The “Unpardonable Sin” and “Unlimited Atonement” - Do they coexist?

[Dane Gjesdal]

Heading toward Easter I have been doing a study on the atonement. In my study I have had to change my view of the “unpardonable sin”; at least for now.

Matthew 12:31-32
31 " Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 " Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
NASU

I am not able to reconcile the theory of the so called “unpardonable sin”, (Matthew 12:30-32) and the doctrine of “Unlimited Atonement” (A Wesleyan View). In my view shift I have discovered some interesting and fascinating views of the passage where Jesus talks about the “Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”. For now I am siding on the power of the cross, in that, “all sin” is forgivable including this blasphemy.

What are our thoughts or views?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Just believe as you wish, but don't dare ever blaspheme the Holy Spirit, or you may find the real truth, someday.

[Hans Deventer]

What are our thoughts or views?

I agree that all sin is forgivable. It seems to me that Jesus was pointing towards an attitude that consciously reversed good and bad. Called what Jesus did as inspired by the devil. I think His warning is that this attitude is a direct road to perdition.

[Randy Wise]

Heading toward Easter I have been doing a study on the atonement. In my study I have had to change my view of the “unpardonable sin”; at least for now.

Matthew 12:31-32
31 " Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 " Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
NASU

I am not able to reconcile the theory of the so called “unpardonable sin”, (Matthew 12:30-32) and the doctrine of “Unlimited Atonement” (A Wesleyan View). In my view shift I have discovered some interesting and fascinating views of the passage where Jesus talks about the “Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”. For now I am siding on the power of the cross, in that, “all sin” is forgivable including this blasphemy.

What are our thoughts or views?

I think in acts 5 if the lie was to Jesus that couple would not have died that day.

Randy

[George Wallace]

My thoughts:
I have understood that the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, an unpardonable sin, as only committed when a person who understands that a work is of the Holy Spirit and yet motivated by evil, deliberately and willfully attempts to attribute this work of the Holy Spirit to Satan or demonic forces. Therefore it is impossible for a person to commit such a sin prior to salvation and once saved.

This sin, to my understanding can only be committed by the Apostate, those who know and have testimony of the Holy Spirit yet perform an about face and deliberately deny that knowledge and verbally profess that it is a demonic work.

Dane, I don’t know where you are getting you new view from, but Matthew 12:31-32 are the words of Jesus and since He is the propitiation for our sins and He says it is unforgivable then I have to say I believe Him. So I will have to respectfully disagree with you.

Tis my belief that in Limited or Unlimited atonement those who are saved or elect cannot be guilty of this sin only the Apostate or Reprobate can commit this sin.

George Wallace
1Cor 1:18

[Steven Martinez]

Dane, I think the problem is with the word "Unlimited." Wesleyans do not believe in unlimited atonement, rather we believe in Universal Atonement. The Limited Atonement of Augustin, Luther and Calvin is not in the number of sins or type of sins but the number of those saved. In other words, Christ died for all, that does not mean that Christ holds judgement for those who do not desire His grace.

I wonder if we per chance make this issue more difficult than it really is. I see blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as ultimately being unrepentant of a sinful life* (a rejection of Christ). Since we are all offered grace from God, it is truly an act of blasphmey to deny the need for God's grace since to do so would claim that one is above the need for God which is essentially idolatry. Jesus said "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:16-18. Those who reject the Son, reject life. Paul writes "Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:3 To reject Jesus is to reject the Father as well as the Spirit, in other words, a full rejection of God. As Wesleyans, we believe in Prevenient Grace which is the Holy Spirit working in us all before we come to a knowledge of Christ. Therefore anyone rejecting Christ is rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit working in them.

*By unrepented sin, I am refering to the attitude of a person and not if someone died before they repented of a sinful act the commited earlier in the day.

[Dane Gjesdal]

I thank everyone for your response. I wish I could respond to everyone but I will do so in this post and try to address all.

I have wrestled with this text for years and have never got a handle on it till I studied our “atonement theology”. The CROSS is the crux of all of our theology; it is why we have life today.

My thoughts:
I have understood that the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, an unpardonable sin, as only committed when a person who understands that a work is of the Holy Spirit and yet motivated by evil, deliberately and willfully attempts to attribute this work of the Holy Spirit to Satan or demonic forces. Therefore it is impossible for a person to commit such a sin prior to salvation and once saved.

This sin, to my understanding can only be committed by the Apostate, those who know and have testimony of the Holy Spirit yet perform an about face and deliberately deny that knowledge and verbally profess that it is a demonic work.

Jesus was responding to the Jewish leadership who was accusing him of casting out demons by the power of the Devil. I would seriously doubt they where believers to say the least. Jesus was directing his stern comments at those leaders and not apostates. So I do see that one can blaspheme the Holy Spirit who is not regenerate. Obviously if one does commit this sin as a believer they would have had a change of heart to do so.


Dane, I don’t know where you are getting you new view from, but Matthew 12:31-32 are the words of Jesus and since He is the propitiation for our sins and He says it is unforgivable then I have to say I believe Him. So I will have to respectfully disagree with you.

