For Those Who Fear They've Committed The Unpardonable Sin

[Guest shiloh357]

The sins that are not under the blood covering are wilful sins.

ALL sin is under the blood.nf

"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us ALL our sins." (Colossians 2:13)

All means every single one, Butero

He did forgive us all tresspasses when we came to him as a sinner, but that has nothing to do with what we do after we are initially saved.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. Heb 10:26

What that means is that the initial blood covering isn't automatically applied to wilful transgessions you commit after that salvation experience. You are lost again, and the only way to be saved is to confess those sins and repent. The idea that when you get saved, all past, present and future wilful sins are under the blood is not Biblical. It is a false doctrine that Satan has been peddling, and sadly, a lot of people are going to wind up in hell because they believe it.

It doesn't mean that at all. It means that if we remain inpenitent and continue to deliberately remain living in sin, there is no sacrifice available. Read the context. You are mistaken. The blood of Jesus covers ALL sin.

And what exactly am I supposed to say in response to a comment like that? You know I don't agree with you, so all I can say is that you are mistaken.

Or you could show me where I am wrong in my assessment of the grammatical structure of Heb. 10:26. How about that?

You are the one who told me I was wrong. I am under no obligation to show you were wrong. As you like to say, the burden of proof is on you.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.

It is plain for anyone to see that the word wilfully is the manner in which the person sins. It is a pre-meditated offense.

I have already provided the proof. Anyone on the boards with any basic grammar skills will agree that the word "sin" is being used as a verb and not as a noun. Even you should be able to see that. You feel no obligation to show me where my assertion is wrong because you have grounds to do so. You can't show me where it is wrong, because it isn't wrong. "willfully is used as an adverb and that is as true as 2+2=4. You can't deny so you pretend that you can keep telling me it is wrong with no obligation to explain why it is wrong. That is just you protecting your pride because my handling of the grammar demonstrates the falsitity of your assertions about "wililful sins."

[Guest Butero]

I just told you what it means.

No, you gave me your own home-made version of what you think it means. You did NOT actually come even close to correctly framing the text, whatsoever.

Again, how do I respond to this? I gave you the correct interpretation, and you think it is wrong because you don't understand it yourself. It goes contrary to your pre-conceived ideas.

Now, you claim this means that for those who deliberately remain in sin, there is no sacrifice for them? How long does that take? How many sins must they commit?

It is not about a particular number. It's about a condition of the heart that loves sin and choose remain in sin and refuses to repent.

Is it because the person gets so hard, they no longer care about their spiritual condition, or do they actually reach a place where they can't find repentance, even if they were to seek it carefully with tears?

In addition to that, this passage still makes it clear that there is something called a wilful sin. That is a kind of sin.

No, it mentions "If we willfully sin.." That is not a "thing." It is describing an action, not a thing. It is not a kind of sin, as if "willfully" is being used as an adjective. It is a deliberate, willful determined attitude of inpenitence for which there is no sacrifice to cover. No provision is made for a person who refuses to repent.

What about the person who doesn't think they need to repent, because they believe their sins are all automatically under the blood?

That is what I was hearing from Tinky. She said she can't go one hour without sinning. I have never heard you make that claim.

I think you are skewing things a bit. None of us go very long without sinning. I need salvation every minute of every day. Tinky's comment was not made by her to imply that she lives in sin. That was not her point. What I was responding to was in the context of a person who doesn't want to stop sinning and looks for opportunities to sin. Your approach here is dishonest and it skews what Tinky meant and the spirit of her comment. I was referring to people in a completely different context and I think you know that, but in absence of a real biblical defense, you felt the need to resort to a less than honest attempt in this discussion.

I said that directly to Tinky, and she never said I was taking her wrong. She said she can't go one hour without committing some kind of sin. That is pretty plain. At the same time, if Tinky comes back and says I took her wrong, and explains what she really meant, I will accept her explaination. Only she knows for sure? I just know what she said, and nobody has to sin every hour of every day.

That is like saying I am trying to maintain citizenship in the United States by not committing a felony.

Your entire view of salvation is ultimately based on works. You treat salvation as a reward for living right.

That is not true. If it were, I wouldn't need Jesus at all. I could just turn over a new leaf and I would be saved. I don't believe anyone can be saved without faith in Christ. Salvation isn't a reward for living right, anymore than my U.S. citizenship is a reward for not committing a felony.

