Dear David, thank you for this very clear summary. I find it very uplifting. I am 82, and when I was four or five and living in London I used to see a man with a sandwich board that said "The End is Nigh". This bothered me for a while, until my father told me to stop worrying about it as the End wouldn't happen for a very long time. Your piece has put a much more hopeful meaning to the man's words, and now I think of that sentence (from John Lennon?): Everything will be OK in the end, and if it's not OK it's not the end.
Dear David, many, many thanks for such insightful and compassionate writing. The Celtic Church had so much to commend it! You also me hope that we will be delivered from the evil: in God’s own way. ‘Aye for aye’
Dear David, there is a lot of good stuff here. I was especially impressed by - and grateful for - the things you wrote in relation to: Katie Hopkins' spot, the material on geology, and your comments about secularism.
And it's always a delight to find someone using the Authorised Version.
I'd like, though, to 'dig deeper' with you regarding the belief that Britain is part of the "Israel" of the Scriptures. Perhaps I can start by asking where the Bible teaches, of the Church, that "At first, they were all from the nation of Judah"? I can think of a number of scriptural problems with this claim.
The church at Jerusalem would be made up of Jewish people. So strongly ingrained was this preference (for either Judah or Israel) that Peter had to be taught in a dream not to regard any man or woman as unclean if they came from another nation. Please note, I do mean here at the very start. By Acts 10 (after the conversion of Paul, after the Martyrdom of Stephen) Peter baptises Cornelius. That would be the first non-Jew (or at least non- Israelite) convert recorded in the bible as far as I'm aware - unless of course, you know differently...
Acts 8 has the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. I would suggest that he was the first non Israelite convert. You might even argue for the Samaritans in Acts 7.
You are correct, the Ethiopian's baptism was before the conversion of Cornelius, but there is more to note, there always is:
He had, before his baptism, come up to Jerusalem to worship the Lord - presumably on one of the three annual feasts of God where attendance at Jerusalem is instructed - those are Passover (symbolising Christs Sacrifice, Pentecost, symbolising the Church/access to the Holy Spirit and Tabernacles, symbolising Christ's millennial reign. So we can see that the Ethiopian was already a follower of the Lord (in old covenant terms at least) before his baptism. If this was the year of Christ's crucifixion and ascension, then that would place this at Tabernacles in the autumn at harvest time.
Secondly, (some) Ethiopian people are seen here to be worshipping the true God at Jerusalem, isn't that interesting - a whole different story lies therein. One for yet another article perhaps.
Thirdly, it could be argued that he was already grafted in to Israel due to his faithfulness.
Cornelius' knowledge of the Lord before his conversion was also substantial, but he wasn't going to Jerusalem to keep the Holy days. Nevertheless he was close enough to God for his prayers to be heard.
Many, many things to ponder here.
Acts 7 is Stephen's defense, what point are you making here?
Correct. Benjamin was the tribe attached to the tribe of Judah to form the House of Judah when the other ten tribes it the road " to your tents O Israel" to form the House of Israel.
But what Tribes were the other apostles? Judas was from Judah, what about the rest? They will each be placed in judgement over one tribe at Christ's return, does this suggest one from each tribe?
"And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Luke 22:29-30
Many thanks. I'm really honoured you took the trouble to reply, as I've long admired your work for UKColumn.
I must apologise for not being clearer with my original question. What I meant was, where does the Bible teach, of the Church, that "At first, they were all from the nation of Judah [i.e. excluding any possibility that any members were from the 'nation of Israel']"?
Indeed it does not. In fact quite the reverse for Jesus said:
"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
But the issue here is geography and population distribution. The area of Christ's ministry was Judah. Israel having been carried away to the north. We also know that many Jews believed and were converted in the weeks and months following the resurrection. In fact this was so successful that it sparked a counter reformation in the years after the Temple was destroyed, that counter-reformation becoming what we now call Judaism. So my reasoning here is that
1. Initially the Gospel was preached to Israelites, those of the uses of Judah and Israel.
2. Due to geographic limitations and population distribution this meant in practice the House of Judah, for that is what Jesus was surrounded by at the time, mainly the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi.
