Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:28 PM (GMT -6)

Here's a question for anyone who would be willing to fill me in a bit regarding something I am unclear about:Lately, for some unknown reason, I have been hearing about the "unforgivable" sin but I haven't a clue what sin it is that we can commit that Christ cannot forgive? What is the "unforgivable" sin?

I would love to be enlightened
trosie

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:31 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Trosie,

the unforgiveable sin is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as found in Matt. 12:31-32 and also in Mark 3:29-31 and also in Luke 12:10.

Generally, anyone who is concerned about blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is not likely to be guilty of it. You would have to "consciously, persistently, deliberately, and maliciously reject the testimony of the Spirit to the deity and saving power of the Lord Jesus." As the note from the RSV has it (note for Mark 3:29) Another way I have heard it explained is that it consists of a fundamental reversal of God and Satan. In this case, the Pharisees were in danger for attributing what God was doing to the devil, this would prevent them from experiencing the true power of God and thereby missing the witness of the Spirit to Christ.

ModesOfThought

Edited by - archive on 06/27/2001 12:34:20 AM

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:32 PM (GMT -6)

Modes nailed it. I'd only add, since we know that all sin that is confessed is forgiven (I JN), and since we know that one cannot confess Christ as Lord "except by the Holy Spirit" (I Cor 12), then a believer who is concerned with committing this sin is not only "unlikely" to have committed it -- they could not have committed it. The unforgivable sin is the sin of being so far gone you mistake good for evil -- the Son of God for Satan -- and are no longer open to being convicted of this: you will never confess the sin.

Its about having ones character irreversibly solidified against God.

Doc

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:39 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks Modes and Doc for your explanations!

I was really getting a bit annoyed by how some people were talking about this "unforgivable" sin thing -- your explanations have reinforced what I believed to be the truth. I was beginning to wonder if perhaps I had missed something(?) because of the emphasis some people were placing on this, but alas I fully agree with Doc's statement:

"I'd only add, since we know that all sin that is confessed is forgiven (I JN), and since we know that one cannot confess Christ as Lord "except by the Holy Spirit" (I Cor 12), then a believer who is concerned with committing this sin is not only "unlikely" to have committed it -- they could not have committed it"

I believe Christ goes to every possible extreme to save ALL people so this "unforgivable" sin issue and the way some people were talking about it was bugging me! I KNOW that He died for ALL sin. I think it's times like this that a person has to be careful or they can get their view of God distorted.

Muchas Gracias
trosie

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:42 PM (GMT -6)

"Blessed are the poor in spirit," Jesus began when the time came for him to address the multitudes. What did he man by this opener?... What is so great about feeling down on yourself - about having this sense of personal sin? If you ask that it might help to remember the Pharisees. They were the fat cats of Jesus' day. They didn't feel poor in spirit. They felt that had it all together, that they were the ones who knew the score, who deserved to be the cutlure leaders in Jerusalem and Palestine,. And they were the ones who murdered Jesus.
The poor in spirit do not commit evil. Evil is not committed by people who feel uncertain about their righteousness, who question their own motives, who worry about betraying themselves. The evil in this world is commmitted by the spiritual fat cats, by the Parisees of our own day, the self-righteous who think they are without sin becuae they are unwilling to suffer the discomfor of significant self-examination.
Unpleasant thought it may be, the sense of personal sin is precisely that which keeps our sin from getting out of hand. It is our one and only effective safequared against our own proclivity for evil. Saint Therese of Lisieux put it so nicely in her gently way: "If you are willing to serenely bear the trial of being displeasing to yourself, then you will be for Jesus a pleasant place of shelter."

Written by:
Marilyn von Waldener and M. Scott Peck. "What Return Can I Make?"

glamdring 777

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:44 PM (GMT -6)

...There can be a state of soul against which Love itself is powerless because it has hardened itself against Love. Hell is essentially a state of being which we fashion for ourselves: a state of final separateness from God which is the result not of God's repudiation of man, but of man's repudiation of God, and a reupdiation which is eternal precisely because it has become, in itself, immovable. There are analogies in human experience: the hate which is so blind, so dark, that Love only makes it the more violent; the pride which is so stony that humility only makes it more scornful; the inertia - last but not least the inertia - which has so taken possession of the personality that no crisis, no appeal, no inducement whatsoever, can stir it into activity, but on the contrary makes it bury itself the more deeply in its immobility. So with the soul and God; pride can become hardened into hell, hatred can become hardened into hell, any of the seven root forms of wrongdoing can harden into hell, and not least that sloth which is bordom with divine things, the inertia that cannot be troubled to repent, even though it sees the abyss into which the soul is falling, because for so long, in little ways perhaps, it has accustomed itself to refuse whatever might cost it an effort. May God in his mercy save us from that.

written by:
Gerald Vann, The Pain of Christ and the Sorrow of God (Temple Gate Publishers, Springfield, Ill. 1947)

glamdring 777

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:33 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Wislawa:
Good point. Perhaps "The Unforgivable Sin" could make for a good challenge to Calvivistic/Deterministic worldviews. What exactly did Jesus mean about attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan if God is free to utilize evil in his plans whenever He desires? Seems a little contradictory to me. By the way I do apprerciate your wit and humor. You have quite a clever mind.
Blessings
Rob

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:33 AM (GMT -6)

A dangerous question indeed. I am slow to respond becuase of the seriousness of what it might mean.

