Real Sinners

(Maria V. Blair) #22

“All have sinned. There is no dispute”
“There are sins for which there is no meaningful repentance”

And then it begs the question “what is sin?”… But wait, Cain killed his brother and his punishment was exile. David committed murder by killing Goliath and cutting off his head and was rewarded. Not to mention all the “sexual sins” which led to lusting after another man’s wife, betraying that man’s loyalty to him, taking his wife, fathering a child by her, telling her to deceive her husband, and finally putting him in front of the battle to get killed. The woman brought to Jesus to be stoned accused of committing adultery. The two thieves on the cross by Jesus’ side. The persecution of Jesus’ followers by Paul and the stoning of Steve. The racism and bigotry and bickering and discord among the disciples. Yet the church sugar coats all of these incidents of “sin” by glamorizing their lives through SS lessons taught to children at a very early age. I remember whenever I got to the part of David and Goliath where David drew his sword and cut off Goliath’s head, I hesitated because it was even too hard for me as the adult in the room to accept such a violent act. Yet I told the story to my children and to the hundreds of little children who eagerly listened. And here we are discussing “real sinners” in the context of our human perception and understanding that is so incredibly egregious and pathetic totally lacking the capacity to make any sound judgement on anyone over their actions, choices and desires. After all God sees the heart, we don’t.


This is the actual quote from the article.

We do forgive Paul, David, Samson, etc. but in real time let someone commit a sexual sin and see what happens. There are even people who we shame for a lifetime with no hope of forgiveness or redemption. God doesn’t look at it that way, but we have no problem sorting out the sinners from the Saints. (This ability to sort out sinners is sarcasm for those —-like the fictional character Sheldon Cooper—- who struggle with recognizing sarcasm!)

(Sirje) #24

Sometimes people object to the way Jesus is represented by those who supposedly know him - the church. The church (in general terms) is responsible for the way the general population sees who Jesus is.

(Kim Green) #25

You have made some very pertinent points about what is “punished” (or not) in the Bible. It is, in fact, why many Post Moderns find the Bible to be both capricious and illogical. The only way that some things in the Bible makes any “sense” is to frame it into a book of “principles” not a hard and fast “rule book” for any and all occasions. This, however, flies in the face of Fundamentalism.

(Patrick Travis) #26

I think a little history and background is called for over “Fundamentalism.”
The basic tenants were formed as a pushback to Theological Modernism and “Higher Criticism” much of which was coming from “The German Theological school” - Tübingen School of the 18th century forward.
The original reason for the formation of “Christianity Today” and Evangelical Christianity was a rejection of “Christian Century” magazine that was espousing what is classified as “Liberal Theology” which was invading the mainline churches.
The initial points or “Fundamentals” were:

  • The inerrancy of the Bible for faith and practice
  • The literal nature of the biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ’s miracles and the Creation account in Genesis.
  • The virgin birth of Christ
  • The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
  • The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross.

Like Princeton Theology, The 5 Fundamentals reflected growing opposition among many evangelical Christians towards higher criticism of the Bible and modernism.

Now you and others may not agree with these things but the Classical Protestant church had for 400+ years. That’s ok. Some don’t mind using the term in a pejorative manner. I suggest that shows a sign of disrespect and ignorance of Protestant understanding without specifically pointing out the errors biblically by a sound exegetical method.
PS. I don’t feel your comment was meant pejoratively but it is not uncommon, I suggest, that many use it without really understanding it’s meaning, especially Classical Christian Protestant history.
PS. I suggest today, and for some time, we are seeing a huge push and attempted Deconstruction of Classical Protestantism, Economics and Political History…especially as viewed in the US.

(Kim Green) #27

I appreciate some of the history shared. I am familiar with some of it.

When I refer to “Fundamentalism” it would be the same term that I would apply to the other major religions/faiths that have the same spectrum from ultra-conservatism to ultra-liberalism. Most people coming to this site would understand that I would be referring to the conservative to ultra-conservative parts of Adventism.

(Patrick Travis) #28

Thanks for your clarifying. However, since SDA’s have an alternate “final authority” in actual practice for faith and practice, I would point out they are not true Evangelical’s in the traditional sense. Unfortunately Questions on Doctrine never was a true corrective in Adventism.
So while you may have some overlaps they are not one in the same.The Venn Diagram would differ.
All the best,

(Kim Green) #29

SDA’s are usually/sometimes thrown in with the Evangelicals as a general rule…for better or for worse.

Fundamentalistic practices don’t depend upon religion or belief systems- they are the same.

(Patrick Travis) #30

However, the reasons may vary for conservative religious issues vs. Secular.
Would you call Mozart purist “fundamentalist?”

(Kim Green) #31

They DO vary even within Christianity…which is why we are having this conversation.

(Patrick Travis) #32

My point Kim is that Theological Conservative Christians, are like Mozart purist in the fact they dont want the original score, “text” to be changed by "“creative modernist.”
Everything depends on that to honor the composer and his intent.

(Kim Green) #33

You have made your point and feelings known. However, I doubt it will change how I or others use the term, “Fundamentalist”.

(Patrick Travis) #34

I know. :frowning: … .

(Kim Green) #35

At least there is a glimmer of reality…:grin:

(Patrick Travis) #36

Thanks Kim and so you know that is reciprocal and why conservative Christianity will not accept the new narrative. That is also reality. I speak outside of the SDA ghetto. :slight_smile:

(Kim Green) #37

You may be “speaking outside of the SDA ghetto” and conservative Christianity may not accept the “new narrative”…It really doesn’t matter.

(Patrick Travis) #38

Agreed, the new narrative doesn’t either…to some of us. :slight_smile: Who will ultimately be more tolerant in a secular nation is the question.

(Kim Green) #39

Then we can agree…that in the end, none of this really matters! I am positive that it doesn’t matter to God one little bit.

(Patrick Travis) #40

I’m not…
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.”Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen. Rev.22.