But... there is another interpretation available: that most of the early followers of Christ were actually of the house of Israel, from two sources mainly --
1. Those refugees from Israel that moved to Judah because they would not accept the fallen and false religion which rapidly gained control of the northern kingdom
2. Those who returned during the brief Parthian rule of Jerusalem and the Holy Land a generation before Christ's birth (The Parthians being Scythian were also of the House of Israel).
If this is the case, then I will need to amend the text of the article.
Thankyou for raising tis point, I will give it further consideration, please reply as you see fit.
Many thanks for such a gracious and reasoned response. I am humbled to hear you'd be interested in my thoughts.
I must admit I had never - in relation to the question of which tribes were represented in the embryonic Church - considered the fact that Christ said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel". But to be fair, I do have an excuse for this (see below).
It is reassuring to me that you acknowledge both the possibility that some Israelites who were exiled by the Assyrians could have returned to the Land, and the possibility that some members of the ten tribes might have moved south before the Exile ever happened. (Btw Is it also possible that - as with the exile into Babylon of Judah - the poor in the North were allowed to stay in Israel to continue looking after the land?)
The fact that Anna the prophetess, who was living in Jerusalem when Christ was a baby, was from one of the ten tribes (i.e. Asher, see Luke 2:36) is proof that there could have been members of the Northern tribes living in Judah at the time of Christ's ministry of course.
I guess the bottom line for me is that, while it is doubtless possible that all the members of the earliest incarnation of the Church were purely from the Southern tribes, it is not wise to teach this as hard fact if the Bible does not confirm it as fact.
P.S. Returning to my "excuse" referred to above, many centuries had passed since the relevant (Assyrian) exile in the 720s BC, so I personally believe the term 'Israel' had by that stage come to again mean all 12 tribes. This would explain why Christ said to His disciples, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, ...: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
You are absolutely right, God has not abandoned us. Blessed is my soul for His saving grace. This article is excellent - very informative - particularly the abridged accounts of the OT! You wrote "What is shown here is that it takes more than lineage to be part of God’s nation. It takes commitment to the truth and a willingness to follow the Lord’s commandments and example." The problem is that people prefer comfortable lies and cushty lives - not truth or righteousness. The Gospel is Good News, but it's also offensive, so people don't want it. Most people are more preoccupied with feeding their desires, getting their ego puffed up and having their ears tickled. But as you said, He hasn't forsaken us - and I will keep looking up for Him!
Dear David, many, many thanks for your insightful, compassionate and uplifting writing. Your hard work is very much appreciated. The early Celtic Church looked to have followed the lessons of The Bible and was not corrupted by greed and power. My faith that like you wrote our God will prevail. He has never left us. As you wrote: ‘aye for aye’.
Hello David, Wonderful summary of the nation(s) beliefs. As I'm of Pictish decent I was thrilled to read I may be also a descendant of Abraham and Israel not just through faith. On holiday in Israel many years ago I stood on my balcony and watched the dawn over Jerusalem the first morning and felt very much 'at home'. Blessings brother.
A writer on SubStack recently asked the question: Quote: “So why is it, that the Brits won’t stop this same ideology from overtaking London?” . . Unfortunately, the question is 18 years too late. In 2006, Melanie Phillips published her best-seller “Londonistan” - “How Britain is Creating a Terror State Within”.
Successive governments have lied and betrayed the country. In 1985 I worked in Handsworth, Birmingham when the riots broke out. The area is unrecognisable today, with a mosque on almost every street corner and the character of Britain has changed forever.
