Got Integrity?

From time to time this “Got Questions” article surfaces as a “refutation” of Kinism.  As usual for social Marxists, the author shows little knowledge of Kinist ideals.  At least he recognizes that we’re not Christian Identity advocates.  That’s more than most Evangelicals are able to realize.

Even the author of Green Baggins, Lane Kiester, (who ought to know better) was unable to see the distinction.  His article  “The Main Biblical Problem With Kinism” would be more aptly titled “The Main Biblical Problem With Christian Identity” …it simply doesn’t touch Kinism.

Since the “Got Questions” article pops up from time to time, I’ll provide a brief critique:


Kinism is one branch of a diverse series of religious movements that promote racial segregation. This movement is based in Christianity and, for the most part, is populated with people who are historic, Calvinistic, orthodox and Reformed in their doctrinal views. The tendency to adhere to some true doctrines, however, does not mean that Kinists are orthodox in belief and practice. In fact, their adherence to true doctrines, and the extensive theological knowledge of some of the followers of Kinism, makes this legalistic cult all the more dangerous.

Is there a diverse series of religious movements promoting racial segregation?  Not that I know of, and I’ve spent some time trying to categorize the spectrum of Christian racialist ideals.  While people may disagree with me – I see the entire Christian racialist spectrum as divided between those with Christian Identity-type ideals, and kinism (lower case – where people accept that all races can be saved, but they should, nevertheless, stay segregated to some degree).

Also notice how in this first paragraph, it’s admitted that Kinist (upper case, denoting the specifically Reformed expression of kinism) are “ORTHODOX” in our doctrines.  So another cudos to the author for not mindlessly calling us heretics.  Apparently, we just need some correcting on our “practices”.

I love how he says we’re smart …makes a fella feel good about himself; but the last line of the paragraph blows it.  Kinism is a “legalistic cult”?

Let’s first reject the “cult” label out of hand, as needlessly pejorative.  The more serious charge is that of “legalism”.

“Legalistic” here seems to imply that Kinists teach a works/righteousness motif, where people are saved by law.  So, if this *is* what the author means by “legalistic”, then he is claiming that Kinists both hold orthodox Reformed doctrines, and that we do not … at the same time.

So we have two possibilities.

1.  Either Kinists are blatantly unintelligent and don’t realize they believe contradictory propositions:  Sola Fide as well as Salvation by Works (legalism).


2.  The author has misrepresented Kinist beliefs.

Both I and the author agree that Kinists are intelligent and well-versed in Reformed theology, so I think we both reject 1.  That leaves us with 2.

It is difficult to get a direct answer about Kinism, because the movement is relatively new and “un-formed” and also because Kinists themselves tend to be quite scholarly and esoteric. But a few things are clear. Unlike the Christian Identity Movement, or the Aryan Nation, Kinists do not believe that non-white races cannot be saved. Also, unlike Anglo-Isrealists, they do not believe that national Israel’s true descendants are the British and American people groups.

Maybe it’s difficult to get a direct answer because the author hasn’t ever tried having a prolonged “real life” conversation with an actual Kinist?  Eh?

As for the movement being “new” and “unformed”, well, the title “Kinism” is new, sure, but the positions we hold are not new – not at all.  Applying very old ideals to contemporary (and frankly: Satanic) social orders, is difficult even for trained theologians.  We Kinists are mostly laymen trying to forge this ground on our own while simultaneously coming under attack from every conceivable angle.  I think, given these circumstances, a little “unformed” rhetoric is understandable.

What makes Kinism different is the belief that God has ordained an order for mankind that goes beyond personal and individual worship.

…as all competent Reformed thinkers would.

Remember that every inch of creation belongs to God – not just those few areas of personal holiness Joel Osteen likes to talk about.  If we’re going to be consistently Christian in our thought, then we need to apply the Bible to EVERY area of life – politics and social-order included.

God has not left us to our own devices to come up with forms of government on our own.  He’s given us a blueprint of political ethics.

They believe that God has set boundaries for groups of human beings and that human beings should respect those boundaries by maintaining a tribal order. What this means is that you could have a group of white Kinists, and a group of black Kinists, but they would not worship together. They believe that man is usurping God’s authority when they “co-habit” with different races, when (as they say) God has ordained a necessary distinction. In the words of one Kinist, “This [belief] affects our ecclesiology since it would consider a multi-racial, drum-banging mega-church to be a foul stench in God’s nostrils.” Besides being unloving, this assertion is simply un-biblical, promotes a racist point of view, and is a platform for pride and legalism.

We believe God has set all kinds of boundaries onto creation that should be respected, including tribal boundaries – yes.

And while I do believe this would (of necessity) mean that different tribes would not worship together, it’s not because they’re different tribes.  Rather, it’s because the different tribes would be worshiping in different parts of the world.

When is the last time an alienist worshiped with someone from Iceland?  Been awhile?  Of course it’s not because the person is Icelandic, rather, it’s because they simply don’t have access to each other.

But what about in a sinful sort of post-Enlightenment nation like the United States where Biblical order is irrelevant?  In this environment, various tribes *are* close enough to worship.

As a Kinist, I have a few observations about ecclesiology in this sort of order:

1.  Segregation among different races in America happens naturally.  There are various racial communities that emerge organically.  (Even Dr. Bahnsen admits that this is natural).  This is as it should be because God has created us with an affinity for our own (similar to how men are naturally attracted to women).  We should not lead campaigns to “merge” all these groups together.

2.  Suppose we’re in some metropolitan situation though, where a church is composed of many races?  Well, this is fine (from a Kinist perspective) as long as the individual races are formally recognized.  For instance – it might be possible for such a church to have racially segregated small groups.  Also, as we see in the book of Acts – there is warrant (Biblical and practical) for having an elder to represent each group.

On this model, the races would all worship and fellowship together, but also have a formal respect for each other’s unique group identities.  Ideally – this would make for a harmonious church environment to last long enough for the ideal goal of one race (that, perhaps grows in membership faster than some of the others) branching out to form its own congregation.

The author says this is “unbiblical” and “unloving” and makes for a “platform of pride and legalism”.

Well, it remains to be seen how it’s unbiblical…also, I’m not sure how it’s “unloving” (at least as I’ve presented it here).  And if a doctrine is wrong because it has potential to lead humans into pridefulness and legalism – then ALL positions are wrong.  Humans can and will exploit any doctrine to prideful ends.

Also … still not sure what is meant by “legalism” …

Kinists insist on racially segregated churches and communities, and of course, families. They believe that Christians should still adhere to the Old Testament Laws that forbade Jews to intermarry with other tribes / families. They also say that God “separated” the races at the Tower of Babel, and that to “re-integrate” is an affront to the order for mankind that He has ordained. Both of these beliefs, despite having a copious amount of scholarly support in Kinist camps, can be easily dismantled with Scripture.