I do think that Calvinism in some forms makes it impossible to distinguish between God and Satan. This is a very serious problem. Better, it seems to me, to find a demon under every bush, than to attribute particular evil acts wrongly to God. I do beleive that Calvinists escape the blashemy of the Holy Spirit when they submit to God and repent, seeking to do God's will, but they escape by a falicitous inconsistancy. Despite their theology, they profess that God is good and loving and the worship God as though they beleived that to be true, indeed most do believe that to be true. I just can't trace the math that leads to such a conclusion from what else is given in the system. Here, good piety and love for God, self and the neighbor cover a multitude of theological errors.

ModesofThought

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:34 AM (GMT -6)

Modes, have you thought about the unforgiveable sin in Kierkegaardian terms? When the Pharisees encontered the God-man they responded with offense rather than faith. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to despise the Helper’s invitation. If you look at it this way, then I don’t think we can judge Calvinists, to whatever extent they respond in faith—and they surely do. GDG

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:34 AM (GMT -6)

For SK we can no more say they "surely do" than they "surely do not" in terms of assessing faith. But he certainly is free about judging ideas and ways of thinking/believing and living out the faith. The idea of predestination as understood Calvinisticly is clearly rejected, in fact SK likens the doctrine to an "abortion" of the search for meaning and truth in this area.

The connections and concerns I expressed are related, we see the rigorous logic of certainty played out so clearly, it only stands to reason that the belief in God's possibilities for the world are in spite of that system of thought which renders such thinking implausible.

ModesofThought

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:35 AM (GMT -6)

Yes, I know SK was not keen on Calvinistically-understood predestination (actually, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say Lutheranly-understood predestination?), and I also know he was quite fiesty in his assessment of others’ ways of thinking/believing and living out the faith. But what do you think about correlating his category of offense with the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? When the unforgiveable sin is considered existentially—as I think it rightly ought to be, after all, God judges our hearts—then I think it becomes clear that we cannot conclude that Calvinism as a system of thought commits this sin. Individual Calvinists may commit it, but so may individual open theists, or whoever. Welcome to fear and trembling. GDG

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:36 AM (GMT -6)

In SK there is an either/or moment. From that point in a persons life, there is no turning back. One continues to live in fear and trembling, so long as one is in the process of becoming, but the fundamental offense is dealt with in the either/or decision. For example, though they may not be able to explain it logically, Christians no longer find the "God-man" to be an offense because they have encounter God in Christ personally.

Back to your question. Unless you want to say that a person who at every moment they resist faith is committing the "unforgiveable sin" I'd back off such a tight correlation. Offense is a state of being that is changeable/reversible, the unforgivable sin threatens to be more final than that.

While I grant you the distinction that persons commit sins (forgivable or not) rather than systems, some systems teach us to reflect on our position in relation to God in more healthy ways than others. This is the sort of warning I sense about Calvinistic thinking. One might not recognize the infinite love of God when they have the face of evil before them and it is called by the same name.

For clarification: I have not said that Calvinism commits the unforgiveable sin, I have only suggested that it is a dangerous system to take advice from when considering this question, specifically, prior to the moment of faith.

ModesofThought

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:36 AM (GMT -6)

Modes, I agree that some systems are less healthy than others.

However, your warning directed toward Calvinists—“One might not recognize the infinite love of God when they have the face of evil before them and it is called by the same name”—reminds me of SK’s depictions of encountering Christ in his abasement. In retrospect, with the aid of Scripture, the Spirit, and Sunday School, it all looks like love…but in the midst of the actual encounter with the abased Christ, surely the nature of this person was ambiguous to say the least?

I am reminded of the musings of another deep soul. Perhaps you’ll recognize who: “You'd be cool with a friend who suggests you should hate your mother and father? Or one who disallows burial of loved ones? One who says "eat my body, drink my blood" (before communion became fashionable and pious-that is-while it still retained its primary offense as cannibalism) he doesn't properly explain himself in these things, "so that they will hear and not understand"... and then suggests that it is not acceptible to be offended at these things. One who calls a woman a dog appearantly based upon race or perhaps gender or both (Mark 7:27)? It seems Christ would be a strange and difficult "friend" indeed. You try to correct him or look out for his best interests and he calls you "Satan" and extends a very forceful rebuke. ALL denied and betrayed him, each of the disciples not withstanding. I suggest we all would do the same. A very difficult friend indeed...So much so that one might begin to wonder if it is not a form of blasphemy to want to fraternize with God...”