Even in that instance, you are acknowledging someone can lose their salvation by repeated sins.

I pointed out that it is talking about people remaining in sin, failing to repent. The audience is not a saved audience, but is written to Jews of that time period. It is not an epistle to any church.

How can you expect anyone to believe you know what you are talking about when you say something so utterly ridiculous? Of course this letter was written to believers. You can see that throughout the text. In chapter 13:18, he asks them to pray for him. Would he make such a request of unsaved people? His instructions aren't that they get saved, but they are instructions of how to conduct themselves. He calls them brethren in chapter 13:22.

I don't see it as dumb at all. Here is why? If you can't do anything to lose salvation, what do I have to lose in following the law?

Fellowship with the Lord. If I return to the law, then I am not led by the Holy Spirit, which means there is no impediment to keep me from sin. You cannot live effectively as a Christian and you certainly lose the fellowship demension of your relationship with God if you return to the law. You lose a lot, but you don't lose your salvation. You lose peace, you lose contentment, you lose fulfillment. Returning to the law as a means of accessing God's grace means that you deny the sufficiency of Christ.

I happen to believe that Christ frees us from the bondage of sin. I don't believe we have to commit sin each and every day of our lives, at least not intentional sin. What I am finding in this thread is the idea that all Jesus was able to do for us was allow us to remain in a sinful state, but escape the flames of hell. I don't accept that.

On the other hand, if I am right, those who don't continue to live right have everything to lose. Again, I am not saved by works. I am saved by faith in Christ, but if I am really saved, good works will follow.

Ultimately, though your positoin leads to a works-based system of righteousness where you need to maintain salvation by avoiding sin and doing enough good deeds to remain saved. According to you, one sin and you have lost it. So you need to be a bit more honest about where your position ultimately leads.

And again, this is no differen't than saying I must maintain my American citizenship by not commiting a felony. It is not like I live in fear I might commit a felony, because I obey the laws of the land. For that reason, my citizenship is safe. The same thing applies with the kingdom of Heaven. It is not like I fear that I can't make it through the day without intentionally breaking God's laws.

[Guest Butero]

BTW, why isn't everyone saved, if that scripture means what you say it does? Is God incapable of making his will come to pass? God is using our struggles to show the difference between good and evil, and that his ways are the right ways. What is taking place is a testimony to his whole creation that righteousness is superior to unrighteousness.

God has a perfect will and a permissive will. He allows things to happen that He hates. God’s perfect will is that no one should commit murder, but He allows murder to happen. God’s perfect will is that all should come to repentance, but His permissive will allows people to reject His offer of salvation.

Love, by nature, doesn’t force itself on others. Love is meaningless if there is no choice involved. The value of love is that it is given freely without coersion. When someone has a choice and they could have picked anyone else, but they chose you, that is when love shines the brightest. God could have created a bunch of automotons if He that’s what He wanted, but He chose to create us with the ability to choose to love Him.

I have heard ministers speak of this "permissive will of God," but that is not found in scripture. It is a man made doctrine, and is completey false.

It is demonstrated in Scripture over and over. God allows a lot of things that He commands people not to do. What is unbiblical is your view that God promotes sin by wanting people to rape and murder, molest children, lie, steal, etc. Your view is that God's will is for people to disobey Him and that is really a very grave heresy.

And what am I supposed to say to a comment like that? You are mistaken. God created vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor.

LOL, that is referring to service. The point Paul was making is that it the potter that determines how he will use the clay to serve His purposes. A lump of clay can become an exquisite vase in Buckingham palace or it be formed into a common pitcher or bed pan. God calls some to higher demensions of service than He calls others to. It is God's right to use us as He wills. It is not Paul's point at all in the overall context, that God creates people to be murderers or rapists. You have left the realm of Scripture and entered the realm of false teaching.

To say that God promotes sin by creating people to be rapists and stuff is really down right heretical. It appears that you have taken the hypersoveriegnty position and it really has a lot of theological problems as you have so aptly demonstrated.

I haven't found any problems with my position. You can claim it is "leaving the realm of Scripture and entered into the realm of false teaching," and you can claim it "is down right heretical," and my reply will be that you are mistaken because you don't understand the scriptures, and the extent of God's control over his creation.

