I'm a little wary of the XNat movement (if that's the correct term), and Trump's recent speeches concerning Greenland, Canada and Mexico, and leaving on the table possible military engagement (these may not be related but I think they are). It is true that God setup Israel as a nation with borders that needed to be protected. But those borders were fixed borders, and God did not tell the Israelites to expand those borders. Instead, they were to evangelize to the countries beyond their borders, but they became prideful in that they were the chosen people of God, etc., and the bible explains how that played out.
I haven't gotten into the weeds concerning the XNats and what they say, I suppose because I have problems accepting a postmil position. My point of view, separate from a biblical point of view, is that the United States should return to their isolationist roots before WW1 (maybe earlier than that, considering Teddy Roosevelt was a globalist bent on obtaining the glory of war). We should be concerned about our borders and the people who live within those borders, either born here or legally immigrated. I'm not saying completely cutoff because we should continue exporting and importing trade. We also couldn't establish and/or maintain a theocracy or theonomic system of government. It has been tried before with not so good results. I see the Reformed postmil leaders in their discussions and podcasts with purposefully built aesthetic sets with a bottle of some high-end single malt scotch or whiskey and a smoldering Churchill smoldering in an ash tray, and I can't help but think of them looking pretentious and pompous.
Perhaps I am just rambling and way off base here. I would have to spend time researching it more. I do know that I wouldn't jump to the conclusion of calling them racist or whatever else G3 accused them of being. That's a leftist move and a copout so they wouldn't have to engage in an actual discussion to, as you said, flesh out what the right biblical XNat position is and isn't.
I'm a little wary of the XNat movement (if that's the correct term), and Trump's recent speeches concerning Greenland, Canada and Mexico, and leaving on the table possible military engagement (these may not be related but I think they are). It is true that God setup Israel as a nation with borders that needed to be protected. But those borders were fixed borders, and God did not tell the Israelites to expand those borders. Instead, they were to evangelize to the countries beyond their borders, but they became prideful in that they were the chosen people of God, etc., and the bible explains how that played out.
I haven't gotten into the weeds concerning the XNats and what they say, I suppose because I have problems accepting a postmil position. My point of view, separate from a biblical point of view, is that the United States should return to their isolationist roots before WW1 (maybe earlier than that, considering Teddy Roosevelt was a globalist bent on obtaining the glory of war). We should be concerned about our borders and the people who live within those borders, either born here or legally immigrated. I'm not saying completely cutoff because we should continue exporting and importing trade. We also couldn't establish and/or maintain a theocracy or theonomic system of government. It has been tried before with not so good results. I see the Reformed postmil leaders in their discussions and podcasts with purposefully built aesthetic sets with a bottle of some high-end single malt scotch or whiskey and a smoldering Churchill smoldering in an ash tray, and I can't help but think of them looking pretentious and pompous.
Perhaps I am just rambling and way off base here. I would have to spend time researching it more. I do know that I wouldn't jump to the conclusion of calling them racist or whatever else G3 accused them of being. That's a leftist move and a copout so they wouldn't have to engage in an actual discussion to, as you said, flesh out what the right biblical XNat position is and isn't.
I’m curious what book on theomony was Hicks sharing?
I know he co-authored a book with Waldron being released soon
It seems to be addressing the Theonomy 1.0 vs 2.0 as you have been discussing much
Believe it’s called Theonomy Old and New - a Reformed Baptist Critique
Should be a good read
Yes, that’s the one.