# Unforgivable sin actually possible to a calvinist?



## Awenwonder (Nov 18, 2009)

I had this discussion with my senior pastor recently, is the unforgivable sin actually possible? And if not, why is it referenced in the bible? Here is our case:

The unforgivable sin is defined most commonly as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit or specifically rejection of the Holy Spirit moving and working in our spirit (RC Sproul). I propose that it is not possible to reject the Holy Spirit. Isn't this one of our tenets of the reformed faith, perseverance of the saints. If God has chosen and elected us, He will work to fashion faith in us that we cannot throw off or reject. He will preserve that faith that he has given us unto our salvation. That is similar to the basis of the argument in defense of limited atonement isn't it? Basically that atonement is specific, purposeful, and personal to the elect and that it's success or effectiveness is never in question. 

If an individual is not elected, chosen, the Holy Spirit is not working in them and so the Holy Spirit is not present to reject even if the individual had the power to reject it.

So either way, how could you hypothetically have a situation where an individual could commit the unforgivable sin and reject the Holy Spirit?

Those wiser in the reformed faith, please confirm or explain my error. I welcome the reproof if it is warranted.

Thanks!


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 18, 2009)

In _The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism_ Ursinus relates this sin to being against the enlightening of the_ mind_. Does that make a difference?


----------



## Awenwonder (Nov 18, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> In _The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism_ Ursinus relates this sin to being against the enlightening of the_ mind_. Does that make a difference?



Are you referring to the age of enlightment in the secular sense, I guess that was about when the Heidelberg Catechism was written?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Nov 18, 2009)

Those who want to be saved haven't committed the unpardonable sin. The sign of the unpardonable sin is that the person hates God and wants nothing to do with salvation. He will be an utter unbeliever.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 18, 2009)

Von Stroh said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> > In _The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism_ Ursinus relates this sin to being against the enlightening of the_ mind_. Does that make a difference?
> ...



I'm sorry, I was referring not to an age but to our mind/intellect, as perhaps opposed to our spirit. You spoke of the Holy Spirit 'moving and working in our spirits'; whereas the commentary by Ursinus relates this sin to rejection of the Holy Spirit's enlightening of the *mind*. I am not a theologian, so I don't know what ramifications that might have, but as Ursinus seems to use language precisely I thought it might have some bearing.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 18, 2009)

Von Stroh said:


> I had this discussion with my senior pastor recently, is the unforgivable sin actually possible? And if not, why is it referenced in the bible? Here is our case:
> 
> The unforgivable sin is defined most commonly as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit or specifically rejection of the Holy Spirit moving and working in our spirit (RC Sproul). I propose that it is not possible to reject the Holy Spirit. Isn't this one of our tenets of the reformed faith, perseverance of the saints. If God has chosen and elected us, He will work to fashion faith in us that we cannot throw off or reject. He will preserve that faith that he has given us unto our salvation. That is similar to the basis of the argument in defense of limited atonement isn't it? Basically that atonement is specific, purposeful, and personal to the elect and that it's success or effectiveness is never in question.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure I understand the Sproul reference, as I've never heard him or read him to say that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has to do with a person's rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit that is going on in them. I also see no reason why anyone would define the unforgivable sin in that way, since Scripture doesn't present it in this way.

The unforgivable sin, being unforgivable, is impossible for an elect one to commit, period. In the case of the unregenerate elect, they cannot commit it or else election goes by the wayside. For the regenerate elect, who have the Spirit indwelling them, it is impossible for them to blaspheme Him who indwells them. 

It happens I'm sure quite frequently among those who are not of the elect, and I see no reason in Scripture to believe that this sin is ever presented as being committed (or commitable) any but the non-elect.


----------



## Awenwonder (Nov 18, 2009)

Todd-Thanks for the response. How do you define the unforgivable sin then? I agree that the elect cannot commit the sin as you have described. I also maintain that the non-elect cannot either since they are not even in contact with the Holy Spirit in the first place, that is God's choice, not theirs. Can you elaborate on your opinion of the second part. Thanks!


----------



## Poimen (Nov 18, 2009)

Your question, it seems to me, largely depends on what is meant by the spirit working and moving in an individual. Scripture makes it clear that it is possible to experience the power and influence of the Spirit and not be regenerate: Numbers 24:2; 1 Samuel 10:6&9; Hebrews 6:4-8

Note what Zacharias Ursinus, in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, states about this issue:



> The Holy Spirit left Saul who was one of the elect. Therefore he may leave others also. Ans. It was not the Spirit of regeneration and adoption which forsook Saul, but the spirit of prophecy, of wisdom, courage and other gifts of a similar character with which he was endowed. Neither was he chosen unto eternal life, but merely to be king, as Judas was chosen to the apostleship.



