The unforgiveable Sin

I have heard this before and it goes against the fact that the first Christian churches were made up of the Hebrew. The biggest thing is these people were made "partakers of the Holy Ghost", well that is the Christian church.

I don't believe you think everything Jesus said was to them under the Law do you? Circumsion is to the heart now.


This is who He was talking to and as you can see its after the resurrection of Jesus.
Hebrew 1:
1: God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2: Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3: Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Heb. 12:
1: Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
2: Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.


The condition of the people suggested they were believers: a) chapter 3 verse 1, ‘Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession.’ b) The writer of this Epistle calls the book an exhortation to the people to strengthen their faith in and conversion from Judaism. c) The readers of this letter were also being persecuted and the letter itself is a fervent apologetic for the superiority of Christianity.

 

Gen 6:3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

 

If you had committed the 'unpardonable sin' you would not be worrying about it....so don't worry! :saint:

 

Dying without Christ is not a sin. Death is a natural part of life. Unbelief in Christ is very pardonable. To say that dying without Christ is unpardonable is hardly "the" unpardonable sin because once you die, no sins are pardonable. Unbelief in Christ is simply one of many sins that are unpardonable at that point. But that is not what Christ was talking about.

That is the unpardonable sin that Christ talked about. but it was dealing with his performance of miracles. It was not dealing with anything else.

I am adamantly opposed to one-version onlyism. I think people are in direct disobedience to the word of God to espouse such a position. I think they are essentially denying the Bible's teaching about itself. But that is not what Christ was talking about what he talked about the unpardonable sin.

 

I have not read through this whole post so if this has been said sorry.
The Holy Spirit deals with the lost in convicting of sin and showing peoples need of salvation, if a person dies rejecting this it is unpardonable. You are basicly calling the Holy Spirit a liar.

 

Who? And in what way?

 

First I agree with Pastor Larry, and others, that the unpardonable sin as recorded in Matthew 12/Mark 3 cannot be committed today. However people can so harden their heart that salvation is no longer possible for them. However that occurs over time and is not a one time act. For this I would point to Hebrews 6:4-6 and Hebrews 10:26-31 (etc).

Anyone who worries that they "might" have committed the unpardonable sin can rest assured, they have not. The fact that they are worried about their relationship with God shows that their hearts are still soft towards the things of God. These people need to run to Christ and seek His mercy. Which, according to Scripture, He will provide (see John 6:37).

==I don't think that is the same as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

I am not aware of any Bible scholar/teacher (etc) who believes that modern copies/translations (NASB, NIV, NLT, NKJV, KJV, etc) are inspired by the Holy Spirit. I don't believe they are and in this I am in full agreement with the vast majority of conservative Bible teachers/scholars throughout church history.

Why do we not believe these translations are inspired? One major reason is the variation between translations. If they were inspired there would not be such differences or questions about translation methods. Another point would be various (mainly minor) "additions" that have slipped into the text over time. Thanks to textual science, and the discovery of literally thousands of manuscripts, scholars today can remove those additions so that none of them show up in our modern translations. There are still wording differences due to different approaches to translating and different source manuscripts. Our modern texts are around 98% exactly like the original autographs. It is the original autographs that inspiration applies to (not copies or translations). This is why scholars work so hard to figure out what the autographs said. Translations are only to be trusted as they accurately reflect the original autographs.

 

Prodigal Daughter,

you talk much about your feelings........and about whether or not God can forgive you of everything.......etc. What if one day you don't "feel" saved anymore? In your mind does that mean you aren't saved?

You are not saved because you "feel" loved by God. You are not condemned to Hell if one day you "feel" like God hates you. Your feelings should not have anything to do with this conversation at all. What do you KNOW? Not what do you FEEL.

Do you KNOW that you have trusted iN Christ as your personal Saviour?

 

The security of the believer is very hard for people to accept....

I am very gald that nothing can pluck us out of the Father's hand and in His great asume Grace that He has given to us by the shedding of Jesus' blood, we can have assurance that we are saved today, and forever more.....

I believe for those who remani in Christ will NEVER commit this sin....

 

I don't doubt the power that comes by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. This is biblical, and can be understood when we believe the gospel that Christ gives us from heaven. The Power of the shed blood of Jesus cannot be understood while living in the Old Testament, believing the Old while Jesus was man.

To answer your question why no unpardonable sin today? It is answered in your question "because Jesus died and shed His blood". How can we preach our sins have been forgiven, if we don't believe this to be so? How can we preach salvation no matter what sin we have committed when we die with Him at the Cross, and then add the codicil of a sin that is unforgivable?

I am of the Once Saved Always Saved bunch, so it is impossible for me to believe the Spirit that baptizes me into the "Body Church" rejects anyone that accepts the salvation our Father provides through His Son, Christ Jesus.

