IS THE UNPARDONABLE SIN - SINGULAR?

[Dennis1209]

The addition of a commentary made this lengthy, but it gave me some additional insight. I would like to hear your thoughts.

How many singular unpardonable sins are there? Outright rejection of Christ, blaspheming the Holy Spirit, taking the Mark of the Beast, apostasy, and Hebrews 6:4-6?

Scripture inserts conditional clauses with Salvation, using conjunctions (joining) if, and continuing, i.e.

 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. (Romans 11:22)

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; (Colossians 1:23)

Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. (1 John 2:24) [emphasis added]

I have mused over Hebrews 6:4-6 for a long time and its meaning. I have studied it and read many commentaries for personal application. I recently purchased the Pillar commentary series; for me, it is the best-explained commentary.

It seems Hebrews 6:4-6 can be associated with blaspheming the Holy Spirit and apostasy. I surmise this is only applied to the audience being spoken to, the Jews and apostasy reverting to Judaism after they witnessed Jesus in person. The following is a snippet of the summary, and very well explained:

Hebrews 6:6 When such people fall away, it is truly a disaster. The literal meaning of the term that is translated “fall away” (parapesontas) is to fall beside. When it is used figuratively, it means to go astray or to err. The most important background to the author’s usage is found in the prophet Ezekiel. He uses the term for a nation or an individual that is unfaithful to the Lord (14:13; 15:8; 18:24; 20:27; 22:4). In other words, it refers to apostasy.

In the scenario the author has described, it is impossible to renew the apostates and bring them to repentance. The reason why it is impossible is that they are crucifying the Son of God, figuratively speaking. Crucifixion, in addition to being excruciatingly painful, was an extremely shameful way of death. The victims were tortured, made to carry their own cross to the place of execution, nailed naked to the cross, and left to die a slow and agonizing death while any passersby could watch them writhe in pain, hear their wailing, see their despair, and observe the manner in which they faced death. All their dignity was stripped away.¹⁸¹

Those who have enjoyed the gifts of Christ and then proceed to spurn those gifts are exposing Christ to unspeakable shame. They belittle his sacrifice and deny the glory that he has won. Calvin aptly observes, “it would be wholly unbecoming, that God by pardoning apostates should expose his own Son to contempt. They are then wholly unworthy to obtain mercy.”

Excursus: The Impossibility of Repentance

In the history of interpretation, this passage has often been understood as a denial of the opportunity for repentance after serious sins or apostasy. The Montanists (second and third centuries) maintained that serious postbaptismal sins could not be forgiven, and the Novatians (third century) refused to accept the repentance of those who under persecution had denied Christ. They both appealed to this passage in Hebrews as their warrant. The prevalence of their views was one of the reasons why there were some doubts about Hebrews’ place in the canon.¹⁸⁴

However, the author probably intended to make a different point. His concern was to show the danger in which the audience members were about to put themselves if they turned away from Christ. In Christ, God had given them everything he had. If they were capable of walking away from that, they would have passed the point of no return.

What the author describes is not simply a rejection of God. It is a qualified rejection. The hypothetical case is someone who not only rejects God based on what one has heard about him or what one has learned about him. Such a person could be persuaded to change one’s mind if one were able to see for oneself what God had done, if one could sample his gifts, if one could experience his love, if one could genuinely participate in his gift of the Holy Spirit. But a person who has enjoyed all God’s gifts, who knows what God can do, but rejects him—such a person has put oneself outside the possibility of repentance.

That is the seriousness of the audience’s situation. In the Son, God has revealed himself fully. He has pulled out all the stops. He has allowed the audience to be enlightened, to sample the heavenly gift, to become sharers of the Holy Spirit, to taste the sweetness of God’s word as well as the miraculous powers of the world to come. When people who have had such experiences walk away, God does not have another ace to play. He has already played them all.

