One or zero sins

[doclkk]

This is a perspective that I thought about and would like to humor a discussion about.

So Jesus says that our sins are forgiven.

Follow this logic

Premise 1. Jesus died for all sinners
Premise 2. There is only one 'unforgivable' sin throughout the Bible - blasphemy against the Holy spirit.
Premise 3. All (except one) present and future sins are forgiven

So under these premises, everyone has either 1 or zero sins. Jesus forgave the rest of our sins, however if we do not believe (Biblical definition of believe, not webster's) in Christ - that is, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then we have one sin. One sin is enough for us to face hell.

Thoughts?

 

[Lyle]

the verse about speaking out against the holy Spirit means, to turn from. if someone turns from God there is no forgiveness period.. Which is why it is the unforgivable sin.. But one sin is enough to send us to hell.. I personally believe a true Christian cannot blaspheme the Holy Spirit...

 

[seebs]

There is very little support for the idea that "not believing" is the unforgivable sin.

Quite simply, if it were, then everyone would be going to Hell, because everyone, at some point, didn't believe. Once you do the unforgivable sin, it's supposed to be over.

 

[secretdawn]

This is a perspective that I thought about and would like to humor a discussion about.

So Jesus says that our sins are forgiven.

Follow this logic

Premise 1. Jesus died for all sinners
Premise 2. There is only one 'unforgivable' sin throughout the Bible - blasphemy against the Holy spirit.
Premise 3. All (except one) present and future sins are forgiven

So under these premises, everyone has either 1 or zero sins. Jesus forgave the rest of our sins, however if we do not believe (Biblical definition of believe, not webster's) in Christ - that is, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then we have one sin. One sin is enough for us to face hell.

Thoughts?

Blasphemy against the Holy Spririt, as I understand it, Is knowing that Jesus died for our sins, believing it and having the Holy Spirit come over you, then saying that you don't care and attributing things of Christ to Satan...

 

[doclkk]

I'm accustomed with the meaning of blastphemy against holy spirit, but none of you are answering the question prima facie.

The question is, when we are judged - do we have one sin/zero sins? (with the afforementioned reasoning)

 

[Lyle]

There is very little support for the idea that "not believing" is the unforgivable sin.

Did I say that?

 

[Polycarp1]

Did I say that?

Nossir, you did not. I gather that seebs was addressing doclkk, who didsay something very similar to that, in the final paragraph of the OP.

However, Lyle, there have been many people over the 2,000 years of Christianity who have "turned away from God" and then repented and returned to Him. Are you saying that they cannot be forgiven?

 

[TScott]

Blasphemy against the Holy Spririt, as I understand it, Is knowing that Jesus died for our sins, believing it and having the Holy Spirit come over you, then saying that you don't care and attributing things of Christ to Satan...

I think this is closer to the mark. The Gospels have Jesus telling the Pharisees about the unforgivable sin, therefore it should be taken in that context. If you Blaspheme God knowingly, as a true believer, that is unforgivable according to the Gospel account.

 

[Lyle]

However, Lyle, there have been many people over the 2,000 years of Christianity who have "turned away from God" and then repented and returned to Him. Are you saying that they cannot be forgiven?

I think it runs a bit deeper then just backsliding. Like thinking about it this way. say two travelers are walking down two seperate roads that are eternal (no way to get off in their lifetime). At one point their paths cross, they have a choice to walk together; One embraces the idea, the other dislikes it and so tunrs from the person and continues down their own road... Never to see this other again that offered to have this perason come and walk with 'em. therefore the person that invtied will continue his way (maybe meet another) and the person that rejected would continue from this person forever....

Personaly, I think it falls more along those lines... if that made any sense.

 

[seebs]

Anyway, the short answer is, no, I don't think it's "one or zero". I think other sins can be forgiven, but their forgiveness is still contingent on other things.

 

[doclkk]

Anyway, the short answer is, no, I don't think it's "one or zero". I think other sins can be forgiven, but their forgiveness is still contingent on other things.

1. Thanks to Seebs for giving a clear answer

2. What "other things" is it contingent on, another words - what premise of mine is incorrect?

 

[seebs]

1. Thanks to Seebs for giving a clear answer

2. What "other things" is it contingent on, another words - what premise of mine is incorrect?

I think you have hidden premises.

