommend some other resource? You did say Jesus healed the sick so we should build hospitals but I'm looking for more. The great commission reads like personal evangelism (or evangelism to families) to me. It makes logical sense to start with people of power and influence, yet scripture says God chooses what is weak in the world to shame the strong and Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. But I know you're a really knowledgeable guy who's taught me so much so I'm sure there are reasons but I'm honestly having trouble finding answers.
Bit of a Troll question.... How can there be "Traditional Presbyterian beliefs" when the presbyterian beliefs only existed for the last quarter of the churches life?
@@redeemedzoomer6053 well it is said that main form of TLM was known at the time of pope Gregory the Great and at Trent it was only finalized and formalized.
It’s kind of insane that you made this video; because I’ve been diving so deep into John Knox and George Gillespie trying to wrestle with this problem of church and state. For the last week; I’ve just been realizing that these guys were so fundamental to the success of America; and not having their principles is exactly why we’re dying.
You should do a video on Lutheran Pietism but be fair please!! I am a pietist feel as if we get the snot straw manned out of us. My denomination has over 700 congregations across the United States and I can best describe it as essentially a blend between Lutheranism and evangelical. I believe that Mary is the mother of God and I hate when typical evangelicals say otherwise I believe in the spiritual presence in the sacraments, water baptism(for believers or infants ultimately it doesn’t matter because it’s only valid with faith), and the Lord supper and I believe that the sacraments are and means of grace, however, the grace given to faith as the only necessary, salvific grace. The grace delivered from baptism or lords supper or hearing a sermon or reading scripture just strengthen your faith I am amillennial They appeal to many early counsels. Also icons are fine as holy art Lords supper every Sunday On the other hand some ways it’s more evangelical: majority of people favor believer’s baptism but I do ultimately think the truth is that if it’s applied only via faith then it doesn’t matter so may as well baptize children I’m kind of an outlier in the denomination because we officially say to “discern with pastors and congregations” but most pastors and people in the denomination would not say for infants I believe. But they wouldn’t judge either way because ultimately it’s the faith thing again so it’s kinda complicated 🤷♂️ Contemporary music Pastors dressed like street people and not all robed up.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 I started my Christian journey with Eastern Orthodoxy and when I got married my wife was Pentecostal. After a lot of theological study and Bible reading with each other Lutheran Pietism is where we ended up and both learned a lot on the journey to it.
It seems like your view is not much different from Catholic integralism, minus the "Catholic" part obviously. The only difference seems to be due to different ecclesiology, where we would say that the state not only has to endorse mere Christianity, but Catholicism specifically, which wouldn't work for Protestants, since you don't consider your specific denomination to be One True Church.
Hey brother, I’m a Christian from Australia, and I thoroughly agree with your emphasis on scriptural authority, however I’m a leftist. I think it’s a bit of a fallacy to act like wokeness only comes with abandoning scripture. I believe Jesus calls us to love God and love one another, and we spread the love of God by striving to build the kingdom of God here. This pursuit has led me to social justice pursuits and leftist politics, with more nuanced views on some subjects (I believe in the union of a man an a woman and that abortion should not be legal in all cases). Do you reckon you’d be interested in talking about whether aligning these dichotomies is valid or not?
Free Church in free State. The State should recognise the freedom of every individuals to choose and profess their religion according to their conscience. On the other hand, public powers get their legitimacy by and are exercised according to the constitution and the rule of law. Churches, religious association and movements can legally make lobbying activities like corporations, labour unions, civic associations, political parties and non-governative organisations do. That's not in contradiction with a pluralistic and lay society, but its consequence. A lay and pluralistic society should grant the right to its forces to manifest themselves through these bodies. We can argue if law is just armed ethics but the real question is when a precept, whatever its origin is, needs to be enforced by the public hand. The answer may be that should be done only as last resort, when citizens' rights are actually menaced by some man committed facts. I'm sorry for the long and a little off-topic comment.
The Roman Catholic Church was the National Church of the Roman Empire. Christ came when He came because of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire carried and protected the Church and the faith and acted as a means for spreading it. This means that we need theocracies
Modern americans have no clue what the phrase seperation of church and state means nor why it was even said. Christian nationalism is the understanding that America is a nation and should Ramin a nation and it's elected representatives first priority should be to the nation and the people in said nation Under the basic principals of Christianity found in the 10 Commandments. Meaning religious freedom for individuals but the state should recognize there is 1 Lord over them, to keep them from thinking they're God. The constitution does not work with a secular govt. Our constitutional Republic only works if the govt understands THEY ARE NOT GOD. The rest of the 10 commandments there are already laws for, do not steal, do not murder, etc. Our secular govt just oucks amd choose if amd who they charge against those commandments. There's a group of people that have been giving liberty to murder as much as they please.