A comparison with what Jesus refers to as the unforgivable sin may be illuminating. When his opponents accused him of casting out demons by Beelzebul, Jesus exclaimed, “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt 12:32). As Jesus also pointed to his casting out the demons as proof that God’s kingly rule was present (Matt 12:28 parr.), those who witnessed these expulsions would have witnessed God’s decisive, eschatological intervention in this world. They had not only been exposed to a rumor of what Jesus could do or heard a testimony about his divine power. They had seen it and encountered it. They not only refused to accept what others told them about Jesus; they denied what they themselves had seen and heard. Not only had they met the earthly Jesus, who concealed his divine power under the guise of a humble human being; they had witnessed him unleashing the powers of the new creation, the divine power to establish the unopposed rule of God. God’s salvation miraculously emerged in front of their eyes. And they attributed it to the evil one. This kind of willful, stubborn rejection, in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary, puts a person in a position in which one’s sins cannot be forgiven.

Jesus’s words about the unforgivable sin belong in a different context, as they were spoken to his opponents, not to followers who were in danger of leaving. Nevertheless, the main point is comparable: no path to salvation is left for those who are in the privileged position of having experienced God’s salvific power but who reject it.

The flip side of the author’s warning is that God does not force himself on people in such a way that no one can resist him. He uses the compelling force of love. It is possible to spurn this love. Then, the road to salvation is blocked.

The pastoral implication of this interpretation is that the impossibility of repentance is not a prohibition of repentance. It does not mean that certain sins are beyond God’s capacity for forgiveness or that there are certain individuals who are not allowed to come to Christ. The author’s warning does not stand in tension with the central biblical ideas that Jesus accepts anyone who comes to him (Matt 11:28; John 6:37; Rev 22:17) and that he is always ready to forgive any sin, with no exceptions (1 John 1:9; 2:1–2).

However, the seriousness of the warning is that there is only one remedy for sins: the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If that remedy is rejected, there is no other.^[1]

 

 

---

^[1] Grindheim, Sigurd. The Letter to the Hebrews. Edited by D. A. Carson, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2023, pp. 314–17.

[Sower]

3 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

How many singular unpardonable sins are there?

              "singular unpardonable sins?"

Didn't know there was more than one. Shucks...

A lot of tough meat there to chew on, and swallow, or not.
Thank God for his word, at the exclusion of man's ideas.
Well, I know who I have believed in. And, I have been convinced.
God alone  is able   to keep that understanding I have committed/believed to Him.
Till he appears. I am not able to keep myself saved, but He is. As says the word.
Never leave nor forsake me. Not I but Christ!  No codicils implied/added.

It's what I believe, even amongst so many 'new revelations' floating around.
Theologian I'm not. Spirit led I (hope/pray) am.
(We're  getting close when even the elect may/will be deceived)

Thanks, Dennis. I shall ponder the replies to come...
You always make me think..

[PATrobas]

4 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

The addition of a commentary made this lengthy, but it gave me some additional insight. I would like to hear your thoughts.

How many singular unpardonable sins are there? Outright rejection of Christ, blaspheming the Holy Spirit, taking the Mark of the Beast, apostasy, and Hebrews 6:4-6?

Scripture inserts conditional clauses with Salvation, using conjunctions (joining) if, and continuing, i.e.

 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. (Romans 11:22)

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; (Colossians 1:23)

Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. (1 John 2:24) [emphasis added]

I have mused over Hebrews 6:4-6 for a long time and its meaning. I have studied it and read many commentaries for personal application. I recently purchased the Pillar commentary series; for me, it is the best-explained commentary.

It seems Hebrews 6:4-6 can be associated with blaspheming the Holy Spirit and apostasy. I surmise this is only applied to the audience being spoken to, the Jews and apostasy reverting to Judaism after they witnessed Jesus in person. The following is a snippet of the summary, and very well explained:

Hebrews 6:6 When such people fall away, it is truly a disaster. The literal meaning of the term that is translated “fall away” (parapesontas) is to fall beside. When it is used figuratively, it means to go astray or to err. The most important background to the author’s usage is found in the prophet Ezekiel. He uses the term for a nation or an individual that is unfaithful to the Lord (14:13; 15:8; 18:24; 20:27; 22:4). In other words, it refers to apostasy.