Scholarship anyone?  Where is the author getting these ideals about Kinism?  Are we supposed to take him at his word?  But shoddy scholarship aside, these ideals are close to what Kinists believe, but not quite accurate.

We believe Christians should adhere to the general equity of OT case laws (because we Kinists are also theonomists), and that includes the general equity of the laws governing inter-tribal association, as well as the laws governing how non-tribal members (ie: aliens) were to be treated.  But this general equity is also derived from the very creation ordinances themselves – where God established the family (and thus: tribe) as the foundational social order for mankind.

Also, while some Kinists do believe the Babel narrative helps as an explanatory model for the origin of racial diversity – it’s not foundational to Kinism.  *That* racial categories exist and should be maintained is what is important, not *how* they came to be.  It remains for some enterprising young Christian to come up with a scientifically-precise (and Biblically harmonious) anthropological model that adequately explains the diversity we see in the world today.

As for “dismantling” our ideals with Scripture … that part remains to be seen.

First, to determine whether Old Testament law regarding segregation pplies to the New Testament church, we should ask what the reason for segregation was in the Old Testament. God’s reason for this law was very clearly to avoid the introduction / assimilation of pagan idolatry into Jewish society

I’m not going to cite this entire paragraph, because it’s a big straw man.

Yes – we Kinists realize that God often separated His people from others as a way of “sanctifying” them and keeping them holy.  Yes, maybe some younger Kinists have inappropriately appealed to this sort of thing as a way to support racial segregation in general.

Nevertheless, God has established tribalism as the normative order for man.  This is not disproved by noting that He also promoted segregation for other reasons as well.  Just because the sanctification of a particular people-group has passed away, doesn’t mean that tribalist social order has also passed away.

The author needs to note that Kinists see all redeemed people as members of the Covenant of Grace, which makes them part of a new “Kingdom”.  The Kingdom is international in scope – meaning: it includes various races (ie: Biblical nations).   So God is the King of an international kingdom of various races.  He is not the King of a single, raceless blob of a propositional, post-Enlightenment nation.

Kinists believe in an “international” kingdom.

Alienists believe in an unbiblical “national” kingdom. 

As for God’s action at the tower of Babel being taken as His ordaining racial segregation, the story of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) is about God confusing the languages of men so that they would not be able to work together to accomplish evil against Him. It is not about racial segregation. This is proved by Galatians 2:11-14, where Paul opposes Peter for separating himself from the Gentile believers in their church.

As noted above, Kinists don’t usually believe the races emerged *at* Babel, yet, even if some do believe it, that doesn’t really matter.  How races emerged and *that* they emerged are two different issues.

Also – I’m not sure how the author’s position on Babel is “proven” by the Galatians narrative.  He’s not even doing damage to his own straw man!

Look at Galatians 2 more carefully.  Peter’s offense wasn’t “racism”, it was more of a jewish snobbery and being uncomfortable with the idea that non-jews were part of the Covenant.

Another example would be Paul’s ordaining as a Christian pastor the Greek-born Timothy (2 Timothy 1:6). He even calls Timothy “my true child in the faith” (1 Timothy 1:2). Timothy’s mother was Jewish and a woman of the faith. This implies that Timothy lived and ministered in a community that was both Jewish and Gentile. Did his own mother not attend his church?  And, if God wished the races to be segregated, which church would he, being half Jew and half Gentile, be able to pastor?

See my comments on Timothy here.

And what about Paul himself, who was a self-proclaimed “preacher, apostle… and teacher of the Gentiles” (1 Timothy 2:7)? If Kinism were true, would not God have sent a Gentile to preach to and teach the Gentiles?

If we hold to the model of inter-racial worship outlined above, then there’s no reason why God wouldn’t send preachers out to preach to other tribes.

The author maliciously tries to make Kinists defend a view of strict separation when really we Kinists just want to see Godly tribal boundaries formally recognized and maintained.  Let non-whites come to my church and preach if they’re authoritative and learned and have something worthwhile to share.  Nothing wrong with that.  And there’s nothing wrong with Paul preaching and teaching to the Gentiles.

The problem comes when modernist hipsters try to force us all to accept an ungodly social order that eradicates tribal boundaries all together and when they try to merge everyone into a giant propositional mud-bowl.

In short, Kinism is simply another attempt to be justified by Law, rather than by the gospel of God’s grace. “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile”

Wow … again with the “Justified by Law” stuff …

Can anyone point to me where, in this entire article, the author demonstrated that Kinists teach some sort of justification by works or justification by keeping of the law?  Where?

Where do Kinists reject justification by faith alone???

This author needs to publicly repent for so carelessly (and offensively) misrepresenting Kinists.

I wont hold my breath while waiting…

This entry was posted in Kinism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Got Integrity?

  1. Fr. John+ says:

    Where should I begin? Well, SG, first off, let’s just address ONE of the issues that starts this column, before we go any further.

    You wrote: “I see the entire Christian racialist spectrum as divided between those with Christian Identity-type ideals, and kinism (lower case – where people accept that all races can be saved, but they should, nevertheless, stay segregated to some degree).”

    As my wife is fond of pointing out to her charges on a sometimes weekly basis, ‘Yes, you can do such and so. But, just because you CAN, doesn’t mean you SHOULD.’

    Now, if you believe (as the antinomian Protestants, and the works-righteousness RC’s- who are now truly, nothing more than UCC types, but with prettier vestments, due to Vatican ‘Ewww.’) that men can ‘choose salvation,’ then… Yes, all races CAN be saved.

    But y’all are Reformed! I read decades ago, that you of all people, believe that God has PREDESTINED only SOME to Salvation, and left the rest in their sins. If this is the case, why not look at the praxis of the early Church, look at how it was creedally consistent only within the Ecumene (the continent of Europe) – and when I say, creedally consistent, I am talking about the Seven Ecumencial Councils, which all the Reformers originally thought had merit until the Bezas, and the reductionists went after it with axe and tongs…

    I wanted LG, or SWB to interact with this fundamental concept, and neither would, primarily because they were FEARFUL of the CI brush, whereas you don’t seem to care if you get too close, because you recognize that there IS such a thing as heresy, and ‘know whom you have believed, etc.’

    If God alone chooses, and man can only respond via the enlightening grace of the Holy Spirit, then shouldn’t we look to the pattern of how the Apostles carried on their evangelization, and to whom, and for what purpose? Next, should we not seek to understand the covenantal structure of the O.T., the N.T. as the fulfillment of same, and how the ‘vision’ of the Apostles was broadened, but not CHANGED, in the pages of the N.T.???

