I’m wondering if anyone has put together an argument why the unpardonable sin (blasphemy against the Holy Spirit etc) is not the crippling blow to UR that those who use that argument against UR claim it to be?
My son got into a debate at his college (structured, part of a class he’s taking) with the campus pastor and the topic came round indirectly to UR and the pastor claimed that such a thing as an unpardonable sin means there’s no way all can be saved…
I realize there’s a smattering of this in many places on this site but have never taken the time to track them all down…
Anyone willing to venture a quick summary for me??
Here’s my understanding of the “unpardonable sin.”
In the context in which this particular sin is spoken of, the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” consisted in willfully ascribing the miracles which Christ performed by the power of God to that of a demonic being, by those who knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they had been performed (Matt 12:22-24). It is the sin of those who had personally witnessed Christ work miracles, and yet, in the face of such evidence, accused Christ of performing them by the power of an evil spirit they called “Beelzebul.” It is therefore impossible for any person to commit this sin at any time subsequent to Christ’s earthly ministry; and if it is this sin that puts people in danger of ECT, then only the unbelieving, Jewish contemporaries of Christ will suffer it. If Jesus’ words are understood literally, then he would be saying that all sins and blasphemies will be forgiven except for the sin of those first-century Jews who attributed Christ’s power to that of “an unclean spirit” (Mark 3:30). But is this what Christ is teaching? I doubt any orthodox Christian would admit this.
In order to better understand Christ’s words here, we must first understand what it means for a person’s sins to be forgiven, or pardoned. To be forgiven of any sin is, I believe, to be treated as if one had not committed that sin; to forgive another’s sin is to cease counting their sin against them. Those who have not been forgiven by God are deserving of whatever punishment of which their sins have made them deserving. The very fact that anyone is ever punished for anything (whether the punishment comes from God or man) presupposes that their wrongdoing was not forgiven, for to be forgiven is to be released from the penalty of which one’s sin made one deserving. And we have numerous examples in Scripture of sins not being pardoned by God, and of the guilty being consequently punished. However, nowhere is it said that any punishment from God would consist of ECT after the person died.
For example, it is evident that Adam and Eve were not forgiven by God for their sin, as the punishment they were certain to receive is described in Gen 3:16-19. Similarly, Cain was not forgiven for killing his brother, as his punishment is described in Gen 4:11-12. The wicked people of Noah’s generation were not pardoned for their sins, for they were all punished by being drowned in the great flood. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were not pardoned for their sins, for they were punished by being destroyed with fire and sulfur from heaven. Even Moses was not forgiven for his sin of striking the rock in the wilderness, for God punished him by forbidding him from entering the Promised Land (Deut 3:23-27). Another example of sin that was not forgiven can be found in 1 Samuel 3:12-14, where we read,
There are a multitude of other examples in the Old Testament of people failing to obtain forgiveness for their sins, and consequently being punished according to the demands of divine justice. However, not one of these instances has anything to do with ECT. There is not a hint that endless suffering in a future state of existence is a punishment of which any man or woman ever became deserving, or to which anyone ever became exposed. And since God doesn’t change, we have every reason to believe that the way in which God punishes people for their sins during this new covenant dispensation is the same as he punished people in ages past: i.e., with temporal suffering (both mental and physical) and/or death. And when we turn to the NT, we find that this is the case. Because of a refusal to “repent of her sexual immorality,” a certain woman in the church in Thyatira (who Christ figuratively identifies as “Jezebel”) is threatened with temporal suffering for her sins (Rev 2:20-23). It is evident from Christ’s words that she had lost her opportunity to receive forgiveness for the sins of which she was guilty, for her future punishment is spoken of as being inevitable. Her sins had thus become “unpardonable.” In contrast were those who were then heeding her teaching and being seduced by her, for they had been graciously afforded a limited opportunity to repent before they, too, would be punished (v. 23).
Another well-known example is that of Ananias and Sapphira, who were punished by God for their deception by being struck dead on the spot (Acts 5:1-11). It seems evident that God did not forgive them for this particular sin; they were not even given the opportunity to repent before their punishment overtook them. Similarly, as the crowds were praising Herod, he was struck dead for not giving God the glory (Acts 12:21-23); again, it is evident that Herod wasn’t forgiven for this particular sin. The apostle John speaks of “a sin that leads to death,” and instructs his readers not to pray for those whom they see committing it (1 John 5:16-17) - evidently because the punishment for this sin was certain death, and thus could not be forgiven (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-30). That is, like the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,” it was “unpardonable.”
