ABondSlaveofChristJesus
Puritan Board Freshman
What is the reformed take on it?
The unpardonable sin
- Thread starter ABondSlaveofChristJesus
- Start date
- Status
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
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
Puritan Board Freshman
i agree w/ Gabriel it can on;y be appiled to the jews of the 1st century
smallbeans
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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
Puritan Board Professor
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
Peter's denial was not apostasy. The same concept is in mind in Hebrews 6:4-6
smallbeans
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Puritan Board Professor
I am not apt to suggest it was either for clarification, just questioning Calvin's interpretation there...
[Edited on 5-1-2005 by Puritanhead]
cornelius vantil
Puritan Board Freshman
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]
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
Puritan Board Junior
I agree with Gabriel and Herminio.
I wonder if the hesitation in accepting this view is it's association with dispensationalism?
I wonder if the hesitation in accepting this view is it's association with dispensationalism?
- Status
Similar threads
