How do we define the umpardonable sin?

[marco]

In Matthew 12:31 we have: “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.�

Was Jesus just being dramatic here, trying to frighten his listeners? What on earth is "blasphemy against the Spirit"? Did Jesus, somewhere, elaborate on this dramatic statement?


And in what way is such blasphemy worse than, say, mass murder?

[marco]

* Mark 4:10-12 -- "...to those who are outside, all things are done in parables, that ‘seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand, lest perhaps they should turn again, and their sins should be forgiven them.’ "

This is nonsense masquerading as wisdom. Oscar Wilde was better than Mark at making outrageous statements, but his aphorisms contained grains of truth. Are we still offending the Spirit in Mark, here?

[ttruscott]

And this ironically illustrates a house divided among itself. Where is truth then? If only Jesus had learned to say exactly what he meant - we could abandon exegesis.

The house is not divided; only some of the unsanctified ideas of the disciples are reported as being divided not the end result of their sanctification. Jesus was NOT here to reveal every secret and open every mind to the truth as He told the disciples a few times. Your contention that He did NOT say exactly what He meant is an opinion not stated or supported in scripture in any form so must be proven to conform to debating standards.

The flim flam of exegesis is that for anyone to get the meaning of a verse from only the verse itself without any input from their mindset and unfiltered by existing ideas is on the order of Paul's conversion as a bright light and hearing GOD's voice. Every interpretation of a verse is eisegesis, the fitting of the verse into previously accepted definitions.

[PinSeeker]

This is a case in point; God was present here also in the person of the Holy Spirit, although unseen.

The Witch worked magic.

If you take this passage completely out of the context of the whole Word of God, you can make that case. I wouldn't advise doing that, but you did, which is your prerogative.

You magically construe this as the involvement of the Holy Spirit.

Naw. I simply read it in context of the entire Word of God.

Given this means of explanation, we can happily assume the omnipresence of the Spirit in all eventualities and argument ends.

Well, if that's your way of affirming that God's Word never returns to Him empty, then I agree.

[marco]

This is a statement of an idea about the way God works. How can we know this?[/quote]

First, we all already know this and because of our self chosen sinfulness suppress this truth because we love sin more. [/quote]

You might as well say everyone knows about the Sieve of Eratosthenes, but we suppress this knowledge.

Second, we are called to live by faith, an unproven hope, instead of by proof,

Thankfully this call does not apply in mathematics or we would be in a mess. Our tales such as Jack and the Beanstalk are meant to show how foolish it is to wander the world wearing only faith.

The veil of darkness is only a chain of darkness for those who have sinned the unforgivable sin who therefore cannot repent.

We remove some darkness by immersing ourselves in literature, learning from our wise dead. Truth doesn't loudly declare itself, as in Paul, but rests humbly in the vast treasury of human literature and achievement. The myths of Sisyphus or Orpheus or Prometheus are beautiful truths hidden in stories. Chaining ourselves to myths about a world before our time or to spirits who dominate us is not, for me anyway, a way to remove darkness. I see more truth in Keats's nightingale than in the parted tongues of fire.

[PinSeeker]

Again, I'm surely not surprised. The fact is, Christ's words do not seem to you to mean what they really do mean; what Christ is saying is far deeper than you imagine (which is a recurring pattern).

I said: "Christ's words do not mean what they seem to mean."

Right, which would seem to any reasonable fellow to imply that you do know/understand what they truly mean. And in that case, in view of your take on Christ's words, they do seem to mean to you something quite different than what they really do mean -- which is another way of saying you misconstrue or misunderstand, neither of which is surprising.

* A sin of commission is a sinful action -- thoughts, words, and deeds included.
* A a sin of omission is a sinful failure to perform an action -- thoughts, words, and deeds included.

Commission is the act of committing. When people sin, by whatever means, they COMMIT. By NOT doing what one is supposed to do one is committing a sin of omission. You would say they are guilty of commission (of sin) but not of commission. Quite so.

Nope. Paul illustrates this very well in Romans 7. He says, "For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want." In other words, the things that he knows he should do he fails to do (these are sins of omission), and the things that he knows he shouldn't do, he does (these are sins of commission. Either way, he is committing sin, or sinning. It may help you to realize that 'commission' and 'omission' is relating to a decision rather than a mere act. Sins, regardless of their type, are acts, and as such are always committed; sins of commission are sins that we commit by doing something we shouldn’t do, and sins of omission are sins we commit by not doing something we should do. Either way, the sin is committed.

What would have been fair is if God had selected no one.

