Unpardonable sin not possible woohoo !

thank you chocolatelover...your open minded approach to all religion is actually the greatest influence on my belief in christianity as a option for me at this point in time..though this may sound silly..I have never seen your perspective before....

Rapunzel...your approach has also given me more faith, as well ,due to the open arms of the 3 kingdoms and knowledge of things I thought I already knew but did not...I have never seen your perspective either

september ..your receptiveness to change, gives me hope for myself to change

Sky..your knowledge gives me power to succeed

nowheretorun,your wisdom gives me something to aspire for...I have never seen your perspective either

...just got the food off the grill in between replying and reading.....I will leave this thread as is for now..and think while eating

thanks to all who try to help me

Kind Regards
Eddie

My former Lutheran pastor said the unpardonable sin means you harden your heart against God.

If you'd like a humorous take on sin, watch Monty Python's "Life of Brian." Early in the movie, there's a stoning scene for a man who said to his wife: "That piece of halibut is good enough for Jehovah!" We all know that Jews don't say the name of God and revere it highly.

John Cleese played the priest and after reading the man's charges, the man said the above and then said "Jehovah "ver and over while dancing.

In the end, John Cleese was stoned! It's a cute movie and I DON'T CONSIDER IT SACRELIGIOUS.

Happy New Year.

OCD chick

thank you ocdchick..that does sound funny LOL

I actually do believe the unpardonable sin is still possible to commit today. If not, then all sin is automatically absolved. Christ died for all sin, past, present and yes, future, as He died only once on the cross and covered all sin. If there be no more sin, then what was the purpose for His death, burial and resurrection? With that said, the unpardonable sin is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is attributing what the Holy Spirit does to the work of someone or something else. If one were now to believe that any one can save himself, that would be saying you can do the work of the Spirit. Thus attributing His Work to another, sinful entity no less. The crux of the matter is, if you fail to accept the work of the Spirit, that of sealing us unto the day of our redemption by Christ, denying that Christ is our Redeemer through the power of God (yes, a triune God) then one would not be able to enter heaven, for sin cannot enter heaven and without the salvation process, one is still sinful.

Here is something that might help understand more of background information, from someone else, since many are doubtful of any of my personal words on this topic.

(PS. When you wrote that "most who have studied" believe it's impossible to commit the unpardonable sin, it must not have included any Christian believers and theologians imo.)

The Sins Against The Holy Spirit

INTRODUCTION

1. We have seen where the Holy Spirit is certainly active in God's
scheme of redemption...
a. Revealing and confirming the Word of Truth - He 2:3-4
b. Convicting hearts of sin through the Word - Jn 16:7
c. Regenerating those who respond to the gospel - Jn 3:5
d. Indwelling those who obey the gospel - Ac 2:38; 1 Co 6:19
e. Leading those who walk in the Spirit - Ga 5:16-18,25
f. Producing the fruit of the Spirit in those so led - Ga 5:22-23
g. Strengthening those seeking to please God - Ep 3:16
h. Serving as a seal, marking Christians as God's own - Ep 1:13
i. Serving as an earnest (guarantee) of our inheritance - Ep 1:14

2. Because of the Spirit's activity, it is possible for us to sin
against the Spirit...
a. We can resist the Spirit - Ac 7:51
b. We can quench the Spirit - 1 Th 5:19
c. We can grieve the Spirit - Ep 4:30
d. We can insult the Spirit - He 10:29
e. We can blaspheme the Spirit - Mt 12:31-32

[Lest we be guilty of sinning against the Spirit, let's examine how such
sins are possible...]

I. RESISTING THE SPIRIT

A. THE WARNING...
1. Stephen condemned his listeners for resisting the Spirit - Ac
7:51
2. How did they do this? By persecuting (i.e., resisting) the
prophets - Ac 7:52
a. Who foretold the coming of Christ
b. In whom the Spirit of Christ was working - cf. 1 Pe 1:10-11
-- Resisting the Spirit-led prophets resulted in their resisting
the Spirit!

B. THE APPLICATION...
1. The same Spirit led the apostles of Christ to preach the
gospel- cf. 1 Pe 1:12; Ro 15:19
2. We can resist the apostles today
a. By refusing to obey their word - cf. 1 Co 14:37
b. By refusing to abide in their doctrine - cf. Ac 2:42
-- Are we guilty of resisting the Spirit, by resisting the words
of the apostles?

[Certainly those who refuse to obey the gospel are guilty of resisting
the Spirit, but even those who are Christians can be guilty. Christians
can also be guilty of...]

