Let us clear up once for all the meaning of the "Unpardonable Sin"

[max1120]

I have read here on CF many of what I consider to be inaccurate definitions of the "unpardonable sin". Some argue that the "unpardonable sin" is simply living ones life without accepting Jesus. Others argue that the "unpardonable sin" is committed when a christian turns away from god and his teaching and follows some other path or refuses to progress toward some form of perfection. I believe both of these are both inaccurate definitions the "unpardonable sin". Most of those who try to ascribe the latter of these two definitions do so by quoting the book of Hebrews. However, I think if we want find the most accurate definition possible, we should turn to the very words of Jesus given in Mark 3:20-30, be sure to read the full context of the passage. Let us take a closer look this passage. What is Jesus doing? He is casting out spirits (demons). What happen? Jesus was casting out spirits and a group of "scribes" who were no doubt sent to watch Jesus by the Sanhedrin (local Jewish court) accused Jesus of casting out demons in the name of Beleezebub (one of the chief demons of hell). What did Jesus do? Jesus then used logic ("house divided") to show how ridiculous the asserts put forth by the scribes. Jesus then states clearly that the "blasphemy of the holy spirit" is the unpardonable spirit. So here we have the words of Jesus telling us what the "unpardonable sin" is and we have it given to us in the context of these scribes accusing Jesus of casting out demons by the powers of hell. This give what I consider to be the most compelling example of all regarding the true meaning of the "unpardonable sin". The scribes committed the same "sin" as Satan, the angles which followed Satan during the war in Heaven, and Judas Iscariot. What was there sin you may ask? They rejected and turned away from Jesus (in absolute and permeate way) despite having absolute physical proof of his existence as god. Satan knew god he was among the highest order of angles in heaven. Judas Iscariot was one Christ disciples, he seen Jesus in the flesh and had witnessed his many miracles in person. The angles who waged war against god in heaven also had actual physical knowledge of Christ. They had been given the blessing of not having to rely upon faith to believe but to know factually of gods existence. For them to turn away was to deny what they knew as fact not simply as a matter of faith or belief. Likewise, these scribes which had been blessed to witness the miracles of Christ were attributing works to demons in hell, something they knew was impossible (Jesus own words confirm that they knew it was impossible "house divided") as Jesus used logic to illustrate this fact. They "chose" for whatever reason to deny the reality of what they had been shown as factual. What Christ was saying is if anyone rejects Christ after witnessing this sort of factual evidence, they will never be forgiven.

So what does this mean for us today? It means it is virtually impossible for anyone reading my words to actually commit the "unpardonable sin". Unless you happen to have a physical encounter with Christ which you know factually to be an encounter with him and know that what you have witnessed to be the truth and then deny it. I can not say that no one will ever have this but I have to believe it would be a very small number indeed. Again, they would have to have knowledge of Christ and his works the same as Judas, Satan, the angles that rebelled in heaven, and the scribes which witnessed his miracles which were mentioned in the above passage. Only then could they possibly commit the "unpardonable sin". I would like to know what you believe, what is your opinion?

 

[steamforthis]

If it's not relevant today, why would they even write it down?

 

[max1120]

If it's not relevant today, why would they even write it down?

Jesus was condemning those who would not accept him despite the evidence being insurmountable. It was meant to show the seriousness of this to those who witnessed this event. It is a part of the story of Christ performing miracles and it is that part of the story which was meaningful for us today. Thus, it gets handed down to us because it is a part of that story. However, it is possible that he is also showing the logic of why Satan and the angles in hell cannot be redeemed. Although it had not yet occurred, he is also illustrating why there could be no redemption for Judas Iscariot. Perhaps another reason is that Christ not does wish others to be tempted to do the same who might witness him in such a way, even if this was a small number of individuals.

 

[max1120]

Like any other law the "unpardonable sin" has certain "elements of the crime" which must occur for one to be considered guilty. According to my understanding (as I point out in the OP) there are three (3) elements.

1. The individual must have physical (actually seen) knowledge of god. Furthermore, the person must have witnessed his power and have no doubt as to his identity as the one true god. He must in other words reject god with full knowledge (physical proof) of his existence.

2. He must freely turn away and deny god and all his works despite having perfect factual knowledge of him and his works. In other words he must have indisputable facts of gods existence and of his works and he must deny them both.

