Laborers' Podcast- Christian Nationalism

Welcome to The Laborer's Podcast. Thank you for joining us again tonight. Tonight we are going to be discussing Christian nationalism. Was it made up by rich old white guys? Is there a negative connotation to this that we need to be wary of?

We're gonna try to get to the bottom of Christian nationalism tonight. We hope you'll stick around and join us. Welcome to The Laborer's Podcast, which.

Is a part of the Truth in Love Network. Join us as together we strive to grow up together in all things into Christ. Subscribe and follow the Truth in Love Network on Facebook, YouTube, Rumble, Spotify, and iTunes.

Now let's join our.

Laborers for tonight's broadcast. Welcome back to The Laborer's Podcast. I am with Claude Ramsey, the Happy Calvinist, the Here I Stand Theology Podcast, Big John, Real Talk with Big John, Jay, the Reformerican, and Tyler, the Brother Word Podcast.

And I think we can have an announcement tonight. I feel like if you guys feel like there was agreement within our chat group, I thought about announcing officially our conference theme for 2024. I've got to download throughout the podcast.

At some point I need to download the photo, but you guys feel like we can announce that tonight? Go for it. Nice. Yes, sir. I think we can. Awesome. So be looking forward, be looking ahead to the 2024 Laborer's Conference.

It's gonna be in Knoxville, Tennessee at Reformata Baptist Church. Tonight we're gonna be talking about Christian nationalism. The comment line is open, and we do apologize. We were talking about this prior to coming on live that some people do not get their comments through when they make them while the shows are live.

And it doesn't just happen here, it happens other podcasts. So we apologize if you make a comment and it doesn't come through and we don't see it. We hope it does because we want to hear from you. So let us know if you have any questions, critiques, comments.

We would just love to hear from you and at least say hello. Let us know you're watching. How you guys doing? Doing well. Doing good, brother. Doing good. Awesome. So yeah, like I mentioned in the opening, I think Christian nationalism has a lot of mischaracterizations, caricatures, misrepresentations, and I really hope that we can get down to the bottom of it because what I've seen, what I've looked into it, it is maybe simple to me and biblical.

I don't think that you have to hold to a certain type of eschatology or soteriology to be a Christian nationalist. I just think it's plain biblical if you understand it rightly. And I think some of us will be pulling from the statement of Christian nationalism.

You can find that online, statement of Christian nationalism. I think it's a good statement so far from what I've seen of it. So let's jump into the questions and find out what this is all about. Jay, let's start at the bottom.

I know this was a topic that you're interested in a lot. What is Christian nationalism and how is it.

Defined? Sure. Well, I would consider myself a Christian nationalist. I'm just gonna put it out there. So I am biased when it comes to the answers that I'm gonna give, but I hope that people will give me a chance before writing me off as a heretic and never watching my channel ever again.

So I would say that Christian nationalism is really just the understanding that biblical truth is the only truth, and that it's in a nation's best interest to establish biblical laws and to have a biblical culture.

That's honestly the simplest way I can put it, but I want to give a chance to everybody else before I go off for like 30 minutes.

So if you guys could define it in your own way or from your own studies, what have you come up with, Tyler, Claude, John, Christian nationalism?

Defining Christian Nationalism and the Statement on Christian Nationalism

Well, just to speak to, I guess, the definition of the two words in that, the subterms, Christian and nationalism. Nationalism, we often associate that with political theory. Claude and I did an episode on that a couple years ago that was quite interesting, and I actually came up with the idea of nationalism and how that fits into the way we look at things like Roman XIII.

And the idea of nationalism, in a nutshell, is the framing of ideas around the best interest of a nation as opposed to, say, globalism, this idea of looking at things in light of the world. Let's frame our decisions in politics, in economics, etc., according to what's in the best interest of our nation.

And so we funnel that through the term Christian, which we get that from the Book of Acts, those who are like Christ. And so what we mean by Christian nationalism is a version of nationalism, a version of looking for the best interest of our nation in a way that is Christ-like.

Well, I'll be honest with you. I haven't got very much input, probably, for the topic of Christian nationalism. A lot of the statement that I read that was sent to me the other week, and I just looked it back up to make sure I was referring to the same thing, I didn't see anything in there that I didn't agree with.

I think a collection of people living by God's standards are always going to be better off than people that don't. Furthermore, I think that the whole concept of I suppose the only thing that I would think that would no, I don't think I want to bring that up yet.

