Posted by Siamang on: 01.28.2008 /
By Siamang
A discussion topic for today. Often I think about the communication between atheists and believers, specifically Christians. Here’s a phrase that I think might help in the discussion…
Christ promises to forgive all sins, except the sin of nonbelief.
True? Not true? Why or why not? To atheists, does this phrase describe how you feel when spoken to by evangelical Christians?
Comment by: Randy
1I’m wondering who uses this phrase, and where Jesus actually makes this promise in the scriptures? I must have selectively read again, or maybe my memory is acting up on me (it sucks getting old).
Also…I’m not an atheist, so perhaps that is my disability here, but what exactly are you asking them about? Can you restate the question, if not for anyone else, at least for my own feeble mind’s sake?
Comment by: Siamang
2Sorry, Randy, let me try again…
This phrase is my formulation.. I’m attempting by phrasing it this way to spur thought and discussion.
Based on the traditional evangelical model of salvation by virtue of forgiveness which is conditional on accepting Jesus Christ… which of course would require believing in God and the divinity of Jesus Christ (at the very least).
I understand that there are of course some Christians who do not ascribe to the traditional evangelical reading of “no one comes to the Father but through me.”
I’m trying to step back from myself arguing the correctness or incorrectness of my formulation of this phrase. I’d like to see if others have a reaction to it, positive, negative, thoughts, feelings, etc.
I was thinking a bit about the Blasphemy Challenge and the notion of an unforgivable sin, and hit upon this as it must be the ultimate sin of all: nonbelief. Everything else seems to be forgivable.
Comment by: Julie Marie
3I understood the unforgiveable sin to be blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I interpreted this as denying the power of the Holy Spirit in your life when you knew something supernatural had happened to you.
I’ve reconsidered many things over the past 2 years, even something that at the time, I had interpreted as divine intervention. There are still a few things, however, I cannot explain and I am willing to let those lie in the realm of the spiritual.
The interpretation Siamang posted about, however, strikes me as man made manipulation. It irritates me and makes me think, when will humans quit trying to control each other? It only serves to keep those already in the fold in place and afraid to ask impertinent questions. I doubt it would have much effect on someone who didn’t already believe.
Comment by: Pseudonym
4Julie Marie says:
Given that it’s explained fairly well, it’s really strange to me that almost nobody seems to understand what “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” is.
Let’s get this straight once and for all, shall we?
Here’s the relevant passage, Matt 12:22-32, I’m using the NRSV:
I don’t know about you, but this seems pretty clear to me: The blasphemy in question was the accusation that Jesus’ miraculous whatever was the work of Beelzebub (i.e. Satan).
Given that atheists believe in neither in neither the Holy Spirit nor Satan, it’s safe to say that no atheist has ever committed this “unforgivable sin”.
Comment by: Randy
5It seems to me that unbelief is forgivable (I’m rather counting on it, actually). Of course, in order to be forgiven, one would have to:
1. Believe they have offended someone
2. Believe that the one they have offended exists
3. Believe that it matters that they have offended that entity which exists
4. Believe that the offended one is willing and able to offer forgiveness
5. Be willing to admit the offense to the one offended
6. Be willing to accept the offer of forgiveness
There’s probably more to it than that, but as you can likely see, someone who doesn’t believe in God would hardly consider this question worth their consideration when it comes to the issue of whether not believing in God can be forgiven (for example, why would I be concerned about my unbelief in the tooth fairy resulting in the tooth fairy not forgiving me?).
I imagine this is not really what you were after from an atheist, but instead you might be wanting to know how it feels to have passionate believers in the tooth fairy (and there are a LOT of them!) imply to an unbelieving person that not believing is the one unforgivable sin.
Is that the question, or have I missed it again?
Comment by: Siamang
6I know, but what about this other “unforgivable” sin?
Sure, I can’t blaspheme the holy spirit.
But according to some popular definitions of what it takes to be saved, the sin of unbelief is what will damn me. If I die without believing, can that sin not be forgiven?
Comment by: Stephan
7Siamang asked:
Here’s the kicker for me. I don’t see anything that is clear in scripture that says death is your last chance to believe and accept God. To the contrary, scripture seems to indicate that death, in many ways, is only the beginning of many things. Therefore, I think that there may be a chance after death to accept God’s grace.
Of course, I could be wrong. I would hate that.
Comment by: Siamang
8Me too! :-)
Comment by: Karen
9No, it cannot, according to traditional conservative theology.
Of course universalists will differ with this, but the historical teaching which I received said that we all get one chance - this life - to make the decision for Christ. Those who make the wrong decision are damned.
This threat is what’s behind the great push for evangelism and missionary work. It was the highest priority - by far - in every evangelical church I attended. If you have unsaved loved ones and friends, it’s a terrible thing to be absolutely convinced they’re going to burn in hell. My dad died an agnostic and it was awful to contemplate his fate. :-(
Now, things were a bit more ambiguous when it came to those who weren’t presented with meaningful information about Christ. Say, the isolated heathen tribes in darkest where ever, or children around the age of understanding. Should they be tortured forever because they didn’t get the good news or weren’t mature enough to understand it?
