The unpardonable sin and TULIP

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
So, this is your dodgy way of saying you can't disprove what I said. Very nice. I could have gone deeper, but I was keeping it short. (My last comment, different thread, took about two hours to write.) If you note, I quoted someone who was not the OP, and the argument is aimed at HIS COMMENT. I did add some parts of the OP, but the point was to show that there is no rational, logical dilemma if you take the Calvinistic approach. It is actually pretty cut and dry. Just because you don't believe God is faithful, does not mean that I also don't believe God is faithful.
They don’t grasp the providence of God. God will ensure that every elect sheep will be gathered into the sheep pen. We see this in John 10 as Jesus uses the Shepherd and sheep analogy. We see this also in John 17 in His “High Priestly Prayer”, as He prays, not only for those who are with Him them, but all those who will believe afterwards[vss 20-21].
 

armylngst

Well-known member
Who can commit the unpardonable sin; the elect, non-elect, or both? I presume everyone would argue that only the non-elect can commit it.

If this is the case, why does Christ speak of an unpardonable sin at all? Every sin that a non-elect person commits is, in truth, unpardonable. How could God forgive a sin which Christ has not atoned for?
Since someone said I didn't address this, then here goes.

Who can commit the unpardonable sin. Obviously, given the definition of terms, only the non-elect can actually commit the unpardonable sin. The obvious question to ask would be, why can't the elect commit the unpardonable sin. Well, basically because if the did commit the unpardonable sin, then by definition they can't be the elect, which means they never actually were the elect. In the eyes of God, the starting state and the ending state are the same. Either you are the elect, and you remain that way to the end, or you were never the elect.

Why does Christ speak of an unpardonable sin at all? -- Why not. The religious leaders just spent their time telling all the people that the Holy Spirit is actually Satan himself, and that Jesus was casting out the demons through the power of Satan. Who would Jesus be to not defend the Holiness and righteousness of God's Holy Spirit. The people there are generally seeking God and His righteousness, so Jesus explained to them the fastest way to shut themselves out from God's kingdom.

Every sin that a non-elect person commits is not, in truth, unpardonable. Even if God pardoned them all, that one sin would remain so one could say it is that unpardonable sin alone that sent them to hell. In the Old Testament, God said that anyone that justifies evil/corruption [ie. sin] is themselves evil/corrupt [sinful]. As such, God cannot just snap sin away. Someone who dies in their sin, remains in their sin is the best way to put it. Just because the unpardonable sin is one of those sins changes nothing.

How could God forgive a sin which Christ has not atoned for? What sin would that be? Not paying taxes? If you mean the unpardonable sin, for such a person, Christ has not atoned for any of their sin. There blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a tantamount rejection of the gospel, of salvation itself. And it is not that God cannot forgive, it is that He will not forgive (and He doesn't have to. After all, it is His Law, not ours.)
 

armylngst

Well-known member
They don’t grasp the providence of God. God will ensure that every elect sheep will be gathered into the sheep pen. We see this in John 10 as Jesus uses the Shepherd and sheep analogy. We see this also in John 17 in His “High Priestly Prayer”, as He prays, not only for those who are with Him them, but all those who will believe afterwards[vss 20-21].
So you must be a Calvinist. Those who are elect cannot commit the sin/will not commit the sin, because God will prevent it. (As simple as I can put it). He is faithful. He said it, so it will be, not might be. Jude 24-25. (A little sarcasm...just a little)
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
So you must be a Calvinist. Those who are elect cannot commit the sin/will not commit the sin, because God will prevent it. (As simple as I can put it). He is faithful. He said it, so it will be, not might be. Jude 24-25. (A little sarcasm...just a little)
Well, I’m not convinced anyone can commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit today, as that was those who saw the miracles Jesus did and attributed it to Beelzebul. Not saying I’m right concerning this, but that’s what I believe. But I’m always open to correction.

And yes, I am a Calvinist.
 

armylngst

Well-known member
Well, I’m not convinced anyone can commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit today, as that was those who saw the miracles Jesus did and attributed it to Beelzebul. Not saying I’m right concerning this, but that’s what I believe. But I’m always open to correction.

And yes, I am a Calvinist.
And I have no issue with that. I tend to go with those who say that the ultimate rejection of salvation, specifically highlighted by the death of the individual, may be today's version of the unpardonable sin, because I believe universalism is a heresy. Thus, it doesn't matter that Jesus says all kinds of sin can be pardoned (and by extension of the rest of his statement) to include after death, if you died in your sin, you will remain dead in your sins for all eternity. I know it may not be fair to call death without salvation the unpardonable sin, but they will remain dead in their sins for all eternity, so perhaps it is?
 

armylngst

Well-known member
Well, I’m not convinced anyone can commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit today, as that was those who saw the miracles Jesus did and attributed it to Beelzebul. Not saying I’m right concerning this, but that’s what I believe. But I’m always open to correction.

And yes, I am a Calvinist.
Oh, the sarcasm was because I thought you might not be a Calvinist, and how dare I say you are. I misunderstood your earlier posts then.
 

zerinus

Well-known member
So, this is your dodgy way of saying you can't disprove what I said. Very nice. I could have gone deeper, but I was keeping it short. (My last comment, different thread, took about two hours to write.) If you note, I quoted someone who was not the OP, and the argument is aimed at HIS COMMENT. I did add some parts of the OP, but the point was to show that there is no rational, logical dilemma if you take the Calvinistic approach. It is actually pretty cut and dry.
You don't win arguments by writing longer and longer posts. The number of words you type does not determine the strength of your argument. The scriptures I had quoted are the source of my arguments. You can write a book if you want. The word of God still has the final say.
Just because you don't believe God is faithful, does not mean that I also don't believe God is faithful.
The problem is with your theology, not with God. Don't blame God for your bad theology.
 

armylngst

Well-known member
You don't win arguments by writing longer and longer posts. The number of words you type does not determine the strength of your argument. The scriptures I had quoted are the source of my arguments. You can write a book if you want. The word of God still has the final say.

The problem is with your theology, not with God. Don't blame God for your bad theology.
So my idea that God is faithful is bad theology, and the fact that I believe that is a problem with my theology. Very telling.

The verses that you have mentioned are not the unpardonable sin. You will notice that the one in Hebrews (the first verses you posted) are saying that it is because they are sinning against the Son, putting the Son to open shame. If I recall, Jesus said that all sins against the Father or the Son can be forgiven, but the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. So, since it may be present, please explain how these are blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I do believe that the first group of people in the first passage in Hebrews have no hope, but it does not explain what the rejection is. There is an apostasy of sorts (I believe), but what does that apostasy entail? Just what is this final rejection, and why do you believe it is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? [How do you believe it is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.] Also, explain why you believe the elect is capable, since you argue in opposition to my argument which is that the elect is incapable.
 

zerinus

Well-known member
So my idea that God is faithful is bad theology, and the fact that I believe that is a problem with my theology. Very telling.
The problem with your theology is not that you believe "God is faithful". The problem with your theology is that it deprives mankind of all libertarian freewill, and makes God the author of all the evil in the in the world as well as the Good. The Biblical doctrine is that God is the author of only all that is good, and Satan is the author of, or more correctly the instigator of, all the evil in the world. You are not supposed to mix them up.
The verses that you have mentioned are not the unpardonable sin. You will notice that the one in Hebrews (the first verses you posted) are saying that it is because they are sinning against the Son, putting the Son to open shame. If I recall, Jesus said that all sins against the Father or the Son can be forgiven, but the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. So, since it may be present, please explain how these are blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
The Pharisees were also accusing Jesus. They were not accusing the Holy Ghost. They were accusing Jesus of casting out devils by the prince of devils. So how were they sinning against the Holy Ghost, when they were not saying anything against the Holy Ghost, but directing all their accusations against Jesus? Find the correct answer to that question, and you will have found the answer to your own question.
I do believe that the first group of people in the first passage in Hebrews have no hope, but it does not explain what the rejection is. There is an apostasy of sorts (I believe), but what does that apostasy entail? Just what is this final rejection, and why do you believe it is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? [How do you believe it is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.]
Let's quote it again then:

Hebrews 6:

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.


It answers most of your questions in the first verse, verse 4. It says that:

(1) they had been "once enlightened" (by the Holy Ghost).
(2) they had "tasted of the heavenly gift" (meaning by the Holy Ghost).
(3) they had been made "partaker of the Holy Ghost"
(4) they had "tasted the good word of God," and of the "powers of the world to come" (by the Holy Ghost).
(5) then they had "fallen away" (from all the witnesses of the Holy Ghost just mentioned).
(6) which makes it impossible to "renew them again unto repentance".


Add all of those together, and you will figure it out. "Crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh" represents the final act of betrayal that all of that entails. It is not the same as speaking evil of the Father or the Son. It is not for example like an atheist saying evil things about God or about Jesus. It is talking about actually participating in the final act of betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus. They are not the same.
Also, explain why you believe the elect is capable, since you argue in opposition to my argument which is that the elect is incapable.
It depends on how you define the "elect". My definition of the elect is not the same as yours.
 

armylngst

Well-known member
The problem with your theology is not that you believe "God is faithful". The problem with your theology is that it deprives mankind of all libertarian freewill, and makes God the author of all the evil in the in the world as well as the Good. The Biblical doctrine is that God is the author of only all that is good, and Satan is the author of, or more correctly the instigator of, all the evil in the world. You are not supposed to mix them up. </quote>

Ah, but you do realize there is only one thing that separates you from pelagianism, a true heresy right? Do you believe in the sin nature. If you do not, that makes you a heretic, with your belief of libertarian free will, and man not being bound by a sinful nature. Yet, if you truly believe man has a sinful nature, and is bound by such, then your belief in libertarian free will goes *poof*, because you can't have libertarian free will if you are bound to anything. You haven't thought through just how close to heresy your libertarian free will gets you, have you? It may not be a big deal, but this is an ancient heresy and known as such for a very, very long time. It is not that God is the author of good, it is that God, who is good, created everything, therefore, by definition, it was all good. As darkness is the absence of light (and as such doesn't really exist, but is rather the absence of something), cold is the absence of energy, so evil is the absence of good/righteousness. As such, God can have nothing to do with evil, no matter what crazy beliefs one may have, by definition. Since God is light, there is a complete absence of darkness in God. As God is good, there is a complete absence of evil in God. If you start to say something that ends with it makes God evil, then you are stating a lie, and don't know what you are writing about. There is A LOT more going on in this world then your limited closed vision is capable of seeing. You have limited God, and don't even realize it.

The Pharisees were also accusing Jesus. They were not accusing the Holy Ghost. They were accusing Jesus of casting out devils by the prince of devils. So how were they sinning against the Holy Ghost, when they were not saying anything against the Holy Ghost, but directing all their accusations against Jesus? Find the correct answer to that question, and you will have found the answer to your own question. </quote>
Remind me not to accuse you of using exegesis. You stated the very thing you said they weren't doing, as what they were doing in your statement. "by the prince of devils". They were accusing Jesus of casting out demons...by the power of the prince of devils. There happens to be a person involved, the actual power by which Jesus was casting out demons, and that was the Holy Spirit. So, while they believed they were accusing Jesus, their very words placed that accusation on the Holy Spirit, whether they realized it or not. So Jesus explained it to them, and basically told them that they stamped their own ticket to hell.

Let's quote it again then:

Hebrews 6:

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.


It answers most of your questions in the first verse, verse 4. It says that:

(1) they had been "once enlightened" (by the Holy Ghost).
(2) they had "tasted of the heavenly gift" (meaning by the Holy Ghost).
(3) they had been made "partaker of the Holy Ghost"
(4) they had "tasted the good word of God," and of the "powers of the world to come" (by the Holy Ghost).
(5) then they had "fallen away" (from all the witnesses of the Holy Ghost just mentioned).
(6) which makes it impossible to "renew them again unto repentance".


Add all of those together, and you will figure it out. "Crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh" represents the final act of betrayal that all of that entails. It is not the same as speaking evil of the Father or the Son. It is not for example like an atheist saying evil things about God or about Jesus. It is talking about actually participating in the final act of betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus. They are not the same.

It depends on how you define the "elect". My definition of the elect is not the same as yours.
The "Crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh" is not the point it is the part where it says "putting Him to open shame" that is the point. People may not recognize this, because we are just people, but God know, and God remembers. In Hebrews, it is speaking of the Jews who have not been redeemed, yet exist in the church, experiencing all the things that that entails, walking right up to the door of salvation, having all those things Hebrews mentioned, and ultimately rejecting it. I would believe that means they went back into sin and left the church. (In such a way despising the work of Christ on the cross.) The author of Hebrews is warning these people that there is no way back, once you have ultimately rejected.
Understand, the belief of some, such as myself is, that such blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not apparently until someone dies without Christ. And some believe that dying without Christ, not accepting salvation, is the same as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, for if one dies in their sins, they will remain in their sins. Elect are those chosen by God to come to salvation. They exist in His world, and He will do as He pleases. It doesn't matter how high and mighty you believe you are, or if you are one who would turn and talk back at your Creator.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Who can commit the unpardonable sin; the elect, non-elect, or both? I presume everyone would argue that only the non-elect can commit it.

If this is the case, why does Christ speak of an unpardonable sin at all? Every sin that a non-elect person commits is, in truth, unpardonable. How could God forgive a sin which Christ has not atoned for?
Only the Reprobate can ultimately commit the Unpardonable Sin, because Christ will lose none of his sheep...

Jesus Propitiated all Sin, even the Unpardonable Sin; but he didn't Expiate all Sin. Propitiation and Expiation are the two sides of the coin of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Thus, since the Atonement is 'two-fisted', Propitiation alone does not make Atonement for the Unpardonable Sin...
 
Last edited:

Chalcedon

Well-known member
So you must be a Calvinist. Those who are elect cannot commit the sin/will not commit the sin, because God will prevent it. (As simple as I can put it). He is faithful. He said it, so it will be, not might be. Jude 24-25. (A little sarcasm...just a little)
Personally I think that particular sin could only be committed when Jesus was physically walking this earth performing miracles and those who were eyewitnesses of them were the guilty ones of that sin by saying He performed them by the power of Beelzebub. Since He is no longer performing them in the flesh on this earth I believe that sin is one of the past, not the present.