II. QUENCHING THE SPIRIT

A. THE WARNING...
1. Written to the church at Thessalonica - 1 Th 5:19
2. How could they become guilty of this?
a. To quench means to extinguish, suppress, stifle
b. To whatever extent the Spirit was at work, they were not to
suppress it
3. Two examples...
a. The Thessalonians were not to despise prophecies - cf. 1 Th
5:20 ("Do not despise the words of the prophets" NRSV)
b. Timothy was encouraged not to neglect his gift - 1 Ti 4:14;
2 Ti 1:6
-- Suppressing (or neglecting) the Spirit's work is quenching the
Spirit!

B. THE APPLICATION...
1. The Spirit is at work in our lives today
a. Teaching and guiding us through His revealed word - cf. Ep
6:17
b. Strengthening us through His indwelling - cf. Ep 3:16,20
c. Producing the fruit of the Spirit as we are so led - cf. Ga
5:22-23
2. But we neglect or stifle the Spirit's effort...
a. When we fail to read and heed the Word of God
b. When we fail to pray, asking for strength
c. When we fail to produce the fruit of the Spirit
-- Are we guilty of quenching the Spirit, through our own neglect?

[Another sin against the Spirit that Paul warned Christians about is...]

III. GRIEVING THE SPIRIT

A. THE WARNING...
1. Written to the Ephesians - Ep 4:30
2. What does it mean to grieve?
a. To make sorrowful, to affect with sadness
b. To offend
3. How could they grieve the Spirit?
a. By corrupt speech - cf. Ep 4:29
b. By bitterness, anger, evil speaking - cf. Ep 4:31
-- When Christians sin, they grieve the Spirit who indwells them!

B. THE APPLICATION...
1. The Spirit desires to produce good fruit in Christians...
a. The fruit of graceful words that lift up others - cf. Ep
4:29
b. The fruit of graceful conduct that bless those around us
- cf. Ep 4:28,32
2. But we make the Spirit sorrowful every time...
a. Unwholesome words proceed from our mouths
b. We engage in conduct unbecoming those who have been sealed
(marked) for the day of redemption!
-- Are we guilty of grieving by our speech or conduct the Spirit
who indwells us?

[As bad as it is for Christians to quench the Spirit (through neglect)
or grieve the Spirit (through disobedience), it can get worse! We can
even be guilty of...]

IV. INSULTING THE SPIRIT

A. THE WARNING...
1. Written to the Hebrews - He 10:29
2. What does it mean to insult the Spirit of grace?
a. KJV, ASV, "despite the Spirit of grace"
b. NRSV, "outraged the Spirit of grace"
3. The context pertains to willful sin - cf. He 10:26-31
a. Persistent sin with full knowledge and no desire to repent
b. Conduct that tramples Christ underfoot, and regards His
blood a common thing
c. For which remains a fearful and fiery judgment
-- Christians can become so hardened by sin that they insult the
Spirit through outrageous conduct!

B. THE APPLICATION...
1. We need to be aware of the danger of apostasy - He 3:12-14
a. We can become hardened by the deceitfulness of sin
b. We can thereby depart from the living God
c. We must hold the beginning of our confidence (faith)
steadfast till the end - cf. Re 2:10
2. We become guilty of insulting the Spirit...
a. When we sin willfully, with full knowledge of our sin
b. When we have no desire to repent - cf. He 6:4-8
-- Sinning through ignorance or weakness grieves the Spirit, but
sinning willfully insults the Spirit!

[Finally, we note that Jesus warned about...]

V. BLASPHEMING THE SPIRIT

A. THE WARNING...
1. Jesus told the Pharisees of the unforgivable sin - Mt 12:31-32
a. He had just healed a demon-possessed man - Mt 12:22-23
b. The Pharisees attributed His power to Beelzebub (Satan) - Mt
12:24
c. He illustrates the absurdity of their charge - Mt 12:25-28
d. He explains the implication and necessity of casting out
demons by the Spirit of God
1) The kingdom (rule or reign, power) of God has come - Mt
12:28
2) For such to be complete, the strong man (Satan) must be
bound - Mt 12:29
3) This Jesus ultimately accomplished through His death and
resurrection - cf. Jn 12:31-33; Ro 14:9; Co 2:15; He 2:
14-15; Re 1:18
2. What is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?
a. It is attributing Jesus' power to an unclean spirit - cf. Mk
3:28-30
b. It is ascribing the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan (B.W.
Johnson)
3. Why is this sin unforgivable? When one concludes that Jesus'
power was of the devil...
a. He has rejected the evidence which produces faith in Jesus
b. He has rejected the efforts by God to save those in sin
-- When one is willing to believe that Jesus was in league with
the devil, saving faith is not possible!