    But this is what so much of Protestantism does not do, because it has adopted the false WORLDVIEW of Papism, via the Filioque, and Rome’s ‘invite the world, invade the world’ methodology, while saying, ‘Oh, no we dihn’t’ because Calvinists don’t believe in transubstantiation, vestments, monstrances, etc. But the adiophora is far, FAR less poisonous, than the racial fornication that the filioque, and universalist jurisdictional constructs engender.

    Yet, even with Kinists, you haven’t gone there, because it is not on your radar screen. But it should be.

    So, I would like to hear your thoughts on, NOT whether we CAN convert the non-Caucasoid (as racial groups/nations- I’m not talking about the lone Ethiopian Eunuch, here!) but whether we SHOULD- as it, is it GOD’s predestinating will, or have we departed from His commandments, are are we, in fact, indulging in just a DIFFERENT variant on ‘man-made worship- this time, in the area of missionizing?


    • I don’t want to leave any threads unpulled, so if LG or S/W/B didn’t address something, I’ll try my best to.

      (By the way, I just received Timothy Ware’s “The Orthodox Church” in the mail. You either suggested it to me, or I saw you mention it somewhere … flipping through it, it looks interesting).

      I understand you have issues with the Kinist approach (as you’ve highlighted here), but what do you make of my way of “slicing up” the Christian racialist spectrum as between those with CI-type views, and those with Kinist-type views?

      Whatever might be said of each camp, it seems (to me anyway) that these two are able to define (in wide swaths) the spectrum. Anyone who falls outside these two camps would be some form of “alienist” in my view. I don’t know of any Christian movement that would defy either description (CI or kinism)…though, admittedly, there is a large area of difference within both views.

      (As for the rest of your post – I’ll read through carefully and respond when I’m able to devote the time to it that it deserves).

      • Fr. John+ says:

        Oh, I think you are quite right in divvying up the approach to Christian racialism. The CI’s have long been the ‘only ones on the block’ primarily because, up until about 1950, the block was ‘our turf’ (Borrowing imagery from West Side Story). But the Boasian/Marxist/Jewish mindset had to percolate down, during the three decades they began to control all discourse, until it hit the fan, in the 1960’s. So, yes, I think you should and ought to separate the ‘camps’ in order to discuss them objectively.

        As to Ware’s book, realize that it has gone through MANY ‘revisions’ as he himself has morphed into a spokesman for the EP, and the modernist elements therein. He’s now a Bishop, and not just a former Anglican, turned presbyter. So, as Gibson said when confronted by the Jews for his [sic] ‘anti-semitic’ remarks a few years ago, ‘He’s got a dog in THIS race,’ so to speak!

    • I’ve worked through your statement here carefully, step-by-step, trying to be as fair as possible. From what I can tell, it seems there are two major propositions being offered.

      I’d like to restate them here so you might correct me if I’ve misunderstood:

      1. If we grant the interpretation of Scripture offered by the first seven ecumenical councils we would find ourselves obligated to only preach the Gospel to those on the continent of Europe (or presumably, to the race of people living on the continent)?


      2. The filioque doctrine and the doctrine of “universal jurisdiction” necessarily work together to bring about racial fornication?

      • Fr. John+ says:

        SG- Yes, and no.

        While we see that the Chosen People had within their midst, ‘mixed multitudes’ even on their leaving of Goshen [ Ex. 12:38], yet the desire of the Mosaic law, the 10 Commandments, the message of the Prophets, and the exclusionary nature of Christ’s mission ‘I am come ONLY to the lost sheep of the House of Israel’ necessitates an analysis of what/how this ‘racial purity’ can co-exist with a ‘mixing’ of like and unlike ‘seeds’ – which of course, we know from the Law, was forbidden. Here’s an interesting column I read, just on looking up the scripture verse from Exodus, above.

        I don’t know the author, and while I agree with most of it, would ask that we need to consider whether or not (as our Southern ancestors held to) there are those who are allowed to be ‘in the covenant’ as ancillary members (such as the Negro slaves) but are NOT, thereby, the same as the Covenant Seed, as exemplified in the O.T., maintained in the N.T. (Christ’s speech to the Samaritan woman comes to mind[ ‘dogs’ is still a very offensive word’ even from our Lord’s lips) and not just jump to the conclusion that allowing the “Gentiles” in, was a blanket endorsement of all hominids of every racial stripes, much like modern godless democracies and giving them full ‘rights’ as citizenry, as we see in the USA, today.

        As to Point two, I do believe that it was the clear, reasoned departure of the Church of Rome from Orthodoxy in 1054A.D., that led irrevocably to the first actions of the Schismatic Papacy in 1100A.D., (the almost immediate mushrooming of the contradictory and numerous ‘Orders’ that sprouted up after 1150, and was the ideological foundation for the folly of St. Francis of Assisi ‘preaching to the Moors’ in 1215 or thereabouts. Have you ever read the Orthodox analysis of Francis with a ‘real’ saint?

        That article was what made me see Rome in a differing light, and led me to realize that all of Rome’s (and therefore, the West’s) ‘saints’ are not just ‘counter cultural’ but actually aberrant, when it comes to true biblical, and theological groundedness of the lives of the Orthodox saints… but discussing saints, miracles, and all the rest, goes way far afield from our original points… but I wanted to include it, fwiw.

  2. Fr. John+ says:

    Perhaps you haven’t read as many of my now defunct blog’s posts as I think you might have. But it boils down to this: the ‘world’ in Acts 1:6-14 (the First reading in liturgical churches this weekend) uses the Greek term, ‘ecumene’ for the ‘world.’ That word means (according to Pomazansky’s Dogmatic Theology) the ‘Greco-Roman INHABITED world’ of the Apostles’ day- in short, Caucasoid Europe. Not meso-America, not OZ, and most decidely NOT Botswanaland. The Afrikaaners knew this, and (as good Calvinists) acted on it- non-European hominids can have the Gospel preached to them, and they can be ‘saved’ but are NEVER to be included (thought of as equals) to the ‘holy seed’ of Israel.

    We castigate the Jews for their racial supremacism, found in the Talmud, because we know that (as Provan’s little book says) ‘The Church is Israel now,’ but perhaps we should note that the Talmud proceeds from the understanding that THE ‘Chosen People’ IS of a completely different ‘flesh’ than all the other hominids on the planet- which is now confirmed via DNA, Avdeyev’s “Raciology” and a whole host of other sources, since 1980.

    Amazingly (predestinatedly?) enough, the Gospel reading that the Church has given us for this same Sunday, was that of St. John 17: Christ’s ‘High Priestly Prayer’ -which is a marvel of clear Election to salvation of only ONE Ethnos- the Israelites of Galilee, who were Jesus’ disciples; and Christ’s prayer was that YHWH God Father would hear that he was ‘asking NOT on behalf of the [whole] world, but [ONLY] on behalf of those whom you gave me, BECAUSE THEY ARE YOURS.’ Talk about specific demarcation!?

