Unforgivable sin.

Post Reply New Topic

Is there an act that can be considered an actual unforgivable sin within Christianity belief? The Bible mentions one unforgivable sin. Mark 3:28-30

However that seem to have a metaphorically meaning and not literal, even for biblical literalists, to most christians, but I'm not quite certain about earlier intepretations and scholarly interpretations of it.

A part from that, I would have thought that suicide could be an unforgivable sin, considering that you are murdering yourself, and once you're dead it would be too late to repent of any sin, well at least from the conservative christians side, I doubt that would be the case for Catholics though.

ahem. you dont wanna piss off the holy spirit, because women are typically bitchy

I have never heard of any denominations who believe in literal unforgivable sin. I mean can you imagine a pastor telling someone, "sorry, doesn't matter how hard you repent, you are going to Hell for sure. You being alive right now just means that your eternal fire is delayed, but ya, you're pretty much screwed."?

The only sin that is "unforgivable" is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Jesus warned of this when the unbelieving said that He did His miracles by the power of Satan.

The closest I've ever heard of someone actually committing this sin was supposedly a man who stopped going to church and before a group of his unbelieving friends decided to mock "speaking in tongues" which was something he and his wife held as sacred when they were going to church.

Needless to say, I'd have a hard time believing that any "unbeliever" could ever do the "unpardonable sin" because as a non-believer, you don't accept things as sacred in the first place and any disrespect would be out of ignorance of what you are making fun of.

"Believers," on the other hand, know better of what they choose to do.

Don't ya just love the way that bible believers contort reality to effectively eliminate portions of the bible that they don't like?

If you do it, it can't apply to you, cause if it did apply to you, you wouldn't do it.

Circular reason works because circular reasoning works because....

Just to belie your claim though zer0netgain, how about someone who believes in the christian god, but who openly and defiantly rejects him? Then would it not be viable for him to say that the holy spirit can go f himself, so as to avoid the agony of the supposed christian heaven, in favour of hell? And not have to worry about some moment of weakness down the line where he might give in and for a moment regret the words, thus re-opening salvation? Maybe ol' jesus wanted to ensure there was an out, for those of us who weren't simple minded enough to be bribed by eternal grovelling at an old bearded man's feet, to live in eternal slavery to a mornic ideology?

Exclavius:

All reasoning is circular at some point.

Suicide can't be unforgivable because blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin.

There ARE some things about suicide, though, when you get down into the details. For example, the Bible teaches that there is nothing more sacred than life, particularly human life. The idea is that man is in the image or likeness of God. Taken literally, this is like the prohibition on idol worship, the KJV "Thou shalt not make graven IMAGES" of anything above in heaven, under the earth, etc. The only IMAGE of God that is allowed is man himself. So the destruction of a human being is like destroying God or a representation of God--the only acceptable penalty for which is the exchange of another human life (death penalty), while other sins may be forgiven with a sacrifice of obedience within the heart of the believer. The atonement of Jesus cancels this out for Christians, however, but you get the idea.

In the event of suicide, there may not be any further action--there CANNOT be. So the question is the state of the heart of the one who takes his own life. On the one hand, the believer may commit suicide because of a momentary lapse of faith in which his situation appears completely hopeless. The believer's past, present, and future sins are atoned for already, so there is no fear in the hereafter. Other altruistic notions such as sacrificing one's life for the survival of others or some other greater good is also honorable and commendable (jumping on a grenade to save a group of soldiers, for example). Jesus' act of atonement falls in this category.

On the other hand, you might also argue that one's faith would lead to a strong belief in the sanctity of life, including one's own. If one can resort to ending life in the spirit of hopelessness, when God gives believers peace of heart and mind, then it might be said that the Christian is false, never believed in the first place, and thus was never saved. In that case, there has been no atonement for past, present, or future acts, including suicide, and that unbeliever will be forced into eternal separation from God.

I'll have to examine the "blasphemy of the Holy Ghost" a bit more, but that in a nutshell is how I see suicide as it relates to unforgivable sin.

I agree mostly with you on that interpretation of the bible, AngelRho.

I was a christian for a lot of years, if you call catholic christian

Since then though, i have decided that my life is mine, and not some god's, even if he/she exists.
In fact, there is a LOT in that one line about how and why i decided to discard christianity.

I could play with words here though, and add a new unforgivable sin...
"Refusing to recant one's rejection of Christ unto one's death"

But I am ashamed of you AngelRho
The one thing you could do that would damn you forever, without hope of redemption, and you need to read up more on it?
My My... you're walking a dangerous line there... I'm glad someone brought this up, so that you would look into it for your own safety.

lol

I gotcha, Exclavius.

Except that I'm one step ahead of you. "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" would not be possible by a believer in any sense of the word. Accepting the sacrifice and atonement from Jesus trumps any and all sinful conditions. The word blasphemy can also be read "denial." For one to deny the Holy Spirit would be the ultimate rejection of God and Christ, the gift of Jesus after His ascension, the one thing that binds all believers in Christ together. In a sense, you could technically convert on your deathbed in order to avoid the unforgivable sin of denial of the Spirit, though I personally question the sincerity of any such conversion. I prefer to leave those kinds of matters to a higher Judge than myself.

And yes, I need to read up more on it to give an answer that I'm sure would be correct, honest, sincere, and consistent with Biblical teaching. That's nothing to be ashamed of. All Christians need to be about the business of learning the whats and whys of their faith.

Thanks for the clarification AngelRho

Dang, i'm glad i don't have to go read a book to find out what I believe.

The question in my head though, is, that i don't remember the New Testament saying you had to "accept jesus' sacrifice" only that you had to "believe in him" Maybe i'm just too literal, and didn't read something between the lines that you did. And in truth, it's been so long since i read the gospels ... at least the non-apocryphal ones, that i could be forgetting.

