What is the Unforgiveable sin?

[zander]

What is it?

Can someone give me an example?

Thanks

[believerchrist100]

Hi zander, perhaps this e-mail will help:

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,2175.0.html

Dear Jennifer:
Jennifer, I have many hundreds of emails ahead of yours, but I took the time to answer your before them all. It is not possible, however, for me to write essay type answers to hundreds and thousaands of emails. I realize that this is hard for many people to understand. Your email is about 6 pages long. If all my emails were 6 pages long, I would have to read thousands of pages each year before I could answer all my emails. Try that some time.

Don't apologize in one sentence and then put me down in the next. I did give you constructive criticism in my answer to you. I said that your theory was not Scriptural, because if it was, then Paul himself would have commited the "unpardonable sin" when he persecuted the Church of Christ in the name of God.

However, I do not wish for you to be despondent over this matter or me.

When Jesus warned of this sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it was when He had cast out demons. The Scribes said that Jesus cast out devils by the prince of devils (Mark 3:22).  The Pharisees also accused Him of this very same thing (Matt. 9:34). And we are told that Jesus gave that stern warning, "Because they said, He [Jesus] has an unclean spirit."

But this alone is not all there is to this sin. Even in the Old Testament, when one sinned "ignorantly," he was held to a lower standard than if he sinned "willfully, knowlingly."  God's principles are always true. There was more to the sin of these Scribes and Pharisees than merely stating that Jesus had a devil and cast out devils by the prince of devil. The truth is THEY KNEW BETTER.  They knew that they were lying in order to deceive the multitudes who were beginning to believe in and trust Jesus as a Man of God. They were SINNING AGAINST LIGHT.  They were sinning aginst WHAT THEY KNEW WAS THE TRUTH.  And how do we know this?  We are frankly TOLD this in the Scriptures.

In John 3 we have a "Ruler of the Jews" by the name of Nicodemus, and this is what we are told by him:  "There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a RULER [this man KNEW what the Scribes and the Pharisees believed behind closed doors] of the Jews. The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto Him, Rabbi, WE [Scribes, Pharisees, Rulers, Jews]  KNOW  that you are a Teacher COME FROM GOD; for no man can do these miracles [such as casting out demons] that You do, except GOD BE WITH HIM"  (John 3:1-2).

It is when we KNOW the truth and blaspheme AGAINST THE TRUE LIGHT THAT WE KNOW, that we then "blaspheme against the Holy Spirit" which is the means by which light and truth is imparted.
God be with you,
Ray


Basically, the unforgivable sin is summed up it the last sentence of Ray's reply. Hope this helps.

Patrick

[River]

It seems odd that if someone KNOWS the TRUTH that they can go against it. I mean if you know the TRUTH aren't you spiritually right? You can know the truth and be carnal at the same time? Obviously they must be talking about knowing something about the truth, but not knowing the truth. Is this correct?

[zander]

OK thanks.

[Samson]

What is it?

Can someone give me an example?

Thanks

Hi Zander,

Actually, there is no  "unforgivable Sin," only in this Age and the Age to come, but after the Age to come, forgiveness will take place. Read Email response of Ray's below !

Dear Nick:

You quote the NASB which says: "...whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit NEVER has forgiveness..."

You then quote The Greek Interlinear Bible which says:   "...who but might insult in the spirit the holy NOT he has sending off..."

Do you understand the difference between "not" and "never?"  These two translations contradict each other. "not" and "never" ARE NOT THE SAME WORDS WITH THE SAME MEANING. You then contradict YOURSELF in your next statement by saying:  "Verse 29 clarifies the statement and flatly says that there is a sin that 'NEVER has forgiven [NOT he has sending off)....'"  You read it with you own eyes in a Greek Interlinear "not"---the word is "NOT," and say that this word means "NEVER."  Let's read your statement again:

"Verse 29 clarifies the statement and flatly says that there is a sin that "NEVER has forgiveness NOT he has send off)..."  It is my purpose to belabor this point. You say that the word "not" means "NEVER." This is not true, Nick.

"not, adv. 1 -- used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word." (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary p. 848).

"never, adv. 1 -- not ever: at no time" (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary p. 834).

Can you now see the difference between these two words?  Good. Maybe an example will clarify it even more for you:

Suppose I am a farmer and I say:  "Will NOT plant corn this season nor the following season."  And someone then passed on this statement and said:  "Ray said that he will NEVER plant corn."  Is that an accurate statement of what I said?  NO IT ISN'T. Neither is your assertion that "not he has sending off into the age" means "never has forgiveness EVER."

The word "never" does not appear in ANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT.   I checked three more Greek Interlinear and they all have the word "not."   "Never"is a totally different word with a totally different meaning.

