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?

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 230 by Athetotheist]

Rom 5:19  For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. KJV

It wasn't the sin, itself. It was the choice of who to align with... it was the choice of who would be his god... who would be the god of mankind. That choice put all mankind under the rulership of the god of this world. Jesus' life in man, through the spirit of God, brings man back to God... presently, it is a world held captive.

The Christian Bible has Adam diminishing something which Jesus had no way of restoring.

What if the first sin had been committed by Cain, or Abel, or Seth, or by one of their offspring?

Christ is able to restore a relationship between God and man. Adam cut that off. Christ has built a bridge to restore that.

It would have been different. Eventually someone would have sinned, most likely, Adam. But Adam actually had the choice to either take of the Tree of life, and receive the spirit of God, whereby he would eventually be born into the Kingdom of God or to take from the tree which would bring death on him, on all of his family and it cut them off from God, and instead of God walking in the garden with them, they made a choice to make their own way with out God.

Isa 44:18  They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand. 
Isa 44:19  And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding... Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

[Avoice]

The unpardonable sin is violating the first commandment which Christians do. They out Jesus before God. It is Jesus they worship.

It is unpardonable because you can't expect God to pardon you because God is no longer your God.
If you violate the first commandment the rest don't matter. Because the God that gave the commandments isn't your God. The Christian God is mortal and can be killed. What a concept! We can kill God. Rolling my eyes

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to post 230 by Athetotheist]

Rom 5:19  For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. KJV

It wasn't the sin, itself. It was the choice of who to align with... it was the choice of who would be his god... who would be the god of mankind. That choice put all mankind under the rulership of the god of this world. Jesus' life in man, through the spirit of God, brings man back to God... presently, it is a world held captive.

The Christian Bible has Adam diminishing something which Jesus had no way of restoring.

What if the first sin had been committed by Cain, or Abel, or Seth, or by one of their offspring?

Christ is able to restore a relationship between God and man. Adam cut that off. Christ has built a bridge to restore that.

It would have been different. Eventually someone would have sinned, most likely, Adam. But Adam actually had the choice to either take of the Tree of life, and receive the spirit of God, whereby he would eventually be born into the Kingdom of God or to take from the tree which would bring death on him, on all of his family and it cut them off from God, and instead of God walking in the garden with them, they made a choice to make their own way with out God.

Isa 44:18  They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand. 
Isa 44:19  And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding... Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

They were presumably eating from the tree of life already, since it was one of the trees in the garden from which they were permitted to eat (Gen. 2:16). But even if they weren't doing so, it wasn't Adam's disobedience which condemed him to eventual death; it was being expelled from the garden *specifically* so he could *not* eat from the tree of life and live forever even after he had disobeyed (3:22).

Not only did Adam's disobedience not pass death to humankind, it didn't make all humans sinners either; the choice Adam made was for himself and for no one else. In the Tanakh, which can certainly be considered an authoritative source for the story, God is addressing Cain about his resentment of his brother:

"If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door; and unto thee is its desire, *but thou mayest rule over it*." (Gen. 4:7)

So EITHER Adam did something which Jesus couldn't fully undo OR Jesus came to undo something which Adam hadn't done.

[Athetotheist]

The unpardonable sin is violating the first commandment which Christians do. They out Jesus before God. It is Jesus they worship.

It is unpardonable because you can't expect God to pardon you because God is no longer your God.
If you violate the first commandment the rest don't matter. Because the God that gave the commandments isn't your God. The Christian God is mortal and can be killed. What a concept! We can kill God. Rolling my eyes

If the Christians you refer to are Gentiles, how can they violate a commandment which wasn't given to them? Just before giving his first commandment, the God of Israel says, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt...." The God of Israel didn't bring Gentiles out of the land of Egypt and wasn't the God of Gentiles to begin with.

What about Jews who become Christians and then return to Judaism? Is their transgression "unpardonable"? Does the promise of Ezekiel 18:21-22 not apply to them?

[ttruscott]

".....through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners...." (Romans 5:19)

While if behooves orthodoxy to choose to translate kathistēmi as constituted, ie, created as, (which is perfectly acceptable) because they can make it fit by eisegesis their presupposition to our our being created on earth at conception or birth inheriting Adam's sin, It is also perfectly acceptable to translate kathistēmi as: to declare, show to be and to show or exhibit one's self, to come forward as which is a perfect fit for the PCE contention that our being born human shows, proves, that we are already sinners, shown to be and exhibited as already sinners.