If God had "favorites," we would not see passages in His Word like:
* John 3:16 -- "... whosoever believes in Him...:
* Romans 10:9 -- "...if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved..."
* 1st Timothy 2:3-4 -- God "...desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth..."
So, your definition of 'fairness' is far too low and short-sighted.

You are not providing counterexamples.

My intention was not to provide counterexamples (if you want me to, I can), but rather to show that God is not guilty of partiality in the way you suppose Him to be.

But, as with all things, it goes much deeper than that with God;

The ways of God are not mysterious to some fortunate humans, it seems. Perhaps on this very forum he has favourites to whom he imparts the unknowable.

Nah, it's just that many things of God -- those relating specifically to salvation -- are spiritually discerned; they cannot be discerned correctly without God having revealed them via His Spirit, whom He gives to His elect. This does not mean that every member of His elect have the same level of knowledge or understanding about specific passages of the Bible as other members of His elect. Nor does it mean that any member of God's elect can necessarily understand specific passages from God's Word better than or even as well as those who are not members of God's elect, actually.

All in all, the complete sovereignty of God over His creation is hard to accept for some, for sure. Nevertheless, He is the potter and we are the clay, and the potter has a right over the clay,

I think those who dismiss Yahweh are not interested in metaphors about divine sovereignty.

I agree with this. But while they're not interested in God's sovereignty, they are interested in proclaiming their own, as far as salvation is concerned. Indeed, they are wise in their own eyes, which is the sin of Adam in the garden. And to the discerning eye, they ultimately affirm God's sovereignty in everything they say and do, albeit unintentionally.

Clay is inanimate stuff and its relation to the person who works in it is not one of servitude. It is rather depressing to think humans are inanimate clay. Did not God, in myth, endow some of us with a brain? All this is few constellations away from the Holy Spirit against whom we're not to blaspheme. Surely we should be discussing him and not the Potter or the Carpenter. Go well.

<chuckles> The purpose of the metaphor is surely not to portray man as inanimate or unthinking (for that also is an exceedingly shallow analysis), but rather as one whose thoughts and acts have been and are being transformed because of the rebirth of his spirit (or not), which can only happen by the appointment of God and the inner working -- the salvific call -- of God via His Holy Spirit. Either way (whether God extends this mercy or not), it is His sovereign choice; He is the Potter. You choose not to acknowledge this, and as regrettable as that may be from my standpoint or that of any other Christian, it affirms God's sovereignty, even as much as His giving me new life in Christ, and it makes me ever more grateful to Him and ever more worshipful of Him -- proclaiming of His worth-ship, or worthiness -- for His mercy, His glorious grace, especially in light of the fact that I am no better or more deserving than any other sinner, believer or not. Perhaps He is allowing you to stray for a season; He has been known to do that many times -- and intends to bring you in at some point in the future, much like the younger son in Luke 15 (vv. 11-32). One can only hope and pray.

Grace and peace to you, Marco.

[marco]

I said: "Christ's words do not mean what they seem to mean."

Right, which would seem to any reasonable fellow to imply that you do know/understand what they truly mean. And in that case, in view of your take on Christ's words, they do seem to mean to you something quite different than what they really do mean -- which is another way of saying you misconstrue or misunderstand, neither of which is surprising.

Your problem is with the word "SEEM". If you are going to perform an analysis it would be wise to couch it in proper grammatical terms, since grammar is the issue here.

The word different is not a comparative and requires the preposition "from" after it, not "than". This is a minor point but if I am being assessed I would rather it were done competently.

The very simple point is that while Christ is condemning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, you are condemning something else. I misconstrue nothing here: I take issue with your re-evaluation of what Christ said.

Nope. Paul illustrates this very well in Romans 7.

He does nothing of the sort. We are discussing the usage of the English word "commit". Your example has nothing to do with the point being made, which I assume you just haven't understood.

My intention was not to provide counterexamples (if you want me to, I can), but rather to show that God is not guilty of partiality in the way you suppose Him to be.

I see. Then you simply failed in your attempt. It happens.

Nah, it's just that many things of God -- those relating specifically to salvation -- are spiritually discerned;

I wonder if you think the use of "nah" makes for better oratory. Just asking. So you get things through "spiritual discernment." Fascinating! Others read or take university degrees.

Indeed, they are wise in their own eyes, which is the sin of Adam in the garden.

That's one possibility. He was also disobeying, but if you wish to perform some psychological analysis of Adam you are surely subject to error.

Meantime the Holy Spirit has flown away. Perhaps our discussion should have been about him, and why he gets so upset. Go well.