Actually, I get my view from Adam Clark.

I think we have to look at our view about this sin from the perspective of the cross, and not a theory that has been passed down to us by Augustine and Calvin.

To say that this one sin places someone beyond the grace and the power of the cross empties the cross of its power. It places this “unpardonable sin” as more potent than the blood of Jesus. It then does indeed limit the atonement, for this theory says Jesus did not die for the sin of “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”.

I will approach this further from the doctrine of the atonement in future posts – because this means (this theory of an unpardonable sin) that the cross was incomplete.

Think about this – The sin of rebellion in the garden against God that brought death and destruction to the human race and the cosmos will be forgiven. That original sin that was passed down to every person that causes one to commit the “unpardonable sin” there is no redemption for it. This seems inconsistent with a forgiving God who will forgive rapists, murderers and child molesters but not one who sins against the Holy Spirit. Are we sure we are reading the text properly?

I will get to how Adam Clark handles this text later; he approaches this text from a contextual and historically perspective.


Tis my belief that in Limited or Unlimited atonement those who are saved or elect cannot be guilty of this sin only the Apostate or Reprobate can commit this sin.

George Wallace 1Cor 1:18

Either way, if one commits this sin, accounting to the theory of the “unpardonable sin” the grace of God is limited and therefore Jesus did not save us from all sin. How can anything we do place ourselves beyond the blood of Calvary? This theory makes the cross impotent.

Think about this in regards to “Atonement Theology”. This sin would have been pre-known by God and this offence not included in the atonement (the cross) and therefore there has been no propitiation for this sin, therefore the cross falls short of satisfying God. If there was atonement for this sin then there would be forgiveness for it. We simply cannot have it both ways.

Is it possible that we are not understanding the context of Jesus words and taking these words in a direction that Jesus never intended?

I will always side on the power of the cross and the grace that flows there from, and if I find myself in conflict, I need to dig further to see if there is possibly an understanding that allows the cross its fullness.

[Dane Gjesdal]

Dane, I think the problem is with the word "Unlimited." Wesleyans do not believe in unlimited atonement, rather we believe in Universal Atonement. The Limited Atonement of Augustin, Luther and Calvin is not in the number of sins or type of sins but the number of those saved. In other words, Christ died for all, that does not mean that Christ holds judgement for those who do not desire His grace.

I wonder if we per chance make this issue more difficult than it really is. I see blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as ultimately being unrepentant of a sinful life* (a rejection of Christ). Since we are all offered grace from God, it is truly an act of blasphmey to deny the need for God's grace since to do so would claim that one is above the need for God which is essentially idolatry. Jesus said "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:16-18. Those who reject the Son, reject life. Paul writes "Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:3 To reject Jesus is to reject the Father as well as the Spirit, in other words, a full rejection of God. As Wesleyans, we believe in Prevenient Grace which is the Holy Spirit working in us all before we come to a knowledge of Christ. Therefore anyone rejecting Christ is rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit working in them.

*By unrepented sin, I am refering to the attitude of a person and not if someone died before they repented of a sinful act the commited earlier in the day.

Thank you for correcting my use of “unlimited atonement”. I was using it as in contrast to “limited atonement”.

I read you clearly, but what you are saying is that God’s grace is there for all to repent and believe. Our probationary period is not up until we die. You said…

“Therefore anyone rejecting Christ is rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit working in them.”

But as long as we have breath even after we reject the work of the Holy Spirit in us God’s grace still pursues us and we can still receive it until we die. We have until we die this opprotunity according to all evangelical and fundamental theologies; to respond to the Gospel message no matter how many times we reject it. So this rejection you are addressing is not the same as what Jesus was addressing in Matthew 12:31. But this so called theory of the “unpardonable sin” or “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” is one sin that apparently ends God’s prevenient grace and his saving grace toward them for he no longer desires them or loves them.

[Hans Deventer]

Is it possible that we are not understanding the context of Jesus words and taking these words in a direction that Jesus never intended?

I will always side on the power of the cross and the grace that flows there from, and if I find myself in conflict, I need to dig further to see if there is possibly an understanding that allows the cross its fullness.

I like your approach. Like you, I will side on the power of God's love and grace, of which the cross is the ultimate expression.

Perhaps we should look at what "forgiving" is all about. It is a step towards reconciliation. Towards the restoration of our relationship with God, for which we are made from the very beginning.

Now what would ever hinder that? Surely not the love of God, who managed even to forgive the very people who nailed Him on the cross. But love is free, it never forces. It does require reaction. And some directions people take, make it hard, very hard indeed, to react properly to God's graceful invitation for reconciliation. There are roads people choose that even can lead to God hardening the already hardened heart (see the pharao of the exodus). I think this is how we should read the statement by Jesus.