I agree that a state church is a good idea and part of my vision of the ideal country, but I don't think that carries over very well to America, especially modern America. The mainline churches have no cultural significance anymore, and what little cultural presence they have is rapidly diminishing. Evangelicals actually have a larger sway over culture at this point, and unless the mainline churches were to be recovered AND see tremendous growth, that won't change. For basically everyone except evangelicals, church is not a big thing in their lives, if they go to church at all. I also think it's dangerous to put so much emphasis on creating a "Christian nation" if the emphasis on true conversion is not there. That's what led the mainline churches to become polluted, after all. The most dangerous cultural impact of traditional Christianity is the creation of a Christian identity that is tied to the culture, even the family, but not the Gospel. When churches compromise and lose their integrity, they make room for unconverted ministers to come in and hijack the church. The decision to allow people who are preaching a false gospel to remain in the church is a very bad one, particularly if they are in places of influence in churches or seminaries. This is where mainline churches dropped the ball and why people started leaving. Baptists and non denoms are the ones who put the most emphasis on personal conversion, and thus create the most stable and vibrant Christian communities, and theological liberalism is far less common in their circles than in groups where someone can be considered Christian and allowed to be part of the church while they very clearly are going against the Bible
I think the SBC's Faith and Message 2000 puts it the best: "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power."
Did you just google this and copy and paste this into the comments? I was just wondering if people who put absurdly large quotes, just remember that or copy and paste.
@@JoWilliams-ud4euI did, yes, but I knew the Baptist view generally since I line up with them theologically on the vast majority of things. The F&M says my view better than I can.
@@ViguLiviu I would argue that's included under the part about the "state owing every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends." Remender that under Baptist theology, the Church is not the building but a collection of individual believers.
Church and state should remain separate institutions, however there should still be cooperation between them. The state shouldn't appoint religious priests and neither should the church priests and bishops hold political office. This makes the most sense to me
Both of those prohibitions exist in Catholic canon law, btw
@@VictoriousCatholicThe Catholic Church should be a political force in a country but it should be separate from the Government itself, like how the medieval church had its own Ecclesiastical courts outside of the Civil courts for trying their own priests and bishops
This topic definitely won't be controversial whatsoever.
Every time I see a comment like this there's like twenty of them per individual controversial comment
Yeah, digging down really isn't what RZ should be doing
stop commenting this its getting so repetitive and half of the time it isn’t even that controversial
@@4vars fax
You can separate the church from the state, but you will never separate policy from morality, and you will never separate morality from theology
Wdym you can’t separate morality from theology?
@@whereisjoe3697 Morality is found in God’s nature
@@whereisjoe3697 without god there is no object morality
I object. You can separate morality from theology, and I’m saying this as a Christian. Look into Utility; essence of normative properties; Kantian universalizability; Kantian ends in themselves; contractualism; virtue ethics; care ethics; ideal observer; railtons naturalistic account; discourse ethics; pluralism; natural law; and the work of GE Moore, William Ross, Christine Korsgaard, Thomas Scanlon, Derek Parfit, Phillipa foot, David Enoch, Russ Shafer-Landau, Rosalind Hursthouse, John McDowell, Johnathon Dancy, HA Prichard, Riger Crisp, Joseph Raz, and Rey Wedgewood
The discussions done in theology would still mirror what you need to discuss in any other convo regarding morality
The biggest issue with "Christian Nationalism" is that it's invariably about nationalists using and twisting Christianity for their own purposes and never the other way around.
The test for whether a person believes in a Christian nation or is a "Christian" nationalist is their view of immigrants, refugees and ethnic minorities. If they remotedly hold to antibiblical "conservative" views of those 3 groups then they are the latter.
Example?
@@jermoosekek1101 easiest test is the movement's views towards immigrants, refugees and ethnic minority groups. If the movement is hostile to brethern in faith of a different languages, ethnicities, or nationalities, then it just nationalism with a faux biblical paint job. "Christian" movements covered with national flags is just as blasphemous as "Christian" movements covered with the pride flag.
@@jermoosekek1101 Nick Fuentes
Trump
Yes, the church must be protected against the government
The Church should ordain the tnemnrevog
@@WilliamMcAdams wat
But the government should not be protected from the church.
The church doesn't need protection.
@dystopia72 Read backwards. Hence the <
pihsrosneC< and all that.
The problem with a state church is that it cannot oppose the actions or ideology of the nation from a position of strength, because to place itself in opposition to its own nation would be suicide. Hence the church becomes a proxy battleground for national rivalries (e.g. Ukrainian Orthodox Church vs Orthodox Church of Ukraine) or conforms itself to state ideology (e.g. Church of Scotland or German Evangelical Church). The church must be both unified and international.
In regards to science and Christianity, inspiring philosophy has a great episode explaining how atheists have pushed Christians out of these fields because of prejudice.
Edit : for all asking, it's called "Is Christianity Anti-science" and I heard it on Spotify.