    So, Does Rome’s filioquist universalist missiology truly, honestly have a place in Calvinist/Reformed/real Orthodox thought… or have you been in your own “Babylonian Captivity’ for over 400 years, and not known it, and do SWB and LG, and Kinists, and all the rest find themselves at the forefront of this challenge to Truth- and should you not, of all people be ‘semper reformanda’ in the face of this Universalist heresy? I ask you.


    • There’s a general argument I have against the view you offer here.

      When I do apologetics with unbelievers, I often find myself debating about ethics. In a Christian view of ethics, there are objective norms that apply to all people at all times. These obligations are “objective” because they’re derivative of God’s nature. In light of objective ethics, then, there is nowhere in Heaven, Earth, or Hell, where God’s commands are not authoritative.

      So – as a theonomist, I believe God’s law should be taken as authoritative in all areas of the world. “Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven…” Further – I believe that this sort of universal authority only makes sense because there is a universal “covenant of works” binding all men and obligating them to obey His law.

      If there are any sentient beings not in this “covenant of works”, then these are beings we cannot hold accountable for any sort of sin (similar to animals. We don’t prosecute animals for killing other animals, or robbing eggs from another animal’s nest, etc.)

      Thus – the work of the Kingdom (on this view) is to spread the jurisdiction of God’s law. To enlarge the boundaries of the Kingdom! And we do this through preaching and teaching. The entire Earth – indeed, the entire universe, is our new promised land, and we must take it from the non-Christians (the New Covenant versions of the Canaanites). There is no one who can resist the power of the advancing church.

      I will not be satisfied with Europe when it’s the universe that’s been promised us.

      • Fr. John+ says:

        Strange you mention the Law of God, even though Pharaoh was asked to submit to it, even as he was ‘hardened in heart’ by God, NOT to obey it. Are not the ‘cattle on a thousand hills’ His?

        To use St. Paul’s ‘How much more’ are the ‘goyim’ held to an obedience, if only so that they may serve the Israel of God? In other words, while the Talmudic rationales for the [sic] Jews are incorrect, because the Jews are not the People of God [ Rev. 3:9] what about those of us, who are? All men die in Adam, but not all men ARE Adam as one of my blog posts noted. Perhaps you never read that.
        But I wanted to point out what you said and apply the example of Pharaoh as a man under God’s law, who yet is not God’s seed.

      • I suppose I’d say that the entire universe belongs to Christians as our new promised land, and we are to go into it and claim it for Christ. Whomever doesn’t convert, will submit or be submitted. Everyone will bow knee to God’s law, regardless.

      • Fr. John+ says:

        Your response is my response. But I am asking to go further, think deeper, throw off the shackles of Jewish disinformatia, and look at the Scriptural and historical evidence in a new light. With Wade’s “Troublesome Inheritance,” the Rightist elections in Europe, there is a new day dawning. We dare not waste it. We shall not pass this way again.

  3. 1. If we grant the interpretation of Scripture offered by the first seven ecumenical councils we would find ourselves obligated to only preach the Gospel to those on the continent of Europe (or presumably, to the race of people living on the continent)?

    I wouldn’t go that far but I will say this is puzzling in that of the fact that Paul didn’t preach to China or Japan as far as I’m aware…

    If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister [The interesting comparison here is Jesus’ commission in Mark which Paul is essentially stating is a finished command and completed work – Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Unless the underlying Greek tenses are being translated incorrectly. I didn’t look because I’m assuming the King James was faithful enough there. Perhaps a quick perusal of Young’s Literal would be beneficial here]

    16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

    18But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

    Almost seems to imply that in some sense the Great Commission was fulfilled by Paul.

    I could multiply Scripture here.

    Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

    I have no dogmatics about any of this. I just find it interesting.

    • In Romans 10:18, when Paul says “their sound went into all the Earth”… he’s citing Psalms 19, which specifically refers to the creation – on a presuppositionalist gloss, this would be the knowledge everyone knows via the sensus divinitatus (or, so I would argue).

      I’m no fan of exegesis – it’s not my favorite thing by any means. I prefer to let the guys at seminary do it. For my part (and some may claim I’m lazy for this) … I simply operate within the Reformed Confessional Standards as much as I can.

      And I’m not sure we can operate within a Reformed theological framework, while also restricting legal access to the Covenant to a single geographical region (or race of people).

      • Fr. John+ says:

        But that’s putting the cart before the horse. ‘We can’t restrict the preaching of the Gospel to one group of people, because we’ve never done so before’ makes no sense, if the ‘preaching’ we are doing is not approved by God, in the first place! For, to the Orthodox, Protestants don’t have the ‘pnevma’ to begin with! So, applying this logic, false preaching is no preaching at all, and therefore non-efficacious, which renders the first statement absurd. If the Gospel was ‘hindered from going into Asia’ (Biblical factoid) then, why should we, did we, ‘preach in Asia’ contrary to the Holy Spirit, UNLESS such ‘preaching’ was not accompanied by the Holy Spirit in the first place? Ever read ‘Ways that are Dark’ for example?

        Just sayin’

  4. I wouldn’t restrict it (the possibility of salvation). I don’t see an exegetical possibility for doing that. I don’t see any way we could wrestle that interpretation from the Scriptures or the WCF.

    What I do see is the possibility that in some sense the Great Commission itself was completed based upon what I see in the text if the underlying verbs are perfect. I would certainly have a lot more studying to do. I can’t see how it would alter functional soteriology.

    When Jesus says do such-and-such and Paul claims to have done such-and-such I’m just a little interested. Again. I’m just saying it makes my ears pop up.

    • Fr. John+ says:

      You (Whites) don’t ‘restrict the possibility of salvation’ when we acknowledge the ‘bounds of OUR habitation’ in delivering the Gospel only to the Ecumene of the Inhabited Greco-Roman world – i.e., Europe. We actually FULFILL it, as it was meant to be. For, if the conversion of the Israelites of teh O.T. gave blessings, HOW MUCH MORE will the conversion of the ‘Gentiles’ (i.e., pagan Europeans) be? As proof of that, look at what Whites have done, and compare our lives, the lives of the poorest of the poor around the world, and not revel in the Electing Grace that has benefitted the entire globe, by the hedged acceptance of the Gospel (up until 1900, say) by the Whites of Europe! You’re applying man-made terms, and man-made analyses to God’s electing providence…

      • I’m saying I don’t see warrant for that interpretation (no salvation outside of some Jews and Europeans). I’m not saying that God couldn’t do that and still be completely within in His prerogative to do so.