[Steven Martinez]

But as long as we have breath even after we reject the work of the Holy Spirit in us God’s grace still pursues us and we can still receive it until we die. We have until we die this opprotunity according to all evangelical and fundamental theologies; to respond to the Gospel message no matter how many times we reject it. So this rejection you are addressing is not the same as what Jesus was addressing in Matthew 12:31. But this so called theory of the “unpardonable sin” or “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” is one sin that apparently ends God’s prevenient grace and his saving grace toward them for he no longer desires them or loves them.

I think one of the problems is that you are defining blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as a specific action like adultry. This is a problem if we limit sin to actions which is a bad understanding of Wesley's "actual sin" in a A Clear Account of Christian Perfection that has plagued the Church of the Nazarene for decades (I think Clarke falls into this trap as well). If we see sin as being seperated from God then the unforgiveable sin would be eternal seperation. Therefore rejecting Christ by chosing to live without Him is to reject the forgiveness of the Cross not the fact that God offers forgiveness. Therefore if you do not recieve the gift then you do not have the gift. It does not negate the fact that the gift was offered. Wesley argued that those who recieve the gift live out the gift by living a life of love. I think Hans was right in his first post about the attitude of a person. It is the attitude that defines the action and not vice versa. We must also remember the text itself and when I look at it I find no pronouncement that anyone commited this sin rather I see a warning of a continuing attitude that many had in regards to the Lordship of Christ.

[Dane Gjesdal]

Now what would ever hinder that? Surely not the love of God, who managed even to forgive the very people who nailed Him on the cross. But love is free, it never forces. It does require reaction. And some directions people take, make it hard, very hard indeed, to react properly to God's graceful invitation for reconciliation. There are roads people choose that even can lead to God hardening the already hardened heart (see the pharao of the exodus). I think this is how we should read the statement by Jesus.

Good stuff Hans –
I see the Pharaoh reference as ratification by God of Pharaoh’s free will so that God could show his Glory to all the people. God can call use people regardless if they follow him or not. For the “elect”, God’s chosen people, were hardened as well. I do not see that reference as referring to Pharaoh’s eternal state; although I do get your point. I also see those who were hardened in the NT as those who were not beyond the cross for the scales fell from some of there eyes.

I am not so sure Jesus is referring to someone’s eternal state, but a temporal judgment. The question is… what is not going to be pardoned?

[Hans Deventer]

I am not so sure Jesus is referring to someone’s eternal state, but a temporal judgment. The question is… what is not going to be pardoned?

I agree regarding the temporal aspect and I think the answer to your question is: nothing. Every sin can be pardoned, if only we are willing to confess. God does not despise a broken heart.

This verse has led many a devout soul to great anguish. I don't believe that is anything of what Jesus had in mind.

[Dane Gjesdal]

I think one of the problems is that you are defining blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as a specific action like adultry. This is a problem if we limit sin to actions which is a bad understanding of Wesley's "actual sin" in a A Clear Account of Christian Perfection that has plagued the Church of the Nazarene for decades (I think Clarke falls into this trap as well). If we see sin as being seperated from God then the unforgiveable sin would be eternal seperation. Therefore rejecting Christ by chosing to live without Him is to reject the forgiveness of the Cross not the fact that God offers forgiveness. Therefore if you do not recieve the gift then you do not have the gift. It does not negate the fact that the gift was offered. Wesley argued that those who recieve the gift live out the gift by living a life of love. I think Hans was right in his first post about the attitude of a person. It is the attitude that defines the action and not vice versa. We must also remember the text itself and when I look at it I find no pronouncement that anyone commited this sin rather I see a warning of a continuing attitude that many had in regards to the Lordship of Christ.

I understand what you are saying, and what you are saying is true. But this reference seems to particular and detailed to take it so general.

You said…
“If we see sin as being separated from God then the unforgivable sin would be eternal separation.”

But this sin of eternal separation is not “unforgivable”. It seems as if you are playing with words and concepts that are all good; but. Jesus context refers to sin (singular) an act or a word against (particularly the words of the Pharisees) that was unforgivable. There is a contrast with a “word spoken” that will be forgiven, and a “word spoken” that will not be forgiven. Your construct then leaves the “word spoken against the son of man that will be forgiven,” ambiguous if not meaningless. This is parallel construction and thought and requires the unforgivable sin to be in contrast with the forgivable sin - or have an opposite parallel meaning. So if the unpardonable sin is the “word spoken against the Holy Spirit” as eternal separation, as you state, then is the “word spoken against the Son of Man”, eternal life? I think Adam Clark, who has a working knowledge of the Greek has a handle on this text.

Numbers 15:30-31
30 "'But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or alien, blasphemes the LORD, and that person must be cut off from his people. 31 Because he has despised the LORD's word and broken his commands, that person must surely be cut off; his guilt remains on him.'" NIV

I believe that Jesus was referring to the Mosaic Law that the Pharisees were working under. Jesus told them that the words they said are blaspheming the work of God, and there was no sacrifice for this sin, no atonement under the law. There was no pardon for it. (Numbers 15:30-31) But if you say a word against the Son of Man (teacher or prophet) there is pardon for it under the law. It did not mean their eternal state was fixed, and that they could not repent from what they said or did, but under the Mosaic Law, they would be stripped of their office and “cut off” from their people for saying this. It spoke very loud to them. What Jesus did was turn the tables on them.