Sin has always been sin, but God has made provision for this. The Word of God was made flesh. God died to provide a way to dwell among His People, in His Kingdom and in a "Kingdom-Church" He gives them. God's desire is, and has always been to dwell among His people - Exodus 25:8, 29:45-46; Numbers 35:34; Kings 6:13; Revelation 7:15.

In all honesty can you find one reference to a Gentile in Scripture meant only for His People? Any that are of "Kingdom Church" gospel will go through the tribulation as shown in Revelation 7:15. I personally will not be in that "number" that go marching into the tribulation period, or that "Kingdom" reserved only for the People of God's own choosing.

So where do I fit in, or how can I be in the "Kingdom Of God"? Those in the "Body Church" gospel are in Jesus Christ's Kingdom, in the Kingdom of God.

Luke 22:29-30, "And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30. That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Who could understand this until Christ informed Paul of the "Body of Christ Church"? Who knew anything about coming to God through the faith of Jesus Christ?

You bring up Hebrews, the Book written to God's own People, which of course was written after the Crucifixion. But Paul is writing to those saved under the gospel that Jesus preached while on the earth to His people. 6:4 is written only to those of Israel at that time that had been enlightened, and had tasted of the heavenly gift. What was that gift? It was those that had received the Holy Ghost, who is the giver or gifts. Isn't this the way your Bible reads? Verse 5 says they had be partakers of the word of God, and the power of the world to come. Pentecost was a foretaste of the coming kingdom, that kingdom that was at hand, which gospel was being preached, and the Power of the Holy Ghost was given. But Israel rejected their King, and that "kingdom that was at hand". It was theirs for the taking, but they refused. God knew all of this, but God had a "secret plan" - Romans 16:25.

Now we can apply verse 6 in its proper context, which informs those saved under the "great commission" gospel of "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" found in Acts 2:38, can fall away. This has nothing at all to do with our justification through faith gospel, but to those of the justified by faith gospel of the "Kingdom Church" as seen in Hebrews 11. From the beginning on you find in Hebrews 11 all are justified by faith only, and every one from the beginning had to do a work. WE DON'T. We are not them, and can never be. Why do we continually try to put ourselves back under bondage?

I believe Scripture has been supplied, but not understood by most, and it best to preach if we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ we will be saved. We are to preach the gospel of the Cross, and not that which came and we are to leave behind as our conversation is in heaven. We are warned to not preach but one gospel, and in that gospel I cannot find the "unpardonable sin" of blaspheming the Holy Ghost, but do find if we refuse to believe the gospel of the Cross we will be damned.

I respect your opinion, but His position is to teach people how they are saved, realizing now all things are new - II Corinthians 5:17, and the old has passed away. Where in scripture can you find we today are to obey what Jesus says only to HIS PEOPLE. Why do we refuse to believe what Jesus tells us from Heaven?

Christian friend, I have to ask, why do you believe there is a sin that the blood of Jesus is incapable of dealing with?

 

By Grace "through faith" are you saved. That is exactly what the book of Hebrews teaches.
You admit they were partakers of the Holy Ghost, do you believe that under the "Law" they were partakers of the Holy Ghost and if so, do you have any scripture to support it.


Roger Hahn
Despite the many areas of uncertainty the book of Hebrews yields rich results to the person who will study it patiently and carefully. It is a rich resource for Christology and practical Christian guidance. It breathes the air of the Old Testament, but blows the fresh wind of the Spirit making all things new. Hebrews is a study in pastoral care for a church under pressure. It is the rich literary and theological testimony of an author who has found Christ to be the fulfillment of all the hopes of the Old Testament. Hebrews leads a pilgrim people down the path of faithfulness and confident trust.

Not only does Hebrews not mention the author, it does not contain the traditional mention of the addressees. The traditional title and superscript to the book To the Hebrews was not part of the original text of the book and it appears to represent an early (and insightful) guess as to the audience. It is almost universally accepted that the original audience was a group of Jewish Christians. If they were Christians, they were not under the Law. Without faith you cannot please God, so no matter the belief of anyone, you take away faith and there is nothing left.

You keep saying I am advocating "under the Law" which is not true. Neither is Hebrews under the Law because it speaks of faith. No matter what anyone says, it took faith to get to "Grace", and that is what it took in the book of Hebrews where they were all Christian and you don't get to be a Christian "under the Law".

I don't know who this fellow is but he is typical of what the general belief is concerning the book of Hebrews. You will notice He does not consider them "under the Law" but those who came out from under the Law to the "Grace", as I do.

 

But you fail to notice not until Saul, could "Christianity" come - Acts 11:26, "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Were these disciples at Antioch of the gospel of Paul, or of the Jewish church in Jerusalem of Peter, and James?

There was on one foundation of Jesus Christ, the "Kingdom Church", and on the other foundation of Jesus Christ, the "Body Church".

