You’re changing bible translations - which is the right one for your purposes? And which is the RIGHT ONE?
Now who’s trying to give an interpretation beyond the literal text?
What it means for a ‘sin’ to be forgiven is that it has a just excuse or explanation for why it was done. The act is forgiven or ‘excused’ because no intentional harm was meant. And there are very many so-called sins (to sin is to miss the mark) which fall under that category. But past this point it cannot be forgiven or excused because then it becomes intentional. One is doing what one knows to be wrong and thus calling goodness evil or wrong to its face. It’s a blasphemy, or insult to the Spirit of all that is good, to intentionally go another path, thus deeming good as something bad.
Stop the nonsense, Ran. They all say the same thing. Deal with it!
Formal warning to Ran about suggesting A37 is serving Satan.
Aaron,
Speaking as someone who (on the basis of a careful reading of the Greek) has constantly acknowledged that the Synoptic texts say the person has no pardon (“whoever… is having no pardon… but is liable”, GosMark); and say that the person is renounced and shall not be pardoned (“he the one disowning Me will be renounced… the one blaspheming shall not be pardoned”, GosLuke–GosMatt does put it as the sin not being pardoned, by the way)–
–that same careful reading of the Greek shows that there is nothing in any of the three Synoptic accounts or close contexts which denote such a person being permanently unreprentant. That’s being read totally into the text (whether by you or by various translators); which necessarily has to be done in order to make it work with your theology. (Whereas, on the other hand, we know from positive evidence in scripture that even when one curses against himself in “disowning” or “denying” Christ, that doesn’t put him outside repentance or the saving grace of Christ either one.)
Even if (as could be arguably true) you’re being correct to read that into the text, reading it into the text makes the text worthless as positive testimony against universalism–which is how you keep trying to deploy it. (i.e. you aren’t merely arguing that the text can be coherently understood within some type of Arminian theology. If you were only doing that, I doubt anyone here would disagree at all!)
Jason, I don’t recall saying the text denotes a person being permanently unrepentant. The text clearly denotes that whoever commits this sin to blaspheme the HS shall not be forgiven, period. Reviling against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10) means to resist the convicting power of the Holy Spirit unto repentance. Since we are condemned because of unbelief does it not follow that we should turn from our unbelieving mind and not our sins? One can only resist the convicting power of the Holy Spirit for so long before their hearts and minds become so hardened due to sin that it will eventually lead to a searing of their conscience and being unable to repent or change their mind. If this happens they will remain condemned in unbelief and will be gulity of the eternal sin to blaspheme the HS that has eternal consequences. Romans 1:18-32 is a perfect example of people resisting the convicting power of the HS to the point of reprobation.
What does it mean from your angle, Jason, to say that one has committed an “eternal sin”, which I think it is said in Mark’s account?
I’d like to answer this question, too. It’s strange wording, isn’t it? At least a very weird way to say that the sin can’t ever be forgiven. To me the only sensible explanation is that it means no matter what context or how far removed from the act we are in time or space, it is essentially and objectively bad and spiritually evil. It’s not merely a mistake as other “sins” are or wrong in just that specific context, because the very definition of it is that someone has declared through word and/or deed that something good and even divine is wrong or evil.
The terminology there is a little more complex than that. Worse, there’s quite a lot of variance in the texts there.
Many texts read {alla enochos estin aioniou hamartematos}. “But is liable (or guilty in the sense of having to pay) an eonian sin-penalty.” (I’m leaving aside for the moment how I would recommend interpreting the adjective eonian.)
A few texts read the same thing but use (or testify to) {hamartias} as the final word. “But is liable an eonian sin.”
(If you notice I’m leaving out a preposition somewhere, that’s because it’s hard to tell from the Greek which preposition is implied there, and one isn’t explicitly used!)
Quite a few old Italian texts, as well as the Latin vulgate, one of the Syrian texts, the surviving Arminian texts, Cyprian and Augustine, have it one way and supply the other, too (as a gloss or in the text itself).
A couple of texts put “crisis and” in front of “sin” after “is liable”. “But is liable an eonian crisis and sin.” (In English we’d more likely translate that term as “judgment”.)