Yours were:

Premise 1. Jesus died for all sinners
Premise 2. There is only one 'unforgivable' sin throughout the Bible - blasphemy against the Holy spirit.
Conclusion. All (except one) present and future sins are forgiven

However, this seems to conflate "forgivable" and "forgiven". For instance, it is often asserted that repentence is necessary for forgiveness. If this is the case, then unrepented sins may be forgivable in principle, but may not be forgiven, because they have not yet been repented.

I don't know what the details are, but I think it is likely that there are circumstances under which a theoretically forgivable sin may be unforgiven.

 

[doclkk]

Wait ... so that means Christians could go to hell if they don't "repent" for their sins doesn't it?

This is what i am saying - All sins are forgiven regardless of explicit repentance after one accepts Christ.

Thus, the Christian has 0 sins.

However, if someone is non-Christian, Jesus died for their sins as well, however, they are not forgiven of blasphemy against the holy spirit.

 

[seebs]

Wait ... so that means Christians could go to hell if they don't "repent" for their sins doesn't it?

This is what i am saying - All sins are forgiven regardless of explicit repentance after one accepts Christ.

That's possible, but I'm not convinced. I don't speak only of explicit repentance, but consider the case of explicit unrepentance, where someone consciously decides not to repent a given sin.

However, if someone is non-Christian, Jesus died for their sins as well, however, they are not forgiven of blasphemy against the holy spirit.

Except that there's no basis I can see for assuming that they've committed it.

 

[doclkk]

1.

That's possible, but I'm not convinced. I don't speak only of explicit repentance, but consider the case of explicit unrepentance, where someone consciously decides not to repent a given sin.



2. Except that there's no basis I can see for assuming that they've committed it.

1. OK, so then a someone that does not give up stealing food for his family to live and then one day while stealing is shot, goes to hell? OR, one grandparent that continues to lie to his children about his terminal illness finally dies - goes to hell?

2. Let's define blasphemy - isn't this essentially - having been told about Christ and how to accept him and still not accepting? So thus, this is the assumption that someone has committed blasphemy because they are a non-Christian by choice, no one has forced them to be a non-Christian after they have been told.

 

[seebs]

1. OK, so then a someone that does not give up stealing food for his family to live and then one day while stealing is shot, goes to hell? OR, one grandparent that continues to lie to his children about his terminal illness finally dies - goes to hell?

Dunno. I doubt God is a legalist, so it may not be a "sin" properly.

2. Let's define blasphemy - isn't this essentially - having been told about Christ and how to accept him and still not accepting?

Simply, no. There is no basis whatsoever for this; it's an aftermarket add-on people came up with so they could be smug towards nonbelievers. There is no evidence that this is what "blasphemy of the holy spirit" refers to.

So thus, this is the assumption that someone has committed blasphemy because they are a non-Christian by choice, no one has forced them to be a non-Christian after they have been told.

If this were true, it would be a mortal sin to tell people about the Gospel. Think about it.

 

[doclkk]

Dunno. I doubt God is a legalist, so it may not be a "sin" properly.



Simply, no. There is no basis whatsoever for this; it's an aftermarket add-on people came up with so they could be smug towards nonbelievers. There is no evidence that this is what "blasphemy of the holy spirit" refers to.



If this were true, it would be a mortal sin to tell people about the Gospel. Think about it.

1. By saying may - it's kinda ambiguous, please be specific with your analysis, why do you say you doubt God is a legalist? So to God, everything is black and white?

2. Please define to me the "TRUE" definition of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

3. So then, who goes to hell and who goes to heaven then? It's a "mortal sin" to not accept Christ, they're the one's choosing not to believe.

Isn't it basic Christian doctrine that those that do not accept Jesus Christ go to hell?

 

[seebs]

1. By saying may - it's kinda ambiguous, please be specific with your analysis, why do you say you doubt God is a legalist? So to God, everything is black and white?

I doubt God is a legalist, because Grace overrules Law.

2. Please define to me the "TRUE" definition of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

No one knows for sure. However, it's pretty clearly not "disbelief" in and of itself, because most Christians, including most of the Apostles, rejected the Gospel at first, and had to think about it for a while. If rejecting it were unforgivable, this couldn't have happened.

3. So then, who goes to hell and who goes to heaven then? It's a "mortal sin" to not accept Christ, they're the one's choosing not to believe.