B. THE APPLICATION...
1. We must be careful not to reject the testimony of the Spirit
a. He is the means by which God bore witness to Jesus - cf. Ac
10:38
b. Otherwise we can neglect that "great salvation" - cf. He
2:3-4
2. If we reject the testimony of the Holy Spirit...
a. We reject heaven's last effort to save man (Ferrell Jenkins,
The Finger Of God, p.45)
b. We reject the evidence which convicts of sin (ibid.)
-- The consequences of rejecting the Spirit's testimony are
serious, depriving one of the forgiveness found only in Christ!

CONCLUSION

1. Sins against the Holy Spirit can lead progressively into apostasy...
a. Resisting the Spirit can lead to quenching the Spirit
b. Quenching the Spirit can lead to grieving the Spirit
c. Grieving the Spirit can lead to insulting the Spirit
d. Insulting the Spirit can lead to blaspheming the Spirit
e. Blaspheming the Spirit leads to a condition where forgiveness is
not possible

2. Note the sad condition of those in full-blown apostasy - cf. He 6:4-6
a. This passage describes those who at one time:
1) Were enlightened
2) Tasted the heavenly gift
3) Become partakers of the Holy Spirit
4) Tasted the good word of God
5) Tasted the powers of the age to come
b. Yet they had fallen to the point:
1) Where it was impossible to renew them to repentance
2) Where they were crucifying again the Son of God, putting Him to
open shame

How to prevent such a sad end? Make sure that we are not guilty of "The
Sins Against The Holy Spirit"!

thank you for the info sky : )

what do you think of this as a example ?

say you are in a church that don't believe in speaking of tonges and this is what they teach, i have heard there is to be someone to interpet for this to be real,and I have heard many say that they did not think ones speaking in tounge were really speaking in tonges, if no one could interpret....this is actually one of many different beliefs that seperate denominations ...im sure you already know

does the denominations that believe if someone is speaking in tonges with no interpreter, they are not really speaking in tonge,ultimatly blaspheme the ghost if they are speaking in tonge, without someone to interpet and the ones that believe they are not may just have misinterpreted
the bible ..though I know it says about someone needs to be there to interpret,this may possibly be a flaw by man

I have also heard from my old pastor at a free will baptist church that speaking in tonge is from the old times and they don't believe that happens now

atleast that what I think he said

but I have seen it happen and find it hard to believe they were faking it, but there was no one to interpret any time I have seen it

"Speaking in tongues" does occur. Medical science has proven that anyone can become riled enough to totally confuse the speech system and out will pour babbling.

However, true "speaking in tongues" also does occur: it is speaking in a language one has not studied: a miracle. It is "required" to have an interpreter within the body of believers so that the person speaking isn't edified, but God. It is also required that it be only by 2 or 3 at a time, also to avoid confusion and to allow for interpretation, especially for someone who is without knowledge, and certainly also for the new believer.

In a study of the times written for our understanding, when the "gift" of tongues is given, there are only two explanations/interpretations, true to the Greek language. Study shows that he gift the disciples were to remain in Jerusalem for was the Holy Spirit. (Prior to this time, the Holy Spirit did not indwell believers. During OT times, the act of making the sin atonement offering was secured by their faith that God WOULD send the Messiah, during the time of Christ's life also, and once He resurrected He was still with mankind. After Christ left the earth, then the Holy Spirit was sent to do His work.)

With Him, The Holy Spirit, also came the ability to speak in the languages of all the other people they were commanded to go preach the gospel to. (Clever thinking of God, eh?) One time, one of the miracles of "tongues" is really a miracle of hearing. Some miss that when studying, but is a cool aspect imo. (They all heard in their own language!)

Unfortunately, there are some today who do this for show only, and also defraud others at times. One very good friend of mine was a missionary and spoke many languages. He happened upon a particular church where they suddenly began speaking in unknown sounds, and then someone jumped up to "interpret." Another would babble something and another person yet would jump up and interpret. My friend, discerning the deception, stood and spoke in Russian actually, and someone popped up and "interpreted." Well, not really, they didn't say a thing that he had really said, but then he preached to them for real.

The Bible is clear in that if someone is really, truly, leading others to Christ, regardless of their methods, we are not to bother with them, but let God deal with them. This is the same for "healers." (Before I will address any healer for today, I will wait for them to go to all the children's hospitals and heal them there, as we know this truly would be God's will.) [This is not to say I don't believe that God heals today, for I do know He does.]

So, whether I would "call out" someone whom I thought was working by the devil's hand, unless I discern an evil spirit, I wouldn't, because especially in these last days, there will be things we have never known before.

thanks..that was a good story about how your friend spoke in russian.

I just don't get why some churches don't believe in the gift of tongue..
I think the explanation for them is, that they believe that the gift was done away with when the last apostle died and it wasn't necessary in todays world.