A very respectively large set of texts (though not necessarily the earliest on average) uses “crisis” instead of any term for sin. (One uses “crime” in the sense of “judgment”, not our modern sense of “crime”, instead of “crisis”.)
Two texts (plus a few more later ones) use “kolasis”, which is kind of interesting but is extremely unlikely to be the original. (Too bad. 
)
I have to load up some things for a business trip now, and won’t be back until tomorrow morning sometime. I’ll pick up from there then.
The reading {kolaseos} (for "eonian chastisement}, while it might be ideologically useful for us, is far too few (and lately) attested to be a serious contender for the original text.
{hamartias} (for “eonian sin”) has a couple of important attestations, and would certainly be the most difficult and unexpected reading (the text-crit principle here being that a more difficult reading is more likely to be fiddled with for various reasons)–but it also has the support of only four texts (including one limited textual subfamily). The other two options have serious strengths outweighing this. Put another way, even the TR doesn’t go with this option. 
That’s probably just as well, because the concept of an eonian sin doesn’t fit very well into overarching Christian theology, regardless of which way “eonian” is interpreted. A sin with the quality of “everlasting” would be sliding straight into something like Manichaean cosmological dualism, implying the notion of an equal and opposite anti-God; and a sin from the heart of God’s nature would be even worse! (Some Calvinist applications notwithstanding. ) Moreover, as previously noted in its favor it doesn’t fit very well conceptually with the rest of the construction: one isn’t bound to pay a sin, even an eonian one! Notably, the phrase “eonian sin” doesn’t show up anywhere else in the NT. When “eonian” is used in regard to sin, it’s applied to judgment or punishment or whole-ruination or something of that sort–not anywhere else to the sin itself.
{kriseos} with a couple of minor grammatic variations (for “eonian crisis” or “eonian judgment”) has the largest and widest spread of texts, including a few important very early witnesses); and this is a case where I’m almost inclined to go with the Textus Receptus (following the Majority Koine tradition, late though that is) rather than with the typical modern critical result. Paying a crisis wouldn’t make much sense, but that depends on the degree to which “crisis” is being used as a convenient metaphor for “judgment”, which would certainly be typical. (I don’t deny its useage that way in the NT; I only think we shouldn’t forget the underlying meaning of the word either. A crisis implies a problem needing resolution.) The sinner could be liable to pay a judgment, although that’s still not as grammatically good as the fourth option will be. But I could just as easily go with this option as with the fourth one, for reasons I’ll discuss in a moment.
{hamartematos} (for “eonian sin-penalty”) doesn’t have quite the long-running textual spread as {kriseous}, but it does have a very respectable set of early attestation. It also happens to make the best grammatic sense: a sinner would (aside from graciousness from the authority) be bound to pay a sin penalty–and especially if the sinner refuses the grace from that authority! The word is very uncommon in the NT, but one of its few other occurrences happens to be just immediately prior in verse 28, where all sin-penalties whatever (however great they may be) shall be pardoned to the sinner–a text that (unlike this one) is practically universal in attestation. So we know that Mark does certainly use this word in this context. (The three Synoptic accounts of this saying are so structurally different from one another, even in GosMatt and GosMark where they occur in the same specific scene, that one or both authors must be differing from the verbatim of the original saying. I wouldn’t want to guess which, and it isn’t strictly necessary, as each gets across a harmonizeable gist.)
It’s possible that scribes took an original “crisis” and changed it to better match the “sin-penalty” from verse 28–scribes have a noted habit of smoothing out things like this. But this would also run against noted scribal habits of substituting a far more familiar word for a more unusual one, and of trying to avoid apparent contradictions: “crisis” would be far more familiar than “sin-penalty” and its substitution resolves a prima facie contradiction in the text (absolutely all sin-penalties, no matter how great, will be pardoned; yet the sinner against the Holy Spirit does not have pardon but is liable to pay an eonian sin-penalty.) The replacement of {hamartematos} with {kriseos} also makes somewhat better sense of the textual spread characteristics, which could indicate a relatively early shift to an accepted substitute.
At the end of the day, therefore, I agree with modern text crit results: “sin-penalty” is probably the original text, although “crisis” makes a very respectable showing in the data and might still be the original text instead.
Next up: answering Roofus’ actual question!
