# The unpardonable sin



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

What is the reformed take on it?


----------



## pastorway

the elect can't commit it.....


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> the elect can't commit it.....



Amen Phillip


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

It was the sin committed by the Jews who saw the works and miracles of Jesus through His Holy Spirit and the power of Himself as God, and attributed it to the work of Satan or demons.


----------



## cornelius vantil

i agree w/ Gabriel it can on;y be appiled to the jews of the 1st century


----------



## smallbeans

Augustine, Calvin, and the Puritans defined it as the sin of apostasy - a conscious rejection of Christ.

One good article on the matter is:

Baird Tipson, "œA Dark Side of Seventeenth-Century English Protestantism: The Sin Against the Holy Spirit." Harvard Theological Review 77.3-4 (1984): 301-330.

You can get it through interlibrary loan even if your library doesn't have the Harvard journal. It is one of the few scholarly treatments of the historical theology of the issue. He has some great accounts in there of people who were really worried about having committed it. That the elect can't commit it is really not a source of comfort for those who are already anxious about whether they are elect or not! So there is a pretty good bit of stuff in the historical record relating to Puritan anxiety about having committed the sin, and pastors trying to emphasize to their flock that if they are actually worried about having committed it, they probably haven't.


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by smallbeans_
> Augustine, Calvin, and the Puritans defined it as the sin of apostasy - a conscious rejection of Christ.



didn't Simon Peter consciously reject Christ not one but three times? we all fall short of his glory... is that really what the blasphemy entails?

I quote Calvin here and there... and have his commentaries, but i'm not sure that is the best definition.


----------



## smallbeans

Well, I think they mean a persistent rejection - there is a finality to the unpardonable sin; I was just kind of being brief in my definition. Look at William Perkins' Armillia Aurea (1590 or so). For the reprobate, he has an "ineffectual call" that is taken up in 5 steps and he has a "falling away" that occurs in five steps, the final step being apostasy. Part of that downward path involves cherishing some sin and having ones conscience seared by continuing in it and finally a loss of trust in the scriptures and apostasy.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by smallbeans_
> Augustine, Calvin, and the Puritans defined it as the sin of apostasy - a conscious rejection of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> didn't Simon Peter consciously reject Christ not one but three times? we all fall short of his glory... is that really what the blasphemy entails?
> 
> I quote Calvin here and there... and have his commentaries, but i'm not sure that is the best definition.
Click to expand...


Peter's denial was not apostasy. The same concept is in mind in Hebrews 6:4-6



> 4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.


----------



## smallbeans

Right, Tipson writes that Calvin is the first to connect the Hebrews warnings to the unpardonable sin of Mark 5 and 1 John, giving more scriptural data relevant to the topic.


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Peter's denial was not apostasy. The same concept is in mind in Hebrews 6:4-6



I am not apt to suggest it was either for clarification, just questioning Calvin's interpretation there...

[Edited on 5-1-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Peter

Persistent and final rejection of the Spirit's common operations. ditto to Jonathan.


----------



## cornelius vantil

the text of the unpardonable sin is here:

30"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. mat 12:30-32

this passage comes after the pharasees say that Jesus is casting out demons by satan. Jesus defend his ministry by saying he is casting them out by the spirit showing that the promised kingdom has come. the blasphemy against the spirit comes in this context (ie the reject of the spirit's unique role in inargurating the kingdom dur. the ministry of Jesus). a few verses later matt records the following:

38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." 
39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; *for* they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and *now one greater than Jonah is here*. 42The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; *for* she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and *now one greater than Solomon is here*. 

notice Jesus' condemnation of the pharisees, the rejected the greater Jonah and Solomon for that they will be condemned. Christ came as the fullfillment of all the ot expectation. the jews at that times rejected that message, the result was they being cut off and judged. this judgment was visibly seen in the destruction of jerusalem in 70ad. since i do not believe it is possible to be in that unique situation again (witnessing the inaguration of the kingdom) i do not believe the unpardonable can be committed today.

[Edited on 5-3-2005 by cornelius vantil]


----------



## heartoflesh

I agree with Gabriel and Herminio.

I wonder if the hesitation in accepting this view is it's association with dispensationalism?


----------

