|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The unforgivable sin?
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
This Sunday's gospel reading includes this saying from Jesus:
quote:
"Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"
(Mark 3:28-29)
I meet each week with a small group of ministers in our area to have lunch together and discuss the forthcoming readings. We really struggled over this. It doesn't help that Luke's version is even stronger:
quote:
And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. (Luke 12:10)
So what do we make of this saying? Is there a sin that is unforgivable? If so, just what is it? And why is it unforgivable?
One thought I had - in Mark's version, this saying is directed clearly at scribes from Jerusalem who are accusing Jesus of being a demon. So is this a warning that followers of Jesus don't need to be concerned about?
[ 28. May 2016, 01:58: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I have always thought that what this refers to is the debasement of language. Because if you deny the meaning of words -- if war is peace and love is hate and God is the Devil -- then all discourse becomes impossible. The very means of communication is gone. And Jesus is described as the Word, which ties it all together very nicely.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
When I first heard about this verse, I tried to be careful not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit in my mind (with the same result as not trying to think about a pink elephant).
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
Personally I always thought that the unpardonable sin was a sin against love, as the Holy Spirit is Love.
However, Googling the expression "unpardonable sin" reveals a consensus that it is a stubborn refusal to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, and that therefore a true Christian cannot ever commit it.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The Holy Spirit is the one who gives faith, brings about repentance, makes alive, brings to Christ. The problem with blaspheming him--which I take to mean refusing him, opposing him knowingly and unchangeably (and not temporarily out of confusion or simple wrongheadedness)--is that it is like cutting off the branch you're sitting on. If you refuse the Spirit, who is going to give you life-giving repentance and faith? That's his job. It's not something that human beings naturally possess now that our species has been contaminated with sin.
Opposing Christ is not a good thing, but you can hope for the Spirit to come along and set the person straight. But for someone to set himself permanently, intentionally, and unalterably against the Spirit--yowch.
I put in the "permanent and unalterable" stuff because everybody to some extent opposes the Spirit--that's sort of the definition of sin. But I suspect there's a difference in level of intention, intensity, motivation--maybe more--between ordinary sinful "Nyah nyah" and the sheer spiritual suicide Jesus is referring to.
In short, I think God will find for us every possible excuse that can be found, and make use of every loophole that exists to bring us to redemption. But if someone is really, truly, seriously, knowingly, permanently intent on denying himself/herself to God, for all eternity--well, we have that freedom.
[ 04. June 2015, 19:31: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I guess how you interpret this verse depends a lot on your soteriology. I wonder if we have an idea what it meant to the person who wrote this verse.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Googling the expression "unpardonable sin" reveals a consensus that it is a stubborn refusal to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, and that therefore a true Christian cannot ever commit it.
I don't buy that. In effect, what that is saying is "if you don't accept Jesus as Lord, you can never be forgiven." And what has this to do with "blasphemy against the Spirit" (unforgivable), rather than "blasphemy against the Son of Man" (forgivable)?
This definition seems to me to be simply emphasising a stark black and white viewpoint on the world - "if you're in, you're in; if you're out, you're REALLY out (and there's no coming back)."
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Googling the expression "unpardonable sin" reveals a consensus that it is a stubborn refusal to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
I don't buy that. In effect, what that is saying is "if you don't accept Jesus as Lord, you can never be forgiven."
That's pretty much what Jesus himself said (John 14:6). You may want to Google the search and read the results.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Googling the expression "unpardonable sin" reveals a consensus that it is a stubborn refusal to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, and that therefore a true Christian cannot ever commit it.
I don't buy that. In effect, what that is saying is "if you don't accept Jesus as Lord, you can never be forgiven." And what has this to do with "blasphemy against the Spirit" (unforgivable), rather than "blasphemy against the Son of Man" (forgivable)?
This definition seems to me to be simply emphasising a stark black and white viewpoint on the world - "if you're in, you're in; if you're out, you're REALLY out (and there's no coming back)."
I don't think that's quite it. As I understand it, it's more akin to actually understanding that Jesus really is Lord and yet rejecting his lordship. Put another way, it's knowing who Christ is and what he has done and rejecting the salvation offered through the Holy Spirit—actually understanding and believing what the Holy Spirit offers and yet essentially saying "eff off, I' don't need anybody but myself."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
This is, I think, what the leaders were in real danger of when they said that Jesus got his powers from demons. It wasn't that they were sincerely mistaken; it was I think that they had some surmise of the truth, and yet chose to treat holiness as evil for motives of their own.