        I’m a Sola Scriptura guy so I really don’t often ‘look’ outside the Scriptures for ‘proof’ of anything.

        I see your point Fr. John and I think I even contributed scriptures that indicate that the position is actually defensible on the spectrum. I don’t think you should be dismissed out of hand as absurd or heretical and I even believe it would do no great injustice to the WCF to adopt your position.

        It would however, as Shotgun notes, do violence to the Postmillenial interpretation of the Scriptures. I’m a very pessimistic Amil though so it wouldn’t really do violence to my position.

        The issue for me is strictly, what do the Scriptures say?

        How do you reconcile Acts 16:6 with 19:10 on your interpretation? We could of course grant that the Word only went to the Greeks residing in Asia but that would make 16:6 worthless as a proof text for your argument.

  5. I should say that I see the possibility of the “Great Commission” (our concept we are papering over Jesus’ command to the 12-not completely without justification) ending simultaneously (or near it) with the end “Apostolic Era” (signs, tongues, gifts, inspired communication, etc. and also our concept).

    That isn’t like straight-up, 100 proof heresy for me to say right?

  6. Fr. John+ says:

    And I would disagree with that concept, also- such a concept IS Heresy!

    The Kingdom cannot be said to have been fulfilled at the end of the Apostolic Age. THat sounds like the word preterist baloney I’ve ever heard. Luckily, I don’t believe, or preach it!

    But the witness of I Pet. 1:1, and Jas. 1:1 at least shows THEY (the Apostles) knew [by that point in their lives], that the prophecy of the ‘two branches- Ezek. 37: 17-19] that signalled God’s reconciling the ‘two houses’ of Jacob and Israel HAD, at last, in the ‘calling of the Gentiles, been re-joined; and that prophetic fulfillment rests upon the preaching of the Word to the Caucasoid [sic] Gentiles of Europe- and was the ‘times and seasons’ that Christ did not preach to, in reference to Acts. 1:6!

    As for the growth of that ‘Greater Davidic Kingdom,’ that the rest of Europe’s history (from the first efforts among the Romans in A.D. 33, down to the last efforts of St. Olav preaching the Gospel to the Norse, and his death in 1030 A.D., clearly delineates a very important EVENT.

    The first and the last, both are come into the Kingdom, within the span of what St. Augustine noted was the ‘millennium’ – It also is a tacit confirmation of Romans 9-11, that both contained the expansion of the Gospel to ‘all the corners of the Ecumene’ as well as the clearly marking the great apostasy, and the ending of the ‘unified field theory’ of ONE Christendom.

    For, after that 1000-year reign, and within ‘one generation’ [1030-1054] and just like the Judgment of the period of Kings, Europe/Israel/Christendom split, and has remained so, for this last 1000 years! [Just as the ‘new Israel’ (America, which, at her start, was a ‘joining of the Tribes’) split into two halves (North vs. South) and has remained separated ever since…]

    And each time such an event happened, it was the ONE departing ‘tribe’ that affected BOTH halves of the “People of God” to their mutual hurt, while yet allowing the expansion, and blessing to continue, even in their apostasy. How could this be, unless Europe’s Faith is as teh “Israel of God,” [ Gal. 6:16] and this would be thinkable, only if one realizes that, right at the outset, St. Paul addresses the concept of ‘false’ vs. ‘true’ Israelites, in Romans 9:6, while yet acknowledging that, while the ‘Edomite/Khazarians’ are impostors [ cf. Obadaiah] there still exist those who are ‘my kinsmen according to the Flesh.’ [ Rom. 9:3]

    So, while we cannot any longer think, (knowing the incarnate evil Jews as a race represent, with the last century being (as Slezkine, himself a Jew, noted) ‘the Jewish Century,’ yet we need to acknowledge that, as we come to the end of this ‘second millennium’ in 2033A.D. or thereabouts, that ‘And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come …[ Rom. 11:26].

    Paul did not see this, during his lifetime. For ‘it was not given to him’ – being the ‘Apostles to the (not, as the KJV and other mis-translations say) [sic] Gentiles’, but was actually the new Moses, preaching to ‘His People’ whom the angel said, Christ ALONE’ was sent to save!!! [ Matt. 1:21] If you doubt that, then explain the graces and accomplishments of the White race of Europe. I believe it is because, even though we are still trapped in Thomistic, filioquist rationales, it is because (as St. Peter, and St. James both note) that we Europeans are the Restored ‘Ten Tribes’ that had been ‘scattered abroad’ [ I Pet. 1:1, Jas. 1:1] And scipture confirms that, or do you wish to deny the very verses I just noted. The European’s accomplishments are due to one fact- we ARE the Israel of God- by grace, and by race… ‘For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.’ [Rom. 11:29]

    • The Kingdom cannot be said to have been fulfilled at the end of the Apostolic Age. THat sounds like the word preterist baloney I’ve ever heard. Luckily, I don’t believe, or preach it!

      The Kingdom isn’t finished until the last elect person is regenerated and saved and Christ comes back.

      I mean only that I see a possibility that the Great Commission (as in ‘exploratory’ or ‘imperialistic’ Gospel spreading) ended at the same time that the signs, gifts, tongues, miracles, and inspired letter writing (Scripture generation) ended.

      Nor do I deny the significance of the bringing in (grafting) of the Gentiles onto the Olive Tree.

      I’m no preterist. Not by any stretch.

      • Fr. John+ says:

        “The Kingdom isn’t finished until the last elect person is regenerated and saved and Christ comes back.”


        “I’m no preterist. Not by any stretch.”

        I didn’t say you were, Daniel. I merely tried to say (and then got auto-corrected by my computer- grrrr!) that I was not of that camp, either.

        SG, are you going to respond to my responses? Or have we hashed this out enough for now? Or what? I’m willing to give my feeble responses, as much as I am able, just wanted to know, Sir.

      • I have responded to you (see above).

        But to sum up … I don’t find your arguments very convincing, nor am I able to make sense of the position from within my Reformed worldview.

        It doesn’t make sense to me why I’d have to focus only on Europeans, when it’s been my view that the entire universe belongs to the redeemed.

        It doesn’t make sense to me how there can be sentient beings *not* under the law (we’d be unable to hold them accountable for sin otherwise).

        Certain dual-seedline CI positions don’t make sense to me because (as I’ve highlighted elsewhere on my blog), I don’t see how we can restrict the Image of God in man to a set of racial signifyers without unduly lowering God in our theological system…

        Not to mention the view being suggested seems to run directly counter to hundreds of years of Reformed exegesis.

        Still – I’m always glad to fairly consider any such position, with even-handed fairness that’s rarely ever granted to me (by alienist Christians). My high horse isn’t high enough not to consider other views.