Jesus is Lord, but not according to Islam, that denies the crucifixion & resurrection and that God could ever have a Son. It also denies that Muslims could ever be in fellowship with Jews and Christians: “O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.” ~ Qur’an 5:51. Britain is on course to become an Islamic nation and potentially a terrorist hub.
The Biblical understanding of a nation is fully opposed to the materialist idea of the nation state, or the materialist idea of a one world government. As is the Biblical idea of family.
Interesting how you point out that deism was a top-down imposition on the people. As were Anglicanism, the reformation and the restoration, actually.
I find shades of British Israelism in there (if I understood it correctly) which I personally regard as heretical, though I'm no scholar.
It's my opinion there is no such thing as a Christian nation. Only Christian individuals.
Sure if every individual from the King down were genuine regenerate committed Christians then I suppose that would be a Christian nation. But I find that unlikely.
I think it's fair to say we were once a Christianised nation. Somewhat different
Whether you agree with the conclusion that the British/ Anglo Saxons are biblical Israel of not, I think it is incorrect to view the matter as a heresy/ orthodoxy question as those who conclude that the British as nationally descended from Israel typically also hold that the Old and New Testament Scriptures in their original languages are the inspired, infallible Word of God and believe in the Virgin Birth, Sinless Life, Absolute Deity, Miraculous Ministry, Blood Atonement, Bodily Resurrection, Ascension and soon-coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus they would not be heretics in any correct sense of the term.
They certainly include many notable preachers of the word down through the years.
One of the points I was seeking to make is that we have never, even at our finest, achieved the standard God described for a nation dedicated to him, ie a Christian nation. Certainly today we fall far short.
Despite our failings I trust in the Lord to redeem us.
One can hold a heretical point of view without being a heretic.
"There needs be heresies among you so that the truth become manifest" Paul.
Peter the apostle was rebuked by Christ for being heretical "Get thee behind me Satan.. " in wanting to rain fire down on people. It didn't make him a heretic.
It's true that a departure from orthodoxy in of itself does not necessarily constitute heresy.
So it's the position I find heretical. Not necessarily the individuals that propound it.
His argument forgets that we have the internet and so as long as the internet remains as a repository of knowledge Christianity will have to compete with all the other Theisms. ILLIBERAL THEISTS worship a Tyrannical, High Narcissism, Brutal, Low Empathy, Psychopath g-d whilst LIBERAL THEISTS worship a gentle, kind, spiritual G-d that guides us and accompanies us hrough life as would a a good, loyal, loving friend. The contrast between the kind of Divinity worshipped by Hindus, Liberal/Reform Jews, Episcopalians, Quakers, Spiritualists, Unitarians, etc, etc and that worshipped by Christian Traditionalists/Fundamentalists with all the servility and spiritually brutal authoritarianism could not be any greater.
Atheism can be pretty awful but so can the doctrinaire and dogmatic nonsenses promoted by Christian Traditionalists/Fundamentalists.
Christianity will need to completely transform itself into something wholly different from the hierarchical Christian past and current present for it to garner serious credibility in the future. The old model of Christianity is dying. It'll need to go back to it's early roots before it was authorised as the state religion of the late Roman empire around 313/325 AD.
Christianity does not need to garner credibility in a world ruled by Satan. What it needs to do is to cast off error and gather courage:
"And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."
I'm confused. You complain that, "The attacks on this position are generally unscholarly", yet you offer no source references - let alone scholarly, .primary. source references - for any of the claims you make in your article (as far as I can see).
You then say. "we do not have time to explore or defend the case here", yet you offer no hints as to where readers who want to examine a defence of your case might sensibly go.
Finally, you argue that your conclusion is "inescapable", even though it is based on a .number. of "ifs" (as you yourself acknowledge - albeit to a limited extent).
I'm not denying there are parallels between the histories of "Israel&Judah" and "the US&UK", but your belief that the British are a "tribe of Israel" is not a balanced position. And your view of what the future will hold for the UK etc is not in line with the end-time prophecies about the Antichrist and the NWO.