In the scenario the author has described, it is impossible to renew the apostates and bring them to repentance. The reason why it is impossible is that they are crucifying the Son of God, figuratively speaking. Crucifixion, in addition to being excruciatingly painful, was an extremely shameful way of death. The victims were tortured, made to carry their own cross to the place of execution, nailed naked to the cross, and left to die a slow and agonizing death while any passersby could watch them writhe in pain, hear their wailing, see their despair, and observe the manner in which they faced death. All their dignity was stripped away.¹⁸¹

Those who have enjoyed the gifts of Christ and then proceed to spurn those gifts are exposing Christ to unspeakable shame. They belittle his sacrifice and deny the glory that he has won. Calvin aptly observes, “it would be wholly unbecoming, that God by pardoning apostates should expose his own Son to contempt. They are then wholly unworthy to obtain mercy.”

Excursus: The Impossibility of Repentance

In the history of interpretation, this passage has often been understood as a denial of the opportunity for repentance after serious sins or apostasy. The Montanists (second and third centuries) maintained that serious postbaptismal sins could not be forgiven, and the Novatians (third century) refused to accept the repentance of those who under persecution had denied Christ. They both appealed to this passage in Hebrews as their warrant. The prevalence of their views was one of the reasons why there were some doubts about Hebrews’ place in the canon.¹⁸⁴

However, the author probably intended to make a different point. His concern was to show the danger in which the audience members were about to put themselves if they turned away from Christ. In Christ, God had given them everything he had. If they were capable of walking away from that, they would have passed the point of no return.

What the author describes is not simply a rejection of God. It is a qualified rejection. The hypothetical case is someone who not only rejects God based on what one has heard about him or what one has learned about him. Such a person could be persuaded to change one’s mind if one were able to see for oneself what God had done, if one could sample his gifts, if one could experience his love, if one could genuinely participate in his gift of the Holy Spirit. But a person who has enjoyed all God’s gifts, who knows what God can do, but rejects him—such a person has put oneself outside the possibility of repentance.

That is the seriousness of the audience’s situation. In the Son, God has revealed himself fully. He has pulled out all the stops. He has allowed the audience to be enlightened, to sample the heavenly gift, to become sharers of the Holy Spirit, to taste the sweetness of God’s word as well as the miraculous powers of the world to come. When people who have had such experiences walk away, God does not have another ace to play. He has already played them all.

A comparison with what Jesus refers to as the unforgivable sin may be illuminating. When his opponents accused him of casting out demons by Beelzebul, Jesus exclaimed, “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt 12:32). As Jesus also pointed to his casting out the demons as proof that God’s kingly rule was present (Matt 12:28 parr.), those who witnessed these expulsions would have witnessed God’s decisive, eschatological intervention in this world. They had not only been exposed to a rumor of what Jesus could do or heard a testimony about his divine power. They had seen it and encountered it. They not only refused to accept what others told them about Jesus; they denied what they themselves had seen and heard. Not only had they met the earthly Jesus, who concealed his divine power under the guise of a humble human being; they had witnessed him unleashing the powers of the new creation, the divine power to establish the unopposed rule of God. God’s salvation miraculously emerged in front of their eyes. And they attributed it to the evil one. This kind of willful, stubborn rejection, in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary, puts a person in a position in which one’s sins cannot be forgiven.

Jesus’s words about the unforgivable sin belong in a different context, as they were spoken to his opponents, not to followers who were in danger of leaving. Nevertheless, the main point is comparable: no path to salvation is left for those who are in the privileged position of having experienced God’s salvific power but who reject it.

The flip side of the author’s warning is that God does not force himself on people in such a way that no one can resist him. He uses the compelling force of love. It is possible to spurn this love. Then, the road to salvation is blocked.

The pastoral implication of this interpretation is that the impossibility of repentance is not a prohibition of repentance. It does not mean that certain sins are beyond God’s capacity for forgiveness or that there are certain individuals who are not allowed to come to Christ. The author’s warning does not stand in tension with the central biblical ideas that Jesus accepts anyone who comes to him (Matt 11:28; John 6:37; Rev 22:17) and that he is always ready to forgive any sin, with no exceptions (1 John 1:9; 2:1–2).