I think that the unpardonable sin is mentioned in the Bible only in the unique context in which some of the Pharisees, who after having heard Jesus' words of wisdom and seeing His great works, had accused Jesus of saying and doing these things by the power of Satan.

And so I take this to mean that the unpardonable sin was a specific transgression peculiar to the times of Jesus while He walked upon the earth and is therefore a sin that cannot be committed today.

I hope this makes sence. This is what message I have been picking up from fundamentalist churches, or I at least try explain that here.

Suicide is where you kill yourself, and that's that. It doesn't grant much of a second chance, but neither does dying from a car crash when you don't expect it. The soul would still exist. Alot of people think the material body is "god's image", and other's think the soul/life is "god's image".

Humans supposedly sin often by a variety of ways. The worshiper chooses to nurture his/her nature in a certain direction. What's left is whether the person choose the God, or despite believeing the God is there they choose to reject and dispize the God anyway, to the point that it's their nature to be on one end than the other.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the only sin you cannot be forgiven for under any circumstances. From my understanding, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is when you reject God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost even though you know who they are.

I could be wrong on what it qualifies as, but that is what I have been taught.

Yeah, that's BASICALLY what I was taught, too. And those who say that Jesus said that in the presence of the Pharisees who accused Jesus of working miracles under the power of Satan are correct. In that sense, it seems that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is ascribing its works to an adversary (Satan, demons). This is obviously false, since an evil spirit is not interested at all in doing good works for the benefit of mankind (even Jesus said so). By extension, this would have to include attributing works of evil to the Holy Spirit.

So it certainly IS possible still today to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. In the case of Pharisees, the expression in the OT that "God hardened his heart" (referring to Pharaoh, pre-Exodus), meaning God gave them over to their stubbornness, applies. It's like saying that in the mind of the unbeliever there is a point of no return, that when you've come to a decision that you make permanent, then there is no further hope of salvation.

Many times such decisions are reached in error, in which blasphemy of the Holy Spirit arises out of one's naïvety and ignorance, not from genuineness of heart. In such a case, one cannot be held accountable. But one WILL be held accountable if they do possess that kind of understanding and willfully act in rebellion.

To Exclavius: Consulting a book in order to form and/or correct one's beliefs is perfectly acceptable, especially in the case of the Bible, and ESPECIALLY when it pertains to matters of religion. Yes, I spend a lot of time in prayer and meditation, and yes, I also believe in personal revelation. But look at it this way: When you are in school and you are not sitting under the tutelage of a professor, by what frame of reference do you study and practice the discipline you formerly garnered in the classroom? For most of us, that happens by reading books, typically some kind of textbook. Such a study can be augmented by use of internet sources (which are LIKE books, they are sources of information which you read), peer-reviewed journal articles, newspapers, and so on. The Bible, as I see it, is a complete textbook on Christian foundational, historical study (the OT) and the groundwork/basic tenets of the faith (the NT). For the Christian, there is NO better source than the Bible itself. Sure, I do use a study Bible that includes notes from more experienced theologians which helps break down some of the confusing language and provide some background or context. Some translations include or omit text, for example, and it's good to know the what and why of that sort of thing. We believe that the Bible is to be taken as without error. For the Bible to be accused of error is a serious accusation, especially for a Christian who bases his belief on the text. I, for one, enjoy finding the supposed "errors" and learning the truth about them. The OT, for example, is taken from the Masoretic Text. There are a few errors, but only errors that have crept in as a result of scribal copying practices--for example, margin notes that explain or interpret the actual text, and over time the distinction between some of the margin notes and the text itself has become blurred (they copied the margin notes as well). Other discrepancies appear when similar-appearing Hebrew letters are substituted, which is why one name in one book of the OT is different from a reference later in another book. Numbers are also sometimes copied incorrectly. And there are also the occasional grammatical errors. And all of that comprises roughly 5% of the text. Compared with other ancient texts, that is highly and unusually accurate. Add to that the NT, for which it is nearly impossible to find manuscripts that are inconsistent with each other--and the inconsistencies are trivial, not even really worth mentioning--as in good luck finding them (I haven't studied the NT quite as intensely as the OT yet, but I'm slowly working towards it. I'm currently trudging though the psalms).

A college history textbook will inevitably have flaws SOMEWHERE, but that doesn't stop professors from using them in their teaching. Scientific peer reviewed journals are often just mutual admiration societies, but that doesn't stop us from relying on them for references (except the RARE case when a study is shown to be in error; even THOSE guys have to print retractions from time to time). We do so because those sources are known to be safe and reliable. The Bible is reliable as a source of information for the Christian. I feel perfectly secure in drawing conclusions from its text.

Well, if you believe in God and openly and defiantly reject Him, that is not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit...that is simply rejecting to follow God. It is forgivable, but not repented of will condemn the soul for the choice that was made.

Apples and oranges.

And then there was Satan... Too bad the poor guy isn't omniscient. You gotta be pretty dumb to personally know God, who DOES know everything, and carry on like the book of Revelation never happened. But then again, if such a prophecy can be made, it doesn't bode well for the character of the Adversary, that he is fallen so far that he allows himself no opportunity for redemption.

Apples and oranges here, too. Being full aware of the presence and God and acting in rebellion anyway isn't something a soul or spirit can recover from. At least with us mere mortal humans we have a choice.

Yeah, but Satan had to take his place, because good cannot exist, without a counterbalance to base it on, which we call evil, or name Satan.
Perhaps he was just like Judas... He knew his role and did it, regardless of it's consequences on his "self" for the greater good.

(btw... a cute anagram of my full name is "See Unholy King Satan" ... Not joking either.)