  7. Fr. John+ says:

    Your last comment SG, is typical, because, after all is said and done, you Prots (even the best of them- teh Reformed) are all closet Operational Nestorians. You acknowledge the Incarnation in theory, but deny it in Fact. You are willing to call Mary the Christotokos, but never the Mother of God. Yet that is what she is. The Catholic position is that the Theotokos’s very DNA is blended with God’s DNA, to create the New Adam. And that, because of that, Christ has a defined Ethnos, that is forever tied to His salvific mission. In short, the Last Adam came to redeem only those whose ethnos he bore, both before, and after the Resurrection.

    Rule over the non-Adamites, sure. But inclusion as a race into the seed of the Chosen Race? Never.

    I wrote on that very subject in my blog, about the racial nature of Christ. I haven’t trascribed all teh posts from 2013-14 yet, but here is something to chew on, from your side of the aisle:

    “As the author ‘Ehud would’ notes at the end of his article:
    ‘But of course, someone will still insist, in spite of their own reflexive association of dark with evil and the Bible’s identical assumptions, that the ‘color of the races are meaningless’; they would call Charles Hodge an inveterate liar for saying, “The differences between the Caucasian, Mongolian, and negro races, which is known to have been as distinctly marked two or three thousand years before Christ as it is now…. these varieties of race are not the effect of the blind operation of physical causes, but by those causes as intelligently guided by God for the accomplishment of some wise purpose…” They must call him a liar because the notion that God has appropriated to certain peoples shades of color which the Bible connotes to virtue or vice on a metaphysical level is itself a violation of the law which they’ve enthroned above God in their hearts—namely, that God has not the right to deal in such inequality…
    At root then, they deny the sovereign Supralapsarianism of God over His creation and they turn in deference to a Hindu-esque, all-is-one-without-distinction sort of egalitarian Idol.” (op. cit.)’ ” – from The Theotokos, the Incarnation, and Foolish self-wounding Pelikans, 20011.

    Or my thoughts, from a column entitled, “Eugenics of God.” ( I was writing to Nathanael Kapner in this one. After this letter, he blocked me from commenting on his site, because, while he acknowledged the racial supremacism of his OWN race (Jews) on this topic, (and thinks that his race spawned the Messiah- it did not!) he denies it of the Anglos. Which is talmudic, and communistic to the core.

    “Clearly, the Church Fathers knew this too, as the article by Vladimir Moss, “Genetics and the Birth of the Antichrist” makes clear. He does touch upon the evil that godless Soviet science was trying to accomplish, but also notes that the Church has long known of the ‘Eugenics of Satan’ as well as the “Eugenics of God.”

    While one cannot condone the former, one MUST condone the latter- for the record, isn’t the millennia-long preparation of the world (environment) as well as the thousands of years long genetic history of the Sons and Daughters of Adam, along with the prohibitions in the Mosaic Code against miscegenation, a form of Divine Eugenics, in that Christ (the God-Man) was born of a predeterminate plan of eugenics, to ensure that Jesus was born of THE Virgin, who (along with Joseph) was of the ‘house and lineage of David’?”

    • “…closet operational Nestorians”

      This is an odd charge from non-Calvinists, given the amount of time Reformed apologists spend defending the hypostatic union; and an especially odd charge to make against followers of Rushdoony who placed so much emphasis on Chalcedon, he named his organization after it.

      In apologetics, atheists often bring up the problem of divine condescension which is usually stated something like: “If God is infinite, how can He also be part of a body that is finite?” The hypostatic union is a vital doctrine for approaching these sorts of paradoxes, and is the cornerstone of Van Tillian “essentialist”-style arguments. We Reformed strongly support the unity *and* diversity – but never one more than the other (emphasizing one over the other is what leads to various heresies).

      “The Catholic position is that…”

      I doubt I could find many Catholics willing to agree with your entire statement, especially about the importance of DNA in the salvation mission.

      “…the Theotokos’s DNA is blended with God’s DNA, therefore, Christ’s DNA is forever tied to the salvation mission…”

      This seems like a non-sequitur, at least if by “tied to the salvation mission” you mean something stronger than that the race of Christ is historically interesting. Of course it’s historically interesting. Of course it has ramifications for eschatology. But to leap from this to the idea that the new covenant is restricted to a single race, is a non-sequitur. You need some other argument to prove that.

      “Rule over the non-Adamites, sure. But inclusion as a race into the seed of the Chosen Race? Never.”

      I’ve pointed out above (and in other essays) how speaking of sentient, physical, non-adamic beings is non-sensical. First, if we determine the necessary and sufficient properties of racial groups, whatever they turn out to be, they’ll be properties which all sentient beings have. So it doesn’t seem possible to restrict the Imago Dei to a single racial group. Second, all those not of Adam would not be part of the covenant of works and thus, cannot be held accountable for sin; but this is counter to our intuitions about the horror of racially-motivated crimes…the perpetrators of which, are always seen as moral monsters. Additionally: this seems to directly contradict the “grafting” and “pruning” model set up in the New Testament. Your interpretation of the Biblical narrative runs directly counter to hundreds of years of exegesis.

      As for “divine eugenics”, I’m not sure that’s the best way to speak of God’s action in history, but even if we accept the jargon, I don’t see how a unique plan of salvation follows from it. I believe God meticulously-decrees whatsoever comes to pass, but I separate that from the universal call of repentance.

  8. Fr. John+ says:

    “and an especially odd charge to make against followers of Rushdoony who placed so much emphasis on Chalcedon, he named his organization after it.”

    SG, I admit that it was Rush who first got me to seriously think about this subject, esp. from a ‘racialist’ angle. Indeed, as I noted when I was ‘on the air,’ it was RJ Rushdoony who actually led me toward Orthodoxy. But that didn’t mean that Rush’s insights meshed with the Orthodox, by any stretch. I am loathe to mention it, but it comes down to brass tacks, when talking about the ‘His People’ for which Christ came to die, as the Angel noted in Matt. 1:21.

    Now, as to your other points. (And, truly I am enjoying talking with someone about this, in a rational and reasoned manner!)

    ““The Catholic position is that…”

    I doubt I could find many Catholics willing to agree with your entire statement, especially about the importance of DNA in the salvation mission.”

    Ha ha. If you mean modernist Romanists, yes, I am sure of that!

    As I noted at the outset, when I began to put my thoughts down on my White Christ blog, it isn’t that such things were never thought of before (which would make some of the conclusions, heresy) it’s that such thoughts were not NEEDED before, because Satan had not yet tried that avenue of Attack, until the laste 19th Century, with the rise of Darwinism, the letting loose of the ‘beyond the Pale’ Khazarites, and the onslaught against Christendom that festered open into WWi and WWII.