[Guest Butero]

The sins that are not under the blood covering are wilful sins.

ALL sin is under the blood.nf

"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us ALL our sins." (Colossians 2:13)

All means every single one, Butero

He did forgive us all tresspasses when we came to him as a sinner, but that has nothing to do with what we do after we are initially saved.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. Heb 10:26

What that means is that the initial blood covering isn't automatically applied to wilful transgessions you commit after that salvation experience. You are lost again, and the only way to be saved is to confess those sins and repent. The idea that when you get saved, all past, present and future wilful sins are under the blood is not Biblical. It is a false doctrine that Satan has been peddling, and sadly, a lot of people are going to wind up in hell because they believe it.

It doesn't mean that at all. It means that if we remain inpenitent and continue to deliberately remain living in sin, there is no sacrifice available. Read the context. You are mistaken. The blood of Jesus covers ALL sin.

And what exactly am I supposed to say in response to a comment like that? You know I don't agree with you, so all I can say is that you are mistaken.

Or you could show me where I am wrong in my assessment of the grammatical structure of Heb. 10:26. How about that?

You are the one who told me I was wrong. I am under no obligation to show you were wrong. As you like to say, the burden of proof is on you.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.

It is plain for anyone to see that the word wilfully is the manner in which the person sins. It is a pre-meditated offense.

I have already provided the proof. Anyone on the boards with any basic grammar skills will agree that the word "sin" is being used as a verb and not as a noun. Even you should be able to see that. You feel no obligation to show me where my assertion is wrong because you have grounds to do so. You can't show me where it is wrong, because it isn't wrong. "willfully is used as an adverb and that is as true as 2+2=4. You can't deny so you pretend that you can keep telling me it is wrong with no obligation to explain why it is wrong. That is just you protecting your pride because my handling of the grammar demonstrates the falsitity of your assertions about "wililful sins."

First of all, I was looking into taking on-line courses towards a degree, and I scored a 95 on the English portion, so I think I understand the proper way to interpret the text. Then we come back to your usual style of rebuttle. There is more disagreement, along with accusations. Now it is that I am prideful. How do I respond to that? By saying that you are once again mistaken. You know so little about the book of Hebrews, you think it was written to unbelievers, and at the same time, you claim I am taking the verse in question wrong. I stand by my interpretation as the correct one.

[Tinky]

You are saying you can't go an hour without committing sin. That to me is bondage.

It's a fact of every Christian's life. Until we go to glory, we will struggle with our old nature.

You asked me a question about how many times I have been saved and lost and re-saved? Since I first became a Christian over 30 years ago, I have no way of answering that question.

I have confidence to say, I was saved once. And that's enough. The work of the cross is finished.

That is an interesting question to me, because I have often wondered why Jesus would die on a cross at all? Remember that God himself set the rules. He made the system whereby it would require his own Son suffer and die to redeem us. Why do that in the first place?

It's because God is Holy, Butero. And since He is Holy, His standard for anyone to get into His heaven is perfection. Sinless perfection in thought, word, and deed. If you commit even one sin, you are disqualified. God's punishment for sin is death. And the reason why sin warrants the death penalty, is because sin is so offensive to a Holy and righteous God. It is so heinous, His eyes cannot even look upon it.

That's why Jesus had to come and die in our place. He is our advocate. The perfect sacrifice. The Lamb of God without spot or blemish. That's why His shed blood is so precious. It is the blood of the Holy living God, and it has the power to cover the sins of the whole world.

BTW, Jesus said, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." John 15:14. That is conditional.

And what is commanded? To repent and have faith. Not a laundry list of rules. The Law was nailed to the cross. It's only purpose was to drive us there. The Law was given to prove that we are incapable of keeping it. To show once and for all that we cannot be good enough to earn redemption. To reveal that our only option for salvation is complete surrender to Christ and His finished work at Calvary.

TINKY What kind of salvation offer would allow us to bounce back and forth between the devil and Jesus?

BUTERO This is a good question too. In reality, that doesn't happen. Let me explain. God knew our beginning and ending before we were created in the womb, just as he knew Jeremiah before he was created in the womb. God knew who were the real children of God and who were the real children of the devil from the start. We don't have that knowledge. He knew what seed would fall on good ground, and would remain, and what seed would fail to endure because it didn't fall on good ground. With God, nobody is going back and forth, because our destiny has been set.