Soooo..many different denominations/comprehensions and beliefs of the bible it is overwhelming to me at times, since I would like to know everyones veiw points..but then even inside the same denominations there are different comprehensions.

As I mentioned before , all of them make since to me in their own way ...even though they are so drasticlly different

I am gonna keep trying to follow choclatelovers advice for awhile, while dealing with my religious path, since I do love to read just what Jesus says and I don't have nothing to lose from reading just that for a little while

thanks again
Eddie

HAPPY NEW YEAR

this is abit off topic , but must say, this is the nicest conversational thread in a longggggg time, no anger, I'm honored to read such a civil topic
Angie

I really like Sky's explanation of the gift of tongues. I also believe that it happens in our time, and that it serves a purpose, not just show or gibberish. I wonder if some say that they don't believe in the gift of tongues because they have seen someone claim to have it when it was more likely a misunderstanding or false presentation of what the gift of tongues really is. And that there may be some who don't understand that gift, such as the congregation Sky told us about, doesn't mean that it isn't real.

I think a lot of things in the Bible are "true" but not in the literal way I think of them. Those before us without our knowledge of how some things worked had a different way of expressing the way things seemed to them.

I don't believe the Gift of Tongues was necessarily instantaneous learning of another language but someone who had a Gift for languages and learned another language quickly, either before or after going to another land for the Church. I think the Tower of Babel was a "representation" of how things must have appeared to have happened, an "instanteous" shortcut story like the seven days of Creation or the 40 days/40 nights of the Flood, etc. I believe there were certainly floods but not one, single one that covered the entire Earth, just that portion of the Earth the Biblical writers knew/cared about. It makes sense to me to represent the "reverse" of the Tower of Babel (first Gift of Tongues) in the same way. I don't think the Sun actually stood still at Jericho, just time seemed to pass so quickly it appeared to stand still (and would be Earth not rotating in any event). The Bible isn't a book of science and doesn't claim or need to be. That doesn't negate the Truth of what it has to say, just the literalness.

I know there are still people today that have the gift of languages, speak another or many fluently, etc. and I'm sure churches need/hire many of those people as missionaries. But I think a lot of churches don't "concentrate" on the Gifts of the Spirit like was done in the past because the World has gotten more complicated technologically and the "Wow factor" in some of the old stories has faded. So while people still have Gifts of the Spirit, I don't think that they are focused on in the same way anymore.

perna..the flood is something that scientists have study'd,and come to the conclusion that if there was one there is " no evidence " and there should be in sedimentary layers.....but as you mentioned, there is such evidence in one area that men at that time probably thought was the whole world......

far as christians trying to find proof though, of stuff like Noahs ark....I think it is silly...since if any thing like that could be proven as a fact who " would need faith "...science has also proven if a ark was built the way described in the bible not only would it not hold even a small fraction of what it was supposed to, but it would also sink......I forget actually how many arks as described it would of took but it was bigger than a navy ship fleet

but then someone also described it as a mistranslation of the bible, far as what was actually supposed to be loaded..something to do with only clean animals or something like that. I forget but may try to find that info again
now, it was interesting

far as Jericho..I dont know about the sun ...but I always disliked that story, do to the grafic nature of killing orderd by God of even children, if I remeber correct

I don't take the bible literal either..but believe there probably is allot of truth in it..but I also believe there is allot of mistakes /flaws made by men in it, do to their own need/desire to control men....in my opinion

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
the flood is something that scientists have study'd,and come to the conclusion that if there was one there is " no evidence " and there should be in sedimentary layers.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post"> Hmm and so the flood that shows up in the Black Sea area, and also the Grand Canyon, aren't scientific enough? Anyway, it takes faith to believe in God and His doings. However, consider that all the continents as we know them now, were together before the flood. It was the wrath of God on the earth and His creation and ...the flooding of the earth... that caused them to separate. Would that help you consider that yes, there was a great flood? Do you know that nearly each civilization that is found, all the remote areas of the world... for all of history and current... all of them have a story, at least an oral history of the story of a great flood. I can't explain that other than, God did it, and all mankind knows it.

BTW, not all scientists have come to that "conclusion."

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0109-giss.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1929074/posts
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...cs/flood.shtml

ok sky...lol

You have good points..but I don't think you are correct about continental drift and platectonics are because of a 40 day flood ..
I quess I'll have to dig up my past research and see what it say's again..but I also saw a show on the science or history chanelle or somewhere about it where they literaly showed the scientists doing the research that pointed to the fact there is no proof..that would be everywhere practicly

For others interested in the Blasphemy of the ghost as a sin that is not possible today, I found a description of why evidence points to this, that was even clearer than the first..I don't think it is possible after all I have read, from many different views...I am not trying to make others change there mind on what they believe, just sharing with others that may be interested

but I quess just like everything else it can be seen different
by many different people

I like to think even if it was possible someone would be forgiven if they repent for it, before a brutal torturess killer, if God was all about forgiving as he is cracked up to be, I don't believe it is possible to do today and I quess this is my final thought on it for now...