    Now, as to the ‘DNA of God’ (a calculated term that I used to ‘shake people’s heads up with !) I actually quoted a recent Romanist writer on my post about Christ’s Mother’s identity with her Son, because SHE had noted that, upon conception, the woman’s body forever after contains cellular material from her pregnancies – I don’t have the exact quote at hand- but it would lead one to acknowledge (in purely theological terms) the basic ‘correctness’ of the Catholic (both Orthodox and roman, pre-Vatican “Ewww”) position on giving ‘latreia’ to the BVM, because of her a) obedience and piety, but also because b) of her being actually ‘full of grace’ – her ‘en-god-ed-ness, as it were.

    The point is, there IS a DNA of God, which Christ effected upon his Incarnation, that was as predestinate, defining, and Chosen, as His choosing Adam’s ‘image and likeness’ at the time of the Trinity’s Creation, that reflects (to God, and to Man) how Christ views the Father. That is what the Orthodox writers talk about, that Rush made a nod of the head toward, but never fully embraced.

    “Of course it has ramifications for eschatology. But to leap from this to the idea that the new covenant is restricted to a single race, is a non-sequitur. You need some other argument to prove that.”

    Hmmm. The entire written record of Scripture is all about the ‘pruning’ the ONE vine that would be God’s, and you consider that to be a non-sequiter? If, (as I noted a paragraph or so back) YHWH God’s choice of HOW Adam (and therefore Christ) were to look, and then, in Eternity past, this “Man” was determined, would not his subsequent creation apart from, and distinct from, all the pre-Adamite races, mean quite a lot? Would it not be a totally ‘unique’ event, that forever changes the world in which we live? And, as the Second Member of the Trinity saw God’s face, reflected in the ‘imago dei’ of Adam [‘he who blushes, is rosy, fair’- per Strong’s], is this not then, how God views Himself? Or does the Incarnation not matter in that fashion, to y’all?

    Perhaps we need to go back even further, it has just dawned on me. You don’t hold to the fallacy that God- YHWH God- created all races from one Man- and his genetics alone- i.e., Adam, do you? Not only is that scientifically laughable (you cannot get Black, Red, Yellow, and Caucasoid races from one set of genetics (and ‘pure’ genetics at that! [Gen. 6:9] ) let alone epicanthic fold, vs. non-epicanthanthic fold, labia of monstrous proportions, vs. labia of Caucasoid norms, etc. in an era, when Egyptian records clearly note that all three known races of the Levant, already existed!?

    I’ll wait on further commentary, until I hear your response on that issue.

    • Yes, I think the idea of “pre-Adamic races” is not only offensive, but it’s theologically nonsensical and exegetically indefensible. I’ve already provided a rough outline of the theological case against this.

      I am a young Earth creationist … and I believe all men, even blacks and jews, descend from Adam (thus: all men are participants in the covenant of works and are to be held accountable for their evil).

      This is a fairly ubiquitous opinion among Kinists.

      • As for the supposed non-sequitur, consider the following two propositions,

        1. Jesus was white.


        2. Only whites can be members of the new covenant.


        Proposition 1 does not seem to entail proposition 2 in any clear way. Further, if we insist that 1 entails 2, then we could easily reduce this sort of thing to absurdity. Consider:

        1. Jesus was a male.


        2. Only males can be members of the new covenant.

        That would be absurd.

      • Fr. John+ says:

        Then we are at an impasse. I came away from the ‘Hamite Heresy’ upon reading and knowing of a scientific but Biblical alternative to the ICR et al, in the ‘Reasons to Believe’ crowd; and also from my series of posts I wrote on my blog, in which I commented on length on the fact that Hodge, and other Reformed (including, I believe, Machen) were old-earth, and macro-evolutionary leaning, rather than ‘Hamite Heretics.’

        It all came to a head with me, when the owner of Sonlight books was raked over the coals for daring to depart from what amounts to merely a ‘fifty-year’ Pseudo-doxy, and all at the hands of Whitcomb and Morris’ most devoted followers. (this was frankly, cultic behavior!) I once wrestled with this to great Angst, so much so, that I travelled and visited the college Whitcomb started in El Cajon back in the days I was living in So. Cal. – and a narrower, more iconoclastic bunch of Bible Belt Baptists, I have NEVER encountered! how could they articulate a view that 1900 years of Christendom had wrestled with, and come away with ‘the truth’?

        When, later on, I read Genesis, Creation, and Early Man’ {supposedly} written by Fr. Seraphim Rose, I thought, ‘perhaps I was wrong,’ and the Orthodox Church (to which I now belonged, in spirit) could find rapprochement with Fundie Prots. However, upon finding out that this book was written not by Rose, but by a former Evangelical (incompletely turned Orthodox) who disingenuously pastiched together Fr. Roses’s thoughts to buttress the ICR’s aberrant theology he still held, after baptismal renunciation of such heresies!), I had, by then, reconciled myself to the reality of an old universe. Ken Ham’s book on ‘Racism’ was put in its place by another writer you probably know, who is also Reformed, so there is no unanimity as you suggest, even in your camp of the saints!

        Also, I finally put aside my lingering doubts, due to “The Science of God” by Jewish (believing) academic, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, who reconciles quite piously, the [seeming] apparent dichotomy between ‘Genesis’ time, and ‘Scientific’ time, in a manner that is God-honoring, even from a graceless Jew! When, then, coming upon Tim Weisman’s slim volume of ‘Origin of Race and Civilization,’ I found I no longer had need of this ICR crutch- moreover, if the ancients had records of the races, co-terminous with at least the time of Abraham, and viewed them as ‘different’ (and superior/inferior), how can we deny the post-biblical record, that attributes sin and evil to the ‘dark races’ and goodness, light, and Divine Indwelling with the ‘fair races’ on the part of Christians over the centuries, prior to Egalitarian/Marxists/French Anarchist theories of ‘we’re all one race, the human race’?

        Point is, we can’t. What you are doing (if I may be so blunt) is to want your egalitarian cake, and Predestinating God, as well! You want to be like SWB, and say (in effect) ‘Y’all come into the Kingdom, just not in MY church/sybid/town/neighborhood!’ … whereas I iterate the ‘old path’ position [Jer. 6;16] that presupposes ONE race, called and Annointed, Elected and Chosen ‘from before the foundation of the world,’ who is ALONE (the only biblical ‘sola’!) chosen to be God’s People, and is the confirmation of the promises of God, my saviour’ upon which I can stand, with no ‘shadow or turning,’ because ‘All of THAT Israel’ shall be saved.’

