Recently, the Alienism that stems from accepting the principles of Cultural Marxism has found itself trying to sweep Kinism off the scene by pejoratives. One podcaster did a podcast titled, “Kinism; Luciferian and Wicked.” Another “clergy” member in the RPCNA spent 56 mindless minutes haranguing and screeching his congregation in a sermon titled; “Against the Heresy of Kinism.” We definitely have their attention and personally I am flattered that they find us so dangerous that now they have to go to these silly extremes in order to try and quench the prairie-fire that is endangering their post-Endarkenment consensus “Christianity.”
I am actually hoping these harpy clergy continue on this path. Their rants are so mindless and so absent any substance that their arguments against Kinism are actually providing arguments for Kinism for those who aren’t completely brain dead. Their argument by vacuous assertion and impressive straw men, as well as their steady refusal to deal with all the quotes from Church Fathers and Church history can only strengthen the position of Biblical Christianity. Sooner or later the Alienists are going to have to deal with quotes like this recent one I just came across thanks to Dan Brannan.
vi.) What the law of nations is (Quid sit ius gentium) 1.) The law of nations concerns the occupation of territory, building, fortification, wars, captives, enslavements, the right of return, treaties of peace, truces, the pledge not to molest embassies, the prohibition of marriages between races. And it is called ‘law of nations (ius gentium) because nearly al nations (gentes) use it.”
In light of all this condemning Kinists to the deepest level of hell the question has arisen as to whether one can embrace Alienism (born of Cultural Marxism and the polar opposite of Kinism) and still be considered Christian. Now, of course distinctions have to be made here. We concede that while Alienism is, by definition, not Christianity, it certainly is likely that many Alienists are Christians. God’s grace reaches beyond all of the lack of sanctification that is doubtless characteristic of all of us.
We also have to make distinctions between the Alienists who are ideologues and so true believers –that is they who are epistemologically self conscious about their Alienism and those others who are merely useful idiots for the Alienists. We have great hope that many of the useful idiots for the Alienists are indeed Christian despite their useful idiot status. For example, I have great hope that Drew Poplin (the chap who preached that “Kinism is Heresy”) is indeed someone who, despite his utter and embarrassing nonsense is in Christ. I say this despite at the same time insisting that he has no business being within three blocks of a Reformed pulpit.
However, having said all that we Kinists still must insists that all those who are Alienists — epistemologically self conscious or useful idiots — that what they are espousing is NOT Christianity. And they must be told … “Shall we go on sinning that grace might abound? God forbid!” The doctrinal position of Alienism is anti-Christ. It is against the Christian faith and where consistently held to it is anti-Gospel inasmuch as tears at the structure of the Creature-Creator distinction with its egalitarian norms. Such egalitarian norms are either a consequence of a monism that is birthed by denying the Creator-Creature distinction or alternately is certain to lead to the eventual denial of the distinction between God and man. If there is no distinctions between creatures, born of monism, eventually there will be a energetic denial of the distinction between God and Man. The distinction between Creator-creature cannot survive a mindset that levels all God ordained distinctions between creatures. So whether the denial of all distinctions between creatures leads to denial of the Creator-Creature distinction or whether all distinctions between creatures is the consequence of the denial of the Creator-creature distinction the result remains a monism that in no way can co-exist with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One can not be a Christian while embracing a monism that denies the Creator-Christian distinction. How deep can one be in this error and still consistently hold to the Gospel is not something I know the answer to. I do know that it is all Christian’s responsibility to say that “Alienism and the Gospel cannot consistently co-exist together.”
This is the same kind of issue that Machen was facing in the 1920s except then the issue was not Alienism born of cultural Marxism but rather the issue was Liberalism born of denying the transcendence and supernatural character of God (Actually, that stemmed from a monistic impulse as well.) Machen never tried to give a person by person examination as to just how deep the infection of liberalism was too deep in order for one not to be Christian. Instead, Machen wrote and preached that Liberalism was not Christianity … just as Alienism is not Christianity and cannot coexist with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
We see St. Paul do the same kind of thing in his epistles. He makes it clear in Colossians and in the Timothys that Gnosticism is NOT Christianity and is against the Gospel. Now, as to how much Gnosticism was too much Gnosticism in every individual case was not something we get in his writings. What we get is the Gnosticism is anti-Christ and so can not exist consistently with the Gospel.