Okay, going back to Roofus’ actual question:
My first answer is that I don’t think the evidence shows in favor of reading it as “eonian sin”, regardless of how “eonian” is translated (much moreso interpreted). But to commit an eternal sin would be to commit a godly sin. Which one way or another would be ridiculous–except (I think) in the following very important sense: that when we sin, and especially when we sin persistently, we are in fact trying to put ourselves up over-against the truth, as being the ultimate standard and source of truth ourselves. The sin of Satan (i.e. whoever the most powerful rebel is at any given time–and all of us should consider ourselves as the chief of sinners in principle!) is to be like the Most High; to renounce the ground of his own existence in direct competition to it.
Put another way, Satan wants to become the Anti-God, existing independently of God in direct countervailing opposition. I think any of us could recognize that as sinning against the Holy Spirit–if that isn’t, then nothing is! His sin is, in other words, that he is trying to succeed in committing an eonian sin: a sin, not from the heart of God, but from the heart of himself as an equal (or rather superior!) opponent to God. An ongoing sin that is ongoing because he wills it to be.
I don’t personally recommend believing that Satan has accomplished this, or ever will, or ever could accomplish this: otherwise I would recommend giving up Christianity and becoming something like a Manichee! To claim that Satan even could accomplish this would be denying the truth of supernatural theism (including trinitarian theism) in one or more various ways. Not a problem, maybe, for those who aren’t supernaturalistic theists. But for the rest of us who believe it, that would be highly inconsistent theology. Which, fortunately, the textual evidence doesn’t require us to deal with.
An “eonian” “crisis” or “sin-penalty”, either way, could mean either that the paying of the sin-penalty continues forever (which would naturally be a crisis!–and in this case a crisis imposed by God in judgment); or it could just as easily (and, I would argue, more plausibly) mean that the penalty and the crisis (regardless of which is the original term) come from God’s own intrinsic self-existence, from the heart of God, as a factor of God’s characteristics as God. (Which the advocates of the first meaning usually affirm as well and don’t deny!)
A universalist could work with either meaning of “eonian”, although the former meaning would be obviously more difficult. The latter meaning, aside from synching up much better with how the adjective is used elsewhere in the NT (“eonian life” isn’t merely life that happens to keep going forever, for example; and a few other things described as “eonian” actually came to an end!), has an immediate neutrality to it that allows and invites us to do what we all end up doing anyway (Calv or Arm or Kath): going back up to the character and characteristics of God to make our cases.
A third option, taken by some universalists and annihilationists, would be to regard “eonian” as an adjective pertaining to the character of an age. While that’s a viable interpretative option in some places, I can’t in good honesty go with it here, so long as I accept–which I do–that GosMark and GosMatt are reporting the same event, even though in different words. Because while Matthew reports the saying in such a way as to repeatedly emphasize that it is the sin which has no forgiveness, not the sinner, he also reports the warning that it has no forgiveness either in this age or the age to come. So “eonian” cannot be feasibly interpreted here as a description of one particular age–which, in turn, is one of several reasons why (against some other universalists) I end up having to reject attempts to read “eonian” as primarily meaning this on other occasions, too. (I thought I should mention it, and why I reject it, for sake of completeness. 
)
Jason said: “But to commit an eternal sin would be to commit a godly sin.”
I’m missing an assumption here? How did you arrive at such a conclusion? Are you following Barclay’s interpretation of aionios?
If you follow his post, he demonstrates that only God is eternal unless you’re a dualist. Some kinda Munchkin theology or something. Actually it’s just common-sense, I don’t think you even need the original word history as defined by Plato.
I’d say it’s only common-sense if we understand the adjective aionios as it was employed by Plato. Plato employs (coined, if I’m not mistaken) the word aionios as the adjective form of the noun aion. So how did Plato understand the noun aion? Answer: for Plato, the noun aion referred to the eternal world of ideas, which he conceived as being “behind” the perceived world. For example, in his Timoeus, aion is set in contrast with a divine imitation of it (the imitation being “days and nights, and months and years, which did not subsist before the heavens began to be, then with its being established he operates their birth”). For Plato, the ages of time are but “a moveable image of aionos.” Thus, aion did not mean “age” but is instead contrasted with all temporal duration. And just as Plato used aionios as the adjective form of aion/aionos, so did the inspired authors of the NT. But there is a key difference: Whereas Plato used the noun in contrast with an “age” of time, the authors of the NT used the noun to denote this very thing. And since aionios is used as the adjective form of aion, and “aion” in the NT means “age,” it follows that the adjective should be understood to mean “belonging to an age” or “age-abiding” - not “eternal” as in Plato.