Butero, if you lose your salvation with a single willful sin, as you advocate, you lose all privileges associated with salvation - including God adopting you as His child into His family. Thus, you would automatically go back to being a child of the devil, until you repented and got saved again. Because, as you believe, if a saved person dies just after they commit a willful sin, they are cast straight into hell, as you affirmed in the following quote:

TINKY Can you actually accept a scenario where a person could be saved, but just before they suffer a fatal accident and die (such as being struck by a car) they commit a single sin and are thus cast into hell?

BUTERO If it is a wilful sin, yes.

Based on that standard, anyone that claims they got saved as a result of praying a sinner's prayer shares in God's glory, because it was an act on their part that saved them.

No, Butero. It's not an "act" that saves a person when they repent, because the saving part isn't coming from their own power. It comes directly from God. Even the very desire for salvation is a gift from Him.

It's like if you were in an accident and rushed to the hospital. You saying to the doctor, "please, help me" doesn't make you healed - it's the actions of the doctor that gets you fixed up

Well Tinky, I am not going to play the gotcha game with you as some have with me

It's not a "game" Butero. I simply pointed out an inconsistency on your part when you said nobody who continues to sin is actually a Christian, and you said earlier that you are not claiming a sinless life for yourself.

[Guest shiloh357]

The sins that are not under the blood covering are wilful sins.

ALL sin is under the blood.nf

"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us ALL our sins." (Colossians 2:13)

All means every single one, Butero

He did forgive us all tresspasses when we came to him as a sinner, but that has nothing to do with what we do after we are initially saved.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. Heb 10:26

What that means is that the initial blood covering isn't automatically applied to wilful transgessions you commit after that salvation experience. You are lost again, and the only way to be saved is to confess those sins and repent. The idea that when you get saved, all past, present and future wilful sins are under the blood is not Biblical. It is a false doctrine that Satan has been peddling, and sadly, a lot of people are going to wind up in hell because they believe it.

It doesn't mean that at all. It means that if we remain inpenitent and continue to deliberately remain living in sin, there is no sacrifice available. Read the context. You are mistaken. The blood of Jesus covers ALL sin.

And what exactly am I supposed to say in response to a comment like that? You know I don't agree with you, so all I can say is that you are mistaken.

Or you could show me where I am wrong in my assessment of the grammatical structure of Heb. 10:26. How about that?

You are the one who told me I was wrong. I am under no obligation to show you were wrong. As you like to say, the burden of proof is on you.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.

It is plain for anyone to see that the word wilfully is the manner in which the person sins. It is a pre-meditated offense.

I have already provided the proof. Anyone on the boards with any basic grammar skills will agree that the word "sin" is being used as a verb and not as a noun. Even you should be able to see that. You feel no obligation to show me where my assertion is wrong because you have grounds to do so. You can't show me where it is wrong, because it isn't wrong. "willfully is used as an adverb and that is as true as 2+2=4. You can't deny so you pretend that you can keep telling me it is wrong with no obligation to explain why it is wrong. That is just you protecting your pride because my handling of the grammar demonstrates the falsitity of your assertions about "wililful sins."

First of all, I was looking into taking on-line courses towards a degree, and I scored a 95 on the English portion, so I think I understand the proper way to interpret the text. Then we come back to your usual style of rebuttle. There is more disagreement, along with accusations. Now it is that I am prideful. How do I respond to that? By saying that you are once again mistaken. You know so little about the book of Hebrews, you think it was written to unbelievers, and at the same time, you claim I am taking the verse in question wrong. I stand by my interpretation as the correct one.

Okay so show me where my explanation of how verbs and adverbs is wrong. Your interpretation depends on there being a kind of sin called "willful sins." My point has been that it is a needless category because all sins are willfu. To create a special category called "willful sins" is superfluous. It is unnecessary because all sins are acts of opren rebellion against God. You can't rebel on accident. .

The difference between us is that I can take you to the text and show you why your are mistaken. All you can do is deny everything I said, but you can't show me why I am wrong in how I handle the text. You cannot show me why my assertions about verbs and adverbs in the text are wrong. You can deny and stonewall, but you can't form an actual argument. The fact is it is talking about sinning, not sin. It is using sin as a verb not a noun. If it was using it as a noun, you could make the case about "willful sins." But as it is, the text clearly does not speak of a special kind of "wilful sin."