The article was a broad overview, and did not examine any part in close detail. Hence I covered the issue of the ten-tribes in outline, a limitation I freely admitted in the article. When time allows I hope to return to the subject.
Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthrigh,t by J. H. Allen, would be a good starting point for those wanting more information.
I realise the piece was an overview, but even overviews are allowed to have footnotes from time to time :o) And, if you have only given a "BROAD overview", I still don't see why you can sensibly claim your conclusion to be "inescapable".
You also appear to have completely ducked my observation that your conclusion is at odds with what the Bible tells us these (scripturally prophesied) End Times that we're now in will involve. I'm guessing you don't believe in the yet-to-begin thousand year reign of Christ (as spelled out in Revelation and elsewhere)?
This is straying from the point of the article into a general discussion on prophesy - too large a subject for examination in comments. But I will note at this juncture that a key centre-point of the end-time prophetic narrative is the Great Tribulation, which is described as the time of Jacob's trouble. This brings us back to the question - who is Jacob (nationally speaking)? If that is not understood, confusion and error, always such a risk in eschatology, will dominate.
Oh dear. This is a very telling response, imho :o(
(1) You have again side-stepped my worry that you are calling your readers to accept a particular conclusion of yours as "inescapable" - despite it being predicated on a number of things you haven't proved or indeed offered any hard evidence for.
(2) You are erecting a straw man to suggest I am seeking to have a, "general discussion on prophesy [sic]". I simply asked if you were pre-millennial.
(3) You imply that a basic grasp of what the Bible tells us will happen in the future is irrelevant to the content of your article; yet your article itself makes the following (profoundly unbiblical btw) claim:
"[T]he future, as laid out in God’s word, is clear. We will be, once and for all, reunited with our Lord. We shall be a nation specially set aside for a holy purpose. Through our nation shall the knowledge of the Lord be spread across the globe, we shall be willingly engaged in that great work that will see all nations come to know God. So significant is the role laid out for our nation, that the gates to God’s seat of government, New Jerusalem, will bear the names of our tribes, just as its foundations bear the names of the apostles. ... Are we a Christian nation ...? ... [O]ur Lord has not abandoned us, With great tenderness he will gather us in. We will, at his return, become reunited with him."
No wonder you tend to find your opponents 'abusive'. You are teaching an unimaginably erroneous and *dangerous* set of beliefs here :o(
What I am discussing is called Christianity. Your position is that the word of God will count for nothing and will fail. Mine is that it can be relied upon, as a rock, a sure foundation.
That is why I feel no need to reply in the same spirit in which you attack. I hope one day you will be able to discuss these matters without such animosity.
(1) You write, "Your position is that the word of God will count for nothing and will fail." My position is nothing of the *sort*, and that is an absolutely 'outrageous' accusation you've made. I believe the Word of God is perfect and that .every. prophecy in it will come true completely and precisely. My position is that you're trying to apply prophecies meant for physical Israel (and physical Israel alone) to the nation of Britain.
(2) You write, "That is why I feel no need to reply in the same spirit in which you attack. I hope one day you will be able to discuss these matters without such animosity." But I have consistently written in a gracious spirit - despite you: erecting a straw man, repeatedly ducking my points, and publishing a profoundly unbiblical article.
(3) You have side-stepped every single point I made in my last.
Thank you for revealing your *actual* degree of, er, "commitment ... to the truth".
Dear David, thank you for this very clear summary. I find it very uplifting. I am 82, and when I was four or five and living in London I used to see a man with a sandwich board that said "The End is Nigh". This bothered me for a while, until my father told me to stop worrying about it as the End wouldn't happen for a very long time. Your piece has put a much more hopeful meaning to the man's words, and now I think of that sentence (from John Lennon?): Everything will be OK in the end, and if it's not OK it's not the end.
I don't mind that sandwich board. The end is nigh - for us - for we live only a short while. We could be gone tomorrow.