[Difflugia]

This is nonsense masquerading as wisdom. Oscar Wilde was better than Mark at making outrageous statements, but his aphorisms contained grains of truth. Are we still offending the Spirit in Mark, here?

I'm not sure it's even supposed to be wisdom. The theology of Mark is that only a select group (those few aware of Mark's Gospel) will gain salvation. Jesus is saying that He's doesn't want anyone outside this select group to catch a clue and get saved. He does have favorites.

[PinSeeker]

Your problem is with the word "SEEM".

I have no problem. You certainly seem to, though. I'll leave it at that.

If you are going to perform an analysis it would be wise to couch it in proper grammatical terms, since grammar is the issue here. The word different is not a comparative and requires the preposition "from" after it, not "than". This is a minor point but if I am being assessed I would rather it were done competently.

Ah, yes, so that's all you have at this point -- grammar critique. I see.

The very simple point is that while Christ is condemning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, you are condemning something else.

That I am condemning anything is is absolutely false, That I am saying Christ is condemning something else other than what I say He is condemning is also absolutely false, and this has been one of my point from the very beginning of our exchange. I am merely expanding on what Christ means by "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," and doing so in the context of the rest of the Word of God... which is not hard to do, but you fail miserably at, either because (a) you are not trying, (b) because you can't, or (c) both. I'm going with (c).

I misconstrue nothing here...

You do.

I take issue with your re-evaluation of what Christ said.

Understood. But mine is not a "re-evaluation" in any sense but rather a clarifying, which Christ Himself makes, not I, in various other parts of His Word.

Nope. Paul illustrates this very well in Romans 7.

He does nothing of the sort.

Ah, now you want to argue about Paul. He does.

We are discussing the usage of the English word "commit".

Well, you are. Or trying really hard to frame in the way you want to frame it, anyway. What I'm saying is it's really not relevant, because it applies to both types of sin -- sure, both types of sin are "committed." There's really no discussion to be had about it, because it applies to both. I think the reason you're focusing on that is you wrongly suppose that 'commit' is the root word of 'commission.' It is not; they are two entirely different things.

Your example has nothing to do with the point being made, which I assume you just haven't understood.

I understand well your point and I'm trying to get you to understand its irrelevancy. But, in the words of the great Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel, "still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" (The Boxer, 1968).

My intention was not to provide counterexamples (if you want me to, I can), but rather to show that God is not guilty of partiality in the way you suppose Him to be.

I see. Then you simply failed in your attempt. It happens.

No, you just elected not to accept it. Which I anticipated. It's happened many times before, and I'm sure that won't end here.

Nah, it's just that many things of God -- those relating specifically to salvation -- are spiritually discerned;

I wonder if you think the use of "nah" makes for better oratory. Just asking. So you get things through "spiritual discernment." Fascinating! Others read or take university degrees.

What, no grammatical correction?! I'm very disappointed in you. Anyhoooo... my spiritual judgment helps me to put the knowledge gained through my university degrees -- as well as those I've received from the school of hard knocks -- in the proper context in both this life and, when I get there, of course, the next.

Indeed, they are wise in their own eyes, which is the sin of Adam in the garden.

That's one possibility. He was also disobeying, but if you wish to perform some psychological analysis of Adam you are surely subject to error.

LOL! Disobedient behavior is 100 percent of the time preceded by one's thinking he knows better than the way commanded/instructed. I'm sure you know that; I do because I've learned it the hard way more times than I would care to admit.

Meantime the Holy Spirit has flown away.

Ah the musings of one without the Spirit...

Perhaps our discussion should have been about him...

I tried...

...and why he gets so upset.

He merely does or does not according to the will of God the Father.

Go well.

Much the same to you. I surely didn't mean to get you so riled up. Grace and peace.

[marco]

I am merely expanding on what Christ means by "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," and doing so in the context of the rest of the Word of God... which is not hard to do,

I see. You're improving on Christ's lack of clarity. You even say: "But mine is not a "re-evaluation" in any sense but rather a clarifying." Ah the inadequacies of the Lord, and a Daniel come to judgment!

We are discussing the usage of the English word "commit".

Well, you are..... I think the reason you're focusing on that is you wrongly suppose that 'commit' is the root word of 'commission.' It is not; they are two entirely different things.

Yes, one is a verb and the other an abstract noun. They DO come from the same root word, however, which is the Latin verb committere whose supine is commissum, from which we get the noun. I think Pope, Alexander not Francis, said something relevant here about the "Pierian spring."