[Guest shiloh357]

BTW, why isn't everyone saved, if that scripture means what you say it does? Is God incapable of making his will come to pass? God is using our struggles to show the difference between good and evil, and that his ways are the right ways. What is taking place is a testimony to his whole creation that righteousness is superior to unrighteousness.

God has a perfect will and a permissive will. He allows things to happen that He hates. God’s perfect will is that no one should commit murder, but He allows murder to happen. God’s perfect will is that all should come to repentance, but His permissive will allows people to reject His offer of salvation.

Love, by nature, doesn’t force itself on others. Love is meaningless if there is no choice involved. The value of love is that it is given freely without coersion. When someone has a choice and they could have picked anyone else, but they chose you, that is when love shines the brightest. God could have created a bunch of automotons if He that’s what He wanted, but He chose to create us with the ability to choose to love Him.

I have heard ministers speak of this "permissive will of God," but that is not found in scripture. It is a man made doctrine, and is completey false.

It is demonstrated in Scripture over and over. God allows a lot of things that He commands people not to do. What is unbiblical is your view that God promotes sin by wanting people to rape and murder, molest children, lie, steal, etc. Your view is that God's will is for people to disobey Him and that is really a very grave heresy.

And what am I supposed to say to a comment like that? You are mistaken. God created vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor.

LOL, that is referring to service. The point Paul was making is that it the potter that determines how he will use the clay to serve His purposes. A lump of clay can become an exquisite vase in Buckingham palace or it be formed into a common pitcher or bed pan. God calls some to higher demensions of service than He calls others to. It is God's right to use us as He wills. It is not Paul's point at all in the overall context, that God creates people to be murderers or rapists. You have left the realm of Scripture and entered the realm of false teaching.

To say that God promotes sin by creating people to be rapists and stuff is really down right heretical. It appears that you have taken the hypersoveriegnty position and it really has a lot of theological problems as you have so aptly demonstrated.

I haven't found any problems with my position. You can claim it is "leaving the realm of Scripture and entered into the realm of false teaching," and you can claim it "is down right heretical," and my reply will be that you are mistaken because you don't understand the scriptures, and the extent of God's control over his creation.

You don't think claiming that a 100% holy God who hates sin and commands us to be perfect as He is perfect (Matt. 5:48), who commands us to be holy as He is holy (I Pet. 1:15,16) is the same God who also wills for people to be raped and to commit murder, adultery, etc. is a problem?? You see absolutely no fundamental contradiction in that at all?? Really??

Why would God go to the trouble to tell us to be holy if in fact, every sin we commit is what He wanted to happen in the first place? The Bible doesn't tell us that God's control over creation extends to micro-managing every action, controlling every person to the extent that He even causes them to sin.

Where in the Bible, specfically did you find Scripture that caused you to arrive at the conclusion that:

• God creates people to destroy them
  
• God chooses people to go to hell
  
• God controls every action and thus every sin committed was according to God's will and that no one can do anything (including murder, rape, child molestation, etc) that God didn't want them to do.
  

Would you provide the Scriptures that led you to those beliefs?

[Guest shiloh357]

Again, how do I respond to this? I gave you the correct interpretation, and you think it is wrong because you don't understand it yourself. It goes contrary to your pre-conceived ideas.

No you didn't give an interpretation at all. Interpretation depends on correctly handling the grammatical structure. Your "interpretation is not an interpretation at all, at least not if we go by the conventional use of the term. The interpretation of a passage leads the meaning out of the text. You are reading something into the text that is not there and you are ignoring basic English grammar to do it. That is not interpretation. That is just sloppy. You are ignoring the object the author has in view in favor of your homemade theology.

Now, you claim this means that for those who deliberately remain in sin, there is no sacrifice for them? How long does that take? How many sins must they commit?

As stated earlier, it is not about a particular number of sins, but on the condition of a heart that loves to sin and lives for sin.

Is it because the person gets so hard, they no longer care about their spiritual condition, or do they actually reach a place where they can't find repentance, even if they were to seek it carefully with tears?