We miss the meaning and the power of what Jesus is saying. The Pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy and he turned around and told them that he was God and they where in danger of being “cut off”; defrocked (anathema) by using their very Law that they served under to warn them. As you state, if they continue in this attitude the “axe was at the root of the tree” and they would be “cut off”. But if they did not persist in their unbelief, they could be “grafted back in”. So in a way, we may have reached the same conclusion.

We have similar “sins” today in our Churches. There are actions that we do that we will not be pardoned from, but we can still be forgiven. We had a DS that committed a sexual crime with a minor. He will never get his credentials back, and will never be able to be alone with a child. It was an unpardonable sin in a sense of temporal punishment, but forgivable with God if sought with his whole heart.

[Steven Martinez]

But this sin of eternal separation is not “unforgivable”. It seems as if you are playing with words and concepts that are all good; but. Jesus context refers to sin (singular) an act or a word against (particularly the words of the Pharisees) that was unforgivable. There is a contrast with a “word spoken” that will be forgiven, and a “word spoken” that will not be forgiven. Your construct then leaves the “word spoken against the son of man that will be forgiven,” ambiguous if not meaningless. This is parallel construction and thought and requires the unforgivable sin to be in contrast with the forgivable sin - or have an opposite parallel meaning. So if the unpardonable sin is the “word spoken against the Holy Spirit” as eternal separation, as you state, then is the “word spoken against the Son of Man”, eternal life? I think Adam Clark, who has a working knowledge of the Greek has a handle on this text.

We are speaking past each other. The parallel is not found in action but in attitudes. If one has an attitude of repentance then one will be forgiven. If one does not have an attitude of forgiveness then there is no forgiveness. Like I have mentioned, I do not think that Jesus is refering to a specific act that is why He continues about the tree and the fruit. His focus is not on the fruit but the tree that bares it. In other words, Jesus is not concerned with the word spoken as to the underlining attitude of the one who speaks the word. This is why He compares them to vipers and calls them evil. This is why He insists that their hearts (attitude) are evil.

My problem with Clarke's interpretation (you worded his comentary excellently by the way) is that he essentially negates the final part of Matthew 12:32 "In this age or the age to come." Therefore the "temporal" judgement is moot. Jesus is clearly stating that there is a judgement and eternal separation from God i.e. damnation? Are you arguing that there is no judgement? Are you arguing that there is no damnation for the unrepentant? I do not see how we are differing in that some how you assume that a person who remains unrepentant is somehow forgiven. Is Satan forgiven? Satan is the perfect case of a being being in a constant state of unrepentance before God. Yet we can assume that Jesus died for Satan just as much as us (if atonement is truly universal) yet he refuses and makes himself an enemy of God. There is a time of judgement where one is either a sheep or a goat. The goats made a choice of unrepentance and therefore must accept the judgement of damnation. Since none of us know the dy of judgement we proclaim the grace offered to all in hope that all will accept and recieve their forgiveness.

[Scott Daniels]

A few years ago I came across M. Scott Peck's book People of the Lie. In it Peck describes people he came across in therapy who had lived in self-deception for so long that he believed that they were incapable of seeing the truth about themselves or taking responsibility for their own actions. He had no psychological term to describe the problem he encountered so he described these people as "evil."

I have often wondered if what Peck was describing is similar to what Jesus was describing as the unpardonable sin. Perhaps the self-deception of the Pharisees was so engrained within them that they had become incapable of receiving forgiveness because (in calling the incarnate one "not of God") they could no longer recognize their sin.

Peck believed that the only hope for "people of the lie" is some form of divine intervention - essentially the miracle of making blind people see. Perhaps that is part of the reason the gospel writers include so many narratives of the blind being healed.

[Charlotte Mercer]

I think I may just be reiterating what others were trying to say, but this is how I've explained this to myself. It seems to me that to blaspheme the Holy Spirit would be to deny His power or His character, and if sin is, as Wesley put it, "a willful transgression of a known law of God," then for this to be a sin, we would have to know the Holy Spirit - know His power, know His love and grace and mercy - and still deny it. To continue to set yourself against the very Spirit of God even though you know who He is.

To me, to blaspheme the Holy Spirit means, basically, to refuse to allow Him into your heart, and what I know of the nature and character of God tells me that He won't force us to let Him in. He will make Himself available, and show us that He loves us, and if we accept His love, He will welcome us with open arms. But if we know and experience the love of God and refuse to accept Christ or let the Holy Spirit into our hearts, then He won't forgive us. Of course He isn't going to insist on forgiving someone who specifically refuses to ask for it. That would negate free will altogether!

Peck believed that the only hope for "people of the lie" is some form of divine intervention - essentially the miracle of making blind people see. Perhaps that is part of the reason the gospel writers include so many narratives of the blind being healed.