What’s the name of the video?, I’m trying to find it
Can you link those video? I’d like to see that.
Link pls
Link or Video Name?
@@LovesTwilightSaga1 could have sworn I had linked it in a reply already, I put it in the original comment as an edit though 👍
Interesting fact: In 1833, Massachusetts was the last U.S. state to end official state support for a Christian denomination. Until then, Congregationalism was the official church in Massachusetts and tax payer dollars went to support it. Also, in 1892 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that America has throughout its history been “a Christian nation.”
Christians should move to states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Arizona, for the same reasons that Christians in 1850s moved to Kansas.
The great Christian reconquest of California lol
@@spiffygonzales5160 I live in California. I am making movs to get out of here within a year, given Gavin Newsoms' newest law placed yesterday.
@@henryconner780what's the new law?
@@eb0632 Newsom just put into law that teachers in public schools have a right to hide information from parents regarding their “gender identity.”
It is now legal for public schools to teach kids about gay sex, transgenderism, and false genders in public schools, then when a kid believes in these things per propaganda and brainwashing, teachers can now legally lie to parents about it.
Of course, keep in mind these are schools which these parents pay taxes for.
Which is straight from the USSR
@@eb0632 are you seeing my reply? On my side, it looks like it keeps getting deleted. Lmk if you see it tho.
Those old Presbyterians were smart about government.
And yet the founders firmly disagreed with them. Hence the successes by Thomas Jefferson of getting separation and the nonestablishment clause in the Constitution.
@madisondines7441 not all the founders disagreed. Nor were they all firm, as stated in the video, the separation of church and state is not part of our legal founding documents, and, the only intention of separation was to protect the church, not the state.
Yes, 100%, but I would say the ideal government is a government that works like allies with the Church, but never the church be the government.
I don't think they logically can. Even looking at it Biblically, every civilization that did not have God as their center, failed. Having God as their establishment flows into how we treat each other.
Separation of Church and State is LITERALLY how we failed everytime.
I feel like you are missing the point, original commenter. The separation of church and state means the state can't tell the church what to do, and that church leaders shouldn't really be politicians. What happened to King Uzziah of Judah is a good example as to why those two positions should not mix.
Secularism is a different thing, as RZ says in the video
@SydneyBell-eh6jeI think in the Christian world only the Vatican should be a Theocracy, the rest of the nations should be Christians and have their legal system reflect that. I believe that’s the most “realistic” way to go about it.
That's not true. When American slowly changed from the original model of the Separation of Church and State to the French version, that's when we started to go wrong.
The Church in much of Europe has not been separate from the state in most situations, causing their withering. When religion is institutionalized into the state, your approach to Jesus is institutionalized and political, and not personal like it is supposed to be.
@@ArthurWuYeah211yeah but when it is totally separate you get a huge increase in degeneracy as seen in America.
I like your vids bro🙂
thanks bro
If the US declares itself to be a Christian state, what happens to the various Jews, Muslims, Hindus and atheists in the population and the government? Is their consent not necessary?
I probably imagine for jews, Hindu, and Muslims. Life for them would simply be akin to a non-jew living in the state of Israel in which they have all the same rights and legal protections. But there would be an explicit understanding that they are living in a Christian state and therefore the government won't make a public celebration of things like Ramadan
Good luck being in the UK and being a (im assuming) Christian. I remember seeing this news that a Christian woman, praying outside of an abortion clinic, went to jail or fined.
The separation of church and state is there so the state can't interfere with the church, not the other way around. It would be impossible for people in government to separate their personal beliefs in the decisions they make on a daily basis.
No state church, freedom to choose your own church and pursue God according to your conscience
That is what the founding fathers envisioned
@@auggieeasteregg2150
Exactly
@@bignoob1790I think that is why there is a separation of church and state in the USA so that no single denomination dominates the others whilst Christianity generally influences US society and politics as a whole.
@Gift-ll4nv
I agree somewhat, I don't have a problem with other religions living peacefully in America,
@@bignoob1790 I am not referring to other religions when I say denominations but other Protestant denominations.
Church and state should absolutely be seperate, people deserve the right to live their own life without being governed by religions they don't believe in. Laws should be based on facts and logic, not mythology.
If religion were mythology, that would mean something
Yes but not where religion is kept away from government but where the government stays away from religion
Iran model, only Christian?
@@normalbuerger Iran is trash
3:20 bro broke the #1 rule of Minecraft
Bro has God on his side 🙏🏼
He's a Calvinist. The outcome was predestined either way.
He does this often. He's committed Minecraft sins.
@@HorseloverFat1984 yeah he can't be blamed
@@HorseloverFat1984🤣
Ave Christe Rex✝️☦️
AMEN AND HALLELUJAH 🙏✝️❤️
Maybe they don’t build cathedrals because they can spend that money helping the poor.