But if there are sins other than the sin of which the Pharisees were guilty that have not been forgiven (and there are many examples in Scripture of sins not being forgiven), why then does Christ say that “every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people” but that “the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven?” Answer: Christ is employing a common Hebraism (i.e., a Jewish figure of speech) which, through the use of absolutes and contrast, simply places the emphasis on one thing over another in some way. Depending on how the figure of speech is being employed, it might mean that one thing is to be preferred to another, or is more important than another, or is more likely to happen than another, etc. Some examples of this figure of speech can be found in the following verses: Genesis 32:28; 45:7-8; Ex. 16:8; 1 Sam 8:7; Job 2:10; Jer 7:22; 16:14-15; Prov 8:10; Ezek. 16:47; Joel 2:13; Hosea 6:6; Matt 6:19-20; 9:13; 24:35; Luke 14:12-13; John 6:27; Acts 5:4; 1 Cor 1:17.
When it is understood that Christ is using this figure of speech here, we find that the meaning of his words is simply this: every sin is more easily pardonable than that of which the Pharisees were guilty. Even among that category of sins that make people deserving of death, the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” is unequaled in its gravity. Christ further emphasizes the severity of the Pharisee’s sin when he says that it will “not be forgiven, either in this age (i.e., the age under the Mosaic Law) or in the age to come” (the age under the Messiah’s reign). In other words, there is no possible state of affairs or circumstances, whether present or future, that could render such a sin as easily pardonable as all other sins. But note also that it would be entirely superfluous for Christ to add “or in the age to come” if, during this then-future age, no sins would be or could be forgiven, as many Christians believe is the case; such a remark only makes sense if the future age of which Christ was speaking is an age in which at least some sins and blasphemies will, indeed, be forgiven - even if the blasphemy against the Spirit is not one of them. This suggests that the “age to come” of which Christ spoke refers to a time when sins may still be both committed and forgiven.
The fact that, for many Jews in that day, their blasphemy against the Spirit was not forgiven (thus making their punishment certain) in no way means that their punishment was to consist of ECT. The punishment that the Jewish people experienced because of their sin was nothing more or less than the severe judgment that fell upon their nation when Jerusalem was overthrown, and their temple destroyed, in 70 AD. On that sinful generation fell all the righteous blood that had been shed on earth (Matt 23:35-36). Speaking of this time of judgment, Christ told his disciples (Luke 21:22-24):
But this divine punishment did not place the Jewish people beyond the reach of divine grace. God’s punishments, however severe, are not a hindrance to grace, but a means by which people are prepared to receive it more fully at a future time. According to the apostle Paul, “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26). The very people who, because of their hard and unbelieving hearts, were considered “enemies of God” in that day, will ultimate receive mercy from God (vv. 28-32). Even those upon whom Christ pronounced the severest of woes will one day be able to joyfully proclaim, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Matt 23:37-39).
that is good reasoning, Aaron, thank you.
from what you’ve said, i think it’s a bit of a blow to the idea of an unpardonable sin that similar unpardonable sins (such as that of the house of Eli) WOULD eventually be forgiven, as “All Isreal shall be saved.”
i suppose the “age to come” may not in fact refer to the very last age…
i was once CONVINCED i committed the unforgiveable sin. it took roughly 18 months, but God broke through to me, and since then i’ve not seriously doubted his existence nor my salvation. thinking back, it was worth the scary times! though the mental image of ECT looming and a final door closing in my face was very distressing at the time.
I think the doctrine of ECT is pretty insidious in this way. Even for those who believe in “once saved always saved,” the fear that one has at some point committed that one sin that renders one’s future hopeless will retain its power to rise up like a specter to haunt the believer, especially if one is going through a “valley” in their spiritual walk. I’m glad God freed you from this fear!
Aaron – thanks very much for your thoughtful answer.
I find it most interesting that you draw such a tight connection between punishment and not being forgiven. Said another way, that being forgiven means punishment is thereby avoided. For my part, I’ve never made this connection so it’s a rather startling new thought for me. That forgiveness need not obviate punishment has been something I’ve always assumed. Having come to see punishment as often (maybe always?) simply the progression of natural consequences, it has not troubled me to see the forgiven reap the consequences of their behaviors and choices.
For some time now I have held that part of the message of the Cross is as demonstration of the heart of God towards us in which He always stands ready to forgive. The Cross reveals that God has not, and does not, hold our sin “against” us. It need not be a barrier to our growing fellowship and union with Him. Sure, there are barriers that prevent and hinder our reunion with Him but those barriers are not constructed by God nor do they emanate from “His side” of the equation. (so to speak) Further, I’ve not seen sin as something which demands punishment for it’s own sake; as something that exists as a necessity apart from some other goal, namely God’s goal of Universal restoration and, implicitly, rehabilitation.
Thus forgiveness (the fact that God does not hold our sins against us) need not be connected with the fact that we do need punishment to effect our correction and rehabilitation and reformation. Forgiven yes; but also in need of rehabilitation and healing. So the fact of being punished has little to do with the fact of being forgiven.