There's other questions that are drawn to that. I'm going to yield my time to the man from Tennessee. You can kind of bleed in too, Claude, with number two, because I think they relate. What are the key beliefs, principles associated with Christian nationalism?

Kind of the same question.

All right. Well, I'll just so we can keep going around, I'll give you the basic definition. So without the adjective, just nationalism, the definition of nationalism is an ideology that emphasizes loyalty, devotion, or allegiance to a nation or a nation state and holds that such obligations outweigh other individual or group interests, just to keep that black and white.

That's a good, straightforward definition of nationalism. And as to whether it's good or bad to add the Christian adjective onto that, describing that, that's what we're going to be talking about tonight.

Hey, I just want to say, Claude promised that he would tell us what his stands on Christian nationalism is, because Has he told any of you guys on the side? Because he hasn't told me. I've been texting him, harassing him.

He won't answer me. We've got to hold his feet to the fire.

So let me go ahead and tell you. So here's and that's all I've got to say about that.

That's where that comes in. This was planned.

Yes, it was. He just pulled a Forrest Gump on us. Oh my goodness.

All right, so I am in the negative for Christian against Christian nationalism.

Ah. Disappointed. Well, that's very interesting. Listen, I think I found my mission for tonight's podcast.

Is that a strong negative, or is it a I could be persuaded?

Well, no, I don't think so. But in any case, we'll talk about that. Oh boy. And I think that if we're going to be talking about Christian nationalism, and we're going to use a defining definitional terms specific, I think we have to look at the statement, right, because it's easy to pull from different people what they're saying about it.

But if we're going to look at it, we should look at the statement on Christian nationalism. They do have a definition. Yeah, section by section. And then they've got affirmations and denials, which, you know, it's pretty straightforward what Christian nationalism is.

I think as far as clarity, they've done their due diligence to lay out Christian nationalism, and then it's just for individuals, individual believers to make their decision on.

So can you repeat your definition one more time? I want to get it in my mind.

Of just nationalism, plain nationalism? Yeah, just nationalism, yeah. So nationalism is an ideology that emphasizes loyalty, devotion, or allegiance to a nation or a nation state and holds that such obligations outweigh other individual groups, individual or group interests.

Okay. So to say, to call it Christian nationalism, by definition would be to say that the Christian, that the nation state should hold to the Christian view and it should outweigh all other individual or all other group interests.

With, so you can kind of split that definition in half. The first half is I have an allegiance to this particular nation, and for this particular nation, I think the influence should be this particular dogma or religion over everyone else.

Okay. All right. Gotcha. So let me read the, I'm kind of going off script, but let me read the definition from the website and see if there's some meshing or some head-butting there with the definitions.

So their definition says, is a set of governing principles rooted in Scripture's teaching that Christ rules as Supreme Lord and King of all creation, who has ordained civil magistrates with delegated authority to be under him, over the people, to order their ordained jurisdiction by punishing evil and promoting good for his own glory and the common good of the nation.

So I can see how there's some matching there with that definition because you have your bias there at the forefront. Right. Which is God the Father and Jesus Christ who rules as Lord and King. That should be our influence over everyone else, over all creation.

And then it also influences the rulers over that nation, those who lead over that nation and what they should do.

Yes. So, I mean, the definition that they use there at the top is very straightforward. It's very clear. It's in the outworking of that statement that I find challenging, personally. Gotcha.

Which is kind of getting into question number two and maybe even touching on question number three, if I'm looking at the right outline. Am I right in that, Brother Robert? Yeah. Go ahead with either one of those.

So, I was going to, before the man from Tennessee said it, I was going to say one of the things that I found concerning about some of the definition. If there was anything, let's go to Scripture right quick, John chapter 18, 28.

Then they took Jesus before the office of the governor's headquarters in the early morning and did not enter into headquarters themselves. Otherwise, they would have been defiled and none they believed to pass up.

Then Pilate came out to them and said, What charge do you bring against this man? And they answered, If this man weren't a criminal, we would have handed him over to you. So Pilate told him, Take him yourselves and judge according to your law if it is legal for you to put anyone to death.

And the Jews declared that it is so that Jesus' words might be fulfilled, signifying the sort of death he was going to die. Then Pilate went back to the headquarters and summoned Jesus. And he said to him, Are you the king of the Jews?