3. The denial must be final and permeate in his heart. It must not be fleeting.

This would be a heavy burden for any prosecutor to meet and the charge would lend itself to only a few potential suspects. Examples again would be; Judas, Satan, angles who rebelled with Satan, and the scribes mentioned in the passage above. It in my opinion is not something anyone is likely to encounter. Even the worst satanist is not likely to commit the unpardonable sin since he is highly unlikely to have come into the physical presence of Christ in a situation similar to the one presented in Mark 3:20-30.

 

[rockytopva]

The Pharisees were mocking Jesus because he was doing miracles in the name of Beelzebub, in fact he was actually doing miracles under the unction of the Holy Spirit. Jesus basically told them that they were not making fun of him, but the Holy Spirit. He also said that he and the Father would forgive sins, but there was no forgiveness for sins against the Holy Spirit.

If I accuse a fellow Christian of operating under the power of the devil, when in actuality he was operating under the unction of the Holy Spirit, I have not made fun of that individual, but his underlying power, which is the Holy Spirit.

 

[max1120]

The Pharisees were mocking Jesus because he was doing miracles in the name of Beelzebub, in fact he was actually doing miracles under the unction of the Holy Spirit. Jesus basically told them that they were not making fun of him, but the Holy Spirit. He also said that he and the Father would forgive sins, but there was no forgiveness for sins against the Holy Spirit.

If I accuse a fellow Christian of operating under the power of the devil, when in actuality he was operating under the unction of the Holy Spirit, I have not made fun of that individual, but his underlying power, which is the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps, but I think you would need to "KNOW" that the fellow Christian was not "operating under the power of the devil" and also KNOW that they were operating under the power of the holy spirit. If you made the acussation out of ignorance or misinformation, than I doubt it would qualify as meeting the standards for committing the "unpardonable sin". Notice in the passage (Mark 3:20-30) how the scribes actually knew what was going on, they saw with thier own eyes. Then they contrived an acqusation that they knew (or should have known) was false. Jesus points out the fact that the acussation is rediculous and the fact that these men were educated indicates that they knew that what they were saying was false.

I do not think the "unpardonable sin" can be committed against another Christian or even Jesus (as scripture points out) but only against the holy spirit where the accusser actually has full knowledge that what they say or do is false.

 

[max1120]

I even doubt whether Judas Iscariot can be considered to have committed the "unpardonable sin" as it is discribed in the NT that Satan entered him before he betrayed Christ. Therefore, he may not have been acting on his own conscious behalf at the time he betrayed Christ. If he had the power within him to refuse to betray Christ, then yes he may have committed the "unpardonable sin". If he did not posess the ability to resist (do to some sort of demonic possession) than he may not have committed the "unpardonable sin". In my opinion, a good case could be made both ways. For example, it is inferred in the NT that Judas had remorse for his actions. This would imply that perhaps it was committed under some form of demonic possession. Again, a good case can be made both ways.

 

[Gottservant]

The unpardonable sin is saying something the Spirit has said with authority is not what it is.

For example, if I say "forgiveness" is "not forgiveness" that is the unpardonable sin.

The pharisees were saying the healing Christ gave was not really healing.

In other words, Christ had nothing to say to them, that is unforgiveable.

 

[max1120]

I doubt it, base upon what I understand from my reading of this passage. I believe that you would have to absolutely know that what was indeed said by the holy spirit and know this as a matter of fact rather simply as a matter of belief. In other words, you would have the same level of factual knowledge as the scribes in Mark 5:20-30. This would be highly unlikely today.

 

[max1120]

I have been told by several persons, that if someone is concerned about committing the "unpardonable sin", then they have never committed the "unpardonable sin". I agree with this approach to the question.

 

[rockytopva]

I have been told by several persons, that if someone is concerned about committing the "unpardonable sin", then they have never committed the "unpardonable sin". I agree with this approach to the question.

I would agree with that.

 

[max1120]

It amazes me how many think that the unpardonable sin is some sort of sin that anyone commit. From what I have read, a person living today has almost a zero chance of committing the unpardonable sin. It is not simply blasphemy or mocking another Christian, it is saying that the Holy Spirit is an "unclean spirit" (Mar 3:20) and know with absolute factual knowledge (as in having seen perfect proof with your eyes) that it is not true. In other words, this is a sin that could only be committed if one were knowingly in the physical presence of God.