        The rest (whether by virtue of their sins, their race, however you wish to note it) God leaves… granting them common grace, and perhaps even a measure of ‘secondary grace’ to serve the Elect of God (within the church, like that ‘mixed multitude’ of Moses’ time), but by no means, is our ontological equal in the sight of “Him with whom we have to do.’ The Liberals (and the Jews) are both correct, as far as it goes. YHWH IS a “Tribal God” – but he is the Saviour God of His People [Matt. 1:21] only [Matt. 15:24] to those whom both God the Father, AND Christ have chosen, [John 15:16] and appointed for salvation [I Thess. 5:9]. In short, the White Nations of the Ecumene, the ‘world’ the Apostles (and the human Christ) knew at the time of the Giving of the Great Commission, confirmed by the Holy Spirit, in the turning AWAY from all non-European evangelism, [ Acts 16;6] the praxis of bringing the Gospel to ‘all men, everywhere’ by virtue of preaching to the ‘whole world’ (of Europe) within the ‘1000 years, from Peter’s sermon to the faithful Judeans on Pentecost in AD33, to St. Olav’s martyrdom of the last White Nation to receive the Gospel, prior to the Schism, in 1030.

        That does not mean (nor dare we go where Scripture has not gone- and I am saying this to you, a Refomed teacher in Israel? [ John 3:1] that YHWH does not want all ADAMIC men to ‘come to a knowledge of the Truth’ [ I Tim 2:4]. Clearly, He does, and did! But ONLY the ‘Man of the human race’ (the Greek short def. for ‘anthropos’ in the above verse) that are delineated by Adam’s seed, and David’s line. FOR THAT IS THE UNDERLYING MESSAGE OF THE N.T., that it takes further the desire for ‘all Israel’ to be saved- including the ‘lost ten tribes’, whom St. Peter, and St. James confirmed ‘in the mouth of two or three witnesses,’ as I already noted! [ I Pet. 1:1, Jas. 1:1, 2 Cor. 13:1]

        Your own kinist (Confederate/Southern) ancestors debated (faultily, and with pressure from godless Abolitionist heretics) whether the Negro has a soul, as ADAMIC MAN does. The last hundrd years clearly points out the fallacy of THAT premise, (Negroes having like souls as Whites) even as we have the most despotic, racist, and EVIL president known to our country’s history! The proof of the pudding is in the eating, SG. Do you sincerely think a graceful man resides in the person of the adulterous spawn of a whoing Jewess? (Not even mentioning the Orthodox acknowledgment that from such, teh Antichrist will come!)

        You are not on theside of your Kinist ancestors, if you believe the Nigger, the Spic, and the Chink/Gook/Anfernee Bradleys’ of the world are your ontological equal! You are, instead like those St. Paul castigates in II Tim. 3:7, ‘…always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.’

        Thank you for your time, and your deep analysis. But, I should have asked that question about Adam before we began. With that as foundational error, no truth can come.
        May God grant you repentance and amendment of heart, dear sir.

        “”A man that is a heretic, after the first and second warning, avoid.” – St. Paul

      • You’re going to be awfully lonely in Heaven…

  9. Fr. John+ says:

    “as His choosing Adam’s ‘image and likeness’ at the time of the Trinity’s Creation” .. of man.

    Didn’t put in that object of the Trinity’s Creation. Wouldn’t want you to think I thought the Trinity is a created ‘thing.’

  10. Fr. John+ says:

    Dear Shotgun: You forget, I have the communion of the saints to assuage my lonliness… most, if not all of them, are White, Catholic Europeans, of whom I am a part. For ‘no man is an island,’ as John Donne once said.

    And, thinking over your comment that most kinists are of your ilk, I wish to refer you to a column I read some years ago, from the Kinist Review.

    “Like its ideological forerunner geocentrism, the form of creationism that is the standard fare of evangelical seminars and research institutes has become a rigid dogma and its propagandists a refractory priesthood. It is comedy that these same doctors once excoriated the inflexibility of evolutionary orthodoxy. Now they promulgate their own orthodoxy, and their own inquisition. Tainted as this anti-typological view is by Neo-Darwinist ideas about change, it must deny that there are definable biological kinds, or, at any rate, deny that kind is a conception that has human application or importance, though such populations are a matter of common observation in the biological sciences. All the same, genetic expression in areas as diverse as intelligence and disease susceptibility is powerful evidence that the human species homo sapiens sapiens is polytypic and not monotypic. Well-meaning adages such as “there is only one race, the human race” are simply desiderata of cultural ‘secularism’ and Marxism. Intended to erase illusory distinctions, this way of thinking ends by erasing quite real and important ones. Recall that it was only a short time ago in historical terms that liberal scholars were at work eroding the equally ‘illusory’ distinctions between men and women. That work is nearly complete, and the Christian Church, across its many denominations, has in large measure accepted the social outcome, despite obvious conflicts with scriptural social regulation.”

    Think on these things. Pax.

  11. Tikhonian advocate says:

    Amazing, how you didn’t post my subsequent answer to your comment. Perhaps this (from a Kinist/Reformed article) will put it all into proper perspective… but, if you are now ‘censoring’ posts to which you disagree, I wonder if a ‘reformed brother’ will slip by, when an Orthodox cleric, did not…

    ‘Albeit, there is most certainly an equality before the law, because all nations, tribes, and families are equally accountable before God, and therefore equally subject to His law. But His law is not applied the same for all men in all places and circumstances. A father’s responsibility over his own children is greater than his responsibilities toward his neighbor’s children. This principle of “one law for the native-born and the stranger” in Scripture (Ex. 12:49; Lev. 24:22; Num. 15:29; etc.) is not a call to open-borders egalitarianism, but rather a proclamation of jurisdiction. It ensures that special-interest groups and class lobbies (poor, rich, disabled, etc.) have no exemptions before the law, and that foreigners have no claim of “diplomatic immunity,” nor any possibility of legal superiority over the native.’

    Let me repeat that: “But His law is not applied the same for all men in all places and circumstances.” In short, God’s Law operates, even on the non-predestined, because of race, melanin, and subservient status in the Kingdom. Just as our Antebellum ancestors believed.

    Just as I pointed out in my long column, which you didn’t post…. after your June 11th non-response.

    • I’ve never censored you.

      I have my blog set up to auto-spam comments longer than my original post because it’s been a long-time opinion of mine that such comments are disrespectful to the host. I looked in the spam folder (upon getting this recent comment of yours), and saw it. I think the fact that it had so many links in it, in addition to its length, might have flagged it as spam.

      That said – I have always been in the habit of letting comments stay (or deleting them) as I see fit, without explanation.


      As for your argument, I agree with the F&H citation; in Reformed ethics, we’ve got a long pedigree of arguments for the implementation of normative standards to subjective (and particular) ethical situations. As John Frame often says, a Christian theory of ethics is normative, subjective, and consequentialist. It’s all three. (This, according to Frame, is a reflection of the triune nature of God).

      I’m not sure what your point is in bringing this up, though.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s