Paul got off much more lightly.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I agree both with Lamb Chopped and Nick Tamen. The context of the saying helps us to understand it. The religious leaders have seen Jesus power to heal at work, and are ascribing that power to the demonic. They are seeing what they know to be good and deliberately choosing to call it evil, and to reject it.
If they were doing this in error it would be a different matter - error is correctable. The problem is that they know perfectly well what they are seeing, and they are choosing to reject it.
[ 05. June 2015, 10:11: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
This is my understanding and I don't claim it's definitive and I certainly don't claim it's the teaching of the Orthodox Church.
One of the chief jobs of the Holy Spirit in our salvation is to convict us of sin, so that we will turn to God and be saved. My idea is that the sin against the H.S. is to deny you have sin that needs to be forgiven. Thus denying the Holy Spirit's telling you otherwise. If you don't believe you need to be forgiven, you won't ask to be forgiven, and thus won't be forgiven. Especially poignant (if that's the right word) among those who stubbornly refuse to admit need-to-be-forgiven sins. "I didn't do anything that other people didn't do; I don't need to ask for forgiveness." And to hold onto that, cling to it.
It's rather like the spirit in The Great Divorce who says, "I don't need no bleeding charity." Until you admit the need for bleeding charity, which the Holy Spirit is telling you you need, you won't repent and thus won't accept the forgiveness freely offered in Christ Jesus.
I would especially like to hear what L.C. thinks about my theory because she's pretty darned sharp concerning such things.
[ 05. June 2015, 15:13: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
I'm with Mousethief here. I spent some time mulling over this question a while back (in the middle of a (in)civil war within my own congregation) and concluded that there is no sin so bad that God will not forgive but that we have to acknowledge our sin and ask for it to be forgiven to be forgiven. If you see no need to ask to be forgiven, God cannot forgive you.
Does that make sense?
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Yes. God will not force forgiveness on you.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
If you see no need to ask to be forgiven, God cannot forgive you.
I agree in principle, although I think there are shades here. I am thinking of C.S. Lewis' distinction between "excusing" and "forgiving." There is conduct that we do and we have what (in our minds) is justification for what we did...excuses.
quote:
But the trouble is that what we call "asking God's forgiveness" very often really consists in asking God to accept our excuses. What leads us into this mistake is the fact that there usually is some amount of excuse, some "extenuating circumstances." We are so very anxious to point these things out to God (and to ourselves) that we are apt to forget the very important thing; that is, the bit left over, the bit which excuses don't cover, the bit which is inexcusable but not, thank God, unforgivable. And if we forget this, we shall go away imagining that we have repented and been forgiven when all that has really happened is that we have satisfied ourselves without own excuses.
The full essay can be found HERE.
God stands ready to forgive all, but it must be forgiveness on God's terms, not our terms. We don't get to dictate what should or should not be forgiven. So it is more than that God cannot forgive when we refuse to ask for forgiveness. That part is pretty obvious. What is less obvious is that God also cannot forgive when we want Him to forgive on our terms--when we want him to accept our excuses rather than recognize that our conduct was literally inexcusable and truly ask for forgiveness.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This is, I think, what the leaders were in real danger of when they said that Jesus got his powers from demons. It wasn't that they were sincerely mistaken; it was I think that they had some surmise of the truth, and yet chose to treat holiness as evil for motives of their own.
Paul got off much more lightly.
I think you've nailed it, Lamb Chopped. What Jesus is most concerned about here is forgiveness, not who you're allowed to damn. He even goes so far as to claim no special privileges for himself in this respect. But he draws the line at wilfully perverting the truth.
Even then, it's essentially about calling that which is good evil, and vice versa, not the simple act of telling a lie.
Peter's treatment of the cheat, Ananias, is itself, IMO, unforgiveable because his verdict of Ananias having lied against the Holy Spirit is itself a gross and vicious perversion of the seriousness of Ananias's act. It's obviously personal. Ananias lies to Peter. He lies to the community. That is patently not an offence against the Holy Spirit in the way Jesus meant it.
Peter neither seeks repentance nor offers forgiveness, and the killing of Sapphira was premeditated murder.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo
So the unforgiveable sin is to ascribe evil motives to what is actually thew work of the Holy Spirit.
I agree. Here is the passage; I have italicized the important parts. quote:
And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, ‘He has Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons.’ And he called them to him, and spoke to them in parables, ‘How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but his end has come. But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his property without first tying up the strong man; then indeed the house can be plundered.