Your heart can get so hard that you can't repent. The longer a person remains in sin, the harder it becomes to hear the voice of God. Eventually, God ceases to deal witih that person and gives them over to their sin.

In addition to that, this passage still makes it clear that there is something called a wilful sin. That is a kind of sin.

If it read, "if you continue to commit willful sins..." I would agree with you. In that case "sins" would be treated as a noun. But that is not what the passage says. It is saying that if you keep on willfully sinning..." It is using sin as a verb which means that it doesn't have a kind of sin in view, but a manner of sinning in view.

That is not true. If it were, I wouldn't need Jesus at all. I could just turn over a new leaf and I would be saved. I don't believe anyone can be saved without faith in Christ. Salvation isn't a reward for living right, anymore than my U.S. citizenship is a reward for not committing a felony.

Ultimately, whether you admit it or not, your view is that salvation is gained by what you do, and the blood of Jesus is not entirely sufficient for salvation. In addition to your hereteical, extremist and bizzare take on the sovereignty of God, you teach a false gospel of works and your views do not reflect the authentic NT faith.

Even in that instance, you are acknowledging someone can lose their salvation by repeated sins.

No I am not at all. That is just you reading what you want into my words, because you can't really must up a biblical argument.

How can you expect anyone to believe you know what you are talking about when you say something so utterly ridiculous? Of course this letter was written to believers. You can see that throughout the text. In chapter 13:18, he asks them to pray for him. Would he make such a request of unsaved people? His instructions aren't that they get saved, but they are instructions of how to conduct themselves. He calls them brethren in chapter 13:22.

The book of Hebrews is written to Jews. It is not written to a particular church. There are no greetings to any congregation and there are no mentions of farewells at the end. It is addressed to Jews in general. The letter is anonymously written unlike letters to churches and the reference to "brethren" indicates tha the author is a Jew, himslef. This reads more like dissertation and draws heavily on the temple culture that Jews would have been intimately familiar with. That is not to say it wans't distributed to believers, but there is nothing it the text to indicate that the primary audience was intended to be Christians. That is written to Jews and distributed to those who were not bleievers in particular doesn't provide a problem at all. If there was ANY group you would want to read the book of Hebrews, it is unbelieving Jews.

I happen to believe that Christ frees us from the bondage of sin. I don't believe we have to commit sin each and every day of our lives, at least not intentional sin.

But why would God free you from the bondage of sin, only to cause you to keep on sinning? Every sin you commit, according to you, is because God intended it. According to your views, nothing happens that God didn't want to happen. So every "willful sin" as you call it is really God's will. Why would God go to the trouble of telling you to be holy as He is holy but then cause you to sin??? I am interested in how you reconcile that.

And again, this is no differen't than saying I must maintain my American citizenship by not commiting a felony. It is not like I live in fear I might commit a felony, because I obey the laws of the land. For that reason, my citizenship is safe.

But you have repeatedly stated that one intentional sin and salvation is lost. You might not have committed a single "intentinoal sin" for the last 25 years and served God faithfully, and yet lose everything over one intentional sin and then die 10 seconds later before being able to repent of it. In your theology, your heavenly citizenship is lost forever. That is where your analogy breaks down.

What I am finding in this thread is the idea that all Jesus was able to do for us was allow us to remain in a sinful state, but escape the flames of hell. I don't accept that.

I don't think that is a claim anyone has made, but I can see that it won't stop you from putting the lie in our mouths and then argue against it in order to deflect from your inabiility to post Scripture to support your heretical claims.

[Openly Curious]

'Tinky' timestamp='1368728462' post='1951849

And no Christian can commit the unpardonable sin for the simple reason that on the matter of salvation, the issue is settled, his sins are already pardoned. Jesus paid the whole price. All of a Christian's sins have been forgiven - past, present, and future.