Your turn. GDG

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:37 AM (GMT -6)

Christ's character is ambiguous at times and counter-cultural to be sure, but are you saying that Christ is so far incognito that what is truely love reveals itself as evil? The abasement of Christ contrasts with Christ in Glory, I wouldn't drag these categories into discussions of good and evil. Rather, they are describing the presence of Good in the context of our world (sin) where the Good is persecuted and scorned vs. the presence of Good in the purified kingdom of heaven, where Good is in Glory and on high and recognized in its true form. Love in this world is destined to suffer, this is clearly taught and witnessed to in the NT and the early church. We crucified Love and let Barabas go free. The contrast Christ - Barabas is infinitely different from the contrast Christ in Glory - Christ abased.

The quote you extracted is best illuminated by the realization that In Christ, LOVE for the Good meets with resistence in the world RATHER than in Christ LOVE is actually destructive evil.

If a theologian points to gratuitous evil and says, "there is the good and loving face of God, it is present in the raping of your sister, watch her torment and praise the Lord for his good and mighty works"... I suggest this language about "good" and "loving" have lost their meaning. To this extent, one could rightly wonder, where is God in this? Where is Satan? Who's to say? God does judge and punish, but God is a good communicator, judgments and punishments are of little use if they are not recognized as such. YET some Calvinists (certainly not all) would press on, for theological/philophical reasons, to draw conclusions which effectively echo the words above.

have some more peanut butter...

ModesofThought

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:38 AM (GMT -6)

Ah, Modes, I should have known better than to lock horns with you over Kierkegaard. Oh well, I know I can always start up a conversation about Shakespeare whenever my intellectual ego needs a little boost.

In other words, I agree that corresponding good and evil does with Christ’s glory and abasement is not helpful. So maybe bringing Kierkegaard into this question about Calvinism and the unforgiveable sin isn’t as illuminating as I thought it might be. I’m curious, do know if SK ever wrote about the unforgiveable sin? I’d like to know his take on it.

Getting back to the question at hand, I would like to register my uneasiness in discussing this at all. I mean think about what we’re really musing about here. The whole question makes me extremely uncomfortable. However flawed I may consider their system, I believe my Calvinist brothers and sisters are working out their salvation as faithfully as I am working out my own. If I judge them harshly, what will I have to say for myself? “Whatever is not done in faith is sin.” How can we consider something done in faith to be sin—much less an unforgiveable sin?

GDG

p.s. Modes, about the peanut butter thing…I prefer whipped cream (peanut butter’s too sticky).

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:38 AM (GMT -6)

I agree with your uneasiness about the question...I started with a bit of a disclaimer and tried to maintain tentativeness along the way. The question is important, however, in that it can show a very dangerous potential tendency in Calvinism. Those who are Calvinists would do well to think about the question and reflect on how they might teach in such a way as to avoid leading one to a position of confusing God and Satan. THAT is the main thing.

ModesofThought

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:39 AM (GMT -6)

Modes, I agree. I wish that rather than engaging in polemics against the open view, our Calvinist critics would use their energy on healthier articulations of their own position. GDG

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:39 AM (GMT -6)

Well I’m glad to see people are as scared to answer the question as I was to ask it. But the problem remains.

I want to be able to say that Calvinism is different than the unforgivable sin. Help me out Calvinist folk. Flag the difference. I’m still wondering if we are even defining the unforgivable sin correctly. Wouldn’t it be simpler to say that it is refusing grace and snubbing God? In this way our brothers and sisters who be Calvinist cats could be free from the sin because they frame grace in irresistible terms. Of course now were saying God’s guilty of the unforgivable sin!!! AHHHHHH I should quit while I’m behind.

Let me see is their anything else I can say that will put the salvation of my soul at risk before I go? …hmmmm no can’t think of anything.

I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell I’m going to hell

–Wislawa

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:40 AM (GMT -6)

Gee, all this talk about SK makes me want to take a class. Anyone know if one is available in the St.Paul area?

proverbs 23_23

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:41 AM (GMT -6)

I will be leading a guided reading class in the fall on SK. We will be reading "The Sickness Unto Death," would that fit the bill? It will probably begin Sept. 9th during the first service at WHC.

ModesofThought

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:41 AM (GMT -6)

Modes,

I take it WHC is Woodland Hills... if so, I applaud you'se guys. A church offering more than a simple devotion as part of their teaching ministry, what a concept!

rock on.

don

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:42 AM (GMT -6)

Don,

Thanks for the encouragement...and yes, WHC is Woodland Hills, soon to be renamed something much less suburban, I hope!!