‘Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin’—
It is the Holy Spirit that leads us to repentance, which, in turn, makes forgiveness possible. If someone can't tell the difference between the Holy Spirit and Beelzebub, it is impossible for him to repent.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I thought of this threrad while reading the gospel to the congrehation this morning.
The context of the unforgiveable sin statement is about those who believe that jesus was motivated by Satan.
So the unforgiveable sin is to ascribe evil motives to what is actually thew work of the Holy Spirit.
Wouldn't that be rather easy to do? Even by simple mistake?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Yes, that jumped out at us yesterday with the Gospel reading. It sits ill with the notion that God in His grace may and does forgive all - what if someone who fell into that sin later on realised error and truly repented? Surely forgiveness would follow. Or so we discussed in the car on the way home.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So the unforgiveable sin is to ascribe evil motives to what is actually thew work of the Holy Spirit.
Wouldn't that be rather easy to do? Even by simple mistake?
We didn't have this gospel yesterday (as we observed Corpus Christi), but here's my first thoughts without having recently studied the passage.
Firstly, I think Leo's on point in saying we have to be attentive to the literary context of the verse. Some of these reflections about unrepentant sins being unforgiveable are beautiful, and probably true, but don't seem to engage the text.
However, there's one word that sneaks into Leo's argument half way through without justification and leaves him open to Karl's objection. The word is "motives."
The passage is not about ascribing to evil motives what is the work of the Holy Spirit, but about ascribing it to the evil One. Modern readers may have qualms about this kind of dualism, but all the gospels witness to unwavering belief in the reality of an evil One, whatever word they use for him.
The unforgiveable sin would seem to me to be confusing the Holy Spirit and Satan.* Even then, it doesn't seem to be that making that error once eternally damns you, more that persisting in that error leaves you un-open to life in the Spirit, ie. salvation.
--
* Actually, just confusing them in one direction. Thinking the work of Satan is the work of the Spirit is not mentioned, just the other way around.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Exactly. If you call evil good -- if you pervert the meaning of the word -- then discourse is impossible. (You can see this on a very small scale in the US. If you firmly insist that Obama is the Antichrist, then it is very difficult to have a discussion.)
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
However, there's one word that sneaks into Leo's argument half way through without justification and leaves him open to Karl's objection. The word is "motives."
The passage is not about ascribing to evil motives what is the work of the Holy Spirit, but about ascribing it to the evil One. it is not mentioned, just the other way around.
Absolutely right - my use of words was sloppy.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
Firstly, I think Leo's on point in saying we have to be attentive to the literary context of the verse. Some of these reflections about unrepentant sins being unforgiveable are beautiful, and probably true, but don't seem to engage the text.
My feeling exactly. Jesus is not talking about people's attitudes towards repentance - he is talking about the scribes' accusations about his own ministry.
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
The unforgiveable sin would seem to me to be confusing the Holy Spirit and Satan.* Even then, it doesn't seem to be that making that error once eternally damns you, more that persisting in that error leaves you un-open to life in the Spirit, ie. salvation.
Yes, but.....
First of all, I don't think "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit" is about "confusing the Spirit and Satan". That makes it sound like it could be an accident. It seems to me that there should be some sort of conscious and deliberate action going on. But I have to admit that if that is the case, then we also have to assume that the scribes knew that Jesus wasn't demon-possessed. Did they? Perhaps there is more to the story than we have.
Secondly, whilst I appreciate the effort to keep the door open, I struggle with this: "it doesn't seem to be that making that error once eternally damns you, more that persisting in that error leaves you un-open to life in the Spirit" That seems to me to be exactly what Jesus is NOT saying. The words are pretty clear - there can be no forgiveness! It's a harsh saying, which is why so many struggle with it.
One (possibly heretical!) thought....
Given that this saying is in the context of a moment when Jesus is surrounded by people clamoring for his attention (the huge crowds demanding healings, his family demanding his attention and the scribes declaiming him as a demon), could this "simply" be a moment of Jesus losing it a little and being rather more confrontational than he might have wished he was?
(Can we allow Jesus to lose his temper from time to time? Would that really be too much to consider? Or does being "fully human" include "ability to lose temper"?)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
There's more in your post I should respond to after having reflected more, Oscar, but I have some immediate thoughts about your last point: anger.