Dear David, many, many thanks for such insightful and compassionate writing. The Celtic Church had so much to commend it! You also me hope that we will be delivered from the evil: in God’s own way. ‘Aye for aye’
Bless you and thank you.
Interesting and surprising. I had no idea we would end up with British Israelism.
Dear David, there is a lot of good stuff here. I was especially impressed by - and grateful for - the things you wrote in relation to: Katie Hopkins' spot, the material on geology, and your comments about secularism.
And it's always a delight to find someone using the Authorised Version.
I'd like, though, to 'dig deeper' with you regarding the belief that Britain is part of the "Israel" of the Scriptures. Perhaps I can start by asking where the Bible teaches, of the Church, that "At first, they were all from the nation of Judah"? I can think of a number of scriptural problems with this claim.
The church at Jerusalem would be made up of Jewish people. So strongly ingrained was this preference (for either Judah or Israel) that Peter had to be taught in a dream not to regard any man or woman as unclean if they came from another nation. Please note, I do mean here at the very start. By Acts 10 (after the conversion of Paul, after the Martyrdom of Stephen) Peter baptises Cornelius. That would be the first non-Jew (or at least non- Israelite) convert recorded in the bible as far as I'm aware - unless of course, you know differently...
Acts 8 has the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. I would suggest that he was the first non Israelite convert. You might even argue for the Samaritans in Acts 7.
You are correct, the Ethiopian's baptism was before the conversion of Cornelius, but there is more to note, there always is:
He had, before his baptism, come up to Jerusalem to worship the Lord - presumably on one of the three annual feasts of God where attendance at Jerusalem is instructed - those are Passover (symbolising Christs Sacrifice, Pentecost, symbolising the Church/access to the Holy Spirit and Tabernacles, symbolising Christ's millennial reign. So we can see that the Ethiopian was already a follower of the Lord (in old covenant terms at least) before his baptism. If this was the year of Christ's crucifixion and ascension, then that would place this at Tabernacles in the autumn at harvest time.
Secondly, (some) Ethiopian people are seen here to be worshipping the true God at Jerusalem, isn't that interesting - a whole different story lies therein. One for yet another article perhaps.
Thirdly, it could be argued that he was already grafted in to Israel due to his faithfulness.
Cornelius' knowledge of the Lord before his conversion was also substantial, but he wasn't going to Jerusalem to keep the Holy days. Nevertheless he was close enough to God for his prayers to be heard.
Many, many things to ponder here.
Acts 7 is Stephen's defense, what point are you making here?
Sorry I meant Acts 8 and the evangelism of the Samaritans. Who were not Jews.
And Saul/Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin.
Correct. Benjamin was the tribe attached to the tribe of Judah to form the House of Judah when the other ten tribes it the road " to your tents O Israel" to form the House of Israel.
But what Tribes were the other apostles? Judas was from Judah, what about the rest? They will each be placed in judgement over one tribe at Christ's return, does this suggest one from each tribe?
"And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Luke 22:29-30
I will give this some thought
Luke 2:36. Anna was of the tribe of Asher. The faithful from the 10 tribes may have moved south to Judah.
Which is implied in 2 Chronicles 30:10-18 and 35:27.
Many thanks. I'm really honoured you took the trouble to reply, as I've long admired your work for UKColumn.
I must apologise for not being clearer with my original question. What I meant was, where does the Bible teach, of the Church, that "At first, they were all from the nation of Judah [i.e. excluding any possibility that any members were from the 'nation of Israel']"?
Indeed it does not. In fact quite the reverse for Jesus said:
"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
But the issue here is geography and population distribution. The area of Christ's ministry was Judah. Israel having been carried away to the north. We also know that many Jews believed and were converted in the weeks and months following the resurrection. In fact this was so successful that it sparked a counter reformation in the years after the Temple was destroyed, that counter-reformation becoming what we now call Judaism. So my reasoning here is that
1. Initially the Gospel was preached to Israelites, those of the uses of Judah and Israel.
2. Due to geographic limitations and population distribution this meant in practice the House of Judah, for that is what Jesus was surrounded by at the time, mainly the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi.