We had two classes (too many responded to the class offering for only one class!) last spring of this nature where we read through Kierkegaard's "Practice in Christianity." I felt it went VERY well. There are plenty of "laypersons" who are able to digest thethoughts of and be challenged by one of the greatest minds in the Christian world.

Anyway, thanks for the encouragement!

ModesofThought

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:44 AM (GMT -6)

Interesting question. Answer: HECK, no, Calvinism is not like the unforgivable sin. I shouldn't have read this...oh well...Gimme two minutes.

The difference is analogous to the distinctions with God's presence concerning omnipresence. Let me explain. One minute 30 seconds.

Theologically, we know that God is literally everywhere at all times. There is no place that exists that God is not. However, there is often a conspicuous PRESENCE and ABSENCE associated with God in Scripture and in our daily walks as Christians. If anyone doubts this, read some Philip Yancey books. At any rate, we know that it is the MANIFEST PRESENCE of God that existentially matters to human beings, though the ontological omnipresence is what makes it possible to the degree that it is and is important in its own right. Hurry, hurry...

Dare I say it is the SAME way with God and evil? To play the broken record of mine over again, I would say that God is ontologically ABOVE good and evil due to his position as Creator for various reasons. However, God is FOR the life-giving paradigms in our world. He FREELY CHOOSES to be good, and is not ontologically bound to good! Are there some times in Scripture that God does things that are "ambiguous" (using Modes term)? Heck, yes. But as, Sanders notes in his book "The God Who Risks", we have overwhelming proof in redemptive history that God is ultimately FOR us and FOR reconcilation with us. In other words, in God's ACTIONS AND WORDS IN HISTORY to us, he shows himself to be on our side...even through some of the ambiguity. And I believe it is THESE acts that are what is existentially meaningful to us as believers.

Thus, a person who has a bend towards Calvinistic theology be able to say that one ONE level, God ultimately wills all that happens (just like ontological omnipresence) and one ANOTHER LEVEL, God can genuinely be FOR THE GOOD for human beings and creation in his interactions with it (just like manifestional presence of God) A person would be able to affirm that God is NOT Satan and that God is NOT essentially a malicious being, though God has ultimate say-so OVER satanic forces. It seems that this is theologically allowable within the context of Scripture. Thus, a truly balanced, discerning Calvinist would NOT be attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan!

Time's up. Back to work...

devolyrevyrev,
Meph

PS: It's important to note why I use the idea of omnipresence here. The terms omnipresence and LOCALIZATION are two mutually exclusive concepts, strictly speaking. That which is ontologically omnipresent cannot be localized in any meaningful sense to human beings...and that which is ontologically localized in a meaningful sense to human beings, by definition, cannot be omnipresent. The localization of God's presence (ie Old Testament stuff) is a EXISTENTIAL PERCEPTION from our standandpoint and, dare I say, a CONDESCENSION on God's part for the purposes of communicating to his people. In short, it's a "piece" of a bigger reality. I think this is analogous to what I mean to convey.

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:44 AM (GMT -6)

If you think that’s progressive (which it is) for an evangelical church to read SK, check out this church called House of Mercy in Lowertown St. Paul. They have readings called “No More Poser Po-mo’s” based on Habermas’ favorite phrase for folks who toss around the term postmodern without knowing what it means or reading any of the works they think fall under the term. The first reading was excerpts from Foucault’s “History of Sexuality.” Don’t get me wrong, House is a strait up evangelical church. They just want people to know what they are trashing if they want to trash it.

Modes I wish I was going to be around the Twin Cities or I’d take your class. keep up the good work! In fact i'm so inspired i think i'll start "Sickness Unto Death" right now. I've had a copy just laying around for a few months. Now if only i can find it!

Wislawa

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 7:47 AM (GMT -6)

Disclaimer: this is posted purely in a speculative spirit and for clarification on the concept of an unforgivable sin NOT in a judgmental way on other Christians. That said I’m looking for a little bit of controversy here. everyone likes controversy right?

Both Modes and Doc characterized the unforgivable sin as confusing God and Satan and good for evil. Modes said, “Another way I have heard it explained is that it consists of a fundamental reversal of God and Satan.” Here is my question. From the perspective of the open view are Calvinists guilty of committing the unforgivable sin?

See I told you I was looking for controversy

Track with me on this one. In Calvinist thought the distance between God and Satan gets very small if a distinction is discernable at all. All evil is called God’s own good. The work of Satan is only done in service to God and according to His wishes. Wesley said to Edwards that who Edwards called God he called Satan. It seems that Calvinism fits the bill for confusing good with evil and God with Satan. Does this amount to the unforgivable sin? If not what is the difference between this way of theologizing and the unforgivable sin?

We’re hunting bears
–Wislawa

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:14 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual