How does one become condemned?

[Calminian]

Perhaps in soteriology discussions we're often asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking how men are saved, maybe we should ask how men are condemned.

There's an intriguing passage spoken by Jesus in which he directly addresses this question.

Matt. 12:31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. ​

This would seem to be an explicit affirmation of the forgiveness of all sins of all kinds committed by all men. They're all covered and going to be forgiven—that is except one—the blasphemy of the Spirit.

This is one of those passages where some very off-the-wall interpretations are offered, but none of them seem to make any sense. It's a very simple statement, and should taken at face value. All sins will be forgiven except one. All sins are covered except one. Figure out what this sin is and we may inch closer to a more true and perfect soteriology.

My take:

Most explanations of this passage are way off. This is not speaking of some vague sin that can't be committed anymore. It's not the act of accusing Christ of casting out demons by the devil as some propose. I realize the theological motives for such an interpretation, but it's a stretch at best.

The sin of blaspheming the Spirit still exists today, and should be feared (the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom). But what is it?

Well, first maybe we should think about the function or role of the Spirit. What does He do? Is it not the Spirit who enlightens us to our condition and our need for forgiveness? And if that's true, wouldn't the rejection of Christ be an offense to the One that pointed us to Christ? Look at this passage in Hebrews.

Heb. 10:29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?​

Here the rejection of Christ is specifically linked to insulting the Spirit of grace. It is the Spirit who gives us grace to believe. Naturally then, rejecting Christ would be akin to insulting or blaspheming the Spirit.

Therefore I will submit the following hypothesis. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the continual rejection the gospel which the Spirit Himself enlightened us to, to the point that the Spirit takes away our enlightenment and allows our hearts to once again become hardened. That in a nutshell is what I believe this sin is.

You'll notice this is not merely the simple act of rejecting the gospel, but a continual act to the point of a particular result—hardening. You'll notice that rather than condemnation being the result of a lack of atonement, it is instead the result of specific offense which the atonement was never intended to cover. If one rejects Christ to the point of hardening, there is no sacrifice to cover that. That is an unforgivable sin.

Heb. 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.​

The passage above, BTW, has nothing to do with one losing his salvation. It is rather a picture of the man who is enlightened, and who tastes and who partakes in blessings but never believes. The above I believe is a picture of one who commits the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

And if this understanding of the blasphemy of the Spirit is correct, notice all the textual and theological problems is solves. First, there would no longer be any reason to resist the clear biblical teaching that atonement is universal. As John proclaimed.

1John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.​

According to Jesus all sins are covered for all men except one. If one does not commit this one sin, he will be saved, for his sins have been atoned for. But if he rejects Christ and insults the Spirit of grace who pointed him to Christ to the point where he becomes hardened, he will be condemned.

This explains why Peter spoke of false teachers being bought by our Lord (2Pet. 2:1). This is yet another passage where all kinds of backflips are done sway people from the plain reading. But if blasphemy of the Spirit is the permanent rejection of Christ, it makes perfect sense. They were atoned for! But they rejected Christ and thus blasphemed the Holy Spirit who pointed them to Christ.

This also explains why young children are always saved. For they are covered by the blood of Christ, and died at an age prior to the Spirit's enlightenment. Here again, some very educated men have to create all kinds of ways to explain how children are saved, and some even believe that many infants that die go to hell. But a proper understanding of the blasphemy of the Spirit solves this problem as well.

That's my take anyway. It's a work in progress, some adjustments are likely needed, but I'm hoping I'm on the right track.

 

[Skala]

Perhaps in soteriology discussions we're often asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking how men are saved, maybe we should ask how men are condemned.

There's an intriguing passage spoken by Jesus in which he directly addresses this question.

Matt. 12:31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. ​

This would seem to be an explicit affirmation of the forgiveness of all sins of all kinds committed by all men. They're all covered and going to be forgiven—that is except one—the blasphemy of the Spirit.

This is one of those passages where some very off-the-wall interpretations are offered, but none of them seem to make any sense. It's a very simple statement, and should taken at face value. All sins will be forgiven except one. All sins are covered except one. Figure out what this sin is and we may inch closer to a more true and perfect soteriology.

My take:

Most explanations of this passage are way off. This is not speaking of some vague sin that can't be committed anymore. It's not the act of accusing Christ of casting out demons by the devil as some propose. I realize the theological motives for such an interpretation, but it's a stretch at best.

