I used to be Christian Identity for several years before I come to the knowledge of Reformed theology, post-mill, and now am leaning towards Kinism. Now I have come to the conclusion that CI is complete heracy in my opinion now. If you could help me, what are the differences, and similarities between Christian Identity/Anglo-I and Kinism?? Also are there any of you that see no problem following CI, while still being theologically sound? Also are there any of you who are Kinist leaning towards CI, or vice versa, and why? I would strongly recommend if you want to stay consistent with God’s word, and the reformed faith to stay clear of CI. All of your comments, and views are greatly appreciated. God Bless.
Most of us are Reformed Christians. I’m an Orthodox Presbyterian. There is no way to be Christian Identity and an Orthodox Presbyterian at the same time since the Westminister Standards allow for no such thing.
Kinism is still relatively new. You’ll have to stick around and read everything to determine whether or not you find it consistent with God’s word. As far as I’m aware, CI types believe that God has had one covenant of grace with a select genotype throughout history and that those persons are Northwest Europeans. Kinists are generally confessionally Reformed and would assent that there is really only one “dispensation” and one covenant of God with his people where salvation is by faith through grace; Abraham was saved by the same faith we are. We would argue, however, that although it was chiefly individuals of the genetically Jewish tribe - to whom God gave the law and the prophets - that were saved before Christ, and that after Christ, it is chiefly Gentiles that are saved, that God is no respecter of persons and that His arm is long and strong enough to save anybody on Earth through the means He has ordained (the preached word).
We take the same “vanilla” view of the Standards on soteriology; historic, Calvinistic, orthodox and Reformed.
What makes Kinism truly distinct is its insistence that God has ordained an order for human kind that goes beyond simply ordering our worship services. We believe God has set boundaries for groups of human beings and that human beings should respect those boundaries by maintaining a tribal order, good economic order and good political order. The human race should be a reflection of the dialectical tension of the problem of the one and the many; a theo-philosophical problem that is only solved inside the Godhead. I believe that we are unlawfully usurping God’s authority when we try to solve that problem for ourselves by obliterating a God ordained distinction amongst human kind/s. This affects our ecclesiology since it would consider a multi-racial, drum-banging mega-church to be a foul stench in God’s nostrils. This also affects the way we view the application of God’s word to all areas of life. If we believe God is concerned with human demographics, then we must believe God is concerned with our economic system, our system of government, the way we build our houses and the way we raise our children.
There is very little room for ‘adiaphora’ in the Kinist’s mind.
That said, I think you might discover that a plurality of us, by a slim margin, are amillennial. I would describe myself as an extremely pessimistic, amillenial, dominionist. Although I do respect the work of Rushdoony when it comes to theonomics and systematic theology, I can’t say that I approve of his eschatology. I can’t speak for everyone however, so hopefully others chip in.
I agree with most of his statements, although in my mind the post-mil, a-mil question has not been settled enough for me to take a stand vis-a-vis one or the other.
I have, however, heard of some folks who describe themselves as Kinists who have core beliefs that fit squarely in the CI realm. Not quite as scarce as hens teeth, but close.
What beliefs do Kinists’ share with CI? I had come to the conclusion that most CI people teach hate, and are mostly dispensationalists’ who don’t hold to a true orthodox view of scripture, or salvation.
You hit the nail on the head. The problem with CI it is merely ‘reverse’ dispensationalism. Kind of natural for people coming out of pentecostal and baptist churches, but not reformed nor classically protestant. Like with other anabaptist sects, we have in common (where you can peg CI down) a belief in baptism for the remission of sins, the primacy of God’s Word and plenary inspiration of scripture, (hopefully) the Trinity, the atonement and resurrection, and God’s will known through the moral law. I think most CI would agree with the above since most have baptist and low church backgrounds.
I agree, I don’t see any consistency with CI, and orthodox protestantism. Anglo-Israelism started out as just a belief, not a faith, or a theological view. CI is more of a heretical cult in my opinion. You could be Anglo-I, and possibly be consistent, but then you run in to problems with Reformed theology, and the New Testament. The Kingdom was taken from the physical Israelites, and given to the “Elect” Gentiles in the NT, so it really doesn’t matter who physical Israel was. It matters who true Israel is today, and its not the modern day Jews. All who are elect by God, and made new through the spirit are true Israel, period.