However, the seriousness of the warning is that there is only one remedy for sins: the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If that remedy is rejected, there is no other.^[1]

 

 

---

^[1] Grindheim, Sigurd. The Letter to the Hebrews. Edited by D. A. Carson, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2023, pp. 314–17.

Brother Dennis, I will offer then my thoughts as I see it, as follows: The theme of the book of Hebrews is REST. That is what comes when trusting and believing the promises of God. The people the author was speaking to were Born again Jews. Some of them, due to peer pressure or weakness because of lack of solid fundamental teaching, began to take part in the OT sacrifices again as if they had never been saved by the once for all sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. In the old law, when they fell away and sinned (after having their sins covered by the animal sacrifice) they were to bring a new sacrifice and kill it to atone for their sins AGAIN, and AGAIN and AGAIN, etc. Heb. 6:6 is saying it is not that way with the New Covenant. It is impossible to be Born Again, AGAIN (renew them AGAIN to repentance). Later in Hebrews it talks of the sufficiency of the ONCE FOR ALL death of Christ for all sins forever. By rejecting this truth they were trying to repeat their confession of salvation by being Born again, again, which is impossible to do. If you are truly born again, it only takes place once, forever. You can’t be Born Again, again. Should these babes in Christ continue in their not acknowledging the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice once for all, they only produce dead works and are NEAR unto cursing. They are of those branches in John 15 that quit producing fruit, are pruned and all those little sticks are good for is to  be put  in a pile and burn them so they don’t clutter the ground. The admonishment is not that they could lose their salvation and never have the chance to come back, nor that they were never born again in the first place, otherwise the text would be saying that it would be impossible for God to intervene in their life and save them once they reject the Gospel. But to quit fooling around and stand on the assurance of the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice  once for all to save. Thanks Dennis for the chance to discuss.

[Dennis1209]

13 hours ago, PATrobas said:

Brother Dennis, I will offer then my thoughts as I see it, as follows: The theme of the book of Hebrews is REST. That is what comes when trusting and believing the promises of God. The people the author was speaking to were Born again Jews. Some of them, due to peer pressure or weakness because of lack of solid fundamental teaching, began to take part in the OT sacrifices again as if they had never been saved by the once for all sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. In the old law, when they fell away and sinned (after having their sins covered by the animal sacrifice) they were to bring a new sacrifice and kill it to atone for their sins AGAIN, and AGAIN and AGAIN, etc. Heb. 6:6 is saying it is not that way with the New Covenant. It is impossible to be Born Again, AGAIN (renew them AGAIN to repentance). Later in Hebrews it talks of the sufficiency of the ONCE FOR ALL death of Christ for all sins forever. By rejecting this truth they were trying to repeat their confession of salvation by being Born again, again, which is impossible to do. If you are truly born again, it only takes place once, forever. You can’t be Born Again, again. Should these babes in Christ continue in their not acknowledging the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice once for all, they only produce dead works and are NEAR unto cursing. They are of those branches in John 15 that quit producing fruit, are pruned and all those little sticks are good for is to  be put  in a pile and burn them so they don’t clutter the ground. The admonishment is not that they could lose their salvation and never have the chance to come back, nor that they were never born again in the first place, otherwise the text would be saying that it would be impossible for God to intervene in their life and save them once they reject the Gospel. But to quit fooling around and stand on the assurance of the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice  once for all to save. Thanks Dennis for the chance to discuss.

 

I think your view is spot-on. The audience was messianic Jews, and the apparent subject was animal sacrifice, reverting (or continuing), the Law, and Judaism.

As a Gentile, I asked a question to paraphrase and expand upon: Is there a personal application for me here, or does it also apply to the churches and this age? As I prepared to discuss this further with you, another thought popped into my head. Continual sacrifice: who would do this in the modern age, omitting orthodox Jewry?

The Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist is outlined by the Council of Trent, emphasizing it as both a sacrament and a sacrifice. The Eucharist is believed to be the true body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. The doctrine includes the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the concept of transubstantiation, and the mode of Christ's presence. The article also discusses the institution of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, fulfilling Old Testament prophecies and continuing the sacrificial worship in the Church. Adoration, reservation, and reverence for the Blessed Sacrament are highlighted, emphasizing the supreme worship due to the Eucharist as the presence of God. The article provides insights from various theologians and historical perspectives on the Eucharistic doctrine within the Catholic Church.¹

¹ A Catholic Dictionary

This practice is disturbing. In other words, Catholicism believes they are eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking His blood. They must partake of their Eucharist frequently to remain saved. It is NOT a commemorative act of "do this in remembrance of Me." In effigy, they are sacrificing the Lord over, over, and over again, in cannibalism.  

As mentioned, in my mind, the more I study God's word, the more I am grappling with the OSAS doctrine. As quoted in my sample listing of biblical verses in my original post, these are conjunctions conditional clauses to obtain something, if, and continue. The question is: what if NOT, or not until the end?

The unpardonable sin: But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. (Matthew 12:24)

I envision three unpardonable sins:

The miracles of Jesus were performed through the power of the Holy Spirit, therefore calling God the Devil. Many Pharisees were eyewitnesses to His teachings and miracles of God, and they were without excuse. Can the unpardonable sin be committed today? Based on the definition of blasphemy, I believe so:

Blasphemy is more than just swearing, encompassing contempt or slander towards God. In the Old Testament, blasphemy is viewed as speaking of God with contempt or acting as if He is irrelevant. In the New Testament, blasphemy indicates a hostile attitude towards God expressed in contemptuous or slanderous ways. Jesus was accused of blasphemy for claiming rights and powers belonging to God. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is considered an unforgivable sin, as seen in rejecting God's presence and power displayed through Christ. The unforgivable sin is not limited to Jesus' time but remains a danger for those who show contempt towards God. It is crucial for believers to honor God in their lives to avoid eliciting contempt towards Him.²

² New International Encyclopedia of Bible Words

In the singular sense, we speak of the unpardonable sin as only one. What about those who take the mark of the Beast. Are they still eligible for repentance and Salvation? Absolutely not; this, too, is an unpardonable sin, and I have a suspicion why.

There are people in cults, entertainment, politics, and sports who have sold their souls to the Devil and worshipped him for fame, wealth, power, glory, talent, and ability. There are testimonies of some who saw the light, repented, turned to Christianity, and were saved. To name two, the testimonies of Ozzy Osbourne and Alice Cooper are interesting. Therefore, if this is true, devil worship is not an unpardonable sin.

Lastly, some outright reject the Gospel, and some procrastinate, sitting on the fence trying to decide. At their last breath, their last heartbeat, their fate is sealed for all eternity. This is also an unforgivable sin, the rejection of Christ, with no second chances of repentance or changing one's mind.

[PATrobas]

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

I think your view is spot-on. The audience was messianic Jews, and the apparent subject was animal sacrifice, reverting (or continuing), the Law, and Judaism.

As a Gentile, I asked a question to paraphrase and expand upon: Is there a personal application for me here, or does it also apply to the churches and this age? \

Hey Dennis, as your post-script says, these are just my opinions. The application for us who are born again is to REST in the declarations of God. Heb 3:18  "And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief."  These are not 'unbelievers/unsaved' but believers not resting in the promise of God. The application for us is Heb 4:1  "Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it."

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

The Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist is outlined by the Council of Trent, emphasizing it as both a sacrament and a sacrifice. The Eucharist is believed to be the true body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. The doctrine includes the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the concept of transubstantiation, and the mode of Christ's presence. The article also discusses the institution of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, fulfilling Old Testament prophecies and continuing the sacrificial worship in the Church. Adoration, reservation, and reverence for the Blessed Sacrament are highlighted, emphasizing the supreme worship due to the Eucharist as the presence of God. The article provides insights from various theologians and historical perspectives on the Eucharistic doctrine within the Catholic Church.¹

¹ A Catholic Dictionary

Yep, this is their practice and doctrine, but the difference in them is that they aren't coming from a born again experience to begin with so are as un-saved Jews offering in-effective and worthless sacrifices. Their inability to correctly explain John 6 (eat my body and drink my blood) is where they come up with transubstantiation. Remember, they call their daily ceremony "The sacrifice of the Mass." There is much mixture of Judaism ceremony in the RCC tradition. (Miniature Holy of Holies on the alter where the "body of Christ" eucharists are hidden, etc.)