He said, Are you asking this of your own or for the others about me? Pilate speaking now, he said, I'm not a Jew, am I? Pilate replied, Your own nation and the chief priest handed you over to me. What have you done?

My kingdom, this is Jesus, my kingdom is not of this world. Jesus said, If my kingdom were of this world, my service would fight so that I wouldn't be handed over to the Jews as it is. My kingdom does not have its origin here.

He said, You are a king then, Pilate asked. You say I am a king. Jesus replied, I was born for this and I've come into the world for this to testify the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.

I read that entirely for context sake. The part of me that has a hard time rationalizing what I believe its application is, is going to boil down to this. Christ is king regardless of the country that you're in and regardless of the politics of the country, regardless of the leadership of the country.

So while I do support people, obviously, in leadership that are Christians, promoting Christian ideals and promoting Christian teachings, I think that we all should. And I do support the idea of anything this book is saying is immoral being dubbed immoral by society.

I've got no problem with that whatsoever. I suppose I'm looking at a time when the Jewish people were living in their own city state, in their own form of nationalism under a king, and they screwed this thing up so bad that they don't recognize God when he walks among them.

And I suppose I'm fearful. I'm fearful that the ideology of it sounds great, but the application of it by such fallen creatures is impossible to be carried out correctly. Is that fair?

That's fair. That's fair. Now, I am noticing that we're going to have a bit of a debate here. So let me go ahead and just I'm going to lead into it. That's okay. Hey, go for it, man. Go for it, brother.

We all love each other. We're all family here. It's all right. That's right. So you guys would agree, right, that we as Christians have primarily a responsibility to share the gospel with all people where we are at, correct?

Correct. To call civil magistrates to do the only justice, which is biblical justice, to tell everybody what is right and what is wrong according to God's word, correct? Yes. All right. So if we agree on that, what is it that you're not applying from Christian nationalism?

Like I said, the ideology of it is fine. I'm more worried about the practical application of it. And I say that based all right. So I would like to see an example in history of mankind where it's been successfully done.

I've got no problem succeeding or conceding to the fact that I may be wrong. I reserve the right to be wrong at any time. If somebody could show me an example of where Christian nationalism is applied in a way that holds to the truth of Scripture always and never to the biases of the people that are in charge.

Let's be honest with one another. You're reformed. I support you. I love you. I'm not, right? I don't deny God's sovereignty or any of that. My worldview is going to mean that when I speak to people about Christ, I'm going to act as if though they have a choice to follow him or not to follow him.

And there will be some maybe more hopper Calvinist out there than maybe y 'all that would believe that choice has already been made entirely before you even walk up to that man. And this is merely going through the motions of sharing the gospel.

I would say that that man has some choice he's making. He has to surrender to Christ to some degree. And I know we're getting into a little bit of, you know, the differences between Armenianism maybe and Calvinism.

But if that were to, if, if, if we were to have a nation that was ran by hyper Calvinist or hyper preterist, then I can see a recipe for, for problem inside the church. Right. I can. So that I'm not saying the idea is wrong.

I'm not saying that I don't agree that the, the ideology around it doesn't sound great. I am all for justice being served. We're commanded to seek justice, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. All of that.

I'm whole hog in that man. Just never seen an example in the history of mankind where it's played out.

So let me, let me ask you a question. Are you saying that your concern is that a particular church is going to be running the government or is that?

Maybe not. I suppose that could, that could be looked at that way. But if I'm, if I'm understanding it correctly, and mind you, I may not be. Okay. Uh, if a, if whoever the powers that be are adhere to a doctrinal belief and this, and they wind up becoming dogmatic in their doctrinal belief and they make the minor things, the major things and wind up alienating different members of the church based on their dog, their ideology or their, their doctrine.

Then you run the risk of having people really being a part of the same bride and the same, the same church. Okay. And not be able to walk together and you serve to cause more harm than good in that case.

Right. Does that make sense?

It does. It does. So, um, this is what I would say to that. Um, where are we at now? Who are the powers that be? And what have they done? Is it better?

No. It's not. No. The people that are in this country, the ones that are smart are demonic. The rest are stupid. And those that don't speak out against it have no backbone. Quote. Brother Rob. Yep.

So you have to keep in mind. I mean, I will, I will grant that there are different flavors of Christian nationalism. Okay. My particular flavor of Christian nationalism is one that would be, um, what would be the best term for this?