Who goes to hell and heaven? I don't know, and you don't either. God knows. How about, rather than second-guessing Him and trying to impose man-made rules on His grace and glory, we trust Him to do things right?

Belief is not, for most people, something they can choose to do or not do. I cannot choose to believe that the moon is made of green cheese.

Isn't it basic Christian doctrine that those that do not accept Jesus Christ go to hell?

It's popular, but it's obviously false. Think about, for instance, babies. They never accept anything. There is no justice in sending them to Hell, so obviously some people get a pass.

It seems pretty clear that the majority of people who "hear the Gospel" actually heard only a sketchy or false version of it, and have never been told the whole story. As such, most people who apparently "reject the Gospel" in fact reject only the words of incompetent human speakers.

 

[doclkk]

I doubt God is a legalist, because Grace overrules Law.



No one knows for sure. However, it's pretty clearly not "disbelief" in and of itself, because most Christians, including most of the Apostles, rejected the Gospel at first, and had to think about it for a while. If rejecting it were unforgivable, this couldn't have happened.



Who goes to hell and heaven? I don't know, and you don't either. God knows. How about, rather than second-guessing Him and trying to impose man-made rules on His grace and glory, we trust Him to do things right?

Belief is not, for most people, something they can choose to do or not do. I cannot choose to believe that the moon is made of green cheese.




It's popular, but it's obviously false. Think about, for instance, babies. They never accept anything. There is no justice in sending them to Hell, so obviously some people get a pass.

It seems pretty clear that the majority of people who "hear the Gospel" actually heard only a sketchy or false version of it, and have never been told the whole story. As such, most people who apparently "reject the Gospel" in fact reject only the words of incompetent human speakers.

1. I still don't understand how asserting that Grace overrides law condones the "sins."

2. If no one knows for sure - why did Jesus bother saying it if he didn't intend on us for understanding it. As I understand blasphemy, it is not believing for the duration of your life. If you decide to believe afterwards, then it isn't blasphemy.

3. Who goes to heaven or hell? OK, this is where YOU'RE wrong, because I know I'm going to heaven and God is very clear through multiple verses that we can ensure ourselves eternal life ... ie John 3:16, Rev. 3:20, Romans 10:8-9 etc.

4. Because of your answer to 3, I'm not sorry to say but your credibility is diminished. I need not argue further with you on this issue when I don't believe you should be arguing theology when you don't even have the basics down.

5. I was requesting an answer from a Christian that is saved and understands the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

I only wish to argue my theology with those with the same doctrines of Christianity, if you are not a saved, there are many moderators and other people far nicer than I am that will walk you through step by step how to become saved.

 

[seebs]

1. I still don't understand how asserting that Grace overrides law condones the "sins."

It doesn't, but it indicates lack of legalism.

2. If no one knows for sure - why did Jesus bother saying it if he didn't intend on us for understanding it. As I understand blasphemy, it is not believing for the duration of your life. If you decide to believe afterwards, then it isn't blasphemy.

You can believe that, and another guy can believe that "blasphemy of the holy spirit" means ordering anchovies on pizza. Both of you have just as much support for your position.

3. Who goes to heaven or hell? OK, this is where YOU'RE wrong, because I know I'm going to heaven and God is very clear through multiple verses that we can ensure ourselves eternal life ... ie John 3:16, Rev. 3:20, Romans 10:8-9 etc.

You may claim certainty if you wish. I won't.

4. Because of your answer to 3, I'm not sorry to say but your credibility is diminished. I need not argue further with you on this issue when I don't believe you should be arguing theology when you don't even have the basics down.

What you refer to as "the basics" are the teachings of your church. Not all churches agree on these issues. I am in line with the teachings of my church. I am not particularly qualified to argue theology, but then, no living person is fully qualified. We do our best, and we admit to uncertainty when we don't really know.

5. I was requesting an answer from a Christian that is saved and understands the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

I understand the fundamental doctrines of five or six different religions which are all kinds of Christianity. As to "is saved", the idea that salvation is a one-time event which happens to you, rather than an ongoing process, is itself one of those doctrines which is far from universal.

I only wish to argue my theology with those with the same doctrines of Christianity, if you are not a saved, there are many moderators and other people far nicer than I am that will walk you through step by step how to become saved.

And if I talk to three of them, I will get three different, and mutually exclusive answers. I think I'll stick with God, whose answers are clear, unequivocal, and not a result of people trying to assert authority they don't have.