The unpardonable sin

[seanD]

Here's my view:

A person that leaves the faith (and by leaving the faith, this can be physical or mental or both) to do their own thing = backslider.

A person that leaves the faith and actually attacks the faith = unpardonable sin.

The former can come back, but the latter is hopelessly a lost cause. I support that with the story of the Prodigal Son. The son left the father to do his own thing, yet he never actually attacked the father before he came back to him, whereas the Jews that Jesus accused of committing the unpardonable sin actually attacked him verbally with the intent to sway people away from their belief in him.

What say you?

[KingsGambit]

I tend not to follow this interpretation because of 2 Timothy 2. It's not an ironclad case but the general thrust of this chapter seems to be a warning against false teachers, who may have departed from orthodox faith (2 Timothy 2:18). Paul seems to hold out hope for the eventual restoration of "opponents" in verse 25. Do these opponents include such people as Hymenaeus mentioned earlier? I think they very well could.

[seanD]

I'm not so sure they were actual opponents against the faith in general as opposed to a heated disagreement they had with Paul on matters of doctrine. For example, you and I as Christians might have a disagreement on doctrine, to the point our discussion might even get pretty heated. But I would consider a disagreement with someone like say Gary (an apostate) on a whole different level. But I don't know that for sure, obviously.

[Punkish]

my understanding is deliberate rejection of forgiveness. or calling God's work the devil's. which is obviously isn't.

[KingsGambit]

I suspect it may not be a bad thing if we are not dogmatic about exactly what the unpardonable sin is, because we may run the risk of wrongly assuming that some people have committed it and give up on praying for them or looking for "openings" with them.

[seanD]

Good point.

[Sparko]

The unpardonable sin, IMO, is rejecting the faith all your life. You never were saved, and you die unsaved. God cannot forgive you and pardon you of your sins if you never even asked him to. So you have sin, and God cannot pardon it. You have rejected the Holy Spirit.

[Cerebrum123]

The unpardonable sin, IMO, is rejecting the faith all your life. You never were saved, and you die unsaved. God cannot forgive you and pardon you of your sins if you never even asked him to. So you have sin, and God cannot pardon it. You have rejected the Holy Spirit.

This seems to be the understanding I'm familiar with. Basically, unbelief that lasts all of one's life. There is no chance to pardon it after that.

[seanD]

The thing is, Jesus seemed to distinguish it from just general life-long unbelief. He said attacks against himself are forgiven whereas attacks against the Spirit cannot be forgiven. He seemed to be focusing specifically on intentional attacks.

[KingsGambit]

The thing is, Jesus seemed to distinguish it from just general life-long unbelief. He said attacks against himself are forgiven whereas attacks against the Spirit cannot be forgiven. He seemed to be focusing specifically on intentional attacks.

I agree that this does seem to suggest that it is a specific action. It's interesting what the Didache interprets it to be (testing a genuine prophet, which seems very doubtful to be what Jesus had in mind, but it is a specific event type of thing.)

[seanD]

I agree that this does seem to suggest that it is a specific action. It's interesting what the Didache interprets it to be (testing a genuine prophet, which seems very doubtful to be what Jesus had in mind, but it is a specific event type of thing.)

It seems especially strange Jesus would say this since, in the context of the Trinity, you'd think that attacking Jesus you ARE attacking the Holy Spirit and vice versa. The only way I can solve this is to assume there is a special knowledge that the Holy Spirit reveals to us when we're born again that extends beyond just peripheral knowledge about Christ. For example, when Jesus said that Paul was persecuting him, Paul wasn't necessarily attacking the HS because Paul hadn't converted yet, thus he was doing it out of ignorance even though we can assume he had at least some knowledge about Christ and the faith prior. Once he converted, that's when he crossed the unacceptable threshold. However, this might be a problem to those that hold the "Once saved always saved" stance.

[Obsidian]

I think he's just saying that if even the Holy Spirit can't convince you, then you are doomed.

[Abigail]

The thing is, Jesus seemed to distinguish it from just general life-long unbelief. He said attacks against himself are forgiven whereas attacks against the Spirit cannot be forgiven. He seemed to be focusing specifically on intentional attacks.

I think Jesus was specifically talking to the people there with Him since they rejected Him and yet in Acts we see many repenting when they realized what they had done. However now post Pentecost believers are sealed with the Spirit and that becomes our guarantee unto salvation. I think the sin is not having the seal of the Spirit, so really it is people who have rejected Christ and die in this state.

[Leonhard]

I think it can be taken as a given that anyone that repents of any sin, and believes the gospels, also receives forgiveness. This is true, even if the person was already a Christian, who fell into serious heresy, schism, and outright infidelity.

[KingsGambit]

I think it can be taken as a given that anyone that repents of any sin, and believes the gospels, also receives forgiveness. This is true, even if the person was already a Christian, who fell into serious heresy, schism, and outright infidelity.

Yes, I think this follows from John 6:37 ("whoever comes to me I will never drive away").