The sin of blaspheming the Spirit still exists today, and should be feared (the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom). But what is it?

Well, first maybe we should think about the function or role of the Spirit. What does He do? Is it not the Spirit who enlightens us to our condition and our need for forgiveness? And if that's true, wouldn't the rejection of Christ be an offense to the One that pointed us to Christ? Look at this passage in Hebrews.

Heb. 10:29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?​

Here the rejection of Christ is specifically linked to insulting the Spirit of grace. It is the Spirit who gives us grace to believe. Naturally then, rejecting Christ would be akin to insulting or blaspheming the Spirit.

Therefore I will submit the following hypothesis. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the continual rejection the gospel which the Spirit Himself enlightened us to, to the point that the Spirit takes away our enlightenment and allows our hearts to once again become hardened. That in a nutshell is what I believe this sin is.

You'll notice this is not merely the simple act of rejecting the gospel, but a continual act to the point of a particular result—hardening.

You'll notice that rather than condemnation being the result of a lack of atonement, it is instead the result of specific offense which the atonement was never intended to cover. If one rejects Christ to the point of hardening, there is not sacrifice to cover that. That is an unforgivable sin.

Heb. 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.​

The passage above, BTW, has nothing to do with one losing his salvation. It is rather a picture of the man who is enlightened, and who tastes and who partakes in blessings but never believes. The above I believe is a picture of one who commits the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

And if this understanding of the blasphemy of the Spirit is correct, notice all the textual and theological problems is solves.

First, there would no longer be any reason to resist the clear biblical teaching that atonement is universal. As John proclaimed.

1John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.​

According to Jesus all sins are covered for all men except one. If one does not commit this one sin, he will be saved, for his sins have been atoned for. But if he rejects Christ and insults the Spirit of grace who pointed him to Christ to the point where he becomes hardened, he will be condemned.

This explains why Peter spoke of false teachers being bought by our Lord (2Pet. 2:1). This is yet another passage where all kinds of backflips are done sway people from the plain reading. But if blasphemy of the Spirit is the permanent rejection of Christ, it makes perfect sense. They were atoned for! But they rejected Christ thus blasphemed the Holy Spirit who pointed them to Christ.

This also explains why young children are always saved. For they are covered by the blood of Christ, and died at an age prior to the Spirit's enlightenment. Here again, some very educated men have to create all kinds of ways to explain how children are saved, and some even believe that many infants that die go to hell. But a proper understanding of the blasphemy of the Spirit solves this problem as well.

That's my take anyway.

Thanks for your interpretation. It is very interesting. The first part of it is similar, I think, to John Piper's understanding.

I'm still convinced that it's about accusing Jesus of getting his power from satan instead of the Spirit. One must ask, "What prompted Jesus to springboard into this lesson?" He didn't just start talking about it out of the blue. A certain thing happened, which means his statements about an unforgivable sin have a certain context.

 

[jdbrown]

The three most important ingredients in interpreting Scripture:

1. Context
2. Context
3. Context

 

[Calminian]

Thanks for your interpretation. It is very interesting. The first part of it is similar, I think, to John Piper's understanding.

I have read Piper on the book of Hebrews and find myself in much agreement with him.

 

[Ignatius21]

Heb. 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.​

The passage above, BTW, has nothing to do with one losing his salvation. It is rather a picture of the man who is enlightened, and who tastes and who partakes in blessings but never believes. The above I believe is a picture of one who commits the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

For hundreds of years, "enlightenment" was used in Christian circles to refer to baptism specifically, but also to the entire process of coming into the faith through catechesis, prayer, fasting, almsgiving, etc. All of these things were part of the path toward enlightenment, or the joining of the Christian faith through baptism.

Most likely this reference in Hebrews was intended this way. I can see no reason why it would mean anything different. And given the early church's (early as in, 1600 years prior to Protestantism, and 400 years after everywhere but Protestantism) understanding of baptism as effecting the union of the baptized person to Christ, the odds of this passage in Hebrews not referring to a believing person losing salvation seem very slim indeed.

Is it possible a person could have gone through all of that and never truly have believed? Sure. History is filled with examples of mass conversions of people who had no clue what they were joining. But I can't see how, given this first century context, the writer of Hebrews would have been referring to those who never actually believed it.

 

[Calminian]

For hundreds of years, "enlightenment" was used in Christian circles to refer to baptism specifically, but also to the entire process of coming into the faith through catechesis, prayer, fasting, almsgiving, etc. All of these things were part of the path toward enlightenment, or the joining of the Christian faith through baptism.