Disobedient behavior is 100 percent of the time preceded by one's thinking he knows better than the way commanded/instructed. I'm sure you know that; I do because I've learned it the hard way more times than I would care to admit.

I'm sure toddlers who disobey their parents do not think they know better. Disobedience is motivated by many factors, some of them certainly in accord with your psychological theory.


At the end of our dialogue we are no wiser as to what blasphemy against the Spirit is. If The Spirit is indeed the Third Person then denying his existence may be the crime, though denying the Father seems equally reprehensible. We can, as you have done, invent some sin and illustrate why it can't be forgiven but as I have tried to explain this takes us a long, imaginative way from Christ's words.

Thanks for an enjoyable exchange. Go well.

[PinSeeker]

I see. You're improving on Christ's lack of clarity.

No, you don't "see;" that's precisely the problem. Christ is not unclear. But if certain parts of God's word are foggy to us for any reason, other parts of His Word can certainly give us more clarity. In cases such as this, the problem is not the "inadequacy" of Christ, but rather the hard-headedness (and hard-heartedness) of the reader -- user error, in computer lingo. Or, if you like, P.E.B.C.A.K. ("problem exists between computer and keyboard"). Such is the case here with you.

We are discussing the usage of the English word "commit".

Well, you are..... I think the reason you're focusing on that is you wrongly suppose that 'commit' is the root word of 'commission.' It is not; they are two entirely different things.

Yes, one is a verb and the other an abstract noun. They DO come from the same root word, however, which is the Latin verb committere whose supine is commissum, from which we get the noun.

Parts of speech are irrelevant here, Marco, unless we focus solely on the fact that, used in the relevant context, the noun 'commission' is in contrast to the noun 'omission' in that in the former, a thing is done with the knowledge that the thing should not be done, while in the latter, a thing is not done in spite of the knowledge that the thing should be done. In both cases, though, the act is done (transgression is committed) and likewise is intentional -- the actor is fully cognitive of the fact that he or she is doing wrongly (committing transgression). The problem is that you're trying (in vain) to make some sort of distinction where there is no distinction to be made.

I think Pope, Alexander not Francis, said something relevant here about the "Pierian spring."

Ah, yes, Alexander Pope:

• A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again.

You would do well to heed his advice; you drink only very shallowly, which is precisely the problem. More than 1,000 years before Pope -- about 1,800 years earlier, in fact -- Publilius Syrus, he who also said "a rolling stone gathers no moss," offered a maxim similar to Pope's: "Better be ignorant of a matter than half know it." To that I would add that neither ignorance nor half-knowing is good.

Disobedient behavior is 100 percent of the time preceded by one's thinking he knows better than the way commanded/instructed. I'm sure you know that; I do because I've learned it the hard way more times than I would care to admit.

I'm sure toddlers who disobey their parents do not think they know better.

We are speaking in mature terms of matters of great import. Toddlers are not in view here. Try to stick to the subject. Or... wait... are you saying you're a toddler?

At the end of our dialogue we are no wiser as to what blasphemy against the Spirit is.

Well, you're not, for sure. Although I rather think you would be if you had any humility about you, or if at least you were willing to let it manifest itself.

If The Spirit is indeed the Third Person then denying his existence may be the crime, though denying the Father seems equally reprehensible.

Sure. As is denying God the Son, which Peter found out the hard way. But all those are pardonable sins. However, attributing the work of the God to the devil is not; it is blasphemy of the Spirit, which is altogether unpardonable, unforgivable. Thanks for bringing us back to the point... or at least giving me the opportunity to bring us back to the point.

We can, as you have done, invent some sin and illustrate why it can't be forgiven...

I have invented nothing. Adding to God's Word would be... sinful. We are warned against that in Revelation 22. Such would be a sin of commission, committed by doing something we know we shouldn't do, as opposed to a sin of omission, which would be committed by not doing something we know we should do. Again, Paul's words in his letter to the Romans (chapter 7) are deeply illustrative of this dichotomy.

...but as I have tried to explain this takes us a long, imaginative way from Christ's words.

Any kind of invention of oneself might certainly do that, yes. But in a court of law, you "case," such as it was, would have been thrown out long ago.

Thanks for an enjoyable exchange.

Ah, but I can't help but feel, despite the physical distance between us, the anger and frustration with which you seethe. Alas, it is misdirected. You seem to be shooting yourself in the foot. I sympathize -- and empathize, as I have felt the same in times past -- but no one can help you with that except yourself.

Go well.

Same to you. Grace and peace.