But... there is another interpretation available: that most of the early followers of Christ were actually of the house of Israel, from two sources mainly --
1. Those refugees from Israel that moved to Judah because they would not accept the fallen and false religion which rapidly gained control of the northern kingdom
2. Those who returned during the brief Parthian rule of Jerusalem and the Holy Land a generation before Christ's birth (The Parthians being Scythian were also of the House of Israel).
If this is the case, then I will need to amend the text of the article.
Thankyou for raising tis point, I will give it further consideration, please reply as you see fit.
Many thanks for such a gracious and reasoned response. I am humbled to hear you'd be interested in my thoughts.
I must admit I had never - in relation to the question of which tribes were represented in the embryonic Church - considered the fact that Christ said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel". But to be fair, I do have an excuse for this (see below).
It is reassuring to me that you acknowledge both the possibility that some Israelites who were exiled by the Assyrians could have returned to the Land, and the possibility that some members of the ten tribes might have moved south before the Exile ever happened. (Btw Is it also possible that - as with the exile into Babylon of Judah - the poor in the North were allowed to stay in Israel to continue looking after the land?)
The fact that Anna the prophetess, who was living in Jerusalem when Christ was a baby, was from one of the ten tribes (i.e. Asher, see Luke 2:36) is proof that there could have been members of the Northern tribes living in Judah at the time of Christ's ministry of course.
I guess the bottom line for me is that, while it is doubtless possible that all the members of the earliest incarnation of the Church were purely from the Southern tribes, it is not wise to teach this as hard fact if the Bible does not confirm it as fact.
P.S. Returning to my "excuse" referred to above, many centuries had passed since the relevant (Assyrian) exile in the 720s BC, so I personally believe the term 'Israel' had by that stage come to again mean all 12 tribes. This would explain why Christ said to His disciples, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, ...: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
You are absolutely right, God has not abandoned us. Blessed is my soul for His saving grace. This article is excellent - very informative - particularly the abridged accounts of the OT! You wrote "What is shown here is that it takes more than lineage to be part of God’s nation. It takes commitment to the truth and a willingness to follow the Lord’s commandments and example." The problem is that people prefer comfortable lies and cushty lives - not truth or righteousness. The Gospel is Good News, but it's also offensive, so people don't want it. Most people are more preoccupied with feeding their desires, getting their ego puffed up and having their ears tickled. But as you said, He hasn't forsaken us - and I will keep looking up for Him!
Thank you David; fresh water for a world that knows only mud.
Dear David, many, many thanks for your insightful, compassionate and uplifting writing. Your hard work is very much appreciated. The early Celtic Church looked to have followed the lessons of The Bible and was not corrupted by greed and power. My faith that like you wrote our God will prevail. He has never left us. As you wrote: ‘aye for aye’.
Thank you.
Hello David, Wonderful summary of the nation(s) beliefs. As I'm of Pictish decent I was thrilled to read I may be also a descendant of Abraham and Israel not just through faith. On holiday in Israel many years ago I stood on my balcony and watched the dawn over Jerusalem the first morning and felt very much 'at home'. Blessings brother.
A writer on SubStack recently asked the question: Quote: “So why is it, that the Brits won’t stop this same ideology from overtaking London?” . . Unfortunately, the question is 18 years too late. In 2006, Melanie Phillips published her best-seller “Londonistan” - “How Britain is Creating a Terror State Within”.
Successive governments have lied and betrayed the country. In 1985 I worked in Handsworth, Birmingham when the riots broke out. The area is unrecognisable today, with a mosque on almost every street corner and the character of Britain has changed forever.
