Relative to the interpretation below, consider these quotes from the Geneva Bible footnotes:
Rom.11:22.3 “… we must mark here, that he speaketh not of the election of every private man, which remainest steadfast forever, but of the election of the whole nation.”
Rom.11:23 “…[Some] are cut off and clean cast away: which thing is especially to be considered in nations and peoples, as in the Gentiles and the Jews.”
Rom.11:24.1 “… he speaketh of the whole nation, not of every one part.”
And now for the interpretation of Romans 11 proving Christian Nationalism;
“Romans 11:17, 19, with its “branches broken off” metaphor has frequently been viewed as proof of the relativity and changeability of election, and it is pointed out that at the end of vs. 23, the Gentile Christians are threatened with being cut off in case they do not continue in the kindness of God. But wrongly. Already this image of engrafting should have restrained such an explanation. This image is nowhere and never used of the implanting of an individual Christian, into the mystical body of Christ by regeneration. Rather, it signifies the reception of a racial line or national line into the dispensation of the covenant or their exclusion from it. This reception, of course, occurs by faith in the preached word, and to that extent, with this engrafting of a race or a nation, there is also connected the implanting of individuals into the body of Christ. The cutting off, of course, occurs by unbelief; not, however, by the unbelief of person who first believed, but solely by the remaining in unbelief of those who, by virtue of their belonging to the racial line, should have believed and were reckoned as believers. So, a rejection ( = multiple rejections) of an elect race is possible, without it being connected to a reprobation of elect believers. Certainly, however, the rejection of a race or nation involves at the same time the personal reprobation of a sequence of people. Nearly all the Israelites who are born and die between the rejection of Israel as a nation and the reception of Israel at the end times appear to belong to those reprobated. And the thread of Romans 11:22 (of being broken off) is not directed to the Gentile Christians as individual believers but to them considered racially.”
Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1 — 118
“God’s decree is not exclusively concerned with individuals but also comprises nations and establishes the bond between generations. The destiny of a nation is weighed by Him, as is the destiny of a person. There is not the slightest interest, indeed is completely impossible on Reformed grounds, to deny national election or whatever it may be called.”
Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol 1. — pg. 111
A few observations;
1,) This statement more clearly than could be asked prohibits the New World Order agenda of erasing the Nations and turning the world into a vast melting pot. If God elects nations then nations are God’s means whereby he elects persons from those nations. To advocate positions that would destroy nations is to resist God.
2.) Note also that this National Election, Vos offers, establishes the bond between generations. Clearly if National Election establishes the bond between generations it is a ethnic bond as well as a generational bond. Generations in a nation belong to the same ethnos since nation by its very definition is descent from a common ancestor. God works in ethnic lines as covenant theology expressly teaches. The bond God establishes in a elect nation is ethnic as well as Spiritual. Any attempt to destroy the ethno-generational bond that God establishes in and among nations is an attempt to overthrow God.
3.) Any alienist theology which tries to teach a postmillennialism where all peoples bleed into one is a anti-Christ theology-eschatology. New World Order “Christianity is anti-covenant theology. The same is true of those “theologians” (we refer to them as theologian only by way of courtesy, not by way of conviction) like Doug Wilson or Andrew Sandlin and numerous others who adamantly oppose Christian Nationalism. If what Vos says is accurate in interpreting Romans 11 then Christian Nationalism is as Biblical as any other doctrine one would like to name. One cannot be a postmillennialist and at the same time eschew Christian Nationalism and its kissing cousin “Kinism.”
4.) The Vos quote exposes the depths of stupidity of people like R. Scott Clark who despite saying he believes that whole notion of Christian Nationalism is cosplay has devoted to this point 7 full entries railing against the notion of Christian Nationalism. If Christian Nationalism is so impossible why is Clark wasting his time on it?
Continuing on this theme we find Reformed Idiots like Andrew Sandlin saying things like this;
“Racism (with its kissing cousin kinism) has deep roots in ancient paganism. The gospel universalizes. Racism tribalizes.”
Keep in mind that the whole concept and idea of “racism” barely existed as a thing until Trotsky wildly popularized the notion, filling it with new negative meaning, as a means to eliminate Slavic political groups he wished to eliminate.
Today, the word “racism” functions in the same way that Trotsky intended it. The word “racism” today has no stable meaning and is merely used as a linguistic cudgel to beat white Christians over the head with in order to seek to fill them with false guilt unto the end of eliminating them as a people who bring the fragrance of Christ to every area of life.