Scott, I do agree that the only hope for them would be a miracle similar to making the blind see, but since this miracle starts off with their wills set against God and likely not putting their faith in Him, it seems like this miracle would be harder than healing a blind person who has faith that God can and will heal him or her.

[Dane Gjesdal]

First of all I agree with your over all point that you are making because what you are saying is true, but the way you get to your conclusions by using this text in Matthew 12:31 is a leap that should not me made.


We are speaking past each other. The parallel is not found in action but in attitudes.

Then what is the parallel (contrast) of the attitude of “speaking against the Son of Man”???

If one has an attitude of repentance then one will be forgiven. If one does not have an attitude of forgiveness then there is no forgiveness.

I think you missed my point about the parallel constriction of this text. You cover the unforgivable sinful (attitude or lifestyle) that if continued leads to eternal separation. I get that.

Here is the parallel …

Matthew 12:30-32
(A) - And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men. (You give no parallel???)
(B) – BUT the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. (Your interpretation is - leads to eternal separation)

(A) - Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven (You give no parallel???)
(B) - BUT anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. (Leads to eternal separation)

You have no parallel meaning for (A) that needs to be contrary, meaning of what you gave for (B)… (Eternal Separation)

If speaking a “word against the Holy Spirit” = eternal separation (Your interpretation). You have no contrast of the meaning of “a word spoken against the Son of Man” = ?????????


Then you say…
“Like I have mentioned, I do not think that Jesus is referring to a specific act”You have to explain yourself by using this text and exegete your meaning.

You say Jesus is not “referring to a specific act” of sin, but that is exactly what Jesus is referring to. To state otherwise you have to explain yourself without disregarding the text itself. You have an act committed, a definition of the act and the consequences of the act. You have the text that even uses the aorist tense in the singular and not the plural. There is no contextual substantive support for your interpretation from this text. Look…

Context…
1. Jesus is accused by the Pharisees that he is performing miracles by the power of the Devil.
2. He then responds by saying that this “word” is “blasphemy” against the Holy Spirit.
3. He then gives the consequences of committing this sin.

1. You have a “word spoken” – a verbal thought of the will by the Pharisees- (a specific act)
2. You have Jesus identifying that “word spoken” as “blasphemy” (a specific act)
3. We have references that if someone blasphemes (verbally) the Lord it is not forgiven (Numbers 15:30)

And you want me to disregard the obvious? Yet you conclude that this is in error to interpret this as a single act?


Like I have mentioned, I do not think that Jesus is refering to a specific act that is why He continues about the tree and the fruit. His focus is not on the fruit but the tree that bares it. In other words, Jesus is not concerned with the word spoken as to the underlining attitude of the one who speaks the word. This is why He compares them to vipers and calls them evil. This is why He insists that their hearts (attitude) are evil.

Yes, but Jesus is addressing their animated hearts and calls this specific act blasphemy. Jesus’ words were not in the continual or future tense, but in the aorist tense which means an act done at a specific moment in time.

My problem with Clarke's interpretation (you worded his commentary excellently by the way) is that he essentially negates the final part of Matthew 12:32 "In this age *or the age to come.*" Therefore the "temporal" judgment is moot.

Not at all. The NIV uses “age”, but the original language is “world” a phrased used dealing with the times of the Messiah.

Aion NT:165 aion (ahee-ohn'); from the same as NT:104; properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future)

He most assuredly addresses this issue and the text. I will let Adam speak for himself…

Adam Clark
Though I follow the common translation, yet I am fully satisfied the meaning of the words is, neither in this dispensation (namely the Jewish), nor in that which is to come, namely the Christian. `Owlaam ha-ba', the world to come, is a constant phrase for the times of the Messiah in the Jewish writers.

In other words, Jesus is explaining that they are heading into the era of the “new order” (world to come) for the “old order” is going to become “obsolete” and the consequences of “speaking against the Holy Spirit” will still apply even with far greater implications. The Apostle Paul would be a good illustration of one who was “cut off” but was then grafted back in. Again, Jewish teachers who spoke against God’s work will be “cut off” (anathema-Galatian 1:8) if they persist in their unbelief. (Romans 11:20-23)

Jesus is clearly stating that there is a judgement and eternal separation from God i.e. damnation? Are you arguing that there is no judgement? Are you arguing that there is no damnation for the unrepentant? I do not see how we are differing in that some how you assume that a person who remains unrepentant is somehow forgiven.

You may not see this. You are compounding actions. You are calling the act of not repenting of a sin a sin, and then labeling that unpardonable by dieing in that sinful state. That is not an unpardonable sin because you do not repent of not repenting. Then by repenting of not repenting by turning from that sin it is then pardonable?

Is Satan forgiven? Satan is the perfect case of a being being in a constant state of unrepentance before God. Yet we can assume that Jesus died for Satan just as much as us (if atonement is truly universal) yet he refuses and makes himself an enemy of God. There is a time of judgement where one is either a sheep or a goat. The goats made a choice of unrepentance and therefore must accept the judgement of damnation. Since none of us know the dy of judgement we proclaim the grace offered to all in hope that all will accept and recieve their forgiveness.

