Contra Christian Identity

“[7] He said therefore to the multitudes that went forth to be baptized by him: Ye offspring of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come? [8] Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of penance; and do not begin to say, We have Abraham for our father. For I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. [9] For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down and cast into the fire.” – [Luke 3:7-9]

“[27] For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.” – [Galatians 3:27-29]

We here at Christos Culture have been having some run-ins lately with adherents of Christian Identity. Christian Identity, for those unaware, is a sect which believes that the Israelites were “white.” The exact meaning and nuance of that claim is of course, up for debate amongst themselves. Some simply assert that the Israelites are the ancestors of the modern Europeans, and others go so far as to say that the only true descendants of Adam are members of the “white” race. That, again, may include Middle Easterners such as Palestinians, Syrians and Persians, or it may be limited only to those of strictly pure, European ancestry. Salvation is through blood, and the Old Covenant made with Abraham and his seed is still in effect in a literal, genetic way, meaning that only those directly descended from Abraham are saved, or, maybe, it’s just any “Adamite”, i.e. any “white” person. This leads to another common belief, i.e. that non-Whites don’t possess souls. It’s up for grabs what other doctrines are espoused. Some Identity Christians believe in the “dual seedline theory,” a theory with Gnostic roots (cf. Gospel of Phillip 60,34 – 64,12) which essentially asserts that Cain is a bastard who was conceived by Eve via the rape of Satan, aka the serpent. The Jewish race, as they are known today, is supposedly the descendants of this illegitimate first murderer. This comes from both an interpretation of the word “beguiled” in Genesis 3 and Christ’s condemnation of the Sanhedrin as a “brood of vipers” whose “father was a murderer from the start” (cf. Jn. 8:44). Others believe, on the contrary, that modern day Jews and specifically the Jews of the Sanhedrin are a bastard race composed of Edomite and Canaanite blood. These bastards mixed in with the Israelites when they were assimilated (cf. Josephus’ Antiquities 13.9.1, Strabo 16.2.34) and became “fake Jews” who were the ones criticized and condemned in both the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse of John.

The root of the error of Christian Identity is the same root found in Protestantism in general. It isn’t really crucial to refute each and every claim and supposition of Christian Identity, nor with Protestantism. I simply need to ask where their authority derives from, and to prove their answer. Identity Christians, like most Protestants, beg the question when discussing Scripture. Identity Christians reject the authority of Sacred Tradition, and especially the authority of the Church. This is best exemplified in the Protestant beliefs of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone). Neither of these doctrines, ironically enough, can be proven definitively from Scripture. We read all throughout the New Testament of things not even found in the Old Testament books. A prime example is the idea of a “Chair of Moses” of which the Pharisees sat upon and were owed an assent of conscience in matters of teaching (cf. Mt. 23:2-3). Other such examples would be the mention of the binding of the fallen angels (cf. 1 Enoch) in both the writings of Saint Peter (cf. 2 Pt. 2:4) and Saint Jude (cf. Jude 1:6) which is only known from the oral tradition of the Jews and the Apocrypha, along with Saint Paul’s mention of the rock which gave water following the Israelites in the desert (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-5) and the contending of Saint Michael the Archangel and Satan over the body of Moses (cf. Jude 1:9). Beyond mere mentions of things not present in the Old Testament, we also have exhortations given by Ss. Paul and Peter to adhere to the traditions passed down to us by the Apostles, including themselves. The brethren were told to “hold fast to the traditions” they had been taught, “whether by word or by epistle” (cf. 2 Thess. 2:14). Saint Timothy, who was a disciple of Saint Paul, was told explicitly that the Church was the “pillar and ground of the truth” (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15). Furthermore, Paul exhorts Timothy to teach what he has heard from Paul and “many witnesses” (cf. 2 Timothy 2:2). Peter, in one of his epistles, reminds the brethren that “no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation” (cf. 2 Pt. 1:20-21) and that “the unlearned rend the scriptures to their own destruction” (cf. 2 Pt. 3:16). How fitting it is that the first Roman Pontiff was the one to explicitly condemn private interpretation and relying upon one’s own ideas in reference to scriptural exegesis. As to whether or not we are saved by faith in Christ alone, I feel it sufficient to simply state, in full, the words of Saint James:

“[14] What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? [15] And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: [16] And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? [17] So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. [18] But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. [19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? [25] And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? [26] For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.” – [James 2:14-26]

Protestants are at a loss when asked, “Where did we get the Bible from?” The only correct answer is the Catholic Church, but every single attempt is made to dodge this obvious conclusion. The assertion that “we’ve always had it” is blatantly false, and the books of the Old Testament and New Testament were written down by historical authors at different points in time, anyway. It is of course true that the books in the Holy Bible were always inspired, but we only know this because of the Church handing them down to us and telling us they are inspired. If I handed someone who has no knowledge of the canon Philemon and the Didache, which do you think he would conclude is probably Scripture? If I gave him First Clement and 3 John, do you really think he’d pick 3 John over First Clement? Or how about Jude over the Shepherd of Hermas? The canon was not a settled issue in the early Church, and various different Fathers and churchmen at different points believed various canonical and noncanonical books to be inspired or not inspired. A lot of people dissented to the Apocalypse of John, and some even believed the apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter to be inspired. The issue is compounded by the fact that Protestants have taken it upon themselves to chop up the canon and relegate certain Old Testament books to the Apocrypha, i.e. the deuterocanonical books. That’s not even to mention the fact that Luther, for example, called the Epistle of James an “epistle of straw” and didn’t believe the Apocalypse to be canon. How ironic it is that the Protestants, who accused and continue to accuse the Catholic Church of modifying Scripture, modified it themselves! Luther added the word “allein” (alone) to Romans 1:17 to support his theology of sola fide, which put Saint Paul in direct opposition to Saint James, as quoted above. Among Identity Christians, there has also been debate about the canonicity of books, such as the Book of Esther for sounding “too Jewish.”  This is what happens when you give the power of interpretation to the laity. Everyone becomes their own Pope.

A strange belief amongst some Identity Christians (since they, like all Protestants, are a dogmaless sect), which can be noted in the comments of our recent podcast, is a sort of “racist Origenism”. In essence, the belief is that, if you belong to the White race, you will be saved no matter your actions. It’s not really a “once saved, always saved”, but rather a denial of Final Impenitence, i.e. that the sin against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable, and that men can repent in the hereafter. Firstly, this is in direct contradiction to their sola Scriptura, because we read in the New Testament that not all who say “Lord, Lord” will enter the Kingdom of God (cf. Mt. 7:21) and that we must “endure till the end” (cf. Mt. 24:13), that men who know the way of God but turn back to their old lives of sin are worse off than they were before (cf. 2 Pt. 2:20-22), not to mention Saint Paul exhorting us to go about our salvation in “fear and trembling” (cf. Phillipians 2:12). Saint Paul himself wasn’t even sure that he would be saved (cf. 1 Cor. 4:4; 1 Cor. 9:27)! This is a very dangerous heresy, as it threatens to give false assurance to one who may be cut off (see, e.g. Rom. 11:22; Heb. 10:26–29). There is no repentance for the Damned, because they feel no real sorrow for their sins outside of the unimaginable pain they suffer in Hell. Immediately upon death, one experiences the terror of the Judgement of God! It’s rather ironic, indeed, that one could imagine simply being born into a certain race to be a guarantee of salvation. What need is there even for faith if by my genes I am justified? It is not an escape from this to claim one simply receives no reward in Heaven, because such a belief is a blatant contradiction. If anything, that would be more akin to Limbo than Heaven. Limbo is the edge of Hell, so certainly that’s not salvation. In Heaven, we see God “face to face” (cf. 1 Cor. 13:12), and this is what we call the “beatific vision”. This is an absolute state of perfection, where our intellect is perfected and we become gods (cf. John falling down in worship of the angel in Rev. 22; also see Lk. 20:36) by participation and association, yet maintaining our distinct humanity and essence. To imagine that an unrepentant murderer or a rapist could enter such a state simply because of his race is blasphemy of the highest order, making the Saints akin to a Barrabas or a Jezebel. Only the perfect can enter heaven (cf. Mt. 5:20, 48; Hebrews 12:22-23).