Catholic Church is does the most to help the poor
@@fakeaccount-bz5rl are they still building large cathedrals everywhere?
I don't know how you can base your whole government structure on rights given by God and then not have God involved in the government.
For people who want for them to not be separated, I live somewhere where they are quite mixed. As a result the church is very corrupt and people s view of religion in general is tainted by it. It s best that they stay separate. Also the law shouldn’t t be based on religious morality, the law of a state should be useful for it s citizens. Morallity is something one should follow by their own free will, not imposed by law.
You’re actually incorrect about not having state churches. Article 1 section 8 explains legitimate per views of the federal government. Article 1 section 10 explains explicitly the powers which the states do not have
Yes, it’s true. The first amendment of the federal constitution demands that Congress pass no law respecting any religion.
But in the eyes of the founding fathers, when states still had civil rights. States were perfectly fine to establish their own religions.
It was just explicitly mentioned that the federal government could not do so
So in your ideal world, do people that don't follow the particular brand of Christianity of the nation have to leave? Pay a tax?
Are all things considered sinful by the state church illegal?
I love these videos but i feel we need to start a petition to get this man a better computer. Let’s be honest. Man deserves it. How many of us has he helped.
If the state becomes the Christian theocracy and forces people to be baptized, doesn't that defeat the purpose of free will?
He's a Calvinist, they don't believe in free will
Can I get a prayer request for my friend? He's my closest friend. And he has heart cancer. His name is Rex. And he's the Most best friend you could ever ask for. Please pray for him. Please
and what if your country's "state church" isn't the one you agree with?
Corrections:
1. Separation of Church and State
Founding fathers believed in enforcement of ecclesiastical matters should be handled by the church and civic matters should be by the state, "not telling each other what to do". This is not that different than Roman Catholics.
2. State Religion
Most Founding fathers believed that each state should decide on the state religion. It was not the Federal gov't who decide on the whole nation's religion. How they saw was each state is it's own nation. That's why we care called United States.
3. Methodist believe
That's just modern Methodists. Methodists always followed episcopal polity. When they sent missionaries in the olden days (till the early 1900s), all missionaries (except Baptists) always tried their best to convert kings and leaders because they believed in Christianized nations. For example, when missionaries Horace Grant, Henry Appenzeller (Methodist), Horace Allen, Samuel Moffet, etc. went to Korea, first thing they did was to ask for an audience with the king. Their approach was always top down. Look at the effort...in Korea, all presidential candidates declare "Christian faith" to have any chance of winning.
Of course, radical Baptists and their rebellious independent congregational polity ruined the concept... :-)
Church and State should be separate in constitution, as in their institutional makeup. Just like how throughout the middle ages there was the ecclesiastic institutions and the secular institutions. They should not be separate in imperative, as both should be striving to realize Chrisitan ideals in the world.
But in the Middle Ages Bishops also served in government, and the papacy gave commands to the temporal powers
@@graysonguinn1943 Oh they were definitely intertwined, I was more making the point that while there are still strong secular institutions but the ecclesiastic institutions have atrophied away. They need to both exist and be influential, which will result inevitably result in political struggles but that's just human nature.
@@graysonguinn1943The Pope mostly ever emphasized on the ecclesiastical matters like how King Philip or King Henry II started taxing churches, and bishops only ever served as advisors if I’m not wrong and if they had land it was always tied to their noble birth, no monarch ever appointed land to bishops or priests
Just to give some context to the Methodist view on evangelism: at the time of our views being established, we weren't evangelizing to nations because the individuals we were evangelizing to were already a part of a Christian nation (the British empire) and most of the known world that we could travel to belonged to European Christian empires.
There wasn't a question as to whether we should have Christian nations because we already lived in a Christian empire.
I don't think Wesley would have argued against evangelizing to nations in the present day.
Got to be honest. You sound a lot like Doug Wilson. You're saying most of the same things with different words.
Hello Redeemed Zoomer,
Kind of off-topic but I would appreciate your help. I’m looking for some recommendations on the best books a Christian can read to effectively argue for the existence of God when debating with secularists. I know you’re well-read in evolution and mathematics, so any suggestions you have would be of tremendous help. Thanks in advance for your guidance!
Read Tim Keller’s “Reason for God”
It greatly helped me
Im very much a theonomist but I think alot of what he said was gold
Agreed. I may be a bit idealistic when it comes to Theonomy, but it is the most true to revelation of Gods law.
Another great day when I am exploring presbyterian theology and zoomer uploads
We don't have to amend the constitution, because it is already legal precedent for individual states to have state churches. We just need each state to establish it's own official church. That's why a federal church was never established- the majority of the original 13 states already had official churches.
The judicial law still applies in terms of general equity according to Westminster.