I must say I am confused by all what you say here. I will respond to the best of my understanding. One has to repent and ask for forgiveness to receive forgiveness (unless there are circumstances where God’s imputed righteousness may be employed). Repentance is not the issue that Jesus is dealing with, but an act, or a word spoken against the Holy Spirit.

[Dane Gjesdal]

A few years ago I came across M. Scott Peck's book People of the Lie. In it Peck describes people he came across in therapy who had lived in self-deception for so long that he believed that they were incapable of seeing the truth about themselves or taking responsibility for their own actions. He had no psychological term to describe the problem he encountered so he described these people as "evil."

I have often wondered if what Peck was describing is similar to what Jesus was describing as the unpardonable sin. Perhaps the self-deception of the Pharisees was so engrained within them that they had become incapable of receiving forgiveness because (in calling the incarnate one "not of God") they could no longer recognize their sin.

Peck believed that the only hope for "people of the lie" is some form of divine intervention - essentially the miracle of making blind people see. Perhaps that is part of the reason the gospel writers include so many narratives of the blind being healed.

These are great observations that also require us to understand the atoning work of the cross. Let me hit on some thoughts that you use and address it from the angle of depravity and prevenient grace.

“Perhaps the self-deception of the Pharisees was so engrained within them that they had become incapable of receiving forgiveness because (in calling the incarnate one "not of God") they could no longer recognize their sin.”
None of us can recognize our sin unless the Holy Spirit (prevenient grace) reveals it to us (divine intervention). That is my point. It is not that what the Pharisees did that brought them blindness for they where already blind. According to the theory of the unpardonable sin, God then withholds his grace form them because of their blasphemy. Therefore, in the future they would never be offered the grace (the means) by which they need to ask to receive forgiveness. Even though there sin may be as scarlet, they can never be as white as snow, by decree.

The focus is the withholding of forgiveness not the inability to receive it.

[Hans Deventer]

Peck believed that the only hope for "people of the lie" is some form of divine intervention - essentially the miracle of making blind people see. Perhaps that is part of the reason the gospel writers include so many narratives of the blind being healed.

Yet I don't know what can be done with those that can't even pray the prayer of Lam 5:21 - Restore us to You, O LORD, that we may be restored;

[Hans Deventer]

Is Satan forgiven? Satan is the perfect case of a being being in a constant state of unrepentance before God. Yet we can assume that Jesus died for Satan just as much as us (if atonement is truly universal) yet he refuses and makes himself an enemy of God

I've always understood the latter part of Hebrews 2 to mean that Jesus did not die for the angels. And in fact, that there is no salvation for them once they've fallen.

[Steven Martinez]

Dane, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You are formulating a great exegesis of the text, I am trying to formulate a systematic approach to the issue. Therefore I am going to bow out of this because we are approaching this from two different areas. I have no desire to persuade you but to answer your original question which was to post what I thought. I have no desire to make this into a right or wrong arguement.

[Dane Gjesdal]

I've always understood the latter part of Hebrews 2 to mean that Jesus did not die for the angels. And in fact, that there is no salvation for them once they've fallen.

I would agree. Death came through Adam. The Bible is not clear at all on a lot of angelic systematic theology. We at least know that their day of “probation” is over. There is no biblical reference for redemption or that Jesus died for the “sins of the angels”. My opinion is that God chose not to redeem angelic beings as he could have not chosen to redeem us. Jesus died for the sins of man and I do not find a reference that would specifically include angelic beings or plants or the animals. It is universal or unlimited for whom Jesus died for.

[Dane Gjesdal]

Dane, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You are formulating a great exegesis of the text, I am trying to formulate a systematic approach to the issue. Therefore I am going to bow out of this because we are approaching this from two different areas. I have no desire to persuade you but to answer your original question which was to post what I thought. I have no desire to make this into a right or wrong arguement.

Thank you for your input because it challenges me to think and formulate my new thoughts on this topic. I did not mean for it to be a right or wrong thing either – just wanted some explanations. Thanks again Steven and God bless.

Dane

[Mike Sullivan]

Dane, I think the problem is with the word "Unlimited." Wesleyans do not believe in unlimited atonement, rather we believe in Universal Atonement. The Limited Atonement of Augustin, Luther and Calvin is not in the number of sins or type of sins but the number of those saved. In other words, Christ died for all, that does not mean that Christ holds judgement for those who do not desire His grace.

I wonder if we per chance make this issue more difficult than it really is. I see blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as ultimately being unrepentant of a sinful life* (a rejection of Christ). Since we are all offered grace from God, it is truly an act of blasphmey to deny the need for God's grace since to do so would claim that one is above the need for God which is essentially idolatry. Jesus said "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:16-18. Those who reject the Son, reject life. Paul writes "Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:3 To reject Jesus is to reject the Father as well as the Spirit, in other words, a full rejection of God. As Wesleyans, we believe in Prevenient Grace which is the Holy Spirit working in us all before we come to a knowledge of Christ. Therefore anyone rejecting Christ is rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit working in them.