We all know of congregations are flat up full of Cultural Marxism and the Alienism it produces. We would not blink an eye in saying “those people need to hear the Gospel.” On the other hand we know of congregations that are less infected and to those places we might say, “Well, while I don’t doubt that there may well be Christians among them, it is still the case that what they are holding in principle is against the Gospel and if given its head will overturn the Gospel in that place.”
What we believes about the whole of the Christian faith matters and this tendency to want to somehow cordone “the Gospel” from the totality of the whole Christian faith is not healthy and is unwise. The Christian faith is an organic whole and a severe error in one place is going to warp the Gospel — and warp it enough in some cases to drain the Gospel of being the Gospel.
So, on one hand we want to be generous with people in their confession of personal faith in Jesus the Christ, but on the other hand we do not want people to think that doctrine is unimportant so that “it really doesn’t matter what you believe about Christ as long as you believe.” God is not egalitarian and egalitarian Christianity if given its head means that a Gospel defined by Alienist/ egalitarianism is not a Gospel that can save.
“The distinction between Creator-creature cannot survive a mindset that levels all God ordained distinctions between creatures.”
That is what Alexis de Tocqueville also thought:
https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/816/pg816-images.html#link2HCH0007
“Chapter VII: Of The Cause Of A Leaning To Pantheism Amongst Democratic Nations
The idea of unity so possesses itself of man, and is sought for by him so universally, that if he thinks he has found it, he readily yields himself up to repose in that belief. Nor does he content himself with the discovery that nothing is in the world but a creation and a Creator; still embarrassed by this primary division of things, he seeks to expand and to simplify his conception by including God and the universe in one great whole.
…
All their habits of thought prepare them to conceive it, and predispose them to adopt it. It naturally attracts and fixes their imagination; it fosters the pride, whilst it soothes the indolence, of their minds. Amongst the different systems by whose aid philosophy endeavors to explain the universe, I believe pantheism to be one of those most fitted to seduce the human mind in democratic ages.”
And the original baleful prophet of consciously anti-Christian monism in modern Western civilization had been Spinoza. Roughly two centuries before the doctrines of Jew Marx began to spread among European workers, the doctrines of Jew Spinoza had began to spread among the European intelligentsia, serving as the inspiration of the Radical Enlightenment (as versus the “Moderate Enlightenment” that still wanted to make peace with Christianity).
Spinozism differed from Marxism mainly in the sense that it was not spread through noisy public agitation, but rather in quiet, clandestine learned circles. But eventually, the subversive ethos of materialistic monism began to spill over from such closeted circles into the mainstream world, fully bursting out at the time of French Revolution. (Likewise, the sodomites also once operated and conspired in “the closet,” but eventually their queerness began to flood over to the “normie” world as well.)
The anti-Jacobin conspiracy expert abbé Barruel observed in the 1790s that in its last esoteric degree, Adam Weishaupt’s Illuminati movement taught Spinozist monism to its acolytes – thus symbolizing the way how formerly purely intellectual idea (monism) began to turn into active political conspiracy:
https://sacred-texts.com/sro/mhj/mhj313.htm#fr_183
“With respect to the two degrees of Mage and of Man King, there is no reception, that is to say, there are no ceremonies of initiation. Even the Elect are not permitted to transcribe these degrees, they only hear them read; and that is the reason why I do not publish them with this work.”
The first is that of Mage, also called Philosopher. It contains the fundamental principles of Spinosism. Here every thing is material; God and the world are but one and the same thing; all religions are inconsistent, chimerical, and the invention of ambitious men.16
16. Der erste, welcher Magus auch Philosophus heist, enthält spinosistiche grund-sätze, nach welchen alles materiell, Gotz und die welt einerley, alle religion unstatthaft, und eine erfindung hersüchtiger menschen ist.”