To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
Seperation of church and state even in a secular context doesn’t equate to separating religion from state. However, what I don’t agree with is the idea of weaponizing the Christian faith to be a form of government worship through Christian Nationalism. As someone who is Southern Baptist we oppose this ideology based off the very Baptist tenant of freedom of religion and related topic of soul liberation. For example: someone could be another Christian sect, a Jew, even a Muslim and that’s between them and God what religion they are. That means we disagree with trying to force the Christian religion on believers and non believers. When the faith is weaponized as a means of fueling government worship which nationalism ends up it stokes sectarian divisions amongst the public. This form of nationalism only appeals to wannabe theocrats in high church Anglicans and apostolic churches not even the evangelical circles where it originated. Christianity isn’t about forcing religion on others through state policy but making disciples out of the nations by spreading the good news. Unlike Christian Jesus’s kingdom isn’t of this world and the one true church is invisible. All while his kingdom on earth if one wants to put it that way and more importantly in heaven is the church.
If the church has to be separate from the state, so too should the synagogue.
why is bro digging straight down? 😭☠
So… what does a “christian state” look like to you? You didn’t really talk about that, and I’m not sure how to judge your suggestions here without understanding what they are.
While sure the church was the first institution to recognize slavery was bad it doesn't exactly help that the very god they worship was at least condoning the act as you will see in this video: ruclips.net/video/MFE_qz47zjY/видео.htmlsi=ojlsvWUOYQsEHqvo
This clip is also help full: ruclips.net/video/j7rtkLJqbxM/видео.htmlsi=vyK0LELInefciY3v
this clip was taken from this debate: ruclips.net/video/yspPYcJHI3k/видео.htmlsi=lVZ4C5C3YT-ZBVkH
It also doesn't help that the theologians in the south were arguing the exact opposite using the same bible. While sure the north realized this the south didn't. From my point of view is evidence that culture changes faith rather than the other way around. Many (specially white people) in the north didn't think slavery was a moral issue but instead an economic issue. source ruclips.net/video/tsxmyL7TUJg/видео.htmlsi=SNUhAlNY-WFHt9NK at 9:00. prior in the video it was also mentioned how the culture was had aldready changed between the north and south.
In the south people became reliant on slavery while in the north people were not. They became industrius. The reason why slavery was outlawed was not that people realized that it was morally evil but that they figured it was economically not as viable as giving these slaves education and a job in the factory. While religion sure did spear head the whole thing you can't forget the underlying cultural shift away from slavery. If it weren't for industrialization there would still be slavery as that free unpaid labor was often required to have society before industrialization.
I am trying to say you are trying to give credit for the abolishment of slavery to religion which sure did help a bit but not to the extent that the industrialization. You can claim that the industrialization was caused by christianity but my point still stands that christianity didn't win a moral victory, at the very beast it aided in it's destruction unknowingly (which is still not a moral victory) and at the very worse it gave justification for the abominable practice.
I mean the church sure had a major issue in terms of reading comprehension because they were not able to come to the conclusion that slavery is bad given that the god they pray to so clearly tells them it's bad in the bible for the majority of the churches existence. Like seriously the majority of the church misunderstood God's will for more than a millennium of biblical scholar ship. Is it truly reasonable to say it was Christian morals that gave us the knowledge that slavery is bad; the same morals that at an earlier point defended the owners "right" over the slave?
also I'd recommend this debate ruclips.net/video/UMKkX8qRHsw/видео.htmlsi=2KdlL8_RfPkE6gQB the Christian is catholic but the arguments are not specific to Catholics.
I think i can make a theological case for a fully secular America as in faith should be an entirely personal matter and thus have no barring on the governence but It's late and i am tired.
I just opened my phone and saw this. I KNOW ITS GONNA BE GOOD
Yes. Since the Church is only those in God's Kingdom, a separate institution is needed to govern the people as a whole. As the Church, we must strive to make the secular government as God-honoring as possible, while still acknowledging its distinct role. We also must remember that, whether it's God-honoring or not, God is still totally sovereign over it.
I was wondering... what if there was a Fallen Kingdom series with Zoomer as
the king? The Future Mrs. Zoomer would be the queen and their child would be
the Prince and it takes place in the KingdomCraft server. Just throwing in an idea.
What?
@@patatoe2124 Just something I came up with.
Real life is not a Netflix show for your entertainment. They are real people. Why would an adult transfer his actual life to a minecraft scenario for other people to watch. If you are older than 16, you need some grip on reality, bro. If you are younger: you'll get it later what you wished for.
@@HorseloverFat1984 wait was this not a joke?
@@christianfillysecretagents4477 This was meant to be a joke, don’t worry.
Seperation between church and state sounds great.
I'm not a native speaker, but I will try to relate what I understand and you help me to know if understand everything right:
1) Church and state should be separate, but the State has to be christian
2) There should be one church by country
3) The mainline protestant denominations filled the role of the institutional churches of Europe
Did I get this right? If yes, I have a question: how can the church be just one if not stablished and ruled by the State? The only way I can imagine an national church in this case is with the power of the State.