Anger is not just fully human, but fully divine too. I'd have to look up what my text was, but I remember last year having to preach on some text that referred to God's wrath. The day before I was due to preach, a young man was repeatedly stabbed about a mile from our church and discovered dead a few hours later. I asked our congregation, how could God not be fuming mad about that? For God not to be furious about the rottenness of sin would be for him to be coldly indifferent to humanity, which he clearly is not. The difference between God and us (most of the time) is that his anger expresses itself in redemptive self-sacrifice and not in retaliation.
It would seem perfectly understandable to me for Jesus to make angry when saying this.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
But there's a difference between anger and losing your temper. Anger can be seen clearly in the account of Jesus clearing the temple. I don't think that there are many people who would have a problem with Jesus (and God) being angry at things like injustice and oppression.
It seems far more problematic to suggest that the sinless Son of God lost his temper. As it happens, I don't have a problem with this, but I can see that many Christians would.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
First of all, I don't think "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit" is about "confusing the Spirit and Satan". That makes it sound like it could be an accident. It seems to me that there should be some sort of conscious and deliberate action going on. But I have to admit that if that is the case, then we also have to assume that the scribes knew that Jesus wasn't demon-possessed. Did they? Perhaps there is more to the story than we have.
Secondly, whilst I appreciate the effort to keep the door open, I struggle with this: "it doesn't seem to be that making that error once eternally damns you, more that persisting in that error leaves you un-open to life in the Spirit" That seems to me to be exactly what Jesus is NOT saying. The words are pretty clear - there can be no forgiveness! It's a harsh saying, which is why so many struggle with it.
Just really quickly--I agree with you that there should be/was some deliberate action going on, and also that the scribes knew Jesus wasn't demon-possessed and said he was anyway. It doesn't make sense otherwise. Paul gets let off much more lightly, and he was killing people (as an accessory, anyway). That only makes sense to me if Paul was honestly confused--or at any rate, more so--than the scribes. The principle is mentioned elsewhere when he says "the servant who knew his master's will and did not do it will be beaten with many stripes, while the servant who did not know will be beaten with few" or words to that effect. The more knowledge you have, the more guilty you are if you screw up.
As for the persisting thing--
One point to consider is that Jesus appears to be warning these people. If they were already beyond any hope of forgiveness, why bother?
There may well be a point of no return, a point where someone has hardened his own heart to such a degree that there is no turning back--no repentance is any longer possible, the person has frozen himself in that attitude. The scribes may have been on the brink of that, but no more, I think--or the warning would be a waste of time.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Losing your temper is by definition being out of control of yourself. Whether you do or do not trespass some moral line, you are still in serious danger of it, as you've lost self-control, and that's dangerous. I don't think we can say Jesus lost his temper in that sense, the one we usually think of. But certainly he could be angry, upset, frustrated, the whole nine yards. Just without the loss of self-control.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
Firstly, I think Leo's on point in saying we have to be attentive to the literary context of the verse. Some of these reflections about unrepentant sins being unforgiveable are beautiful, and probably true, but don't seem to engage the text.
My feeling exactly. Jesus is not talking about people's attitudes towards repentance - he is talking about the scribes' accusations about his own ministry.
Someone yesterday told me that a nearby church now does devil's worship.
It turns out that a new vicar is alienating the older people in the congregation by using all sorts of gimmicks.
So the vicar's ministry is ascribed to Satan.
The person making the accusation has mental health problems.
So is the sin against the Holy Spirit forgiveable in the event of mental illness?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So is the sin against the Holy Spirit forgiveable in the event of mental illness?
As has been said, the sin against the Holy Spirit is more than just calling evil that which is good. It is denouncing the works of Christ as the work of Satan/Evil while actually knowing that in fact it is God at work. It is not just making a mistake or being wrong about what God has done; it is knowingly making a false accusation about the source of Christ's power and authority.
[ 10. June 2015, 16:15: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
God is not a fool. If someone commits some offense because of mental illness, and not malice, he will surely know that and handle matters accordingly.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But there's a difference between anger and losing your temper. Anger can be seen clearly in the account of Jesus clearing the temple. I don't think that there are many people who would have a problem with Jesus (and God) being angry at things like injustice and oppression.
It seems far more problematic to suggest that the sinless Son of God lost his temper. As it happens, I don't have a problem with this, but I can see that many Christians would.
He did curse a fig tree for not yet being in season when he happened to be hungry. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
But what if he's using hyperbole in this passage?
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
God is not a fool. If someone commits some offense because of mental illness, and not malice, he will surely know that and handle matters accordingly.
Agreed. God knows how to not take everything personally. (I'd typed up my own experience with this, but decided it's too intimate for this board.)
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
what if he's using hyperbole in this passage?
