Here is a common argument from Facebook, this one posted by a man named Adam Brink. - Shotgun

Miscegenation is sanctioned in the Mosaic Law, and approved of in the narratives of Scripture. God permitted an Israelite man to take a wife from among “their enemies”. Moreoever, we have examples of foreign wives being taken from outside of the family of Israel by Salmon, David, Boaz, Moses, and others.

Israel also had laws given by God by which Egyptians and Edomites could be naturalized, and join in full membership in the civil as well as ecclesiastical government. The law concerning the Passover explains the one, the law concerning naturalization in Deuteronomy 23 explains the other. These laws are backed by the narratives of Scripture, such as a Jebusite joining Israel, a Hittite holding high military office, a whole group of Canaanites being joined in covenant with Israel (which God obviously sanction, and cursed Israel when Saul slew them), and various other laws and circumstances in the same vein. The “stranger within their gates” is an ongoing theme of the OT (e.g. the 4th Cmd.).

Malachi explains exactly what marrying a strange woman entails:

Malachi 2:10 Have we not all(T) one Father? Has not(U) one God created us? Why then are we(V) faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11Judah has been(W) faithless, and abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem. For(X) Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the LORD, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god. 12May the LORD cut off from the tents of Jacob any descendant[e] of the man who does this, who(Y) brings an offering to the LORD of hosts!

Note: the basic sin is religious; the basic family is God’s family: God is the Father and Creator of this family, not Jacob. The daughter is a “daughter of a foreign god.” THAT is the basic sin of unequal yoking.

Moreover, David married the daughter of a Canaanite King, as did Solomon, yet Solomon committed the sin described in Malachi, and David didn’t.

Simply pretending like you know what you’re taking about doensn’t help your cause, but makes you look like a fool.

God has commanded that we call no man common or unclean. If ever anyone should be called common or unclean, it is you and me Scott. Filthy idol worshipping dogs of the Gentiles. What right have you to call anyone else unclean, and forbid brethren to dwell together in unity in the Church of Christ, in a Holy Commonwealth, or in holy matrimony? This is the basic heresy of man’s nationalistic pride, condemned aptly by Rush:

“Paul, in Galatians 3:27, says, ‘For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ Jesus have put on Christ.’ They are now clothed with Christ, i.e., have become family members of Christ and have taken on His character. Their old status, whether a Jew or a Gentile, is rendered useless and void, ‘For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature’ (Gal. 6:15). The Judaizers wanted to use old wineskins; Paul insists that their own Scriptures nullify their nationalistic wineskin.” R.J. Rushdoony, Romans & Galatians (Ross House Books, 1997), p.87

If you do not deal with these passages, and explain by kinist gymnastics how each passage doesn’t mean what it says, your future posts will be deleted.

Initially, I want to point out that Kinism does not state that interracial pairings are forbidden by Mosaic Law and that due to the application of the theonomic principle of continuing validity, interracial coupling must on that basis be forbidden. This is manifestly NOT what Kinism argues, anywhere, and thus is a form of straw man argument that bears false witness against the doctrine. There may very well have been men who refer to themselves as Kinists, or who have broadcast what they understood as our doctrines who felt so, but this is not a doctrine that has been promulgated by any of the original Kinists, such as myself or the author at Spirit Water Blood. Those who want to know what Kinism is should consult these sites, as we were those who originally promulgated the position. We cannot make any claim to originality, and more’s the better, since we claim that Kinism’s political and social theory is nothing more than a more elaborate articulation of the the historic doctrine of nations propounded or tacitly accepted by the Western church throughout its history.

Kinism, among other things, is the doctrine that there is no biblical proscription against states being legally constituted as ethnostates. If this is allowed, for the sake of argument, then the entire issue of miscegenation is beside the point, since miscegenation occurs in the context of the proximity of racial aliens and thus ensures their availability for marriage. That having been said, there is ample evidence that even in “integrated” societies, it is perfectly permissible for pastors to, in a ministerial capacity, counsel against miscegenation, and for states to proscribe it.

We have already dealt with all the passages mentioned above. We tire of answering the same questions over and over for every new generation of race mixers. Nevertheless, I may undertake to answer them again. No gymnastics required.

I will sticky the thread so that it will have prominence among the other threads. I would like all our members to see the apologetic and scriptural means we employ to hand such spurious reasoning and tendentious interpretation of scripture. I will continue to add to this post as time allows. When the argument is completed, it may be added to the thread from which you originally drew the questions of the critic of our position.

I am looking forward to this thread’s future posts.