 

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

I envision three unpardonable sins:

The miracles of Jesus were performed through the power of the Holy Spirit, therefore calling God the Devil. Many Pharisees were eyewitnesses to His teachings and miracles of God, and they were without excuse. Can the unpardonable sin be committed today? Based on the definition of blasphemy, I believe so:

Blasphemy is more than just swearing, encompassing contempt or slander towards God. In the Old Testament, blasphemy is viewed as speaking of God with contempt or acting as if He is irrelevant. In the New Testament, blasphemy indicates a hostile attitude towards God expressed in contemptuous or slanderous ways. Jesus was accused of blasphemy for claiming rights and powers belonging to God. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is considered an unforgivable sin, as seen in rejecting God's presence and power displayed through Christ. The unforgivable sin is not limited to Jesus' time but remains a danger for those who show contempt towards God. It is crucial for believers to honor God in their lives to avoid eliciting contempt towards Him.²

² New International Encyclopedia of Bible Words

In the singular sense, we speak of the unpardonable sin as only one. What about those who take the mark of the Beast. Are they still eligible for repentance and Salvation? Absolutely not; this, too, is an unpardonable sin, and I have a suspicion why.

There are people in cults, entertainment, politics, and sports who have sold their souls to the Devil and worshipped him for fame, wealth, power, glory, talent, and ability. There are testimonies of some who saw the light, repented, turned to Christianity, and were saved. To name two, the testimonies of Ozzy Osbourne and Alice Cooper are interesting. Therefore, if this is true, devil worship is not an unpardonable sin.

Lastly, some outright reject the Gospel, and some procrastinate, sitting on the fence trying to decide. At their last breath, their last heartbeat, their fate is sealed for all eternity. This is also an unforgivable sin, the rejection of Christ, with no second chances of repentance or changing one's mind.

Blasphemy of the HS as the unpardonable sin is a tricky subject that I'm not sure about totally. I think that because it is the HS's job to present the Gospel to our spirits, that when someone rejects His prompting, they are saying the Gospel isn't true, it's a lie, and this would be blasphemy against Him. Attributing God's work as a work of Satan. As Jesus paid for ALL sins, then to categorize some as being worse than others not covered under His blood is not correct. Blasphemy against the HS is simply rejection of the Gospel. It is called a "sin" and thereby unpardonable until the person either repents and believes or they die and remain unsaved. There are many who reject the Gospel at first then come to faith, therefore the "unpardonable sin" is pardoned. These are grey areas for me though. It is like not calling faith "work". I know it is not a work yet we are making a decision to believe. Grey stuff to me.

 

 

[Dennis1209]

2 hours ago, PATrobas said:

Hey Dennis, as your post-script says, these are just my opinions. The application for us who are born again is to REST in the declarations of God. Heb 3:18  "And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief."  These are not 'unbelievers/unsaved' but believers not resting in the promise of God. The application for us is Heb 4:1  "Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it."

Yep, this is their practice and doctrine, but the difference in them is that they aren't coming from a born again experience to begin with so are as un-saved Jews offering in-effective and worthless sacrifices. Their inability to correctly explain John 6 (eat my body and drink my blood) is where they come up with transubstantiation. Remember, they call their daily ceremony "The sacrifice of the Mass." There is much mixture of Judaism ceremony in the RCC tradition. (Miniature Holy of Holies on the alter where the "body of Christ" eucharists are hidden, etc.)