Funnily enough, I suggested something very similar on Sunday. We know that using hyperbole was a common feature of the teachings of Jesus. So it is not unreasonable to suggest that this is a bit of hyperbolic warning.
(I still also incline towards some element of Jesus just being plain pissed off and over-stressed.)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Hyperbole and being pissed off are certainly not mutually exclusive!
Exactamundo!
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
He did curse a fig tree for not yet being in season when he happened to be hungry.
But what if he's using hyperbole in this passage?
As for the fig tree, see "Acted-out parable." (It's a real-life enactment of a zillion OT parables about Jerusalem and her people, which city Jesus was approaching and soon to be killed in.)
As for hyperbole, yes, he certainly did use it--but I see none of the usual markers of hyperbolic usage (for example, obvious absurdity, humor, argument from lesser to greater or vice versa, and so forth). It appears to be a straightforward warning. And in cases of doubt, it's probably better to preserve the more unpalatable meaning. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
This is just off the top of my head, but what if it's when leaders in the church abuse their authority? I'm thinking of such things as priests molesting children, evangelists swindling their followers, etc. That's certainly hard for ME to forgive!
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Heheheheh. You've just reminded me of a time when Mr. Lamb accused one of our denominational leaders of blasphemy (against the Spirit, too! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ) because the fellow had the balls to bring a group of ethnic leaders together "to pray for the Spirit's guidance about the future of our ministry together and decide whether we should continue in the same way or change our format". At the end of the short retreat he brought out a bunch of pre-engraved "thanks for your ministry, now piss off" plaques which made it abundantly clear that regardless of what the Spirit said that weekend, the powers that be had already made the decision to lay them off.
I believe the man was taken aback. It had not occurred to him that invoking the Spirit's name in the service of a fraud (that the decision was still to be made) was a Bad, Bad Thing™.
[ 11. June 2015, 03:51: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Mention has been made of the context of these passages in Mark and Luke, so I thought I would set them out here for viewing (NET Version used).
quote:
Mark 3:20-30
Now Jesus went home, and a crowd gathered so that they were not able to eat. When his family heard this they went out to restrain him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” The experts in the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and, “By the ruler of demons he casts out demons.” So he called them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom will not be able to stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan rises against himself and is divided, he is not able to stand and his end has come. But no one is able to enter a strong man’s house and steal his property unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can thoroughly plunder his house. I tell you the truth, people will be forgiven for all sins, even all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (because they said, “He has an unclean spirit”).
quote:
Luke 12:1-12
Meanwhile, when many thousands of the crowd had gathered so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Nothing is hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing is secret that will not be made known. So then whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms will be proclaimed from the housetops.
“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more they can do. But I will warn you whom you should fear: Fear the one who, after the killing, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! Aren’t five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten before God. In fact, even the hairs on your head are all numbered. Do not be afraid; you are more valuable than many sparrows.
“I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before God’s angels. But the one who denies me before men will be denied before God’s angels. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the person who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. But when they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities, do not worry about how you should make your defense or what you should say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that moment what you must say.”
Mark opts to focus on the opinions of Jesus' family and authorities (the 'mad' or 'bad' schools of thought) as background to Jesus' response. I think that response is directed not just at the authorities, but also at his family: the first parable (the bifurcated satan story) is directed at the 'bad' school, and the second (the strong man's possessions) at the 'mad' school. The word 'house' forms the link between the parables and the opening – the family's house. Interesting questions arise from this – Mark's issue with Jesus' family being one, the eternal damnation of the same being another!
Luke's focus shifts from the flash mob setting to the mission of his followers in the future. There it is at the point of engagement between Jesus' followers and their conversation partners (or, less neutrally, their persecutors!). In this setting Luke's take is rather hard to define. The law court, evidence and testimony; these seem to be the setting. Is this about someone who hears the evidence yet rules against it? Perhaps not just a refusal to join God's family, but the context of active persecution or investigation of that family.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Richard Rohr teaches that each of us has the Holy Spirit within ourselves as a free and unearned gift from God. Our task in life then is to find that Holy Spirit within ourselves.
So, while not a bit scholarly, my take on the unforgivable sin is based upon that working model.
One of the things I found about myself is that I could never forgive myself for my own sins. I always understood the passage in the Lord's Prayer about forgiving our trespasses as we forgive others to mean I had to forgive other people's sins for God to be able to forgive mine.
I have had it pointed out to me that true forgiveness of others is never achievable until we recognize that we ourselves are deeply flawed.