Strong's G2525 - kathistēmi: to set, place, put
- to set one over a thing (in charge of it)
- to appoint one to administer an office
- to set down as, constitute, to declare, show to be
- to constitute, to render, make, cause to be
- to conduct or bring to a certain place
- to show or exhibit one's self, come forward as

".....through the disobedience of the one man many were shown to be sinners...." (Romans 5:19)

So while I can accept that the word may be used as orthodoxy (especially Calvinism) would like it to be used, I find no reason to think it FORCES us to accept that we are created as sinners by the disobedience of one man when it can rather be accepted that judgement of death upon the one man is proof that all who are born in him are only shown to already be sinners by becoming human.

Without being FORCED by scripture to accept this word in this place as referring to our creation, I still feel it quite acceptable to reject the blasphemy that the GOD who is light and love creates evil people thru no fault of their own by making them to be human in Adam.

What Possible Reason could there be to make HIS Bride as disgustingly corrupt in Adam then to save her for the wedding? I cannot even accept that HIS nature allows HIM to create Satan and the demons as evil for some purpose so how can I accept that this is how HE creates HIS Bride!!!??

[Athetotheist]

Without being FORCED by scripture to accept this word in this place as referring to our creation, I still feel it quite acceptable to reject the blasphemy that the GOD who is light and love creates evil people thru no fault of their own by making them to be human in Adam.

What Possible Reason could there be to make HIS Bride as disgustingly corrupt in Adam then to save her for the wedding? I cannot even accept that HIS nature allows HIM to create Satan and the demons as evil for some purpose so how can I accept that this is how HE creates HIS Bride!!!??

How can you accept that a God who is light and love would reject anyone as "unforgivable" if he has mercy on whom he WILL?

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 234 by Athetotheist]

it wasn't Adam's disobedience which condemed him to eventual death; it was being expelled from the garden *specifically* so he could *not* eat from the tree of life and live forever even after he had disobeyed (3:22)

In the bible, much of the time, life and death are not the life and death of the end of this physical chemical existence. When God warned Adam about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he told them, in the day that you eat thereof, in dying, you shall die. (Literal Version). It says that because man was already mortal. He was already dying, in dying, you shall die. It is speaking of both deaths. The Bible does not teach an immortal soul. The Hebrew word for soul, Naphesh, is used for both man and beast. It merely means, a breathing creature. Man was given a physical chemical existence, just like any animal. The one thing that separated him from the animal kingdom was he received the spirit of man that made him, in a physical type, of the god-kind. But man did not have, does not have an immortal soul. What man had was a human spirit, that could be joined with God's spirit to form a new creation. The tree of life would have given him that spirit... and the opportunity to attain immortality. Because the soul that sins, it shall die. This speaks of eternal death. It is appointed to all men, once to die. and this speaks of physical death.

Not only did Adam's disobedience not pass death to humankind, it didn't make all humans sinners either; the choice Adam made was for himself and for no one else. In the Tanakh, which can certainly be considered an authoritative source for the story, God is addressing Cain about his resentment of his brother:

"If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door; and unto thee is its desire, *but thou mayest rule over it*." (Gen. 4:7)

So EITHER Adam did something which Jesus couldn't fully undo OR Jesus came to undo something which Adam hadn't done.

What makes all humans sinners is the same thing that made Adam one. They choose to go do that which seems right in their own eyes and they dismiss the law and the way of God. However, unlike Adam, mankind does not have the opportunity, at this time, to seek out God, as Adam did. But Adam, and mankind in general, must be involved in the turning away from sin... Christ cannot do that for them. And Jesus did indeed come to fix what Adam failed to do. So, it is both... but what the Christ did do, was create a way to bridge that gap between God and man.

Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD. (Ezekiel 37:11-14)

1Co 15:22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 

It is the same all; resurrected to life, from Adam right on down to those living today... Every person who has lived and died from Algeria to Zimbabwe, from the beginning to the end...