*By unrepented sin, I am refering to the attitude of a person and not if someone died before they repented of a sinful act the commited earlier in the day.Steven Martinez I DO BELIEVE WE CAN SELL THIS IDEA . IT IS GREAT , As Wesleyans, we believe in Prevenient Grace which is the Holy Spirit working in us all before we come to a knowledge of Christ. WHAT THAT SAYS IS IN MY MIND THAT IT IS attitude .NOW DAVID HAS BEEN ON ME AND SOMEONE ELSE ABOUT MY USE OF THE ENGLISH WORDS THAT I LIKE TO USE . SO I WILL DO MY BEST DAVID TO TELL THIS AS A DRY POST. BEING FROM THE GREAT STATE OF LOUISIANA WE LIKE TO ADD SPICE TO OUR FOOD AND TO THE STORIES THAT WE TELL. I AM 60 YEARS OLD , I LIVE IN NASHVILLE TENNESSEE ,. I HAVE MINI STROKES , AND ABOUT ALL I DO IS A GARDEN AND PICK A SIX STRING GUITAR , AND WRITE CHEATIN SONGS . THERE IS A 30 YEAR OLD LADY WHO LIVES DOWN THE STREET SHE HELPS IN THE GARDEN AND WE CO-WRITE , SHE IS A BLONDE , SLINDER AND LONG LEGGED AND EASY ON THE EYES . SHE AND I HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR 3 YEARS , WE GO OUT OF TOWN TOGETHER , HERE IS THE PART I REALLY LIKE ABOUT WHAT YOU SAY "By unrepented sin, I am reffering to the attitude" I THINK THAT MEANS IF I STOP AT THE LOVELESS HOTEL ON ONE OF OUR TRIPS , AND RENT A 10 DOLLAR MANISON. IF I HAVE A HEART ATTACK DIE AND WHILE WITH THAT LOVELY LADY AND SHE LEAVES. GOD WILL KNOW MY unrepented sin, AND KNOW MY attitude IS TO REPENT BEFORE I GO TO SLEEP AND HIS Prevenient Grace WILL COVER MY SIN . THIS IS BETTER THAN ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED , WE CAN FILL THE CHURCH WITH THIS .IT IS NOT THE SIN BUT MY attitude . A NEW THOUGHT .WOW

[Mike Sullivan]

Mike Sullivan, what are you trying to tell us about th lady and the trips you take? Do you purposely commit sins with her, but it is OK, because you have a good attitude about it? Or do you get separate rooms, and know you have not sinned, so you just accept what people may think about you? It is all very unclear, what you are trying to tell us. Or, is your attitude, "Think what you will," I don't care." LOL SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE CHRISTIAN , AROUND THE ALTER . WHAT DID HE SAY THEY DO , OH LORD MAKE HIM BLIND SO HE CAN'T SEE THE LADIES . I HAVE HEARD PEOPLE PRAY LIKE THIS . LOL, WE DO NOT DO ANYTHING . SHE AND I WRITE SONGS WE HAVE FINSHED THE 2ND OF THREE FOR THIS WINTER .I THINK YOU ARE FROM TENNESSEE , THIS NEXT ONE IS RAW BONE RED NECK HONKY TONK, " IT IS 12 BELOW , AND THAT IS HOT .COMPARED TO YOUR HONKY TONKIN HEART " NOW TO YOU MY POST, HE, STEVE, SAID THAT IT IS "As Wesleyans, we believe in Prevenient Grace which is the Holy Spirit working in us all before we come to a knowledge of Christ. STEVE SAID WAS IT IS OUR attitude THAT MATTERS . Anne and Dwayne Hood I SAID I THINK THAT IS BETTER THAN ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED .FOR IT GIVES US THE OPTION TO SIN IF WE WANT TO .Anne and Dwayne Hood HE , STEVE,MADE THE STATEMENT ABOUT A UNREPEMTED SIN RIGHT ?"By unrepented sin, I am refering to the attitude of a person and not if someone died before they repented of a sinful act the commited earlier in the day." MOST OF THE TIME I AM JUST SPEED READING WHEN I AM IN HERE , IT IS A BREAK FOR THE GUITAR. I SAW THE WORD 'attitude ' THAT IS WHEN I MADE UP THE LITTLE STORY ABOUT IF SHE AND I WERE TO STOP AT THE AT THE LOVELESS HOTEL AND RENT A 10 DOLLAR MANSON. WE NEVER HAVE I HATE TO NOT BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU A NOVEL BUT WE WRITE SONGS AND WORK THE GARDEN . ON THE TRIPS WHICH NEVER LAST OVER 4 HOURS WE BUY PLANTS , FOR THE GARDEN , BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE SOMETHING TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER I HAVE OWNED THE KEYS TO FOUR BARS IN MY LIFE .I LIKE THIS TERM Entire Sanctification which means you can live a sin free life IT GIVES ME HOPE , BUT IN THE CHURCH WE GO TO IT SEEMS THAT WE DO NOT LIKE THIS TERM ANYMORE .I HOPE WE CAN LIVE A SIN FREE LIFE . IF WE CANNOT I MIGHT AS WELL GET BUY A SET OF KEYS AND OPEN A FEW BARS AROUND TOWN .IT IS EASY MONEY . HER HUSBAND AND MY WIFE DO NOT WORRY ABOUT US BEING TOGETHER . I DO NOT WANT TO GO WHERE I AM HEADED WITH THIS , SO I WILL STOP HERE IS WHAT I HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS SAYING ,
"By unrepented sin, I am refering to the attitude of a person and not if someone died before they repented of a sinful act the commited earlier in the day." HERE IS WHERE MY STORY STARTED , A FREIND OF MINE IS IN KANSAS CITY TEACHING THE FUTURE PREACHERS , AND MY FRIEND BELIEVES THAT ONE LITTLE SIN WILL NOT SIN US TO HELL . BUT I DO . THAT IS WHY TODAY I DO NOT OWN THE KEYS TO A BAR. NOT BECAUSE I THINK THE WHISKEY IS BAD , BUT BECAUSE I KNOW THE SIDE BUSINESS OF A BAR
IF I DID NOT ANSWER IT TO YOU STANDARD DO COME BACK I WILL TRY TO GET IT RIGHT , MIKE