Jesus is Lord, but not according to Islam, that denies the crucifixion & resurrection and that God could ever have a Son. It also denies that Muslims could ever be in fellowship with Jews and Christians: “O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.” ~ Qur’an 5:51. Britain is on course to become an Islamic nation and potentially a terrorist hub.
Happy Saint Andrew's Day.
The Biblical understanding of a nation is fully opposed to the materialist idea of the nation state, or the materialist idea of a one world government. As is the Biblical idea of family.
Interesting how you point out that deism was a top-down imposition on the people. As were Anglicanism, the reformation and the restoration, actually.
An interesting piece David. Well written
I find shades of British Israelism in there (if I understood it correctly) which I personally regard as heretical, though I'm no scholar.
It's my opinion there is no such thing as a Christian nation. Only Christian individuals.
Sure if every individual from the King down were genuine regenerate committed Christians then I suppose that would be a Christian nation. But I find that unlikely.
I think it's fair to say we were once a Christianised nation. Somewhat different
Thanks Thomas,
Whether you agree with the conclusion that the British/ Anglo Saxons are biblical Israel of not, I think it is incorrect to view the matter as a heresy/ orthodoxy question as those who conclude that the British as nationally descended from Israel typically also hold that the Old and New Testament Scriptures in their original languages are the inspired, infallible Word of God and believe in the Virgin Birth, Sinless Life, Absolute Deity, Miraculous Ministry, Blood Atonement, Bodily Resurrection, Ascension and soon-coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus they would not be heretics in any correct sense of the term.
They certainly include many notable preachers of the word down through the years.
One of the points I was seeking to make is that we have never, even at our finest, achieved the standard God described for a nation dedicated to him, ie a Christian nation. Certainly today we fall far short.
Despite our failings I trust in the Lord to redeem us.
One can hold a heretical point of view without being a heretic.
"There needs be heresies among you so that the truth become manifest" Paul.
Peter the apostle was rebuked by Christ for being heretical "Get thee behind me Satan.. " in wanting to rain fire down on people. It didn't make him a heretic.
It's true that a departure from orthodoxy in of itself does not necessarily constitute heresy.
So it's the position I find heretical. Not necessarily the individuals that propound it.
All the best
My point is that this is not a subject where charges of heresy can arise, whatever side of the debate you are on.
On a related note...
A forthcoming article now in preparation is called "We are all heretics now" - I hope you read this when published.
Will do
His argument forgets that we have the internet and so as long as the internet remains as a repository of knowledge Christianity will have to compete with all the other Theisms. ILLIBERAL THEISTS worship a Tyrannical, High Narcissism, Brutal, Low Empathy, Psychopath g-d whilst LIBERAL THEISTS worship a gentle, kind, spiritual G-d that guides us and accompanies us hrough life as would a a good, loyal, loving friend. The contrast between the kind of Divinity worshipped by Hindus, Liberal/Reform Jews, Episcopalians, Quakers, Spiritualists, Unitarians, etc, etc and that worshipped by Christian Traditionalists/Fundamentalists with all the servility and spiritually brutal authoritarianism could not be any greater.
Atheism can be pretty awful but so can the doctrinaire and dogmatic nonsenses promoted by Christian Traditionalists/Fundamentalists.
Christianity will need to completely transform itself into something wholly different from the hierarchical Christian past and current present for it to garner serious credibility in the future. The old model of Christianity is dying. It'll need to go back to it's early roots before it was authorised as the state religion of the late Roman empire around 313/325 AD.
Christianity does not need to garner credibility in a world ruled by Satan. What it needs to do is to cast off error and gather courage:
"And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."
I'm confused. You complain that, "The attacks on this position are generally unscholarly", yet you offer no source references - let alone scholarly, .primary. source references - for any of the claims you make in your article (as far as I can see).
You then say. "we do not have time to explore or defend the case here", yet you offer no hints as to where readers who want to examine a defence of your case might sensibly go.