Sheesh
Wonderfully insightfull reply Aaron37 - I shall carry the mighty argument ‘Sheesh!’ to my grave.
I know about Barclay’s appeal to terminological use in the larger cultural context–also that his appeal is quite disputed. While I do argue for a similar result (that “eonian” as used in the NT refers first and foremost to the notion of the object of that adjective having come from God, being of Godly quality, etc.), that argument (which is elsewhere on the forum) is based on an examination of contextual use of eonian {aionios} in the NT. I am far less sure about where and how they’re deriving the usage–my tentative guess would be from a Jewish euphamism for God as the Everlasting.
(We can be sure at least one Gospel author was in the habit of doing something similar in his work in another regard, namely the use of “kingdom of the heavens” in GosMatt which applies a known Jewish euphamism for God as “heavens”, instead of “kingdom of God” as the other authors have it, including in parallel reports. So a similar usage for “eonian” in an adjectival application wouldn’t be a unique operation in NT composition.)
At any rate, the arrival to the conclusion follows afterward: one way or another an “eonian” sin would imply some kind of “godly” sin (unless the third option is true, which I reject specifically on the ground of this example itself ruling it out by positive content). A sinner that keeps going in triumphant rebellion against God, which God cannot stop, actually succeeds (not only attempts) to put himself on par with God or even superior to God. Or else God authoritatively acts to keep the sinner, and thus the sin, in permanent existence as sin–which means God is now the author (as the final authority underwriting and supporting) iniquity: He doesn’t just tolerate it for love’s sake until for love’s sake He can bring about he salvation of the sinner from the sin (hating the sin but loving the sinner), He hates the sinner into permanent existence as a sinner (on this theological plan–the end result being no different between Calvinistic and some Arminianistic theologies).
As a supernaturalistic theist, and especially as a trinitarian theist, I either have to reject both notions; or else I will have to reject at least trinitarian theism (and maybe supernaturalistic theism, too, depending on which explanation for hopelessness I’m willing to settle for.)
And since I still find my grounds for believing supernaturalistic theism (and beyond that ortho-trin, too) to be extremely strong, q.e.d. For purposes of coherently representing God (‘coherent representation’ being almost literally what ‘ortho-doxy’ means), I know which way to interpret the data where options are available to do so.
(Put far too shortly, but still accurately: I interpret in favor of the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. 
)
This is all completely aside from a case based on weighing the text-critical merits of the reading; but I reported on that already, too. “Eonian sin” may have better attestation than “eonian chastisement”, and even a couple of points in its favor, but still not remotely as good attestation as either “eonian crisis/judgment” or “eonian sin-penalty”.
Yay for the return of the Real Aaron!
Your explication of what I called “the third option”, does not however address the GosMatt version of the saying about the sin against the Holy Spirit; namely that it shall not be forgiven either in this age or in the age to come. Multiple ages are being explicitly talked about, and that notion of “eonian” (while, as I acknowledge, plausible in many other circumstances) would involve a single age.
I don’t share your enthusiasm for the return of the Real Aaron ( whatever that means)! All he does is spread around doctrines that are unbiblical and they profit no one! He has given no indication of accepting the truth of the scriptures. I pray that changes. Lord have mercy on him. For you to applaud his return to sow these doctrines in peoples lives grieves my spirit! Here are examples of his beliefs:
- Does not believe Jesus came in the flesh.
- Denies the diety of Jesus.
- Denies who Jesus says he was and what he did on the cross.
- Spreads the false doctrine of Preterism.
- His beliefs mirror Gnosticism.
- Denies the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit representing one God in three persons.
- God knows what else…I’m sure I left some out.
But then this is a forum that doesn’t limit membership to those who subscribe to a particular belief system - so where’s the problem? If it was limited to only believers in UR then neither you nor I would be allowed to post.