Most likely this reference in Hebrews was intended this way. I can see no reason why it would mean anything different. And given the early church's (early as in, 1600 years prior to Protestantism, and 400 years after everywhere but Protestantism) understanding of baptism as effecting the union of the baptized person to Christ, the odds of this passage in Hebrews not referring to a believing person losing salvation seem very slim indeed.

Is it possible a person could have gone through all of that and never truly have believed? Sure. History is filled with examples of mass conversions of people who had no clue what they were joining. But I can't see how, given this first century context, the writer of Hebrews would have been referring to those who never actually believed it.

But I think we're going to gain more insight from the text itself. Here are some texts that might help. John said that enlightenment was something all men are given.

John 1:7 He came afor a witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light. 9 There was athe true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.​

Then look at Christ's words. He speaks of the need to believe in the light when it is available.

John 12:35 Jesus therefore said to them, “For a little while longer the light is among you. Walk while you have the light, that darkness may not overtak you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. 36 “While you have the light, abelieve in the light, in order that you may become bsons of light.”​

And I can't help wonder if Jesus had this passage in mind when He spoke the above.

Jer. 13:16 Give glory to the LORD your God,
Before He brings darkness
And before your feet stumble
On the dusky mountains,
And while you are hoping for light
He makes it into ddeep darkness,
And turns it into gloom.​

The theme here seems to be the responsibility of a person to believe after they've been given the necessary amount of light.

Look at then other passages in Hebrews. The author uses Moses' generation as a metaphor several times, speaking of their need believe what is revealed to them. He speaks of the failure to enter Canaan as a metaphor for those refused to believe in the gospel.

Heb. 4:2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.​

Notice here the problem is not losing faith, but never having faith. Moses brought them through the red sea (grace) only to see them refused to cross the Jordan (faith). Notice this was not a case of them leaving the promised land, but never attaining it. They never entered rest. This seems to be a theme throughout Hebrews.

Heb. 3:7 Therefore, just as athe Holy Spirit says,

“TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,
8 DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME,
AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS,
9 aWHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED Me BY TESTING Me,
AND SAW MY WORKS FOR bFORTY YEARS.
10 “THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION,
AND SAID, ‘THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART;
AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS’;
11 aAS I SWORE IN MY WRATH,
‘THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.’”​

If you are a believer now—a true believer, I believe you have eternal life (which by definition can't be lost). In a sense, you've become a slave to Christ, and will no longer have the opportunity to leave. I like the picture given to us in Exodus of the man who chooses to remain with his master.

Ex. 21:1 “Now these are the aordinances which you are to set before them. 2 “If you buy aa Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. 3 “If he comes 1alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 “If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5 “But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently. ​

You'll notice the slave here willingly gives up his right to leave his Master. Once you give your life to Christ, I believe the same thing happens. While you may sin and rebel, you will never stop believing.

 

[Ignatius21]

But I think we're going to gain more insight from the text itself. Here are some texts that might help. John said that enlightenment was something all men are given.

John 1:7 He came afor a witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light. 9 There was athe true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.​

Then look at Christ's words. He speaks of the need to believe in the light when it is available.

John 12:35 Jesus therefore said to them, “For a little while longer the light is among you. Walk while you have the light, that darkness may not overtak you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. 36 “While you have the light, abelieve in the light, in order that you may become bsons of light.”​

And I can't help wonder if Jesus had this passage in mind when He spoke the above.

Jer. 13:16 Give glory to the LORD your God,
Before He brings darkness
And before your feet stumble
On the dusky mountains,
And while you are hoping for light
He makes it into ddeep darkness,
And turns it into gloom.​

The theme here seems to be the responsibility of a person to believe after they've been given the necessary amount of light.

Look at then other passages in Hebrews. The author uses Moses' generation as a metaphor several times, speaking of their need believe what is revealed to them. He speaks of the failure to enter Canaan as a metaphor for those refused to believe in the gospel.

Heb. 4:2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.​

Notice here the problem is not losing faith, but never having faith. Moses brought them through the red sea (grace) only to see them refused to cross the Jordan (faith). Notice this was not a case of them leaving the promised land, but never attaining it. They never entered rest. This seems to be a theme throughout Hebrews.

