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]

But the god of the bible is evil. It did drown ALL the babies and children and I think that drowning a baby is evil. What do think?

I think... you're welcome to "think" what you want to think. And that, like myth-one, you have at least some studying and seeking to do, but whether you do that or not is your own prerogative. Grace and peace to you.

It requires no study to say whether drowning babies is wicked. It requires some very clever justification, the onus being on the person who is defending the apparent atrocity. The only way that I see how it can be explained as not wicked is if we regard all acts of God as being good, by definition. That is fine, but it requires us to surrender our humanity and our reason to a theology that humans have coined. In mathematics, when we reach a contradiction, we discard our starting hypothesis.

The biblical God is good is our starting hypothesis.
Drowning babies offers a contradiction.
Each must decide how to deal with that problem. Some seem to ignore it.

[marco]

Satan's fall was not just a disagreement with YHWH not believing HIS claims but a total rejection of HIM as a false god and a liar and as the first liar, the most evil person in creation.

It may well be that a deity did all you suppose, and we are the consequence of pre-natal activity. But how do you work out that the being portrayed in the Bible is the god who features in your own narrative? A person may not be denying God, therefore sinning unpardonably, but questioning the credentials of a usurper, created by the biblical authors. In other words: there may be a good, just God, but he's not Yahweh.

[PinSeeker]

But the god of the bible is evil. It did drown ALL the babies and children and I think that drowning a baby is evil. What do think?

I think... you're welcome to "think" what you want to think. And that, like myth-one, you have at least some studying and seeking to do, but whether you do that or not is your own prerogative. Grace and peace to you.

It requires no study to say whether drowning babies is wicked. It requires some very clever justification, the onus being on the person who is defending the apparent atrocity. The only way that I see how it can be explained as not wicked is if we regard all acts of God as being good, by definition. That is fine, but it requires us to surrender our humanity and our reason to a theology that humans have coined. In mathematics, when we reach a contradiction, we discard our starting hypothesis.

The biblical God is good is our starting hypothesis.
Drowning babies offers a contradiction.
Each must decide how to deal with that problem. Some seem to ignore it.

LOL! I was't really addressing the "drowning babies" thing at all. God is not "evil," and God has committed no (and will never commit any) "atrocity." At the same time, though, God is the Giver of life, and it is His to do with as He pleases; the Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. As Creator, this is His right, and He is perfectly just in all He does/ordains. We may recoil in horror, but that's really quite irrelevant. God's thoughts are not out thoughts, and neither are His ways our ways. Our acceptance is not required.

If drowning babies is an issue, then it might be helpful -- and even instructive (although one must be teachable for that to be the case) -- to discuss the Scripture being referred to.

Grace and peace to you, marco.

[marco]

LOL! I was't really addressing the "drowning babies" thing at all.

Presumably because you were laughing which is no substitute for thought. You are unsure where drowning babies feature in the nebulous theology of the Old Testament. God drowned the entire world except for the hideous Noah, who would later drunkenly curse his own son and grandson. Among the world's population of that era we had enfants.

God is not "evil,"

Perhaps not, but Yahweh is.

God's thoughts are not out thoughts, and neither are His ways our ways. Our acceptance is not required.

Beautiful poetry that merely lacks stanzaic expression. Thankfully Yahweh's thoughts are not ours, else tonight might be infanticide night. His ways seem to be descending on mountains and laboriously hacking words on to stones. Some God! Surely this must cause more loud laughter.

Go well.

[PinSeeker]

God is not "evil,"

Perhaps not, but Yahweh is.

Would you go so far as to say Yahweh's (God's, Jehovah's, the Lord's) works are evil, and that those of Satan are good?

That notwithstanding, yes, each man will "think" what he wants to think. And each man comes to realize the folly of his thoughts and ways, be that sooner or later. I would recommend sooner rather than later, but that's up to each one of us, for sure.

Grace and peace to you, marco.

[PinSeeker]

LOL! I was't really addressing the "drowning babies" thing at all.

Presumably because you were laughing which is no substitute for thought.

LOL! Well, because of discretion and grace, I was keeping my thoughts to myself.

You are unsure where drowning babies feature in the nebulous theology of the Old Testament.

No, I'm quite sure, as there is no "nebulousness" quality in God's Word... only man's denial and futility of thought.

God drowned the entire world...

Right, He destroyed His Creation, which is His right as Creator. What we think of that is really inconsequential.

...except for the hideous Noah...

Right, the one who was blameless and upright -- but not without sin -- in the sight of the Lord. That that's "hideous" to you speaks volumes.

...who would later drunkenly curse his own son and grandson.

Yes, Ham well earned this curse. The judgment here is really from God and not merely Noah, and his judgment here assumes the offspring are evil like their parents; “those who hate me� defines the accursed. Children of the wicked often persist in sin and justify their damnation, but the curse is removed from the repentant. Rahab, a Canaanite, hid the Israeli spies in faith and was blessed (Josh. 2; 6:22–25; Heb. 11:31).