Latvia is a good example of this. The country has one mainline denomination, a Lutheran denomination with an archbishop at its head. The state is completely separate from the church, but the church is so deeply rooted in the country that it penetrates every level of society
question? do you talk while you play or do you go back and speak over it
I think Constantine I (for all his flaws) may have had a good balance on this topic. While he didn’t make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, he was very candid about his allegiances, openly supported the church, and tried to change the legal codes to reflect that. For their part, the church accepted his help, but often pushed back when necessary. They were not simply a state organ that did whatever the emperor wanted.
Church and state should be separate. The same goes for religion and secular states.
Thank you for have an informed view of the phrase "Separation of Church and State"!
You're not correct about this. The view of the founders was that nobody actually knows what version is the correct way to practice, and that people who aren't necessarily Christians (such as Thomas Jefferson who was distinctly NOT a Christian, but a Deist) should not have Christian doctrines imposed upon them by the State. Thomas Jefferson worked specifically to destroy any opportunity for a State Church by writing in the Separation of the two, in order to supersede and destroy the state establishment of religion by the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as the State of Massachusetts.
Secularism in government was specifically the goal of the Enlightenment founders, who are always viewed more appropriately through THAT lens than as Christians forming a new government.
Church and State should be separate. But both Church and State should be Christian.
Mostly, there are some Jewish senators.
In a Christian state, how do you determine which variety of Christianity the state should follow? What if the state decides your beliefs are wrong? What happens to non-Christian citizens? Secular states don’t have these problems.
@@spicymilk7311 Anything biblical. As long as it's not corrupt or ungodly, it's gonna be a pretty good government.
@@Jesuslover2000 Here’s the problem: how do you determine what is biblical, and who should have the power to make that decision? Every denomination has different views on what the Bible teaches. There may be a lot of overlap when it comes to fundamental doctrines, but less significant differences can still cause friction. Also, the idea that a government based on biblical principles is guaranteed to be good is disproved by history. The society of Puritan-controlled colonial Massachusetts certainly had a biblical basis, but you’d be hard pressed to find anybody who would defend the Salem Witch Trials.
@@spicymilk7311you keep making the assertion the doctrinal differences will cause great discrepancies in how Gods law will be exegeted. You’ll have to give an example of how that’s true.
I'm not a citizen of my country, but new Jerusalem. I obey the laws, I have no cares for the kingdoms of man anymore, so yes.
im glad my church focuses on spending the money it raises for missionaries and ministering to the less fortunate instead of building some large ornate structure to replace a perfect functional building
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” From Washington farewell address
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” - Treaty of Tripoli, passed unanimously and without debate or discussion through the Senate and signed by president John Adams, 1797.
Too bad that many modern Westerners interpret the separation of church and state as "it should be forbidden for politicians to even utter the word Christmas, and we should eradicate all traces of Christianity from our general culture".
The idea of a separate church and state is to protect the church. It’s to protect all religions from government restricting religion or creating its own. Many have argued that includes morality based laws and that politicians shouldn’t exercise their religion. The principle is that the government should not setup a state religion that must be worshipped or is above other religions. If constituents vote for a representative and tell that representative to sponsor a law for something that might be considered a moral law then it is not the same as a government official creating a religion or hindering other religions. But the idea is not to protect the state, it’s to protect the people from a Church of England situation where other religions and other Christians were persecuted
What, no pithy commentary before the KingdomCraft intro?
You said that the moral law applies to us today and that the 10 commandments apply to us today.
Do believers HAVE to follow the Ten Commandments? Can a believer know what the 10 commandments are and understand they apply to us and be saved even if they purposely don’t follow them?
faith without works is dead. If someone has true faith, why wouldn't they even try to follow the law?
@@redeemedzoomer6053 I agree with you. But that’s why I don’t think the Catholic Church is wrong to say that all men may obtain salvation through faith, baptism, and observance of the commandments.
I don’t understand how someone could have true faith and not do what God has asked (even if they do it imperfectly).
Could you make a video or short covering the Greco Catholic Church?( even though it’s not Protestant)
Joining Church and State is un American. Period.
Redeemed zoomer. What books do you recommend to read on covenant theology? I'm newly presbyterian and I want to master covenant theology but I don't know where to start. You seem very intelligent on that. What do you recommend me?
John Calvin Institutes
@@nonameguy4441 I already have it but the issue is that it doesn't talk about covenant theology it is only a broad knowledge of what truly is the christian relgion and doctrine.
I’m going through covenant theology as well. Kevin De Young has has class lectures from RTS on RUclips!
@@jermoosekek1101 Yes,I do think I've seen those lectures. I might check them later.
The ELCA is basically the de facto state Church where Im from in Minnesota and some neighboring states. One thing we have over the LCMS is the fact that we are the de facto state church in every state from Montana to Minnesota. Plus, at least we have many conservative congregations still.