Next you say: The use of the word "but" is showing that there is a contrast, or an exception to the previous statement.  All sins are forgivable, but blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is NOT."  And there you put a PERIOD, as thou Jesus Christ put a period at this point of His statement.  You are very deceitful when you do things like this, Nick. Jesus said that "...blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not forgiven NEITHER IN THIS WORLD, NEITHER IN THE WORLD TO COME."   When will blasphemy "not be forgiver?"  Answer:  "IN THIS AGE AND THE AGE TO COME."  Jesus did not say: "in this age and in the age to come, AND FOR ALL ETERNITY TOO."  Is that what He said?  Then why do YOU and Christendom say that that is what He said, when He said no such thing?

First your "TAKE AWAY" from the word of God:  you LEAVE OUT the phrase "in this world [age], neither in the world [age] to come."

Next you "ADD TOO" the word of God: you turn TWO AGES INTO ETERNITIES!!

Where is the honest Biblical scholarship in this ungodly arguments of yours?  The Scriptures (not I) completely destroy your arguments.

You then have the shameless audacity to REPEAT your unscriptural and dishonest scholarship.

You state:  "As I said, Jesus s contrasting the second statement (unforgivable sin) with the first statement (forgivable sin).  Or really?   Jesus said "UNforgivable," did He?  And in whose Bible, pray tell, are you finding THAT word?  It never came out of any Greek manuscript!  Jesus is NOT comparing "forgiveable" with "UNforgivable."  He is comparing SINS--two categories of sins. One category that is forgiven and one that is NOT FORGIVEN FOR THE NEXT TO AGES.  For two specific periods of TIME, this sin is not forgiven.   You cannot honest change Christ's words from "not for the next two ages" to "never for all eternity."  You are dishonest, Nick.

Then yet a THIRD time you suggest that the word "never" is proper by quoting Mark 3:29. What was your purpose in quoting The Greek Interlinear if not to show what the EXACT words were?  "Never" is not a substitution for the word "not."  One if "NOT for two ages."  The other is "NEVER, EVER."  And you gloss over this as if it is not even important to make this critical difference. Suppose you were sentenced for a crime, and the Judge said that, "you shall not come out of jail this week or the week after."   But the warden interpreted the Judge's statement to mean, "you shall NEVER EVER come out of jail."  Do you think THEN, Nick, that you might be ready to argue the use of these two words properly?  Think about it.

This is the first time, of tens of thousands of emails, that I have ever had someone suggest that if two Scriptures speak of the VERY SAME EVENT, that the verse that leaves out some of the information that the other verse puts in, that we should go with the one that LEAVES INFORMATION OUT.  Talk about grasping at straws. You are really GRASPING!  Since only ONE gospel account tells us that Jesus was sent to Herod the night of His capture, are we to assume that IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, because the other three gospel writers leave it out?  This is foolishness on a level I have never witnessed before.

Concerning the Concordant Version you state, "Once again Ray, why is every word translated but only eon and eonian are transliterated? And eonian is not even a word."

Both of your statements are false.

Eon and eonian are not transliterated, but translated. Eon and eonian are ENGLISH words, not English spellings of Greek words.  THOUSANDS of words from many languages are spelled very similar when translating them into English.  Just page through your dictionary.

As for "eonian" not being a word, I have not idea where you ever got such an idea:

"eonian....Greek, aionios, from aion...an age...lasting for eons" (Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary, p. 568.)

The English words "eon" and "aeon" are the same with the SAME meanings.

The English words "eonian" and "aeonian" are the same with the SAME meanings.

You are so foolish and demeaning to God that when you quote a verse like Proverbs 21:3, "To do righteousness and justice is DESIRED by the Lord rather than sacrifice," that you have somehow Scripturally proven that GOD WILL NOT EVER receive the fulfillment of that desire. There are HUNDREDS of statements in Scripture where men go against and contrary to God's will. It is God's PLAN than they go against His will.  But His WILL, WILL be accomplished and fulfilled. Puny men going against God's will does NOT disannul it. Where do you come up with such blasphemy?

You then try to give an example in your own life that PROVES this foolish asserting that God will NEVER EVER have His desire because it appears for the "moment" that men just aren't doing what He desires. God is not done with the human race, YET, Nick, just in case you thought it all over at death. It is not. There is JUDGMENT. Judgment sets things right. "When Thy JUDGMENTS are in the earth the inhabitants of THE WORLD WILL LEARN RIGHTEOUSNESS" (Isa. 26:9).

Here is your analogy:  "But just because I know my 2 year old will go to the bathroom in her pants on a daily basis does not mean that I DESIRE for her to do so."  So you think that is clever little analogy that PROVES God's desires will never be met?

Nick, if I come to your home fifteen years from now, WILL YOUR DAUGHTER STILL BE MESSING HER PANTS??

We are God's "little children" the Scriptures say, and GOD IS GOING TO POTTY TRAIN THIS ENTIRE GODLESS WORLD.  And you can take that to the bank.

You state:  "Why would we assume that over 20 versions are wrong and the one produced by those who believe the doctrines of Universalism to be right?...but the 'eonian penalty for the sin' is FOREVER."