With regards to the unforgivable sin, Jesus makes it clear that whatever is going on in the heart and mind of the person, it is an audible profession: "speaks" "blasphemy" (Matthew 12:31-32) Nothing in Jesus description requires us to say that this person has the new life/heart that scripture promises. In fact quite the opposite: 1 Corinthians 12:3


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 18, 2009)

Then Lord spoke of this sin in response to the Pharisees saying He did His works by the power of the Devil. Doesn't that have anything to do with what constitutes the sin?


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 18, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> In _The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism_ Ursinus relates this sin to being against the enlightening of the_ mind_. Does that make a difference?



Good stuff, Heidi. 

As Heidi has alluded to here, there are many who receive a certain illumination and giftings from the Spirit who are not regenerate. There are certain privileges which attend external union with Christ, or being a part of the church, and many who have never tasted of God's gracious regeneration yet experience great great gifts and illumination of their minds concerning spiritual truths, and may advance very far in ability to teach and in godliness. 

But these, having not a true, saving faith may/will at some time go out from among us and manifest that they were never actually of us (1 John 2:19), having once been granted and (in some manner) consenting to the truth, but never holding it in righteousness, and subsequently casting it off, betraying the Lord and the brethren.

You may be interested in reading some of the posts in this thread about the unpardonable sin.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 18, 2009)

Poimen said:


> Your question, it seems to me, largely depends on what is meant by the spirit working and moving in an individual. Scripture makes it clear that it is possible to experience the power and influence of the Spirit and not be regenerate: Numbers 24:2; 1 Samuel 10:6&9; Hebrews 6:4-8
> 
> Note what Zacharias Ursinus, in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, states about this issue:
> 
> ...



(aside: Rev. Kok, can you tell me where that is located? I'm in 'the fourth division of sin' and I can't remember reading that yet. I was struck that he said 'By _unpardonable sin,_ or sin against the Holy Ghost, and unto death, is meant a denial of, and a willful opposition to, the acknowledged truth of God, in connection with his will and works, concerning which the mind has been fully enlightened and convinced by the testimony of the Holy Ghost ; all of which proceeds, not from fear or infirmity, but from a heart filled with bitter malice' as he very definitely opposes the Spirit's work in the enlightening of the mind to the softening of the heart.)


----------



## Awenwonder (Nov 18, 2009)

Heidi, Paul, Daniel-
Thanks for your responses! I will read the threads and articles you have linked and the references you have mentioned.


----------



## Poimen (Nov 18, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> (aside: Rev. Kok, can you tell me where that is located?)



In Ursinus' comments on the Twentieth Lord's Day (Q&A 53), section IX: "Whether, and how the Holy Ghost May Be Lost" 

OR

page 284 if you have the P&R edition.


----------



## steadfast7 (Nov 27, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> > In _The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism_ Ursinus relates this sin to being against the enlightening of the_ mind_. Does that make a difference?
> ...



I agree with you here, but this also raises the concern of how anyone can really be sure of their election and have assurance. If I read you correctly, an unregenerate person can 'be illuminated in spiritual truths, and advance very far in teaching ability and godliness.' These, to me seem like pretty convincing signs of spiritual fruit being demonstrated in what we would deem a regenerate individual, no?

If these evidences of regeneration are in fact insufficient, what more evidence needs to show forth?


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 27, 2009)

DD2009 said:


> Those who want to be saved haven't committed the unpardonable sin. The sign of the unpardonable sin is that the person hates God and wants nothing to do with salvation. He will be an utter unbeliever.



Those who hate God and are utter unbelievers sometimes come to faith in Christ thus showing that not all these have committed the unforgiveable sin.

I don't think any believer should casually bandy about that so and so has committed this sin. Christ had the ability to see into these particular Pharisees hearts, while we do not have prophetic or supernatural abilities.

-----Added 11/27/2009 at 05:44:15 EST-----



steadfast7 said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> > a mere housewife said:
> ...



Good point. The Bible says it is possible for _us_ to be infallibly assured of our calling and election. For other people, including believers who know us, this is not the case.

People can "look" like the genuine article and not be. See the Parable of the Sower. 

It is for us as individuals before God to make our calling and election sure by the Holy Spirit confirming to us that we have the marks of grace.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 27, 2009)

I think perhaps that one implication would be that mere assent to propositions is not sufficient for assurance. 'I know whom I have believed' is a matter also of clinging to Christ with our heart?


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 27, 2009)

Here's a short thread on assurance and the marks of grace. I don't know if anyone with greater wisdom wants to add anything on this topic.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f25/assurance-repentance-53017/


----------



## Living Sacrifice (Nov 29, 2009)

When I consider the unforgivable sin I tend to look at it in the specifics of how it was presented in the context of scripture. Specifically it is committed when a person KNOWS that a sign/miracle is from God and yet tries to convince others that it is from Satan/Demons. That is basically what the pharisees did in Matthew 12 and it was in that context that they were accused of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. I don't think its one that gets committed very often - particularly when most unbelievers these days are athiests. Just my 2 cents...


----------