These heretics are infamous for their lack of charity and opinionated bigotry. Attempting to convert one of these spiritual boomers out of their typically American pseudo-scientific lunacy is quite difficult. One of them, a man named William Finck, who runs the website Christogenea, has even taken it upon himself to translate the New Testament along his theological lines. A new Luther in the making, it seems, or rather, another strumpet for Satan to play his tunes and beguile the feebleminded into the pit. Wherever you find these heretics, go out of your way to discredit them and disprove their typically Protestant nonsense. Many a White man is taken in by their nice sounding ideas, especially those who have to deal with non-Whites in the world. It’s convenient to relegate all non-Whites to the status of animals, because animals cannot make moral decisions and therefore have no real moral responsibilities, either. This then logically proceeds to them having an equal status to say, horses or dogs, and as deserving of ethical and moral treatment. One comedic question, that is usually dodged, is, “If Negroes and mestizos aren’t human, can I eat them?” Answers ranging from “if you’re not a vegetarian” to near-Rabbinical answers of “it violates the dietary laws” (see Acts 10) are common. What a mess.

Remember that the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob is the God of us and everyone else too, brothers, and that we should do our best to convert all nations. May the Holy Ghost guide us into all truth. Amen.

“O Mary, Mother of mercy and Refuge of sinners, we beseech thee, be pleased to look with pitiful eyes upon poor heretics and schismatics. Thou who art the Seat of Wisdom, enlighten the minds that are miserably enfolded in the darkness of ignorance and sin, that they may clearly know that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which neither holiness nor salvation can be found. Finish the work of their conversion by obtaining for them the grace to accept all the truths of our Holy Faith, and to submit themselves to the supreme Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth; that so, being united with us in the sweet chains of divine charity, there may soon be only one fold under the same one shepherd; and may we all, O glorious Virgin, sing forever with exultation: Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, thou only hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world. Amen.”

Hail Christ the King, and Hail Victory!

Author: Huddy

Roman Catholic | Sedevacantist | Traditionalist | White American

18 thoughts on “Contra Christian Identity”

  1. I am not a Christian Identity follower, but it’s pretty clear the Israelites in the bible were white, as they describe themselves that way (see Hebrew words “admoniy”, “adam”, etc. as well as the priest in 2 Maccabees whose face changes colour as he gets angry), plus they claim kinship with the Spartans in both books of Maccabees. Combined with art from places like the Sepphoris synagogue in Galilee, it’s obvious most of the inhabitants of the ancient Levant were similar to the modern European race.
    I think that modern people in the middle east and north Africa are heavily mixed with Arabs and whoever else ruled their lands. For example, many European types can be found in Lebanon even though the crusaders were only there for 200 years. Think about how much more mixing went on in the 1400 years of Muslim occupation! And many populations in antiquity race mixed too, as we can find evidence of in the later years Egypt. Additionally it’s pretty obvious modern Jews have absorbed tons of other middle eastern and European blood. And if you’ve ever had the (misfortune) of reading the terribly written Koran, you can tell there is NO way the people who wrote it could possibly be closely related to the biblical authors, regardless of linguistic similarities.
    Also I believe there are many points of advice in both Tobit and Sirach that it is much better to stick to your own kind and refrain from race mixing, specifically the passage Tobit 4:12 found in the Codex Sinaiticus and in many modern bibles (Catholic and otherwise, although not the Vulgate).

    Like

    1. On the idea that middle easterns were white or european, we dont care. They were caucasian most definitely and they have close relationships with the europeans, both being caucasoids. To say that arabs mixed with the “white” Israelite (what does it even mean to be white?) is dumb because arabs descend from abraham, namely Ishmael.

      Yeah everyone is an amalgamation in some way. White americans are a hodgepodge of the europeans who came here along with their adaptations to the land. White Americans are their own race compared to their European counter parts. The middle eastern races have not been the same for the last 2000-3000 years, there is no zooilogical race that maintains that length of time.

      We dont disagree on the fact one should stick to his own kind. As it doesnt make sense from a scientific standpoint nor does it make sense from reason. We accept the truth of race existing, however to conform Christianity to the falsehoods of national socialism is heretical. Everything conforms to the former. Everything bends a knee to christianity.

      Like

      1. Ishmaelites descend from Ishmael.

        Arabs, biblically speaking, are those of mixed heritage.

        H1648
        עָרַב ʻârab, aw-rab’; a primitive root; to braid, i.e. intermix; technically, to traffic (as if by barter); also or give to be security (as a kind of exchange):—engage, (inter-) meddle (with), mingle (self), mortgage, occupy, give pledges, be(-come, put in) surety, undertake.

        H1650
        עָרַב ʻârab, aw-rab’; a primitive root (rather identical with H6148 through the idea of covering with a texture); to grow dusky at sundown:—be darkened, (toward) evening.

        H6151
        עֲרַב ʻărab, ar-ab’; (Aramaic) corresponding to H6148; to commingle:—mingle (self), mix.

        H6153
        עֵרֶב ʻêreb, ay’-reb; or עֶרֶב ʻereb; (1 Kings 10:15), (with the article prefix), from H6148; the web (or transverse threads of cloth); also a mixture, (or mongrel race):—Arabia, mingled people, mixed (multitude), woof.

        Nehemiah 13:3 (NET)
        When they heard the Law, they removed from Israel all who were of mixed ancestry (עֵ֖רֶב (‘ê·reḇ)).

        Nehemiah 13:3 (YLT)
        And it cometh to pass, at their hearing the Law, that they separate all the mixed people (עֵ֖רֶב (‘ê·reḇ)) from Israel.

        Like

      2. And Ishmaelites descend from Ishmael and Arabs are seen as mongrels in the Old Testament period, in response to your claim “To say that arabs mixed with the “white” Israelite is dumb because arabs descend from abraham, namely Ishmael.”

        And what is retarded about those two translations of that one particular verse? If you can show a textual or linguistic error in the translation, I will happily amend it. Otherwise, they seem to effectively translate the verse in question. It isn’t as if the Vulgate says much differently, either.

        Nehemiah 13:3 (VUL)
        3 Factum est autem, cum audissent legem, separaverunt omnem alienigenam (alieni-gena, of foreign/strange birth) ab Israël.

        Like

      3. Arabs being mixed race mongrels distinct from Ishmaelites is quite unrelated to our article or our theology. Thank you for clarifying but, frankly, it is entirely irrelevant.

        Like

    2. It isn’t really an issue yea or nay if the Israelites can be classed as White. If by White, we mean the broad term “Caucasian”, which includes both Aryans and Semites, then it cannot be denied that the Israelites were White. However, we dissent on the hypothesis that the Israelites are the ancestors of the modern European people groups, or that only the Israelites can be saved by the Christian religion. Christ died for the world (cf. Jn. 3:16) and wishes to draw all people to Himself (cf. Jn. 12:32). He did not come only to save the Jews, notwithstanding His restricting His earthly ministry to them, but to have His Apostles convert and baptize all nations (cf. Mt. 28:19). All men will bend the knee to Christ at the end of time (cf. Romans 14:11). God desires the salvation of all (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4) and has no respect for persons (cf. Romans 2:11) but examines every mans’s heart (cf. Jeremiah 17:10). We on this site are Catholic, which is a word for “universal” or “general” from the Greek “katholikos”. We desire the salvation of all men and their coming to Christ through His Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

      Holy Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, save us. Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, protect us. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

      Like

  2. I also notice you quote 2nd maccabees, although you accuse us of necromancy when it says clear as day in 2nd Maccabees 12:46 that praying for the dead is wholly righteous and just

    Like

    1. Praying for the dead isn’t necromancy. Praying to the dead is.

      Also, I never mentioned necromancy, bro….

      Much love from Tel Aviv, fight for the good Roman faith my brother in Christ.

      Like

    2. I didn’t accuse you of anything like that, I see no theological issue in praying for the dead. I quoted 2 Mac because it gives us a description of the physical appearance of an Judean, and I do believe the “Apocrypha” (I hate that word) belongs in the bible.

      Arabs certainly are a mixed people, as another commenter pointed out. You can see light skinned types among them who have the classic middle eastern features as well as ones with negro skin tone and features. I believe there has been a considerable amount of gene flow from what is now Somalia, Arabia, plus black slaves and etc. So they can’t be pure descent from Noah, seeing as he and his wife were the same race.

      So where do racial differences come from? Christians have to resort to (false) evolutionary theory to explain this, yet going by their (false) Young Earth theory, it would be virtually impossible to see differences so quickly. Researching this is what made me come across Christian Identity and eventually this website. Although I do think the flood was localized and that Adam was a white man, (but was he the first?) I do not possibly see how Israelites became ALL these people in Europe or how fallen angels created other races or how the Canaanites were ALL non white considering they (at least originally) descend from Noah and people in that area contributed a lot to civilization like the alphabet. And what about the differences between accounts in Gen 1 and 2? If you and/or someone from Identity sees this I’d love hear your thoughts (and do not just say “it doesn’t matter”, this article is about this topic).

      Also I don’t know who this other “Colombo” guy is, but he isn’t me. I picked this name to honour the great Christopher Columbus, whose day is tomorrow (and no, he wasn’t a Crypto Jew, screw off with your conspiracy BS).

      Like

      1. Apologies for the miscommunication. I also hate describing the Word of God as “apocryphal.” Arab coming from the Hebrew “ereb” and therefore marking them as a mixed people isn’t really an issue in the slightest. We would clarify that on matters of race in the Old Testament, the primary concern was with maintaining ceremonial purity, and that marrying Gentiles would threaten this purity, primarily by leading the Israelites away from the worship of אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, i.e. “Yahweh” or “the One Who Is.” That’s the primary reason given in Deuteronomy 7:3-4: “[3] Neither shalt thou make marriages with them. Thou shalt not give thy daughter to his son, nor take his daughter for thy son: [4] For she will turn away thy son from following me, that he may rather serve strange gods, and the wrath of the Lord will be kindled, and will quickly destroy thee.” This is the same reason why in Catholicism, it is forbidden to marry a non-Catholic, because of the threat to the Faith of the children. To answer your question on racial genesis, they come from different tribes splitting off and moving to different lands, adapting to their environments. Darwinian evolution is false for many reasons, but a primary one is that it requires billions of years to operate (if even then!) and that would contradict our Sacred Tradition, which teaches, in line with Sacred Scripture, that the Creation is somewhere between ~6000 – ~12,000 years old. Theology is the queen of the sciences and therefore the norm, so all other inquires must be in tune with it. We could also speculate that since darkness is believed in most every culture to be tied with evil, and light with good, that perhaps because of the sins of their fathers, the darker races became dark as a sign of their degeneration (from “degenerare”, meaning “to be inferior to one’s ancestors, to become unlike one’s race or kind, fall from ancestral quality”) from the Adamic and Noahide state. Whatever the answer, this, again, doesn’t necessarily have an effect on our theology.

        Like

      2. P.S.: On my speculation, see:

        “[23] If the Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard his spots: you may also do well, when you have learned evil.”
        [Jeremias (Jeremiah) 13:23]

        Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s