How them United established reformed chuches doing now [this meme brought to you by Baptist Mafia]
If presbyterians have no bishops then how did they build cathedrals
Presbyterians sort of have bishops and sort of don't. Presbyterians don't have a separate office for bishops. They've always seen bishops and elders as the same thing. So I guess the cathedral would be run by some kind of regional presbyter.
Great question. In the true sense of the word, they didn't. You're absolutely right - no bishop means no seat of that bishop (i.e. a cathedral). Some cathedrals maintained their historic name (cathedrals in name only) after the Reformation even when occupied by Presbyterians/Reformed, but you're right that they still didn't build those. Of course, you could speak colloquially (albeit erroneously) about the idea of Presbyterians simply building an impressive church building that is 'Cathedral-like' to the popular imagination.
@@Mic1904 maybe grand Gothic-style Parishes would work better.
Can you please make a video explaining where from the scriptures you draw these beliefs? Or recommend some other resource? You did say Jesus healed the sick so we should build hospitals but I'm looking for more. The great commission reads like personal evangelism (or evangelism to families) to me. It makes logical sense to start with people of power and influence, yet scripture says God chooses what is weak in the world to shame the strong and Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. But I know you're a really knowledgeable guy who's taught me so much so I'm sure there are reasons but I'm honestly having trouble finding answers.
But what about religious or the LBGQ Community wouldn't the government being christian screw these groups over?
✨They don't care✨
You explain things very well
Bit of a Troll question.... How can there be "Traditional Presbyterian beliefs" when the presbyterian beliefs only existed for the last quarter of the churches life?
The same way the "Traditional Latin Mass" in the Catholic church is still called "Traditional" even though it came after the Reformation
Absolutely roasted lol
@@redeemedzoomer6053What I say to Novus Ordo haters 😄
@@redeemedzoomer6053 well it is said that main form of TLM was known at the time of pope Gregory the Great and at Trent it was only finalized and formalized.
Digging straight downward? Bold.
Thanks!
It’s kind of insane that you made this video; because I’ve been diving so deep into John Knox and George Gillespie trying to wrestle with this problem of church and state.
For the last week; I’ve just been realizing that these guys were so fundamental to the success of America; and not having their principles is exactly why we’re dying.
If the separation of church and state doesn't work both ways, then eventually when the state becomes fully atheist, it will trump the church down.
The vast majority of beautiful European churches are basically glorified museums that are forcibly supplemented by a church tax.
8:15 Nondenominationals don't build cathedrals because they are not governed by bishops, silly
You should do a video on Lutheran Pietism but be fair please!! I am a pietist feel as if we get the snot straw manned out of us.
My denomination has over 700 congregations across the United States and I can best describe it as essentially a blend between Lutheranism and evangelical.
I believe that Mary is the mother of God and I hate when typical evangelicals say otherwise
I believe in the spiritual presence in the sacraments, water baptism(for believers or infants ultimately it doesn’t matter because it’s only valid with faith), and the Lord supper and I believe that the sacraments are and means of grace, however, the grace given to faith as the only necessary, salvific grace. The grace delivered from baptism or lords supper or hearing a sermon or reading scripture just strengthen your faith
I am amillennial
They appeal to many early counsels.
Also icons are fine as holy art
Lords supper every Sunday
On the other hand some ways it’s more evangelical:
majority of people favor believer’s baptism but I do ultimately think the truth is that if it’s applied only via faith then it doesn’t matter so may as well baptize children I’m kind of an outlier in the denomination because we officially say to “discern with pastors and congregations” but most pastors and people in the denomination would not say for infants I believe. But they wouldn’t judge either way because ultimately it’s the faith thing again so it’s kinda complicated 🤷♂️
Contemporary music
Pastors dressed like street people and not all robed up.
I did once
@@redeemedzoomer6053 interesting I tried to look I wanted to see if you bullied me or not but didn’t find it 😂 I’ll look again
@@bguysworth649 just look up “Redeemed Zoomer pietism” you’ll find it
@@redeemedzoomer6053 I started my Christian journey with Eastern Orthodoxy and when I got married my wife was Pentecostal. After a lot of theological study and Bible reading with each other Lutheran Pietism is where we ended up and both learned a lot on the journey to it.
Great comments early in the video about nations as the objective of evangelism.
11:46 "Okay, I´m back"😂 Nice Video btw
Zoomer definitely watched pastor Matt's video
Matt who?
@@brittybee6615 Matthew Everhard
@@jkproluigi7473 thank you
Absolutely. I don't want church interfering with politics and I don't want politics interfering with church. They two need to be completely separated
You know a Cathedral is a church governed by a Bishop, not just a really really big church, right?
13:39 You should use your axe here and go for grits. That skeleton almost ended your life bro
Building large cathedrals is the opposite of sharing resources
We should have a united church for America, where Americans of all denominations can congregate.