When you deny physical Israel, CI then panics, worried how segregation will be argued. They don’t realize the argument is stronger when fortified with pre-Mosaic, natural law of “tribes” and “families”. The same pattern in Gen. 10/11 is also found in Nu. 3/4, the tribes of Israel not only dividing land into separate lots but also camping around the tabernacle under particular banners of their princes. This is a picture of gentile, national churches dwelling and gathering around a single spiritual kingdom, without amalgamation, yet spiritually ‘one’, living “under their own fig leaf”, each with their peculiar inheritance, etc. Kinism defines “nations” by employing the full sense of Law while CI collapses “nations” into a single tribe. This is unnecessary, simply overkill, does harm to the rest of scripture, and not the argument of our Fathers.
I don’t have a lot of time - so I’m just gonna brush over this a bit and maybe fill in the details later on.
-
I have given info before on Israel Identity. I am Protestant insofar as I hold to ‘Semper Reformanda’: Continual Reformation. I don’t see the two at odds necessarily.
-
-
-
-
// would assent that there is really only one “dispensation” and one covenant of God with his people where salvation is by faith through grace; Abraham was saved by the same faith we are.//
-
-
-
-
Just jump to the first verse there: “What shall we say then that Abraham our father, AS PERTAINING TO THE FLESH, hath found?” Then it goes on to say - if he were saved by works etc - not by works but by faith! etc.
-
-
-
Notice it doesn’t say our father as pertaining to the spirit. B/c spiritual israel is nowhere & nothing.
-
-
One should be clear that folks who understand the mystery of Israel (ie. the basic Identity message) are of diverse backgrounds. It isn’t one view, neither dual/single seedlines or BI or this or that. It’s held in a variety of views by Caucasian folks from around the globe. So keep that in mind - you MAY be misrepresenting it if you’re just getting your info from one source or wikipedia/adl sources. — —
And pointing out that I differ from MOST isn’t some big revelation - as if I must believe as they all do b/c there is no conformism to worry over here. For the most part they are protestant in background.
-
-
-
The issue of the law is complex b/c it means multiple things. For instance I would say the basics are that the law is eternal - to obey his commandments is to obey his law. Sin is transgression of the law: When you sin you are transgressing the law. Why do I say it doesn’t pass or isn’t ever invalid? Aside from Christ teaching & adhering to it (and our need to imitate him) - look at the passage which brings us to the next issue:
-
-
-
Romans 7: “Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband. So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, YE ALSO HAVE BECOME DEAD TO THE LAW BY THE BODY OF CHRIST; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God…. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.
-
-
-
What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”
-
=-
=
-
That gives me much. Lets see - it points out that the law gives us knowledge of sin. Sin = death. So while we were under the law we brought fruit unto death…ie. b/c of our sinful nature there was no way to be free from the outcome of condemnation of death - no animal/or human sacrifice could atone truly for sins.
-
=
-
-
This points out two things. The law is constant - ie. the first verses show that Christ according to the law came and fulfilled it to wed to him again his bride (his church / Congregation / chosen / israel / the Overcomers etc) that she could bring forth good fruit unto God ie’ salvation. We are dead to that law that separated us in aforetime from Christ. Furthermore, we are not under the law in the same way we are not under a debt. We are freed from that debt & that law in which our debt was held.
-
-
This doesn’t mean you can sin. This doesn’t mean the law isn’t valid. It means you have a higher code which will bring you not under final punishment, but begin to make you a perfect being through Christ which will in the end make you one with him: ie. the wedding feast for the marriage - union with Christ.
-
-
All your 10 commandments are from the law. What does still apply which we don’t have to do is the ordinances to sacrifice and temple upkeep. This STILL APPLIES, but in another fashoin - why? Christ is our sacrifice - we don’t do it - the law is FULFILLED. Good for us. Okay so the temple is the body - your temple upkeep is the same - look to that law for commands on the upkeep of the flesh where it applies that it may be a sacred ground for the dwelling of the Ghost.
=
-
-
I will say something else. The historical issue although fitting with Scaligerian accepted chronology I find perhaps isn’t the case the same as I find Scaligerian chronology in error. Perhaps it happened at a different time in a different place. The Israelites are still the same (in fact this research I’ve done provides MORE than the historical-chronological view of both the Identity group & 99% of Christendom. This perhaps for another day, but Israel & Juda perhaps were not nations as such, but denotations for groups adhering to a common faith in times past.