Um, multi-Protestant, I guess you could call it. Right. We would, we would surround ourselves around laws, principles, ideas that would apply to all Protestant Christians. And the reason why I say Protestant, not Catholics, well, we can have a debate as to whether Catholics are Christian or not.

Um, but that's not correct.

Either in here or there. That would be a very short, everybody do your best Paul Ramsey right now.

We're going to move on from that. Um, and you know, when we talk about things like laws, right. I think, I think that for the great majority of, of, of, um, of most laws, Christians across denominations will pretty much agree.

Right. If they're being biblical, biblical, excuse me. Um, so for example, um, should marriage be between a man and a woman? Yes. There you go. So we're going to make laws that acknowledge marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Okay. Let me stop you right there.

Let me stop you right there. I don't see any reason whatsoever that man gets in a, gets in an opportunity to try to define something. God's clearly laid out in scripture. Well, I mean, if we're being honest, God, God determines that this is marriage, right?

Yeah. God has set up the family. These matters have been settled for eternity in heaven. We can agree with God and we should agree with God. Right. So totally on board with it being a law that only one man and one woman can be, can be married.

Totally on board with that. I got, you'll, you'll get no disagreement from me on it. The thing that I want you to, that I want you to listen to though, is this is all ready established. Oh, well, absolutely.

So if we need to go about carnal means to force people to do things that God has asked us to do willingly, then what you wind up having is people honoring God with their lips, but their heart being far from him.

Ah, okay.

So, so what you're saying, okay. Are you concerned that, um, are you concerned that if we were to say, okay, we're going to recognize this as law, right? Uh, that, uh, a man and a woman makes marriage that then what we're doing is we're creating a culture where we are.

Setting people up to almost like believe they're Christian because they live in a Christian nation, but not actually accept the gospel. Is that your concern?

That's not my only concern, but it is a concern. I've been told piles and piles and piles of times in my life that if we would just get back to where we was in 1950, then this world will be so much better.

When everybody come home to the, then people never got divorced. Kids listen to their parents. The people that were raised in the fifties were the same rebellious lot that had the sixties happen. And, and, and there was a generation of moral morality that went moral.

Nor was it majority or I say more moral majority. That wasn't the majority. And it wasn't, it wasn't morality. It was some kind of facade they were putting on. My, my caveat to it is, is that if. If the church, if the church is not spineless to quote brother Rob, if we can continue to, to work and see the gospel spread, you don't need laws.

When people honor Christ as King, you can have laws that forbid murder. Those are on the books already. And, and you can have laws that forbid divorce. I'm fine with that. You can have laws that forbid all this other stuff.

But if you can see the church win over the neighborhoods, you don't have to worry about calling to have a gay bar closed down whenever all the gay people get redeemed and follow the Lord and look away and repent of the lifestyle of homosexuality.

You don't even have to make these things laws.

Gospel Proclamation, Civil Authority, and the Limits of Law

Okay. So, um, here's the thing. Um, there's so many ways that I could answer this. If you have a nation where you say, listen, we don't need to tell the civil magistrate, uh, what to do because God already established it.

Oh, wait a second.

Let me interject here. Yep. I'm not, we're not saying that we don't tell that. We, we call everybody to repentance. Yes. From the bottom up, top down. Backwards and sidewards. We, we call everybody to repent of their sin and, um, we proclaim the gospel, right?

So it's not, um, the, the negative stance is not saying that we shouldn't call political leaders to repentance or we shouldn't call higher ups to repentance. It's not saying that at all. The standard is we call everybody regardless of who they are.

Amen. So we can't, uh, to, to read that assumption into the argument is, is false. Okay. So clarify it for me.

Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. What? Well, for me, the question that leads to, and I've got a lot piled up in my mind that when it's my turn to interject, I'll be, I'll be happy. I'll be happy and peachy. Um, but based on what you were just talking about, the next question that your statement leads to is, um, do, do we just call those, um, for an example, magistrates to repentance?

Are we also calling them to obedience? Yes. To submit. It's accountability. Right. Right. And so if Christ is King and Lord, are we also calling them to submit and submit their decision-making and their, their thinking, their, their mindset on obedience to Christ just in their personal life or also in their.

Okay. You can't defend, you can't dissect your life into work life, home life, church life. I can serve God at work and at home or at church and home, but not at work. You can't do either in or you're out.