 

Blasphemy of the HS as the unpardonable sin is a tricky subject that I'm not sure about totally. I think that because it is the HS's job to present the Gospel to our spirits, that when someone rejects His prompting, they are saying the Gospel isn't true, it's a lie, and this would be blasphemy against Him. Attributing God's work as a work of Satan. As Jesus paid for ALL sins, then to categorize some as being worse than others not covered under His blood is not correct. Blasphemy against the HS is simply rejection of the Gospel. It is called a "sin" and thereby unpardonable until the person either repents and believes or they die and remain unsaved. There are many who reject the Gospel at first then come to faith, therefore the "unpardonable sin" is pardoned. These are grey areas for me though. It is like not calling faith "work". I know it is not a work yet we are making a decision to believe. Grey stuff to me.

 

 

Yep, there are more than several gray areas in the Bible I am unsettled about. One of the top questions I hear on Christian programs is whether I can commit an unpardonable sin. The standard response is that you probably have not if you are asking and concerned.

I appreciate the conversation and your opinions. Scholars and theologians seem more divided on this and every other topic than on WCF.

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

There is only 1 unforgivable sin. Intentionally rejecting the truth and forgiveness of Jesus after knowing the truth. Everything up until this can be forgiven, but once this is done, a person is pushed past the point of repentance. This is not because Jesus won't forgive the person, but because the person has hardened their heart so much that they are no longer able to seek forgiveness. 

[other one]

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a sin that I understand is not forgivable.   I would assume that there are more than one way to do that.   I think worshiping the Beast, and taking the mark of the Beast, seem to be a final condemnation not recoverable from.

[Your closest friendnt]

8 hours ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

There is only 1 unforgivable sin. Intentionally rejecting the truth and forgiveness of Jesus after knowing the truth. Everything up until this can be forgiven, but once this is done, a person is pushed past the point of repentance. This is not because Jesus won't forgive the person, but because the person has hardened their heart so much that they are no longer able to seek forgiveness. 

All sins that lead to condemnation are forgiven but they are not counted as forgiven till the individual believes. Which means that Jesus will accept anyone's faith no matter what his past attitude towards him and God it was. Which is telling us that there are not unforgivable sins. Any one who dies with the knowledge of the Gospel and the refusal to believe till the last moment of his life he will die in his sins regardless of his self righteousness at the time of his death. And regardless if he believes in God or not. The unbeliever cannot commit the sin against the Holy spirit because only a believer who is eligible for the gifts of the Holy Spirit can offend the Holy Spirit in a way that the offender has to live his life in a way without the gifts of the Holy Spirit. He will have the fellowship and the protection of the Holy Spirit because it represents Jesus and because Jesus will not withhold his fellowship from him as he is his own and he can still help him and minister to him by sending Angels and other believersto his help and give him messages throughthem. This is all scripture base and there is nothing in the scriptures that a believer can be deny the fellowship of Jesus Christ or the help from Angels under the authority of Jesus Christ.  One example is not only of Paul but from most of the believers who were not born in Christian families and most often is that they first refuse to believe defending the faith they were born in and then they believe at a later time. The pivotal point is to die in the faith of Jesus Christ.

Edited May 8, 2024 by Your closest friendnt

[Your closest friendnt]

8 hours ago, other one said:

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a sin that I understand is not forgivable.   I would assume that there are more than one way to do that.   I think worshiping the Beast, and taking the mark of the Beast, seem to be a final condemnation not recoverable from.

The last statement in your post is questionable. Because not all who will worship the beast will be in the denial of Jesus Christ. To deny faith in Jesus Christ and dieing in the denial is the pivotal point of being perished, because the faith in Jesus Christ after death is not counted. The faith out of the body is not counted. If they died in their sins they will remain in their sins for ever. After death definitely every one who did not believe will believe. There also believers who will worship the image of the beast for their own reasons. We always have and will have secret believers. They are always rebels in any situation. Rebellion against let's say the beast may be punishable by the beast or his agents. The people continue to worship in the Temple after the veil was torn twain and while someone else had taken the place of their Lord their God and that one was not Jesus Christ. 

Edited May 8, 2024 by Your closest friendnt