Make it big, and make it beautiful.
Give unto the Caesar what is Caesars due. Politics will always corrupt.
Always a good day when you post. 😊
It seems like your view is not much different from Catholic integralism, minus the "Catholic" part obviously. The only difference seems to be due to different ecclesiology, where we would say that the state not only has to endorse mere Christianity, but Catholicism specifically, which wouldn't work for Protestants, since you don't consider your specific denomination to be One True Church.
Hey brother, I’m a Christian from Australia, and I thoroughly agree with your emphasis on scriptural authority, however I’m a leftist. I think it’s a bit of a fallacy to act like wokeness only comes with abandoning scripture. I believe Jesus calls us to love God and love one another, and we spread the love of God by striving to build the kingdom of God here. This pursuit has led me to social justice pursuits and leftist politics, with more nuanced views on some subjects (I believe in the union of a man an a woman and that abortion should not be legal in all cases). Do you reckon you’d be interested in talking about whether aligning these dichotomies is valid or not?
Free Church in free State.
The State should recognise the freedom of every individuals to choose and profess their religion according to their conscience. On the other hand, public powers get their legitimacy by and are exercised according to the constitution and the rule of law.
Churches, religious association and movements can legally make lobbying activities like corporations, labour unions, civic associations, political parties and non-governative organisations do. That's not in contradiction with a pluralistic and lay society, but its consequence. A lay and pluralistic society should grant the right to its forces to manifest themselves through these bodies.
We can argue if law is just armed ethics but the real question is when a precept, whatever its origin is, needs to be enforced by the public hand. The answer may be that should be done only as last resort, when citizens' rights are actually menaced by some man committed facts.
I'm sorry for the long and a little off-topic comment.
The Roman Catholic Church was the National Church of the Roman Empire. Christ came when He came because of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire carried and protected the Church and the faith and acted as a means for spreading it.
This means that we need theocracies
What book of the bible you recomend after i have read gospel of mark my church camp teacher recomended it to us.
Modern americans have no clue what the phrase seperation of church and state means nor why it was even said.
Christian nationalism is the understanding that America is a nation and should Ramin a nation and it's elected representatives first priority should be to the nation and the people in said nation
Under the basic principals of Christianity found in the 10 Commandments. Meaning religious freedom for individuals but the state should recognize there is 1 Lord over them, to keep them from thinking they're God.
The constitution does not work with a secular govt. Our constitutional Republic only works if the govt understands THEY ARE NOT GOD. The rest of the 10 commandments there are already laws for, do not steal, do not murder, etc. Our secular govt just oucks amd choose if amd who they charge against those commandments. There's a group of people that have been giving liberty to murder as much as they please.
I agree that a state church is a good idea and part of my vision of the ideal country, but I don't think that carries over very well to America, especially modern America. The mainline churches have no cultural significance anymore, and what little cultural presence they have is rapidly diminishing. Evangelicals actually have a larger sway over culture at this point, and unless the mainline churches were to be recovered AND see tremendous growth, that won't change. For basically everyone except evangelicals, church is not a big thing in their lives, if they go to church at all. I also think it's dangerous to put so much emphasis on creating a "Christian nation" if the emphasis on true conversion is not there. That's what led the mainline churches to become polluted, after all. The most dangerous cultural impact of traditional Christianity is the creation of a Christian identity that is tied to the culture, even the family, but not the Gospel. When churches compromise and lose their integrity, they make room for unconverted ministers to come in and hijack the church. The decision to allow people who are preaching a false gospel to remain in the church is a very bad one, particularly if they are in places of influence in churches or seminaries. This is where mainline churches dropped the ball and why people started leaving. Baptists and non denoms are the ones who put the most emphasis on personal conversion, and thus create the most stable and vibrant Christian communities, and theological liberalism is far less common in their circles than in groups where someone can be considered Christian and allowed to be part of the church while they very clearly are going against the Bible
Whenever he starts talking about “public school propaganda” I know things are getting interesting 😂😂😂
Based Presbyterian Scholastics
I think the SBC's Faith and Message 2000 puts it the best:
"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power."
Did you just google this and copy and paste this into the comments? I was just wondering if people who put absurdly large quotes, just remember that or copy and paste.
@@JoWilliams-ud4euI did, yes, but I knew the Baptist view generally since I line up with them theologically on the vast majority of things. The F&M says my view better than I can.
@@JoWilliams-ud4euTakes time to do that, but some people can.
This sounds exactly right. All I would ad is the freedom for any christian to worship in their own way.
@@ViguLiviu I would argue that's included under the part about the "state owing every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends." Remender that under Baptist theology, the Church is not the building but a collection of individual believers.
As a traditional Scottish Free Presbyterian, I approve of the Covenant and the Word of the Lord. Keep life simple and honest. Proverbs 3:5.