This brings us then to what I see as a central and crucial aspect of what you’ve said: that the sin against which Jesus is railing is one of WILLFUL disregard of what one has already been convicted is true. This speaks to a mindset of utter rebellion against God; an attitude of subversion and resistance which moves even against our own convictions and conscience! Perhaps the best text (at least a very good one!) illustrating this condition is James 4:17 —
Pausing a moment to consider the way forgiveness is described in Matthew 6…
… At first glance, this appears to hold God to a standard of forgiveness which is incapable of rising above our own. Further, it suggest we can evoke the attitude of forgiveness in God by exhibiting it ourselves. Since this is so at odds with the picture of a God who is the initiator of repentance and salvation and redemption, it seems well advised to reconsider.
This dynamic then seems to point to the truth that forgiveness does not become a genuine reality in our lives until we are willing to extend it to others as well. To be willing to accept it, but not to extend it to others, simply unmasks our selfish motives and pretensions. Which of course fool God not one bit. In fact we have harmed ourselves by such self delusion. To accept forgiveness in the way which God intended is to partake in personal and painful transformation. The very death to self. To embrace the fraudulent vision of forgiveness (yes, take away MY sins!) while withholding that same generosity of forgiveness to our brother, simply betrays our duplicity and deception.
Thus, if seen in this light, the sin against the Holy Spirit is simply the hardest kind of sin to forgive; because all it wants is the benefits (absolution before God), and none of the responsibilities (to extend it to our brothers). And how better to illustrate this than with the vision of those who, against their inner conviction of the truth, relegate the acts of God, in Christ, to the great imposter and fraud; Satan Himself. Forgiveness is not the problem per se; forgiveness abuse is the problem. That is, taking it’s benefits, yet accepting none of it’s obligations.
NONE of this, however, is to be taken as a permanent state of affairs. For the very act of unscrupulously taking forgiveness for ones self, yet being unwilling to extend it to others, is itself motivated by a delusion; A delusion that will – guaranteed – be exposed in it’s deceit by God. And punishment follows in order to shatter that delusion.
So Aaron, I’m wondering if any of this fits into your own vision of this dynamic?
“The sin you won’t repent of, is the sin you won’t get rid of.”
(But that doesn’t mean you won’t repent of it eventually, and get rid of it; and since the Holy Spirit is the one who convicts, well if you are adamant enough to curse the very convicting Spirit and blaspheme it then you’re probably not going to repent of it for a very long time, but the Holy Spirit isn’t going to just ‘up and walk away’ because the Bible doesn’t say that.)
Committing the unpardonable sin, whatever it is, only means you can’t be pardoned. Iow. you’ll have to do your sentence (in the Lake of Fire). However, there is no such thing as unforgivable sin.
TotalVictory, i think the word “discipline” might be more appropriate to the point of view you express, that punishment may still occur even to the forgiven.
if this punishment is actually for our cleansing, healing and refining, it becomes more along the line of discipling, hence discipline. punishment (imo) has a more authoritarian and less benevolent connotation, if that makes sense…
i think to me what’s key about this scripture is that there is an end to the punishment in which this sin won’t be forgiven: “neither in this age or the next”. nothing is said about AFTER that.
but i think the most damning thing to the doctrine as it stands is that as Aaron pointed out, some unforgivable sins WILL be forgiven, ie when all Israel is saved (including the Pharisees Jesus condemned).
also, as i was always taught, it is dangerous to create a doctrine from one piece of Scripture…you should have several (at least 3) in unrelated parts of the text to corraborate it before you start creating a doctrine such as this, of the unpardonable sin.
Seems inappropriate and harmful (to faith/trust) to associate punishment with NOT being forgiven.
Punishment as “pruning” (as in tending/nurturing plants) make much better sense to me – given that those whom God loves He punishes/”chastises”/”chastens”.
It seems to me a bad precedent to set to assert that (perhaps I’m reading too much into Aaron’s words here?) lack of discipline/punishment is an indication I’ve been forgiven.
So we’re forgiven, yes, but may well remain in need of the corrective discipline to rid us of our persistent delusions as perhaps Talbott might say…
An “unpardonable” sin then is one in which I’ve placed myself, willfully and against conviction, in a stance of rebellion and clinging to delusion despite the evidence. Problem being not so much with the nature of God’s forgiveness but with the stubborn recalcitrance of the sinner. The sinner being the barrier – not the availability of forgiveness which God always stands ready to extend.
Mere pardon, without the concomitant willingness to confess/repent/change/turn away etc is not what God’s gift of forgiveness is about…
i think there’s some good stuff there, particularly about the ages. evidently, those who committed the unpardonable sin at that point would not be forgiven for 2 ages…but there was before that the hope that ALL blasphemies would eventually be forgiven.
still a scary passage, and i wonder if it holds now as well, that 2 ages are required to be punished/disciplined before forgiveness can be obtained? or maybe Jesus specifically meant that it won’t be forgiven for anyone until the end of this age (which is the “age to come” that He’s referring to, as i understand it).
scary though…but not hopeless, which is the key thing. also, Jesus doesn’t say “unpardonable.” He merely says “not in this age, or the age to come”