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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good work bro

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

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

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

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

Good for you, Jared. Great posting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent

Christ or chaos!

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

Amen!

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

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

That video cover is amazing

👊🏼🔥🙏🏼

Very helpful Pastor!

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

Scary stuff!!

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

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

I love that Christian Nationalism is growing and becoming mainstream.

Thank you my brother for your clarity in sharing truth.

Christian Fascism is more like it !

Hallelujah! No King But Jesus!

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

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

You cannot force God, it is not the way

Romans 13 is a good start, but we also gain from the example of the Apostle Paul, when he used his Roman citizenship to escape an unjust beating and death at the hands of the Jews.

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

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

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

Best one yet!

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

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

Amen

Of what spirit are you of?

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

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

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

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

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

Yes i agree that laws must come from the great invisible space wizard living 'up there'.

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

Wacky

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

That is some tortuous accounting.

What a bunch of bullshit. I want my 12 minutes back

How about Revival and Reformation? Rather than Reformation and Revival...

Unbaptized men. Read uncircumcised Philistines.😅

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

We might have to get our salvation from Him!

You have to prove your god exists, and we all must submit to your theocracy.