Apologetics Press :: Scripturally Speaking

Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit—The “Unpardonable Sin”
by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Printer version | Email this article

Through the years, numerous writers have taken on the task of explaining the comment spoken by Jesus concerning the “unpardonable sin”—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. From these writings have come countless false doctrines, insinuations, and suggested explanations. It is the purpose of this article to explain what “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” is not, what it actually is, and to offer comment concerning whether it still can be committed today.

Three of the four gospel accounts contain a reference to the statement made by Jesus concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. These three passages read as follows.

Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:31-32).

Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation—because they said, “He has an unclean spirit” (Mark 3:28-30).

And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven (Luke 12:10).

Each of these references to the statement made by Jesus verifies that Jesus did clearly state that there is a specific sin that “will not be forgiven.” The American Standard Version describes the sin as an “eternal sin” (Mark 3:29). Jesus defined that sin as “the blasphemy against the Spirit.” What, then, is blasphemy against the Spirit?

In order to explain this sin fully, a look at the general context of the statement is critical. Matthew’s account offers the most detail concerning the setting in which Jesus’ statement was made. In Matthew 12:22, the text indicates that a certain man who was demon-possessed was brought to Jesus to be healed. As was His common practice, Jesus cast out the unclean spirit, and healed the man of his blindness and inability to speak. After seeing this display of power, the multitudes that followed Jesus asked, “Could this be the Son of David?” (12:23). Upon hearing this remark, the Pharisees, wanting to discredit the source from which Jesus received His power, declared that Jesus was casting out demons by “Beelzebub, the ruler of demons.” Jesus proceeded to explain that a kingdom divided against itself could not stand, and if He were casting out demons by the power of demons, then He would be defeating Himself. It was after this accusation by the Pharisees, and Jesus’ defense of His actions, that Christ commented concerning the blasphemy against the Spirit. In fact, the text of Mark clearly states that Jesus made the comment about the blasphemy against the Spirit “because they said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’ ”

Another critical piece of information needed to clarify Jesus’ statement is the definition of blasphemy. Wayne Jackson wrote: “Blasphemy is an anglicized form of the Greek term blasphemia, which scholars believe probably derives from two roots, blapto, to injure, and pheme, to speak. The word would thus suggest injurious speech” (2000). Bernard Franklin, in his article concerning blasphemy against the Spirit, suggested:

The word “blasphemy” in its various forms (as verb, noun, adjective, etc.) appears some fifty-nine times in the New Testament. It has a variety of renderings, such as, “blasphemy,” “reviled,” “railed,” “evil spoken of,” “to speak evil of,” etc. Examples of these various renderings are: “They that passed by reviled him” (Matthew 27:39). “He that shall blaspheme” (Mark 3:29). “They that passed by railed on him” (Mark 15:29). “The way of truth shall be evil spoken of ” (2 Peter 2:2). “These speak evil of those things” (Jude 10). It is evident from these that blasphemy is a sin of the mouth, a “tongue-sin.” All New Testament writers except the author of Hebrews use the word (1936, pp. 224-225).

Furthermore, Jesus defined the term when, after referring to blasphemy, He used the phrase “speaks a word against” in Matthew 12:32.

WHAT THE UNPARDONABLE SIN IS NOT

With the working definition of blasphemy meaning, “to speak against,” or “speak evil of,” it is easy to rule out several sins that would not qualify as the unpardonable sin. Occasionally, murder is suggested as the “unpardonable sin.” Such cannot be the case, however. First, since blasphemy is a “tongue sin,” murder would not fall into this category. Second, several biblical passages show the sin of murder can be forgiven. When King David committed adultery and had Uriah the Hittite murdered, the prophet Nathan came to him, informing him that God had seen that David “killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword” (2 Samuel 12:9). When David confessed to Nathan and repented, the prophet told David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die” (12:13). And, although David was punished for his iniquity, it was forgiven. The Bible plainly demonstrates that murder is not the unpardonable sin.

Adultery surfaces as another sin put forward as unpardonable. Yet the same reasoning used to discount murder as the unpardonable sin can be used to disqualify adultery. First, it does not fit the category of blasphemy. Second, David was forgiven of adultery, just as surely as he was forgiven of murder. The apostle Paul gave a list of no less than ten sins (including adultery) of which the Corinthian brethren had been forgiven (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Adultery cannot be the unpardonable sin.