To me then the unforgivable sin is not being able to forgive yourself and thereby blocking your ability to find the Holy Spirit within yourself; much less find the Holy Spirit in others.
The unforgivable sin is unforgivable not because of God, but because of ourselves.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Our priest gave what I thought was a very good sermon on this topic Sunday. Not that she settles the question.
Sermon
[Edited for link. Mamacita, Host]
Thanks for the link. I have a forgiveness problem too. Anything longer than half a minute leads to my computer crashing. Please pray for a bloody great bomb to hit whoever's hacked into it!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Well, aftyer about 14 tries I got as far as the end of the story of Ananias and Sapphira. The computer refrained from crashing until the lady started saying "While I wouldn't hold up Act five as a ..."
I thought it was a very good sermon. Unfortunately she misquotes the account of Sapphira's trial, telling her congregation that Sapphira "tells the same story." She doesn't. It's Peter who repeats the lie and invites Sapphira to confirm it. She says "Yes." Probably too shit scared to say anything else. The unforgivable sin, I repeat, is Peter's.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Waw consecutivum
Apprentice
# 18120
|
Posted
How about:
- those passages aren't talking about any one sin in particular ? Instead, any sin whatever can qualify as sin against the Holy Spirit, if not repented of.
To sin against the Holy Spirit by impenitence - for whatever sin it may be - would on this theory be uniquely dangerous as it is the Spirit Who makes Christ known. In the context, it is the Holy Spirit Who reveals that the works of Christ are the works of the One Whom God has sent, so to attribute these works to the tempter is particularly dangerous, since His works show Who He is.
--------------------
James
Posts: 17 | From: North-Western Middle Earth | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
To label any sin as unforgiveable that is not repented of makes a lot of sense to me.
So if you have the authority to forgive - or to withhold forgiveness, which is the better way to approach the sinner - to let him/her know that the sin is found out and encourage penitence, or harangue the sinner with the gravity of the sin, take impenitence for granted, and exult in the sinner's demise?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
"Bump"
Let's leave aside the matter of whether Ananias's sin was or was not a sin against the Holy Spirit. The only irrefutable fact here is that Peter regarded it as such, and presumably the community accepted his judgment.
But what effect would this have on any further Christian mission? How long did the community continue to hold all things in common. It's not a bad idea in principle, is it?
But what kills it is Peter's disingenuous "The property was yours to do what you liked with..."
"Really? Do you think that many people would have thought "Oh good, it's all right to buy my wife the first new dress she's had in decades - so long as I fess up to Peter about it?"
The system would only work if everybody kept to the rules. But no society is perfect, and there has to be a sub-system to deal with exceptions - the needs of those taken suddenly ill, for instance. The system works, therefore if the society is made up of people of the same mind, and blessed with the same flexibility and understanding.
My guess is that people just stopped joining, because they didn't feel worthy enough, strong enough to withstand the temptation of keeping some small thing for themselves - and fearful of the consequences if they fell by the wayside.
Given Peter's attitude, it might be assumed by hoi polloi not conversant with theological niceties that if they broke the rules, they'd be chucked out at least. Better not get involved then. A wise decision, with somebody like Big Pete in charge!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Pimple, we've had this conversation so often, and I still don't get why you insist that Peter is the big bad guy here.
Peter says very clearly that the issue is LYING, not failure to hand over the $, or failure to make a sufficiently large offering, or any offering at all. The problem has to do with waltzing up and announcing to the church/universe at large that you gave 100% of the cost when you really only gave 50% or whatever--bigging yourself up at the cost of a freaking lie about the facts.
And this in a case where there was no reasonable excuse for a lie. Nobody forced them to sell the land and bring an offering. They could have kept their land—others did. They could also have sold it and kept the price and gone on an all-expenses paid cruise round the Mediterranean. They could have sold it and kept part of the price (for their kids’ university tuition, no doubt) and freely made an offering of the other part. Whatever, it was entirely up to them. The church—and Peter—had nothing to do with the matter until the point where A & S showed up at offering time and had to open their big mouths and volunteer a freaking lie.
And Sapphira is no innocent victim, either. She obviously had enough power in that marriage that her husband involved her in the transaction. Otherwise it would have been, “Sorry, Peter, Ananias never talks to me about money.” She’s a big girl, and she has responsibility for her choices just as her husband does.
Seriously, if these two idiots had only managed to keep their mouths entirely SHUT when they made the offering (no boasts about “giving 100%” or whatever), there would have been no problem whatsoever.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