I have to respectfully disagree with you here Tinky. I use to think that "no" Christian could commit the unpardonable sin but this is what changed my mind. The scripture in...... Romans 10:13 says........"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved".........The "WHOSOEVER" in this verse of scripture literally means anybody without respect of persons that God will forgive them for there tresspasses and sins. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Now listen to the words that Jesus spoke in the scripture found in - - Matthew 12:31-32 says - - Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy "Shall" be forgiven unto men: - but - the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost "Shall Not" be forgiven unto men. And "WHOSOEVER" - speaketh a word against the Son of man - it - "Shall" be forgiven him: - - But - -"WHOSOEVER"- speaketh against the Holy Ghost, - it - "Shall Not" - - be forgiven him, - - neither in this world, - - neither in the world to come. (sorry for the continued underlining here it seems that my bold, underline and shift down buttons are stuck???) - - - - - - - -But getting back to the subject the word "whosoever" literally means just that, if any one including Christians and sinners alike. For if anyone commits the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost then they "will not" ever be forgiven for doing so in this world and in the world to come. In the scripture1 Corinthian 5:11-21 it says in vs.19..."To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;" Jesus also said in John 10:36-38..."Say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world. Thou blasphemest: because I said, I am the Son of God?...If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not ...But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Jesus out right tells them hey if you do not believe that I am the Son of God that one spotless lamb sent into the world by God the Father as the sacrifice to pay the ransom price that the world could be reconciled with the Father. Then speak against me don't believe me that I'm not the Son of God sent into the world then don't. But Jesus said futher that if he did the works the Father sent him to do "then believe" in the works of the Holy Ghost (Spirit) that God is doing through me. So that you can see and know without doubt that God was in him showing demonstrating his love towards them then believe in the power of God. Believe in the miracles that God was doing in him and believe God was in him and that he was in him. For God became flesh and dwelt among us. But instead they spoke against the power of God working through Jesus they denied the power of God in Christ and contributed it to the work and power of Satan. Thus they did away with any hope of their salvation because of their unbelief coming out against God's power being manifested through the Holy Ghost of God. Jesus said basically you can speak against me all you want and you can upon confession be forgiven. But if you speak against the power (works) of the Holy Ghost of God the Father then that sin is unpardonable. Because they don't believe that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. Apostle Paul said, "For I'm not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation. Being that Christ is preach and him crucified. No matter ones stature in this life "Whosoever" denies and speaks out against the power (works) that God did through his only begotten Son will be eternally lost because of their own profession.

[Guest shiloh357]

I have to respectfully disagree with you here Tinky. I use to think that "no" Christian could commit the unpardonable sin but this is what changed my mind. The scripture in...... Romans 10:13 says........"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved".........The "WHOSOEVER" in this verse of scripture literally means anybody without respect of persons that God will forgive them for there tresspasses and sins. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Now listen to the words that Jesus spoke in the scripture found in - - Matthew 12:31-32 says - - Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy "Shall" be forgiven unto men: - but - the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost "Shall Not" be forgiven unto men. And "WHOSOEVER" - speaketh a word against the Son of man - it - "Shall" be forgiven him: - - But - -"WHOSOEVER"- speaketh against the Holy Ghost, - it - "Shall Not" - - be forgiven him, - - neither in this world, - - neither in the world to come. (sorry for the continued underlining here it seems that my bold, underline and shift down buttons are stuck???) - - - - - - - -But getting back to the subject the word "whosoever" literally means just that, if any one including Christians and sinners alike. For if anyone commits the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost then they "will not" ever be forgiven for doing so in this world and in the world to come.

You're pushing the "whosoever" thing a bit too far. In both cases, the word "whosoever" is referring to sinners/unbelievers. Why would Christians call on the Lord to be saved, as they are already saved. The offer is made to unbelievers in that whosoever among them calls upon the Lord will be saved. In the same way, the "whosoever" in Matt. 12 is referring to unbelievers. It makes no sense to include believers in either passage you cite above.

Explain this: Why would a Chrisitan blaspheme the Holy Spirit in the first place?? How could a person filled, indwelt and empowered by the Holy Spirit blaspheme the same Holy Spirit? Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an attempt to slander God's reputation. It is rooted in unblief. So how could a believer commit a sin that is rooted in denying the very one He believes in?

"Whosoever" denies and speaks out against the power (works) that God did through his only begotten Son will be eternally lost because of their own profession.

That is a common mistake people make. In the context of Matt. 21, the "speaking against the Holy Spirit" is referencing blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. You need to follow the line of thought. Secondly, the reason it is unforgiveable is because the kind of person who would commit such a sin is irretrievably wicked. They have no moral compunction no shame or remorse for their sin. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit stems from a heart that is caught in a determined and inmovable rejection of Jesus.