It is thus no wonder that Carl Schmitt pointed an accusing finger towards Spinoza when denouncing “political pantheism”:
https://www.academia.edu/38818023/Vox_populi_vox_Dei_The_Pantheistic_Temptation_of_Democracy
“An even stronger rejection of the pantheistic temptation is visible in Schmitt’s writings after the Second World war. Again and again he criticized Spinoza’s formula deus sive natura—the identification of God and nature—as leading to inhuman concepts of democracy:
“Deus sive natura. Merging in nature. Elimination of every distance, that is of every perspection, the non-perspective forming; … theism; transcendence, even intelligence: this all is yet still distance, perspection, difficulty, defection from the pure immanence of an immediate natural undisguised worldliness and an unproblematic bodily existence. Therefore: down with distance! Pure identity. Do you now realize on which side the logic of pure democracy can be found and who will be given absolution … from the most inhuman atrocities as long as everything remains democratic?” (Schmitt 1991, 84-85)”
“their post-Endarkenment consensus “Christianity.””
Even Gary North, in spite of having his own scruples about Kinism, was very much aware of how badly the Enlightenment ideology of “tolerantism” had tainted historical Christian churches – we might perhaps classify North as “semi-Kinist in denial”:
https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gncf.pdf
“Liberals insisted that they were even better Christians than the fundamentalists and Calvinists who opposed them, although they never used the word “Calvinist.” After all, the liberals insisted, they were tolerant, while the fundamentalists were intolerant. In the Progressive era and its aftermath in the 1920’s, the word “intolerant” was a rhetorically pejorative term as powerful as “Fascist” became in the 1940’s, and “racist” is today.
…
What had been the rallying cry of liberal Whigs in eighteenth-century politics was now being proclaimed by theological liberals as the new orthodoxy for Church politics.”
It seems that Calvinists have had a beef with unitarians/monists/pantheists from the beginning:
https://trisagionseraph.tripod.com/servetus.html
“Sometimes Servetus makes orthodox-sounding avowals of the divinity of Jesus Christ, which, however, are often coupled with un-reassuring claims that, just like Christ, we are all gods. And if, as it turns out, Servetus was a pantheist who believed that you, me, that manhole cover over here, and everything else besides, is God, then the question whether he confessed Jesus as God may be somewhat beside the point.
…
As noted, Servetus does confess the deity of Jesus, albeit in a less than robust manner; it turns out Jesus is a ‘god’ by privilege, not by nature:
“Rejecting these quibbles, then, we with a sincere heart acknowledge the real Christ, and him complete in divinity. But since this divinity of his depends upon the Mystery of the Word, let us for the present say roughly that God can share with a man the fulness of his deity, and give unto him the name which is above every name. For if we admit as touching Moses that he was made a God to Pharaoh, much more, and in a way far more exceptional, was Christ made the God, Lord, and Master of Thomas and of us all.” (The Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity, Michael Serveto, translated by Earl Morse Wilbur, On the Errors of the Trinity, Book I, p. 19).
This tactic is familiar to any who have disputed with Unitarians: to freely concede Jesus’ divinity, then to rhapsodize about how his is actually a characteristic we share with him, because deity, it turns out, is no exclusive club but available to all comers.”
The fellows raging against Kinism reminded me of Isaiah 5:20. Many of the pulpits in our land are now literally calling God’s social order evil. You can expect that kind of idiocy from Pentecostals, but it stuns to hear it from the Reformed. Pentecostals are plain heretical in many ways, but Calvinists should know better than to embrace alienism.
The problem Joe, is that Calvinist are no longer very Calvinistic.
“One might easily say that man is man, just as dog is dog, whether dachshund or greyhound; man is man, New Zealander or Teuton, Englishman or Zulu. Indeed, they are just as distinct from each other as one breed of dog from another. You know, it is really incredible that it was possible to preach the folly of internationalism to millions of people, and that people followed this idea; and that the [Bagel], who has been among us for thousands of years, and yet remained a [Bagel], has managed to tell millions of us that race is completely meaningless, while for him race is of highest importance.”
The Second-Most Hated Man in History — (next to the one whose birthday Christians celebrate this Wednesday), ‘Essential Speeches: ‘Workers of the Hand and Workers of the Mind’, Jan. 18, 1927, trans. C. J. Miller
That’s a great quote Ron.