Are you taking into account Damascus Road, and the conversion a little time afterwards of the account between Peter being sent to preach to his first Gentile (and last by all accounts) the Centurion Cornelius? Please note the gospel of Peter is changed by God as Peter preaches to Cornelius. The gospel is progressive as we see from Acts 2 to 9, then 10 then to 11 to 13, and 15, then 16, 18, and 28. When we leave Acts we then have what Christ revealed to Paul, the Apostle to both Gentile and Jew today. Doesn't Peter affirm this in II Peter 3:15:16?

Again, please notice to whom he is addressing. Christ told Paul he is the Apostle to the Gentile and the Jew who are "Hebrew". I do not deny any of scripture, and can determine when Paul is preaching the gospel of Christ Jesus to his fellow countrymen. We see this in verse 1 above as the "fathers" are the "fathers" of those of Israel.

I am not saying this book is of no value to us, but we have the Book of Acts which takes us from the "Kingdom Church", to the "Body Church", and then we have thirteen (13) Epistles written to both Gentile and Jew about this "Body Church". The fourteenth (14) Epistle is addressed to and intended for those of Israel to read and be convinced that Jesus Christ is their High Priest, and also the Son of God.

There you have said it. The preaching of the Cross is far superior to that of the Old Covenant. Paul is exhorting those of Israel to accept the gospel of their High Priest, Jesus Christ, for this Jesus is greater than Moses as he shows in verse 3. This book can't be written to us for what have we to do with Moses, and Moses' Law? We have no need to be convinced of what is written to the Hebrew, for we were never a party to their (Hebrews) covenant they made with their God. We do err when we try to become as the Jew?

Chapter 3, verse 1 is in exhortation to those called, to consider Jesus Christ. Paul exhorts here, his own people as shown in verse 8 and 9, those of God that made covenant with Him. This Epistle is written to the "covenant" people. Please look at the wording in this Epistle. We find the wording to be to those Jesus said He came for. We find Jewish words and meanings, such as "Priesthood", "Shepherd" of His own flock. We can find no wording as these two in the Epistle's written to we Gentile's.

We are not as those blinded of the House of Israel. We will hear the gospel of Christ Jesus from heaven, Acts 28:28, and we do not have to be persuaded, as does the Jew, by accepting their book for understanding our salvation. This book is to be shown in contrast, not in conjunction with our salvation.

 

Listen to the Pastor. He knows what he is talking about. Will not your stance allow we saved to become unsaved for there is a sin that Jesus could not take care of?

 

The Pastor is not saying anything I did not say and to call the Holy Spirit a liar is to say it is of the devil which is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

No, my stance would not allow the saved to become unsaved for I believe the saved are kept by the power of God and have the "mind of Christ". To have the mind of Christ you are not going to blasphemy the Holy Ghost.

Heb.
The writing of this book is not actually known. The assumed writing date is from 64 to 68 although many have said it was written as late as 90. The early writing dates though are more accepted because the writing of first Clement uses the writing of Hebrews and it was written in 95. The book also makes mention the recent release of Timothy from prison (chapter 13:23) suggests also that it was written in the late 60’s.

A. If Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source for his gospel, if he wrote his gospel before the Book of Acts and if Mark wrote his gospel in the late 60's, then the Book of Acts must have been written several years after Paul's first Roman imprisonment
The King James Version of the Bible usually places a heading over Hebrews with the words, "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews." Unfortunately (perhaps) those clear words were not part of the original document of Hebrews, but were added several hundred years later by scribes copying the book who believed Paul to be the author. Unlike the thirteen letters of Paul there is no mention of the author by name in Hebrews. In fact, every book normally thought of as a letter in the New Testament begins with the author's name as the first word except Hebrews and 1 John.
It was not until about A.D. 400 that the idea of Pauline authorship of Hebrews became widespread in the church. However, that opinion was never completely accepted. Throughout the history of the church analytical Bible scholars who knew the uncertain tradition of Pauline authorship offered their opinions about the identity of the author. Calvin repeated the ancient view that Luke or Clement were the most likely authors. In the 1500's Martin Luther, founder of the Protestant Reformation, suggested that Apollos was the most likely author among those persons mentioned in the New Testament. Apollos has remained a popular candidate through the last four centuries. Priscilla and Aquila, Silas, Jude, Aristion, Phillip, and even the Virgin Mary are other Biblical persons who have been mentioned as a possible author of Hebrews.

Are you sure Paul wrote it and if He did it was after Acts.

Again, were the Jews "partakers" of the Holy Ghost? Maybe I am missing something here. I know they were Jews or think they were but it was those Jews who accepted Christ.

Also, no one seems to be willing to say for sure that Apostle Paul did author the book of Hebrews.

 

I don't think bapmom was doubting your salvation.

Salvation is not a 'feel' so, 'hope' so thing. It is a 'know' so thing.

Our feelings change all the time, but the blood of Jesus does not.

God tells us in the Bible not to trust our feelings OR our hearts, because they can both be deceitful.

We should (and CAN) know for sure that we are truly saved and going to Heaven. There should be no doubt, and if there is, then go to the Bible for assurance.