Another sin set forth as the unpardonable sin is blasphemy of any kind, not specifically against the Holy Spirit. We know, however, that blasphemy in general cannot be unforgivable for two reasons. First, in the context of the unpardonable sin, Jesus clearly stated that “whatever blasphemies” men may utter (besides against the Holy Spirit) could be forgiven. Second, Paul confessed that before his conversion, he had formerly been “a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief ” (1 Timothy 1:13). These two biblical passages rule out the possibility of general blasphemy as the unpardonable sin.

We begin to see, then, that we cannot arbitrarily decide which sins we think are heinous, and then simply attribute to them the property of being unpardonable, especially considering the fact that even those who were guilty of crucifying the Son of God had the opportunity to be forgiven (Acts 2:36-38). Therefore, since the unpardonable sin falls into a category of its own, and cannot be murder, adultery, general blasphemy, etc., some scholars have set forth the idea that the unpardonable sin is not a single sin at all, but is instead the stubborn condition of a person who persists in unbelief. This understanding, however, fails to take into account the immediate context of the “unpardonable sin.” Gus Nichols, commenting on this idea of “persistent unbelief,” stated: “It is true, great multitudes are going into eternity in rebellion against God to be finally and eternally lost; but it is for rejecting and neglecting pardon graciously extended in the gospel while they live, not because they have committed the unpardonable sin” (1967, p. 236). Wendell Winkler, under a section titled, “What the Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit is Not,” wrote that it is not

postponement of obedience until death. The text implies that those who commit the eternal sin continue to live while having lost all opportunity of salvation; whereas those who postpone obedience to Christ (except those who commit the eternal sin) could have obeyed at any time previous to their death (1980, p. 20).

IN THIS AGE OR IN THE AGE TO COME

Jesus said that blasphemy against the Spirit would not be forgiven “in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:32). Certain religious organizations have seized upon this statement to suggest that Jesus has in mind a situation in which certain sins will be remitted after death—but not this sin. This idea of a purgatory-like state, where the souls of the dead are given a “second chance” to do penance for the sins they committed in their earthly life, finds no justification in this statement made by Christ (nor in any other biblical passage, for that matter). R.C.H. Lenski stated that Jesus’ use of the phrase under discussion meant simply “absolutely never” (1961, p. 484). Hendriksen concurred with Lenski when he wrote:

In passing, it should be pointed out that these words by no stretch of the imagination imply that for certain sins there will be forgiveness in the life hereafter. They do not in any sense whatever support the doctrine of purgatory. The expression simply means that the indicated sin will never be forgiven (1973, p. 528).

As the writer of Hebrews succinctly wrote, “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

It also has been suggested by several writers that the “age to come” discussed by Jesus refers to the Christian Age. According to this idea, Jesus made the statement in the Jewish Age, when the Law of Moses was in effect, and the “age to come” denoted the Christian Age immediately following, when the Law of Christ would prevail. Putting this meaning to the phrase often leads the advocates of this theory to conclude that the unpardonable sin could be committed in the Christian Age, after the resurrection of Christ. As Winkler surmised, “Thus, since our Lord was speaking while the Jewish age was in existence, he was affirming that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost would not be forgiven in (a) the Jewish age, nor in (b) the Christian age, the age that followed” (1980, p. 21). Nichols, after affirming the same proposition, concluded:

It follows that this sin, therefore, could be committed during the personal ministry of Christ, and was then committed, as we have seen, and could also be committed under the gospel age or dispensation. They could have attributed the works of the Spirit to Satan after Pentecost, the same as before (1967, p. 234).

Two primary pieces of evidence, however, militate against the idea that Jesus’ reference to the “age to come” meant the Christian Age. First, in Mark 10:30, the gospel writer has Jesus on record using the same phrase (“in the age to come”) to refer to the time when the followers of Christ would inherit “eternal life” (see Luke 18:30 for the parallel passage). This is a clear reference to life after death, since Paul said “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:50). Second, Mark’s account of the unpardonable sin describes the sin as an “eternal sin.” The translators of the New King James Version recorded that the person who commits the sin “never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation” (Mark 3:29). Mark’s account, with its emphasis on eternity, shows that the phrase simply is meant to underscore the fact that this sin will “absolutely never” be forgiven (Lenski, p. 484). It is incorrect, then, to use the phrase “in the age to come” to refer to purgatory. It also is tenuous to use the phrase to refer to the Christian Age. The best explanation, to quote Hendrickson again, is that “the expression simply means that the indicated sin will never be forgiven” (p. 528).