Right. So that bridges us a little bit closer. Yeah. Yeah. And please don't misunderstand me, uh, brother Jay. Uh, no, you're good. You're good. Yeah, I can hear you. I have no, uh, no problem with the idea of an entire nation bending their knee to Christ and serving Christ and enacting constitutions and laws that forbid ungodly behavior from happening.

None whatsoever. Right. The problem that I could see is its application not being carried out that way. In a perfect world, you don't need laws altogether. You don't need magistrates altogether. The Lord writes his law on your heart and you don't sit against it in a perfect world.

That's the new heaven and new earth. We don't live in that one. Right. So we do have magistrates and things like that that have been elected by people or in some cases they're born into power according to which country you live in.

And the only reasons that we listen to them, according to Romans 13, is in areas where they're actually using the sword for justice. Whenever they're using the sword for injustice, we disobey and throw off that kind of subject.

That's how come the abolitionists existed in the South and why they exist in terms of abortion. That's why you had Christians standing up for Jews during World War II. That's why people died all over the world for what's right and what's wrong regardless of whether it was lawful.

You understand?

John, I'm going to interject just for a second here because I'm trying to follow you. I'm going to say something. It's not that I'm making this assumption. I'm just going to say that this is what it sounded like to me.

Go ahead. And you can clarify for me. You're saying, yes, we need to call the civil magistrate to repentance. Yes, we need to call them to seek justice, biblical justice. Yes. My concern is how they're going to apply it.

Is that what you're saying?

Perhaps. Perhaps. I don't know that I fully understand how you're saying it. Okay. If we look at history as an example, we have piles of Christian brothers and sisters who were murdered for defending their faith in supposed Christian states.

Okay.

Right. Well, so let me answer that real quick because if you go on, then I'm going to forget and I want to make sure that I address that. That's because there was no separation of church and state. Okay.

So I want to make it clear that as a Christian nationalism or as a Christian nationalism, excuse me, I would not say that we shouldn't have separation of church and state. The church should not be ruling over the state.

The state should not be ruling over the church. I absolutely agree with that. What I am saying, though, is there's no separation of God and states. Okay. And some people would say it's Christ and state, but you get the idea.

Our government, whatever laws it is doing, whatever motions it's making, has to be submitted primarily to the word of God because if you do not do law, if you do not make laws based on what the word of God has to say, then what you're going to do is you're going to make subjective laws.

And subjective laws have gotten us to where we are now. That's Christian nationalism applied to the civil magistrate in a nutshell. Will that look perfect all the time? No. It will never look perfect because it's like you guys said.

We live in a fallen world, right? And I'm a postmillennial theonomist, and I'm all those things, and I can still acknowledge those things, right? I can acknowledge that we are in a fallen world. But that doesn't mean, and I'm not saying that you guys are saying this.

I just want to put it out there for anybody watching this. That doesn't mean that when we say, well, the world's just going to be the way the world is and there's nothing we can do about it. No, we call them to repentance.

Our goal, and actually I'm kind of skipping here because one of the questions is what is the end game of Christian nationalism? But it kind of needs to be said. The end game of Christian nationalism is to fight injustice, to bless your family, to bless your neighbor, to bless your nation, and to have a culture that is conducive for the church to preach the gospel and disciple people and do what is right without fear of persecution.

Will that look perfect? No, it will never look perfect. But that's why it's an ongoing battle. So hopefully that answers that aspect of your question. I'm sure there's more, but go ahead. I'd like somebody else to talk for a minute.

Okay. If this is my opportunity to interject, I would be glad to. So I can give you what I've compiled in my mind, and you guys can respond to it to see what you think about it. To me, it helps bridge a lot more of the differences.

I think that there's, in this debate, in this discussion, I think there's three different compartments. I think there's one compartment that we more likely most certainly have a lot of agreement, and that's the middle compartment.

And this is what's in my mind. This is how I see it. So this middle compartment is what Christian nationalism looks like, or in other words, the definition. All right? So it doesn't matter, in my mind, it doesn't matter what our eschatology is.

All of us believe at some point there's going to be either an ideal Christian nationalism happening or a perfect Christian nationalism happening. It doesn't matter what your eschatology is. We're winning.

We've won. It's being applied, or we're going to win. At some point, Jesus is victorious, no matter what your eschatology is. And so we all have that down pat, and there's no argument there that Jesus is going to reign supremely, perfectly, and we're either working towards that or it's going to happen.