-
-
-
Of course contemporary Jewry isn’t Juda or Israel. Look up John Hyrcanus I in your encyclopedias or wherever & read that he did the first forced conversion of the Edomite/Idumean (nation of Esau) in 140 BC according to our chronology. You’ll find that the King at the alleged time of Christ was an Edomite named Herod who was called a Jew & that many of them had learned the customs, faith, etc and were called Jews even though they weren’t Juda/Israel. Coincidentally the bringing in of the Edomite people is the onset of the trait of internationalism - wandering/as a foreign people in foreign nations up till today. This doesn’t really fit the Mosaic period b/c they didnt’ dwell amongst the others but merely passed through - didn’t settle with & lived in their own area having their own province in Egypt. — — — —
ANYHOW this is all rather lengthy and its just touched on a few issues. He came for a common people. This includes the other sons of Noah sure - the rest of the Caucasian grouping. This perhaps may include those outside of the Caucasian peoples, but throughout history 99.9% of the time it’s him dealing with one race. To be called Christian 100 years ago or 150 years ago and throughout the epoch is to be called a non-jewish White person. Can the others have salvation? I’m not the judge - anything’s possible, but I wouldnt’ worry too much over them while your people wallow in despondency, slavery and idolatry to false gods. —- —- —— —- —
-
peaceout we’ll speak later.
Israel Identity is basically trying to answer how the OT law continues into the NT, particularly the command in Deut 7 against miscegenation with ‘Canaanites’. But all an exegesis has to prove is something more modest—i.e., how does the bible define a nation and an extended household? Once you get into trying to prove “who’s- who”, you get into an area where there’s not much confidence aside from some obscure archeology, legends, coincidences, and questionable linguistics. Worst, CI can degrade into “bible/translation conspiracy”. I don’t want to trash CI. There’s much good in it, and CI are a last hold-out against race-mixing. Ci is particularly good in making the Jews eat what Jews order—If they claim to be Judah (“chosen ones”), then prepare to be the son of a Canaanite woman—Gen. 37! That said, CI does not convincingly prove Christ came to physical Israel alone, and when it forces this interpretation it discredits the good it offers. I am friendly to CI, but CI has many theological problems.
I agree more so with you kalklokard. However I must ask when one is a Kinist who is a Reformed Christian true to the WCF why would you need CI? It doesn’t matter who made up Israel in the OT, only who true Israel today. When you get into the theology of CI you will find many unscriptual teachings, also most are in favor of their own translations, not any current ones. I am not as light on CI because I used to be CI, but now am Kinist, and Reformed. I agree that they stand against the lies of the Jew, and opose race mixing, but if their theology is wrong then it destroys what little good they believe. I think it would be best for CI folks to come over to Kinism if they were really interested in being theologically right. Like I said before the other big issue is that most CI believers I ever new were into hate, and supremacy which is clearly un-biblical. I don’t mean to offend if I have, its just the way I see it.
I agree, Bamaklan, “I think it would be best for CI folks to come over to Kinism if they were really interested in being theologically right”.
What I find most shocking about CI is the lack of pastoral care. Paraministries and book-order webpages provides no ongoing Pastoral cure or oversight. Very alarming is the general hostility and rejection of all ecclesiastical order. But you should also consider its roots, namely Baptist and Pentecostalism (modern variants of Anabaptism) which is the defacto theological informing background—hence, reverse dispensationalism. When you look at individual ministers in CI, like Swift and Comparet, there is outright heresy, denial of Trinity, merit soteriology, etc.. At the same time there are more conventional ministers like Weiland, Bruggeman, and Barley who are closer to traditional protestantism. The latter actually rehatch Rushdooney and are mostly familiar with Reformed theology. All said, despite more thoughtful preachers, CI is NOT a safe place, and there is no way pre-Adamites, pre-existance of the soul, localized floods, etc., fit into WCF.
However, we have not spoken about British Israelism which can fit within traditional Protestantism rather nicely. I know orthodox, confessional priests who are BI and uphold Reformation standards. For them it is far from gospel but something they use to bolster ecclesiology. But even here we are only talking about “legenda”, and it needs to be maintained as such, in my opinion.
Meanwhile, I think it is best to view CI as a reaction to PC in the low-church amongst a small segment of ex-christians. They can be good allies, but they also need an ecclesiology, repentance, and sureness of the Gospel for their own sake.