WHAT THE UNPARDONABLE SIN IS

As was noted earlier, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin in the Bible that is given the status of unpardonable or eternal. In fact, Jesus prefaced His discussion of this sin by stating that, “every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men,” except for blasphemy against the Spirit. Using the working definition of blasphemy as “speaking evil of,” it becomes clear that the sin described by Jesus was a “tongue sin” that the Pharisees had committed, or at least were dangerously close to committing.

What had the Pharisees done that would have put them in jeopardy of committing the unpardonable sin? According to His own testimony, during Jesus’ time on this Earth He cast out demons by the “Spirit of God” (Matthew 12:28). When the Pharisees saw that Jesus had performed a verifiable miracle, they could not argue with the fact that Christ possessed certain powers that others (including themselves) did not have. Therefore, in order to cast suspicion on the ministry of Jesus, they claimed that He was casting out demons by Beelzebub, the ruler of demons. The name Beelzebub is simply another name for Satan (Franklin, 1936, p. 227), as can be seen from Jesus’ reference to Satan in Matthew 12:26. Even when faced by the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit through Jesus, the Pharisees were, in essence, attributing Jesus’ power to Satan, and claiming that Jesus was “Satan incarnate instead of God incarnate. It is this, and nothing else, that our Lord calls the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (or Spirit—KB)” (Franklin, p. 227). Maxie Boren wrote: “The context of Matthew 12:22ff. shows clearly that this was indeed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—attributing the miracle done by Jesus to the power of the devil. Jesus said it was done ‘by the Spirit of God’ (verse 28) but they (the Pharisees—KB) said it was done by Beelzebub” (n.d., p. 1). It is clear that blasphemy against the Spirit was a definite, singular sin, which could be committed by the Pharisees during the life of Jesus.

IS THE “UNPARDONABLE SIN” THE
SAME AS THE “SIN UNTO DEATH”?

John, in his first epistle, mentioned the fact that “there is sin leading to death” and “there is sin not leading to death” (1 John 5:16-17). His statement in these verses has been connected by more than a few people to Jesus’ remark about the “eternal sin.” It is evident, however, that this connection is based more on opinion than on textual Bible study.

First, there is no biblical evidence that connects the passage in 1 John with the Pharisees’ accusation. Furthermore, the entire context of 1 John gives the Christian readers hope of forgiveness for all sins that they might have committed. John wrote: “All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death” (1 John 5:17). Several chapters earlier, he wrote: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9, emp. added). In the scope of John’s epistle, any unrighteousness committed by his readers could be forgiven if the transgressor took the proper steps of repentance and confession. Apparently, the “sin unto death” in 1 John is not a specific sin for which it is impossible to receive forgiveness, but rather, is any sin for which a person will not take the proper steps demanded by God to receive the forgiveness available. On the other hand, blasphemy against the Spirit was a specific, eternal sin that never would be forgiven.

CAN THE UNPARDONABLE SIN BE COMMITTED TODAY?

The next question usually asked concerning this sin is whether or not it is still possible to commit it today. Opinions on this question certainly vary, and scholars seem to be divided in their positions. The evidence, however, seems to point toward the idea that this sin cannot be committed today.

First, the circumstances under which the sin is described cannot prevail today, due to the fact that the age of miracles has ceased (see Miller, 2003). No one today will have the opportunity to witness Jesus performing miracles in person (2 Corinthians 5:16).

Second, there is no other mention of the sin in any biblical passage written after the resurrection of Christ. None of the inspired New Testament writers refers to the sin in any epistle or in the book of Acts, and none offers warnings to new converts about avoiding the sin post-Pentecost. Franklin observed:

If it were possible for it to be committed, would there not have been some warning against it? Were there any danger regarding it, would the Apostle Paul, who wrote half the books of the New Testament, have failed to warn against its commission? Paul does not even mention the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The sin in question was actually committed in the days of our Lord’s ministry on earth, but it does not necessarily follow that it could be committed in His absence (p. 233).

In discussing this matter, Gus Nichols wrote: “It seems that all sins committed today are pardonable, and that all can be saved, if they will” (1967, p. 239). V.E. Howard, commented along the same lines when he stated that “there is no unpardonable sin today” (1975, p. 156).

In conclusion, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unpardonable sin mentioned in the Bible, and it is mentioned in the context of the Pharisees accusing Jesus of being possessed by the Devil. The context indicates that it was a specific sin, and not a series of forgivable sins, or an attitude of persistent unbelief. After the resurrection, no inspired writer mentions the sin, and no warnings against it were recorded. There is no concrete evidence that it can be committed today. The fact that it is not mentioned after the resurrection, lends itself to the idea that it cannot still be committed. In fact, the indication from passages such as 1 John 1:7,9 is that “all unrighteousness” that a person could commit today can be forgiven by the blood of Jesus. As Howard said when concluding his remarks about the eternal sin: “In the same scripture our Lord gave full assurance that every sin and blasphemy against the ‘Son of man’ shall be forgiven him. Today the gospel of Christ is to be preached to every man on earth and any man on earth may be saved by obeying the gospel (Mark 16:15-16)” [p. 157].