The Almighty’s curse may remain on many of an evil father’s progeny only because they refuse to believe. Canaan’s seed continued in sins even worse than Ham’s, descending further into the shameful and sinister practices of incest, homosexuality, and bestiality (Lev. 18). In the end, the curse on Canaan was based on a lack of faith.

Among the world's population of that era we had enfants.

No doubt true. See above.

Grace and peace to you, marco.

[brianbbs67]

Is not the Adversary, ha' Satan, given a job to do? How is he among the host in Job?

[Athetotheist]

It seems to me that there's a problem with the "unpardonable sin" doctrine.

First, let's look at 1Corinthians 15:45----"And so it is written, 'the first man Adam became a living being.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."

Now, Romans 5:18----"Therefore, as through one man's offense judgement came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification for life."

Now, Romans 5:20----"Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more...."

So Jesus was supposed to be the "last Adam" whose act of atonement abounded much more than the first Adam's act of condemnation. But if the first Adam's act brought into the world any sin which the last Adam's act could not take away, how was the act of the last Adam greater than that of the first?

[ttruscott]

So Jesus was supposed to be the "last Adam" whose act of atonement abounded much more than the first Adam's act of condemnation. But if the first Adam's act brought into the world any sin which the last Adam's act could not take away, how was the act of the last Adam greater than that of the first?

Good question because it shows the lack of perspicacity of this area of thought led astray by a false premise.

I contend that Adam brought no sin to human kind except his own, not any sin which could not be taken away by Christ. It is the person who makes their sin unforgivable because all we know about Christ is that He can and will forgive any and every one He can save.

If it is the person themselves that set their unforgive-ability and not any lack or inability in Christ, what could that look like? I don't know what other creative people might think but I have found an acceptable answer in our free will, to whit:

if a free will decison is sacrosanct (and it must be to be truly free), and someone chooses to restrict GOD from interfering with their decisions in any way by choosing to put themselves outside of HIS caring attention and HIS purpose for their creation, would GOD not have to accede to that demand and to never interfere with that person's chosen moral state and the natural consequences of that choice except to fulfill the warned about legal requirements against their sin?

The sinning of the unforgivable sin must have been a free will decision with the knowledge that YHWH considered it to be irreversible and would end in banishment from HIS reality. They must have known that if they made this decision to reject HIM as their GOD and HE ever proved He was their creator GOD that they would end in hell, yet they proceeded in to reject HIM and HIS warnings. Thus to be unforgivable is to be totally given to hatred and rejection of all YHWH's claims of Divinity and righteousness, willing to end in hell rather than to ever fulfill HIS purpose of being a marriage partner for HIM.

As enslaved by the addictive power of evil they cannot save themselves and by rejecting the salvation found in the Son they put themsleves outside of His perfect ability to save them, thus they made themselves to be eternally evil, outside of any GODly desire to save them from their own choices.

[Athetotheist]

So Jesus was supposed to be the "last Adam" whose act of atonement abounded much more than the first Adam's act of condemnation. But if the first Adam's act brought into the world any sin which the last Adam's act could not take away, how was the act of the last Adam greater than that of the first?

Good question because it shows the lack of perspicacity of this area of thought led astray by a false premise.

I contend that Adam brought no sin to human kind except his own, not any sin which could not be taken away by Christ. It is the person who makes their sin unforgivable because all we know about Christ is that He can and will forgive any and every one He can save.

If it is the person themselves that set their unforgive-ability and not any lack or inability in Christ, what could that look like? I don't know what other creative people might think but I have found an acceptable answer in our free will, to whit:

if a free will decison is sacrosanct (and it must be to be truly free), and someone chooses to restrict GOD from interfering with their decisions in any way by choosing to put themselves outside of HIS caring attention and HIS purpose for their creation, would GOD not have to accede to that demand and to never interfere with that person's chosen moral state and the natural consequences of that choice except to fulfill the warned about legal requirements against their sin?

The sinning of the unforgivable sin must have been a free will decision with the knowledge that YHWH considered it to be irreversible and would end in banishment from HIS reality. They must have known that if they made this decision to reject HIM as their GOD and HE ever proved He was their creator GOD that they would end in hell, yet they proceeded in to reject HIM and HIS warnings. Thus to be unforgivable is to be totally given to hatred and rejection of all YHWH's claims of Divinity and righteousness, willing to end in hell rather than to ever fulfill HIS purpose of being a marriage partner for HIM.

As enslaved by the addictive power of evil they cannot save themselves and by rejecting the salvation found in the Son they put themsleves outside of His perfect ability to save them, thus they made themselves to be eternally evil, outside of any GODly desire to save them from their own choices.

But if they still have free will, they should still have the capacity to repent. And the question is still there: if the first Adam's sin precipitated the sin of others and the last Adam's atonement doesn't supercede what the first Adam did, how does grace abound more than sin as Romans 5:20 says?