Heb. 3:7 Therefore, just as athe Holy Spirit says,

“TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,
8 DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME,
AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS,
9 aWHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED Me BY TESTING Me,
AND SAW MY WORKS FOR bFORTY YEARS.
10 “THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION,
AND SAID, ‘THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART;
AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS’;
11 aAS I SWORE IN MY WRATH,
‘THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.’”​

If you are a believer now—a true believer, I believe you have eternal life (which by definition can't be lost). In a sense, you've become a slave to Christ, and will no longer have the opportunity to leave. I like the picture given to us in Exodus of the man who chooses to remain with his master.

Ex. 21:1 “Now these are the aordinances which you are to set before them. 2 “If you buy aa Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. 3 “If he comes 1alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 “If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5 “But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently. ​

You'll notice the slave here willingly gives up his right to leave his Master. Once you give your life to Christ, I believe the same thing happens. While you may sin and rebel, you will never stop believing.

You make very good points, and I do not deny that the theme of "light" (and becoming "enlightened") is much broader than a reference to baptism. And there is nothing in the NT text that conclusively links the use of the word "enlighten" to the act of baptism. But from the very earliest times in Christian liturgy and practice, to become "enlightened" was to become baptized, which was to be reborn and washed clean of sin, which was to be joined to the Church, which was to be joined to Christ. It all just sort of collapsed together. The author of Hebrews was writing to Christians and clearly assumed that they had the necessary background to understand his letter, which would include pretty much all of the Jewish scriptures as well as all of the Jewish rituals and practices...as well as early Christian practices. I think it is entirely reasonable to believe that when he referred to "those who were once enlightened...and partaken of the heavenly gifts..." he was referring to baptized, communing Christians who had been living the life within the Church, and then fell away from it.

I guess I'm saying that his reference to those enlightened, then falling away, is broad enough to include those who "walked the walk" but never really believed, for whatever reason. But I cannot see that we can simply say, out of hand, "this does NOT refer to people who really did believe."

One short quote, then I'll lay this to rest...this homily from St. John Chrysostom pretty well captures what I'm trying to say, I think, and his doctrine overall is a fairly good summation of the orthodox thinking that had preceded him. In this short commentary, he clearly sees this passage of Hebrews as being related to baptism. Because he sees baptism as being related to everything that it is to be Christian. The full commentary is here: CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 9 on Hebrews (Chrysostom)

A representative snippet (where "the laver" is also a reference to baptism):

6. Crucifying to themselves, he says, the Son of God afresh, and putting Him to an open shame. What he means is this. Baptism is a Cross, and our old man was crucified with [Him] Romans 6:6, for we were made conformable to the likeness of His death Romans 6:5; Philippians 3:10, and again, we were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death. Romans 6:4 Wherefore, as it is not possible that Christ should be crucified a second time, for that is to put Him to an open shame. For if death shall no more have dominion over Him Romans 6:9, if He rose again, by His resurrection becoming superior to death; if by death He wrestled with and overcame death, and then is crucified again, all those things become a fable and a mockery. He then that baptizes a second time, crucifies Him again.

But what is crucifying afresh? [It is] crucifying over again. For as Christ died on the cross, so do we in baptism, not as to the flesh, but as to sin. Behold two deaths. He died as to the flesh; in our case the old man was buried, and the new man arose, made conformable to the likeness of His death. If therefore it is necessary to be baptized [again ], it is necessary that this same [Christ] should die again. For baptism is nothing else than the putting to death of the baptized, and his rising again.

And he well said, crucifying afresh unto themselves. For he that does this, as having forgotten the former grace, and ordering his own life carelessly, acts in all respects as if there were another baptism. It behooves us therefore to take heed and to make ourselves safe.

7. What is, having tasted of the heavenly gift? It is, of the remission of sins: for this is of God alone to bestow, and the grace is a grace once for all. What then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Far from it! Romans 6:1-2 But if we should be always going to be saved by grace we shall never be good. For where there is but one grace, and we are yet so indolent, should we then cease sinning if we knew that it is possible again to have our sins washed away? For my part I think not.

He here shows that the gifts are many: and to explain it, You were counted worthy (he says) of so great forgiveness; for he that was sitting in darkness, he that was at enmity, he that was at open war, that was alienated, that was hated of God, that was lost, he having been suddenly enlightened, counted worthy of the Spirit, of the heavenly gift, of adoption as a son, of the kingdom of heaven, of those other good things, the unspeakable mysteries; and who does not even thus become better, but while indeed worthy of perdition, obtained salvation and honor, as if he had successfully accomplished great things; how could he be again baptized?