[Dane Gjesdal]

LOL SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE CHRISTIAN , AROUND THE ALTER . WHAT DID HE SAY THEY DO , OH LORD MAKE HIM BLIND SO HE CAN'T SEE THE LADIES . I HAVE HEARD PEOPLE PRAY LIKE THIS . LOL, WE DO NOT DO ANYTHING . SHE AND I WRITE SONGS WE HAVE FINSHED THE 2ND OF THREE FOR THIS WINTER .I THINK YOU ARE FROM TENNESSEE , THIS NEXT ONE IS RAW BONE RED NECK HONKY TONK, " IT IS 12 BELOW , AND THAT IS HOT .COMPARED TO YOUR HONKY TONKIN HEART " NOW TO YOU MY POST, HE, STEVE, SAID THAT IT IS "As Wesleyans, we believe in Prevenient Grace which is the Holy Spirit working in us all before we come to a knowledge of Christ. STEVE SAID WAS IT IS OUR attitude THAT MATTERS . Anne and Dwayne Hood I SAID I THINK THAT IS BETTER THAN ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED .FOR IT GIVES US THE OPTION TO SIN IF WE WANT TO .Anne and Dwayne Hood HE , STEVE,MADE THE STATEMENT ABOUT A UNREPEMTED SIN RIGHT ?"By unrepented sin, I am refering to the attitude of a person and not if someone died before they repented of a sinful act the commited earlier in the day." MOST OF THE TIME I AM JUST SPEED READING WHEN I AM IN HERE , IT IS A BREAK FOR THE GUITAR. I SAW THE WORD 'attitude ' THAT IS WHEN I MADE UP THE LITTLE STORY ABOUT IF SHE AND I WERE TO STOP AT THE AT THE LOVELESS HOTEL AND RENT A 10 DOLLAR MANSON. WE NEVER HAVE I HATE TO NOT BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU A NOVEL BUT WE WRITE SONGS AND WORK THE GARDEN . ON THE TRIPS WHICH NEVER LAST OVER 4 HOURS WE BUY PLANTS , FOR THE GARDEN , BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE SOMETHING TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER I HAVE OWNED THE KEYS TO FOUR BARS IN MY LIFE .I LIKE THIS TERM Entire Sanctification which means you can live a sin free life IT GIVES ME HOPE , BUT IN THE CHURCH WE GO TO IT SEEMS THAT WE DO NOT LIKE THIS TERM ANYMORE .I HOPE WE CAN LIVE A SIN FREE LIFE . IF WE CANNOT I MIGHT AS WELL GET BUY A SET OF KEYS AND OPEN A FEW BARS AROUND TOWN .IT IS EASY MONEY . HER HUSBAND AND MY WIFE DO NOT WORRY ABOUT US BEING TOGETHER . I DO NOT WANT TO GO WHERE I AM HEADED WITH THIS , SO I WILL STOP HERE IS WHAT I HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS SAYING ,
"By unrepented sin, I am refering to the attitude of a person and not if someone died before they repented of a sinful act the commited earlier in the day." HERE IS WHERE MY STORY STARTED , A FREIND OF MINE IS IN KANSAS CITY TEACHING THE FUTURE PREACHERS , AND MY FRIEND BELIEVES THAT ONE LITTLE SIN WILL NOT SIN US TO HELL . BUT I DO . THAT IS WHY TODAY I DO NOT OWN THE KEYS TO A BAR. NOT BECAUSE I THINK THE WHISKEY IS BAD , BUT BECAUSE I KNOW THE SIDE BUSINESS OF A BAR
IF I DID NOT ANSWER IT TO YOU STANDARD DO COME BACK I WILL TRY TO GET IT RIGHT , MIKE

For us blind people - could you possibly type with the CAPS off. It is very hard to read. (Smile)