We just see that in different ways. But there's two compartments that get all jumbled together, and they're not separated, and then there becomes misunderstandings, caricatures, misrepresentations, and I think we speak past each other and lose one another.

And those two other compartments are the application compartment and the how do we get there compartment. And I think those two compartments need to be separated and be two separate debates. How do we get there debate and application debate?

Now, I think the application debate, this is just me speaking of the conclusions that I've made. I think the application can be a later debate, one that we discuss as we get there, but it can be a more later debate because once we get there, it's going to look more like Big John's describing.

Every knee is going to be bowing, or the majority of all knees are going to be bowing, however you want to look at it. And so, therefore, the fact that there's laws there won't be as necessarily important because as a believer, you are already submitting to Christ.

And so the fact that there's laws there are somewhat irrelevant because as a believer, I'm submitting to Christ. So the application, and hopefully you can see how we get the how do we get there and application debates intermingled and mixed up.

But the application will kind of take care of itself once we're there, I think, more or less. There still needs to be some things worked out. But the debate that I think is most relevant to us is how do we get there?

And I think where a lot of the misconceptions come from is we want to take over with the fingertips or literal with torches, swords, however, and take over the nation and force it upon everybody else.

And I think that's the misconception, the caricature, when in reality, the viewpoint is we're looking to the fact that this is going to happen. We all believe it's going to happen eventually in some form or fashion.

And so and of course, my post meal is sliding in here a little bit. But I think that we yeah, I think we're moving, moving in that direction. So the gospel is our sword. And the word is our sword. The gospel is is what we use to get there.

And so we're on the same page there. And as the gospel wins, more Christians submit. And so therefore, we're going we're working our way towards that idealistic Christian nationalism. I really think the key, key problem in and places that we're lacking in this situation that we're in is training believers how to be believers in their everyday life.

Like you were talking about guys applying their Christianity in every aspect of their life. So we've got Christians who fortunately and wonderfully have chosen to become politicians or civil magistrates.

We have those. They claim Christ. However, that's a good thing. However, this is and I hope that I don't get into. Can you can you use somebody else's voice or is this we can claim this for educational purposes?

Do it, do it. Educational purpose. So we're not training our politicians that claim Christ to form their decisions, their legislative decisions, their voting based on this. Who says you have to compromise?

Just say no. Right. So if you're a Christian, you don't have to compromise. You can just say no. And and other Christians will see your strength and come alongside you and just say no along with you. We don't have to compromise on abortion.

We don't have to compromise on that. And so once we train our young people, our our Christians in our congregation to this is how a believer. Behaves as a politician, we will be heading in the right direction.

So do you all see what I'm where I was coming from with the three different compartments and how we intermingle the conversation sometimes? Tyler.

Sounds a little bit like incrementalism, doesn't it, Rob? My goodness. Well, a little job. Wait a second.

Where is this? Oh, wait. I've got a question. I'm going to ask you a question pertaining to you, Postmale Boys. So everybody else, just hold on. He says the same scripture I was reading. He said, I'm kidding.

Jesus replied, I was born this way. I've come to testify this truth. Everyone is my truth. Listen, man, it's not it's not in this chapter. He says, if my if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight so that I wouldn't be handed over to the Jews as it is.

My kingdom does not have to does not have its origin here. So now I know the way I've always interpreted and listened to this scripture. Right. So in your postmillennial mind, how does this look and how do you can how do you do you conflate this with your view of Christian nationalism?

If you do, how and if you don't, what do you do with that text and what do you think Christ is saying there? If you even need to use your your eschatology to to define that.

So from what I've read on postmillennialism, I was in that camp for a very brief stint. But what I came across largely was that that text could be interpreted within the context that the millennial kingdom hasn't been inaugurated yet.

At that point, that Christ is still in the process of conquering sin, conquering the grave, conquering the devil. And so it is true for him to say my kingdom is not of this world. Most postmillennial guys I've interacted with or read would make the case that the millennial kingdom was inaugurated either at the resurrection, at the cross, or at the ascension.

At which point it's a little different.

Thank you. Inaugurated, not consummated. Right.

Or 70 AD. I've also heard that. That's the full preterist. Yeah. Oh, no, no, no, no. So I'm not talking about full preterism. I mean, that has to do with preterism. But some would argue that the end of the age, right, was at 70 AD when the second temple was destroyed.