Finally, you argue that your conclusion is "inescapable", even though it is based on a .number. of "ifs" (as you yourself acknowledge - albeit to a limited extent).
I'm not denying there are parallels between the histories of "Israel&Judah" and "the US&UK", but your belief that the British are a "tribe of Israel" is not a balanced position. And your view of what the future will hold for the UK etc is not in line with the end-time prophecies about the Antichrist and the NWO.
The article was a broad overview, and did not examine any part in close detail. Hence I covered the issue of the ten-tribes in outline, a limitation I freely admitted in the article. When time allows I hope to return to the subject.
Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthrigh,t by J. H. Allen, would be a good starting point for those wanting more information.
Hi. Thanks for your reply.
I realise the piece was an overview, but even overviews are allowed to have footnotes from time to time :o) And, if you have only given a "BROAD overview", I still don't see why you can sensibly claim your conclusion to be "inescapable".
You also appear to have completely ducked my observation that your conclusion is at odds with what the Bible tells us these (scripturally prophesied) End Times that we're now in will involve. I'm guessing you don't believe in the yet-to-begin thousand year reign of Christ (as spelled out in Revelation and elsewhere)?
This is straying from the point of the article into a general discussion on prophesy - too large a subject for examination in comments. But I will note at this juncture that a key centre-point of the end-time prophetic narrative is the Great Tribulation, which is described as the time of Jacob's trouble. This brings us back to the question - who is Jacob (nationally speaking)? If that is not understood, confusion and error, always such a risk in eschatology, will dominate.
Oh dear. This is a very telling response, imho :o(
(1) You have again side-stepped my worry that you are calling your readers to accept a particular conclusion of yours as "inescapable" - despite it being predicated on a number of things you haven't proved or indeed offered any hard evidence for.
(2) You are erecting a straw man to suggest I am seeking to have a, "general discussion on prophesy [sic]". I simply asked if you were pre-millennial.
(3) You imply that a basic grasp of what the Bible tells us will happen in the future is irrelevant to the content of your article; yet your article itself makes the following (profoundly unbiblical btw) claim:
"[T]he future, as laid out in God’s word, is clear. We will be, once and for all, reunited with our Lord. We shall be a nation specially set aside for a holy purpose. Through our nation shall the knowledge of the Lord be spread across the globe, we shall be willingly engaged in that great work that will see all nations come to know God. So significant is the role laid out for our nation, that the gates to God’s seat of government, New Jerusalem, will bear the names of our tribes, just as its foundations bear the names of the apostles. ... Are we a Christian nation ...? ... [O]ur Lord has not abandoned us, With great tenderness he will gather us in. We will, at his return, become reunited with him."
No wonder you tend to find your opponents 'abusive'. You are teaching an unimaginably erroneous and *dangerous* set of beliefs here :o(
What I am discussing is called Christianity. Your position is that the word of God will count for nothing and will fail. Mine is that it can be relied upon, as a rock, a sure foundation.
That is why I feel no need to reply in the same spirit in which you attack. I hope one day you will be able to discuss these matters without such animosity.
Thank you for your contribution.
Many thanks for confirming my suspicions :o(
(1) You write, "Your position is that the word of God will count for nothing and will fail." My position is nothing of the *sort*, and that is an absolutely 'outrageous' accusation you've made. I believe the Word of God is perfect and that .every. prophecy in it will come true completely and precisely. My position is that you're trying to apply prophecies meant for physical Israel (and physical Israel alone) to the nation of Britain.
(2) You write, "That is why I feel no need to reply in the same spirit in which you attack. I hope one day you will be able to discuss these matters without such animosity." But I have consistently written in a gracious spirit - despite you: erecting a straw man, repeatedly ducking my points, and publishing a profoundly unbiblical article.
(3) You have side-stepped every single point I made in my last.
Thank you for revealing your *actual* degree of, er, "commitment ... to the truth".