I do NOT "assume" anything, Nick, it is YOU who are assuming that your 20 translations are RIGHT?  Why should we "assume" your position? Because 20 outnumbers 1?  Does the Bible indicate that it is the MAJORITY who are usually "right" or "wrong."  Remember, "BROAD is the way, and MANY....."

Just because Christendom avoids honest and unbiased translations like the plague, does not mean that they don't exist.  Here are a few English translations that properly translate "eonian":

    Rotherham Emphasized Bible, 1959

    The Companion Bible, 1990 A King James Reference Bible

    Youngs Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1898

    The Holy Bible in Modern English (Fenton), 1903

    The Emphatic Diaglott, 1912 edition (Greek/English Interlinear)

    The New Covenant, 1884

    The New Testament in Modern Speech, 1910

    The restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible, 1976

    The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958

    The New Testament a Translation, 1938

    Scarlets Bible

    Etc., etc.

The Greek word "aionios" does NOT mean "eternal."  Verses such as Romans 16:25 totally disprove such asserting:

    "Now to Him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began."

Notice that this mystery was which was kept secret is NOW REVEALED!   It "WAS kept secret," but NOW it is revealed. How LONG was this secret kept secret?  Why, "since the WORLD began," we are told in the King James Bible.  But you see, there is a problem here. The Greek word for "world" is "kosmos" (Strong's #2889).  But the Greek word translated "world" here in Rom. 16:25 is the Greek word "aionios" which you say MUST MEAN "FOREVER"--And I quote:  "...but the 'eonian penalty for the sin' is FOREVER."

Let me make one more statement with regards to translating Greek words into English words that STILL maintain the statement is the verse as being a true statement. I specifically have reference to verses where God is referred to the "AIONIOS"  God.  Some insist that this MUST be translated "the ETERNAL God" of "the God of Eternity."  Not so. That is unscriptural foolishness. Just because it is a true statement to say "the ETERNAL God" does not mean that that is how it SHOULD be translated, just because the statement is true. When translating this verse properly as "the EONIAN God" the statement is still true (that is, God really IS, the "GOD OF THE EONS--He made the eons and He is "the GOD of the eons"). And so why not translate properly and consistently according to what the Holy Spirit SAID, not what translators say is ALSO A TRUE STATEMENT, by CHANGING and ADDING TO the words inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Suppose that since I live in the South, that I want to translate Matt. 10:42 as follows:  "And whosoever shall give to  drink unto one of these little ones a GLASS OF ICE COLD TEA only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward."

I could play semantic games and say that in the South it is customary on a hot day to offer a "GLASS OF ICE COLD TEA" rather than "a cup of cold water."  After all, the STATEMENT of our Lord's is still TRUE, is it not?  Yes, that is correct, it does not change the meaning of the statement IN THIS VERSE.  But the fact remains, that the Holy Spirit did NOT inspire the words "glass of ice cold tea!" It is a fallacious translation. It is ADDING TO the word of God. Now it does not apparent harm to call God "the ETERNAL God." That is a TRUE statement, but IT IS ;NOT A TRUE TRANSLATION!  And when we make this SAME mistake of translating with reference to punishment for the ages, it becomes NEVER-ENDING, ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, which is a damnable heresy.

God be with you,

Ray

The above Email should fully clarify the fact that No Sin is endlessly unforgivable and help to avoid any confusion in this matter. Kind Regards, Samson.



   

[Kat]

Hi River,

It seems odd that if someone KNOWS the TRUTH that they can go against it. I mean if you know the TRUTH aren't you spiritually right? You can know the truth and be carnal at the same time? Obviously they must be talking about knowing something about the truth, but not knowing the truth. Is this correct?

I found an email that should help with your question.

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php?topic=2058.0 ----------------------------

   Question:  In the book of Numbers, chapters 22-24, the story of Balaam and Balak, I am wondering who Balaam represents.  In chapter 24, vs. 2, it states that "...the spirit of God came upon him.  Vs. 3 states "...The utterance of the man whose eyes are opened,....Who falls down, with eyes wide open."
   
   [Ray's Reply]

   Balaam obviously represents all prophets who desire worldly goods over teaching the truths of God.  That is why we are warned of Balaam several times in the New Testament.  The doctrine of Balaam is to lead God's people astray into idolatry and spiritual fornication, all the while lining their own pockets.  And don't think that Balaam was unique in that he knew some of God's truths, but preferred to teach lies for gain.  I have always marveled at the statement of Nichodemus:
   
   "There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, A RULER of the Jews:  The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto Him, Rabbi, WE KNOW [that is, 'we RULERS of the Jews,' K-N-O-W....] that You are a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that You do, except God be with Him" (John 3:1-2).
   
   And just as sure, many of the rulers of the Church today, KNOW what God's word teaches on such subjects as immortal soul, eternal hell, etc., but they will not teach or acknowledge these truths to those they consider to be THE DUMB SHEEP.  There are many Balaam's in the Church today--many antichrists.

   God be with you,
   Ray

[River]

Thanks Kat for digging up all the extra info.