BTW- its good to see you back brother !

hope this helps !!!
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Who can commit the unpardonable sin; the elect, non-elect, or both? I presume everyone would argue that only the non-elect can commit it.

If this is the case, why does Christ speak of an unpardonable sin at all? Every sin that a non-elect person commits is, in truth, unpardonable. How could God forgive a sin which Christ has not atoned for?
I will take a shot at it. The unpardonable sin I believe is apostacy away from the truth. Heb 10 26 -30

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

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

I believe its the sin John wrote that we should not pray for one whose guilty of that sin 1 Jn 5 16
16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

In the final analysis this could only happen to non elect individuals who Christ didn't die for anyway ! So they have always been condemned !
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Only the Reprobate can ultimately commit the Unpardonable Sin, because Christ will lose none of his sheep...

Jesus Propitiated all Sin, even the Unpardonable Sin; but he didn't Expiate all Sin. Propitiation and Expiation are the two sides of the coin of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Thus, since the Atonement is 'two-fisted', Propitiation alone does not make Atonement for the Unpardonable Sin...
Technically all sin is unpardonable outside of Christ, who died only for His Sheep !
 

armylngst

Well-known member
Only the Reprobate can ultimately commit the Unpardonable Sin, because Christ will lose none of his sheep...

Jesus Propitiated all Sin, even the Unpardonable Sin; but he didn't Expiate all Sin. Propitiation and Expiation are the two sides of the coin of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Thus, since the Atonement is 'two-fisted', Propitiation alone does not make Atonement for the Unpardonable Sin...
Why can't I write like that... I'm not so sure on the first part, because if someone has committed the unpardonable sin, they are never coming to Christ anyway. They have blasphemed the One who makes salvation possible, so they won't accept what they have turned for themselves into a lie, by their blasphemy. (If you can understand that.) I understand what you are saying, but does the penal substitutionary atonement really allow for that?
 

armylngst

Well-known member
Personally I think that particular sin could only be committed when Jesus was physically walking this earth performing miracles and those who were eyewitnesses of them were the guilty ones of that sin by saying He performed them by the power of Beelzebub. Since He is no longer performing them in the flesh on this earth I believe that sin is one of the past, not the present.

BTW- its good to see you back brother !

hope this helps !!!
I love that "hope this helps!!!" I get burnt out if I stay too long, but we'll see what happens.

I totally understand where you are coming from. I do believe that what we call blasphemy of the Holy Spirit today does not compare to what the actual sin Jesus was condemning the religious leaders for. I am with those who would say to die in your sin is tantamount to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, because you died in sin, and you will remain that way. There is no redemption of sinners after death. [Now, very far away [as in disconnected from my beliefs], I have wondered that when all is said and done...could things be different. The Bible, I believe says no, no universalism at any time, even in some partial way. I have to take the Bible at its word.] -- To understand the thoughts, is it possible that when all is said and done, new heavens and new earth, that there is some kind of reset, and God gathers all His creation. As I said, I believe the Biblical answer is no, not even after the last verse of Revelation.
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
army

Jesus Propitiated all Sin, even the Unpardonable Sin; but he didn't Expiate all Sin.
Im not sure thats accurate to say Jesus propitiated all sin but not expiate all sin. Can you please go into a little more detail explaining that?
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Why can't I write like that... I'm not so sure on the first part, because if someone has committed the unpardonable sin, they are never coming to Christ anyway. They have blasphemed the One who makes salvation possible, so they won't accept what they have turned for themselves into a lie, by their blasphemy. (If you can understand that.) I understand what you are saying, but does the penal substitutionary atonement really allow for that?
Years spent on CARM Forums has a lot to do with my writing skills; you ought to hear me speak in Redneck-ese though. Read my stuff again, but with the voice of Jeff Foxworthy in your head. Also, Southerners have a way of 'picturesque' speaking; like the imagery that Country Musical Lyrics envoke...

When a Born Again Saint sins, the Wrath of God for it falls on Christ and him Crucified; never on us. We always have the Righteousness of God credited to our account. I will write a Gospel Tract this weekend about Federal Headship and Penal Substitutionary Atonement...
 
Last edited:

brightfame52

Well-known member
Years spent on CARM Forums has a lot to do with my writing skills; you ought to hear me speak in Redneck-ese though...

When a Born Again Saint sins, the Wrath of God for it falls on Christ and him Crucified; never on us. We always have the Righteousness of God credited to our account. I will write a Gospel Tract this weekend about Penal Substitutionary Atonement...
Rev Do you believe the righteousness of God is credited to the account Christ died for before they become believers and while unregenerate dead in sins ?
 
Top