REFERENCES

Boren, Maxie B. (no date), “The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit,” Class Handout, Brown Trail church of Christ, Bedford, Texas, Lesson 4.

Franklin, Barnard (1936), “The Blasphemy Against the Holy Ghost: An Inquiry into the Scriptural Teaching Regarding the Unpardonable Sin,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 93:220-233, April.

Hendriksen, William (1973), The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Howard, V.E. (1975), The Holy Spirit (West Monroe, LA: Central Publishers).

Jackson, Wayne (2000), Blasphemy—What Is This Great Sin?, [On-line], URL: http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/blasphemy.htm.

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961 reprint), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-day Miracles, Tongue-speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” Reason and Revelation, 23(3):17-23, March.

Nichols, Gus (1967), Lectures on the Holy Spirit (Plainview, TX: Nichols Brothers).

Winkler, Wendell, ed. (1980), What Do You Know About the Holy Spirit? (Fort Worth, TX: Winkler Publications).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Scripturally Speaking" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org




Browse Scripturally Speaking Browse all articles




Web site engine code is Copyright © 2003 by PHP-Nuke. All Rights Reserved. PHP-Nuke is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
Page Generation: 0.160 Seconds

What I was taught about the "sin unto death" is that it merely means the last sin you'll ever do, because you die. Not necessarily "from" that sin, but quite possibly the last straw, you know? The last token spent.

Sky...I believe continental drift was while dinosaurs still existed...(I should probably research this first though)..do you have any evidence that man and taradactals or any of these great creatures existing together at the same point in time ???

Just 1 piece ??

Kind Regards
Eddie

I'm just curious how Noah got all them dinosaurs on the ark

but could be wrong about everything, I do make mistakes

and these are all just my opinions

continents are still drifting, thus earthquakes where the plates meet.

good point heyjoe

Yes there is recent evidence of a man's footprint with a dinosaur. We have trace evidences of what we consider dinosaurs living today (birds, for one..) I have no issue with dinosaurs being around with mankind. You know, in the beginning, all creation fed on fruits, herbs, berries. Nothing killed another. But that's another story.

I think if you check out that site: reasons to believe, you will find the evidence you seek.

I'll check it out , thanks

they have a " bunch " of foot prints from bigfoot also

What kinda dino ? ..... how did they date the print ?

carbon dating ?

allot of dino's did start out eating conifer/evergreen type trees the long neck ones....

so when did they evolve into meat hunters ?

LOL.....just kidding Sky I all ready know all the answers...I guess this is way off topic

I know " all about " evolution theory...they actually teach that in school

Kind Regards
Eddie

Sky...the foot prints were not human...they where later identifed as just another dino...if you are refering to the Paluxy prints

though allot like to believe they were......there have been several others that were also mis-identified and proven not to be....

I believe in God, I just believe he had to create evolution since he knew the enviroment would change and everything had to change with it.....not sure about dino and humans existing anywhere together but the Flinstones though

btw I have already seen many theorys to try to promote all this since even I would like to believe it is true
and I have many links by biblical sites but I think that might be for another thread...somewhere at another BB I quess

the discription of a Behemoth allot like to think is proof but I think most just think its a elephant, hippo or something else maybe similar that may even be exsinct like the do-do bird...so it really don't matter

I quess this site is not the place for all this

sorry all for that

OIC, and I had not realized that they also disproved the finger print Well, it seems to me that you are quite able to refuse to believe the signs that are there, and yet perhaps have great faith in evolution? You certainly are a man of great faith then. What about the huge gaps in the sequences? I'm not of that faith, as you may know, that of that God created us and then left us to "evolve".. nah. Evidence shows that we are not evolving but devolving.

You would do well to study this science, proper, because it is there for you to see. One would need an open mind though, to be able to study all aspects and make a clear decision. I trust you are strong enough.

not sure I ever claimed to be a man of great faith...I think I even said in the begining of this thread I am not even sure if I believe in the many comprhensions of the bible.....

they also thought they had the missing link in fossils in china ...and may have

but who really cares...it is all up to the believer what they want to believe....if they found a finger print and you and others think thats what it is .....it don't matter what is proven or who proves it .....get CSI Miami out there it is all just superfical

if any proof of dino's and humans was found...and proven..they would be rewriting school books...and they may one day

rest assured it will not hurt my feelings....I do believe in God
it don't matter if you believe I do

thank you again (((( Sky ))))