[Athetotheist]

What makes all humans sinners is the same thing that made Adam one. They choose to go do that which seems right in their own eyes and they dismiss the law and the way of God. However, unlike Adam, mankind does not have the opportunity, at this time, to seek out God, as Adam did. But Adam, and mankind in general, must be involved in the turning away from sin... Christ cannot do that for them. And Jesus did indeed come to fix what Adam failed to do. So, it is both... but what the Christ did do, was create a way to bridge that gap between God and man.

Romans 5:12 states that Adam was the *one man* through whom sin entered the world (no one else was involved), which would mean that before Adam's sinful act there was no sin in the world and that without such a sinful act there would still have been no sin in the world. Verses 13 and 14 go on to state that sin wasn't imputed before the law came and that death reigned from Adam to Moses. Then verse 15 says this:

"But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died (nothing else was involved), *much more* the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many."

It's the "much more" part that's the problem. To do more than----or even as much as----Adam did, Jesus would have had to do more than just bridge the gap; he would have had to *erase* the gap. If Adam's offense brought sin into a previously sinless world and sin brought death into a previously deathless world and Jesus didn't make the world sinless and deathless again, how did Jesus do "much more" than Adam did? If what Adam did ("one man's offense") affects "many" and what Jesus did doesn't affect AS many, same question.

As the tailor said, "If the suit don't fit, the suit don't fit!"

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 238 by Athetotheist]

Romans 5:12 states that Adam was the *one man* through whom sin entered the world (no one else was involved), which would mean that before Adam's sinful act there was no sin in the world and that without such a sinful act there would still have been no sin in the world. Verses 13 and 14 go on to state that sin wasn't imputed before the law came and that death reigned from Adam to Moses. Then verse 15 says this:

"But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died (nothing else was involved), *much more* the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many."

Romans says, Rom 5:12  Because of this, even as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death passed to all men, inasmuch as all sinned. Its not saying it wasn't sin... it is, for instance, making reference to Cain killing Able, and there not being a (physical) death sentence and thus Cain was banished instead of there being an execution imposed on him. It still says there was sin. And death reigned even on those whose sins were not in the fashion of Adam's sin... but this isn't speaking of a physical death.

"But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died (nothing else was involved), *much more* the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many."

It's the "much more" part that's the problem. To do more than----or even as much as----Adam did, Jesus would have had to do more than just bridge the gap; he would have had to *erase* the gap. If Adam's offense brought sin into a previously sinless world and sin brought death into a previously deathless world and Jesus didn't make the world sinless and deathless again, how did Jesus do "much more" than Adam did? If what Adam did ("one man's offense") affects "many" and what Jesus did doesn't affect AS many, same question.

God's intent is to bring mankind into eternal habitations, not give him an extra few hundred years. So what makes the gift better. The gift of God's grace isn't like the deviation of the plan of God. By one man's deviation, death was instituted on all, by one man's death, a path to eternity is instituted on all.

Adam was never immortal. But he was created with that hope, to become a perfect man and a literal son of God... to be free from sin and its penalty of death. I'm not sure I follow you, but I think maybe you didn't grasp what I said, as you say here what Jesus did doesn't affect as many... but Adam had an opportunity to eventually attain eternity. He will still have that option.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

It is the same all; resurrected to life, from Adam right on down to those living today... Every person who has lived and died from Algeria to Zimbabwe, from the beginning to the end...

From Hitler to Stalin.to Genghis Khan, every man. Mankind is presently cut off from God but that will be rectified. That is what the coming Kingdom of God is about. It's not about good people going to heaven and bad people going to hell. Its about the salvation of the entire line of Adam.... BUT there are stipulations. There are rules and laws and changes that have to be made... and God will give them the chance, empower them with his Spirit, the Tree of life, and the opportunity to become a new creation, but it is within the confines of a law that brings with it a new attitude of give instead of get.

[Athetotheist]

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

If the "free gift" abounded *more* than sin and death, and all die in Adam even if they don't believe it, then all should be made alive in Jesus even if they don't believe it; otherwise, the "free gift" falls short. Universal condemnation can be matched only by universal redemption. That's what I'm getting at.

However, it occurs to me that I have strayed from the topic of the thread, which is the issue of any sin being "unpardonable". So I will try to return my focus to that going forward.