On two grounds then he said that the thing was impossible, and he put the stronger last: first, because he who has been deemed worthy of such [blessings], and who has betrayed all that was granted to him, is not worthy to be again renewed; neither is it possible that [Christ] should again be crucified afresh: for this is to put Him to an open shame.

There is not then any second laver: there is not [indeed]. And if there is, there is also a third, and a fourth; for the former one is continually disannulled by the later, and this continually by another, and so on without end.

 

[Clare73]

How does one become condemned?

We are all born condemned by Adam's sin (Ro 5:18, Jn 3:18, 36).

 

[Iosias]

Perhaps the better question is to ask 'What is condemnation?'

 

[Clare73]

Perhaps the better question is to ask 'What is condemnation?'

That's not the OP.

Start another thread.

 

[Iosias]

That's not the OP.

Well yes it is because in order to answer the question 'How does one become condemned?' one needs to know what that condemnation is, hence 'What is condemnation?'

 

[Clare73]

Well yes it is because in order to answer the question 'How does one become condemned?' one needs to know what that condemnation is, hence 'What is condemnation?'

Okay. . .

In the Greek, "condemantion" is katakrima, which is the sentence pronounced, the condemnation with a suggestion of the punishment involved:

Ro 5:18 - showing to the opposite of life
Ro 8:1 - showing to the law of sin and death

In the NT, "condemnation" is to eternal death.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

How does one become condemned?

We are all born condemned by Adam's sin (Ro 5:18, Jn 3:18, 36).

Yes (Ps 51:5), and whosover does not believe is condemned already (JN 3:18) say's our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[Calminian]

Well yes it is because in order to answer the question 'How does one become condemned?' one needs to know what that condemnation is, hence 'What is condemnation?'

I'd rather not hash out the meaning of condemnation on this thread. I'd like this tread to merely focus on how condemnation comes about. Technically, the details of condemnation won't affect the discussion on how it comes about.

 

[Iosias]

I'd rather not hash out the meaning of condemnation on this thread. I'd like this tread to merely focus on how condemnation comes about. Technically, the details of condemnation won't affect the discussion on how it comes about.

Paul's understanding of condemnation was peculiar to Jewish apocalypticism which neither you nor I share, hence we need to re-interpret what Paul means by condemnation, and ask whether such a term is helpful or even meaningful. To my mind, God will not condemn anyone hence to speak of condemnation is meaningless.

 

[Clare73]

Paul's understanding of condemnation was peculiar to Jewish apocalypticism which neither you nor I share, hence we need to re-interpret what Paul means by condemnation, and ask whether such a term is helpful or even meaningful. To my mind, God will not condemn anyone hence to speak of condemnation is meaningless.

GAG!

Paul's understanding of condemnation is precisely what he states it to be.

Call it what you want, from "peculiar" to "apocalypticism," it is the NT meaning of "condemnation," whether you agree with it or not.

On what basis do you judge the Word of God?
Do you not know that you don't judge the Word of God, it judges you?

 

[Calminian]

Paul's understanding of condemnation was peculiar to Jewish apocalypticism which neither you nor I share, hence we need to re-interpret what Paul means by condemnation, and ask whether such a term is helpful or even meaningful. To my mind, God will not condemn anyone hence to speak of condemnation is meaningless.

Please start a new thread then. I'm going to ask mods keep that side discussion out of this thread.

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just a reminder that the OP of the thread is asking what causes condemnation or how men are condemned. If you look at the OP of the thread he clearly states:

Instead of asking how men are saved, maybe we should ask how men are condemned.

He is looking for a discussion on how men are condemned. Please keep the replies on topic.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Hammster]

Just so I'm clear, are you wanting our views on how one becomes condemned, or our views of what Jesus meant by blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Calminian]

Just so I'm clear, are you wanting our views on how one becomes condemned, or our views of what Jesus meant by blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

Yes, absolutely. How does one become condemned? I don't this this occurs due to a lack of atonement, as atonement is universal (1John 2:2). I actually question the very popular view that people are condemned for our sins, and not for rejecting Christ. I think this passage on the blasphemy may hold the key, and express that it actually is the rejection of Christ which the Spirit illuminates that condemns us. It is the one sin, apparently, that the atonement does not cover.

But that's a view in the works. How would you say man is condemned?