So a people group is:
"A people group is an ethnolinguistic group with a common self-identity that is shared by the various members."
A Nation is:
a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
Sounds like the same thing to me!
So much more that I entirely disagree with you about, especially your outlandish claim that postmillenialism is "heresy" and that the Puritan Churches were antichrist, but I had a good laugh.
Here's some lovely items from people that you *apparently* claim are "heretics" for being postmillenial, which includes the Puritans, Jeff Durbin, James White, R.C Sproul and more.
I doubt it, nor would I support it.
I'm not a huge fan of the pledge.
I take issue with "indivisible" and if it weren't for the addition of "under God" I wouldn't say the pledge.
The objective of a Christian government (not a theocracy) is not to force people to be Christians.
The objective of a Christian government is to promote Christian worldviews and morality.
All Chevrolets are motor vehicles, but not all motor vehicles are Chevrolets.
A “nation,” in a biblical sense, can be a country, but the political structure itself is not a nation. Nowhere in the New Testament do you see Christians attempting to use the government to support the work of the church. Jesus makes it quite clear that the Kingdom of God is distinct from any earthly Kingdom. If you disagree with that, then explain what Jesus REALLY meant. Or don’t you respect scripture enough to cite and explain it?
I said nothing of the sort. If you jumped to that conclusion, you don’t understand much of anything about theology.
What do you call a church that persecutes believers with imprisonment, public whippings, and exile? If you approve of such things, why are you on Baptistboard, since Baptists were prime targets for their evil?
You may find this hard to believe, but the right-wing dread of people laughing at them doesn’t bother me at all. Confident people are not concerned about fools laughing at them. All you are doing is telegraphing your crippling insecurities.
I claimed nothing of the sort, so this is simply a false accusation that you are using to distract from your inability to actually deal with the scriptures I have previously cited.
If you are a follower of Jesus, let’s deal with what he said about these things. Or are you too afraid to show your ignorance?
I am also not a fan of the pledge. The “one nation under God” statement violates the separation of church and state. A citizen should not be cajoled into making a theological assertion, especially one that is vague and often distorted.
[wuote]The objective of a Christian government (not a theocracy) is not to force people to be Christians.
The objective of a Christian government is to promote Christian worldviews and morality.[/QUOTE]
Why don’t you have faith in the church to do those things, as well as spread the gospel? The early church was extremely successful and transformed Greco-Roman culture without stooping to use the power and authority of the state. When Constantine made “Christianity” the official religion, it began a long period of decline and corruption. We should learn the lessons of history instead of committing the same sins and errors again.
Seperation of church and state is a myth.
The only thing the COTUS says is that the (Federal) govt cannot have a state religion.
-- Remember - several states/commonwealths did have
a state religion after the first amendment was ratified.
Second - if someone left out "under God" I dont think anyone is going to have a fit over that.
I supposed it is vague for that very reason - as "God" can just about refer to any religion.
False. It is a central tenet of Baptist theology. You are not a Baptist if you reject separation of church and state. Baptists were key players in the formation and passage of the First Amendment.
Sure, but they eventually dropped their state churches (even Massachusetts). Then, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, all naturally-born persons became federal citizens and had their First Amendment rights eventually guaranteed through the 14th Amendment.
and there are Baptists who will allow church membership without immersion
and there are Baptist who do NOT beleive in any kind of network/associations
and currently there are Baptists churches who now have an elder led church which makes all decisions of the church
The exact words, "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution, but the meaning is there. Even a casual look at the history behind the creation of the First Amendment demonstrates it. In the same way, the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, but it is a shorthand way of referencing a biblical truth.
The system software converted your assertion to a smiley, so I don't completely understand your reference, but Baptists have historically (until very recently) advocated separation of church and state. The only reason some "Baptists" had recently deviated from it is due to either ignorance of their own history and the scriptures, or a desire to go along with the evangelical crowd that seeks to control the US government.
I happily adhere to all those distinctive Baptist beliefs and look forward to the growing movement of Christian Nationalism now that Secularism has been exposed for the failure it is.
The Civil Government promoting Christian morality is an excellent end goal for Christian Nationalists or Theonomists and is fully in keeping with the "Separation of Church and State".