That question was not really answered, except with “god knows what he’s doing so let’s not worry about it.” These problems are what led to the Catholic doctrine of purgatory and limbo: So that people would be given a second chance to either change their decisions or have their relatives pray - and pay - their way into heaven.
Comment by: Evolouie
10Seems pretty clear to me.
This is an argument I use a lot when Crazy Christers start in on trying to convert me. I tell them it is no use. The fact that I have commited the unforgivable sin will condem me for all eternity, no changing now will get me in heaven.
And it is amazing how many of them never heard this in church.
See you in hell, ha ha
Comment by: Evolouie
11Oh and there is also this one:
“LUKE 12:10, “And everyone that says a word against the Son of Man, that will be forgiven; But he that blasphemes against The Holy Spirit will not be forgiven”
Man I am going to burn, Ha Ha
Comment by: Pseudonym
12Evolouie: Erm… did you read what I wrote above? No, looks like you didn’t.
This “unforgivable sin” is explained fairly well in the context of the story, and as I pointed out, it’s impossible for an atheist to commit it.
Or do you really believe in the Holy Spirit and believe that its miraculous works are actually performed by demons?
Comment by: Cliff
13A comparison of Hebrews chapter 6 and 10 with Matthew 12 leads me to a rather simple and (for me at least) clear understanding of what Jesus calls “the unforgivable sin.” Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in Matthew 12 is equivalent in meaning with “doing despite to the Spirit” in Hebrews 10. The parallel warnings in Hebrews 6 suggest that genuine believers who have experienced the full benefits of salvation and then reject that salvation cannot be brought again to repentance … that is, they will never again change their minds in regard to Christ and salvation. Jesus is clear all through the gospels: all repentant sinners are offered forgiveness. Therefore, the only sin that could be “unforgivable” would be the sin from which there can be no repentance. It is the impossibility of repentance that makes a sin unforgivable.
A common misconception that is taught in most evangelical churches is that a believer cannot commit the unforgivable sin. That makes pew sitters feel good. But the truth is, as I understand the Scriptures, quite plain: only Christians are capable of committing the unforgivable sin.
I’m not sure this pertains to you main point, Siamang. But as I read the comments, I hear the same old same old evangelical drivel I’ve listened to all my life. And I thought I would add a different perspective.
Comment by: Mark
14Siamang,
It seems that your question might be rooted in something Jesus said to the Pharisee Nicodemus in John 3:18 -
In keeping with a broad understanding of the Bible, I do not think that unbelief is in itself an unforgivable sin. If that were the case, salvation would be impossible, because even those of us who believe will vacillate and have doubts, and all of us came out of unbelief at one point. Rather, I think that what Jesus is saying is that the one who chooses unbelief is “judged” only in the sense that he has not chosen to accept what the New Testament calls the “free gift” of grace, by which judgment is removed. The core content of the gospel is that in Christ God has become both “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:26) For the one who does not have such faith, He is simply just.
I hope that makes some sense.
Comment by: CatB
15Thanks for raising a very important topic and one to which I think there is no “simple” answer. Like most things in the faith experience, I think the question serves a crucial purpose for a finite period of time — just as the law served as a “schoolmaster” or “tutor” for Old Testament believers. It provides a sort of a compass for the journey of life so that you can get a reasonably accurate heading as you travel.
The better you get to know the Lord as S/He really is — especially depicted in the life and work of Christ — the stronger grows your hope that even this can be overcome since the sacrificial death of Christ has been accepted by the Triune God and serves now as our atonement.
Traditionalists will be shaken by this concept. Fundamentalists will be enraged by it. Please know that I am not discrediting the record of Scripture, but rather agreeing with it from a mature, humble and inclusive point of view.
Jesus said, at a specific point in history (and BEFORE He died and rose again) that He was NOT the God of the dead, but only of the living.
LATER, Paul claims that Jesus IS God of BOTH the living and the dead. Was Paul wrong? Did he contradict Christ? Did the copyists make an error in transcription somewhere along the line?
OR — did Christ speak the truth at a very particular point in time, a truth that was forever altered once He won the right to do what He pleased with the fate of the dead BY DYING a human and completely inhumane death, yet suffering that fate without sin or recrimination?
This is an attribute of Christ that we never hear about in the organized religions: He only made claims for Himself that were already “a done deal”. He didn’t make claims for Himself that hinged upon the work that He had yet to complete.
Was He, then, a doubting Thomas? Did He ever doubt that the work could be completed? I say NOT.
Rather, even He respected the rights of the other members of the Trinity to decide what to do with His offering of Himself. He openly acknowleged that the Father and the Spirit could refuse the offering and reduce the Godhead by 33.333…% So when the Bible says He (Jesus) trusted in God, it is communicating a deeply profound truth.
I acknowlege that God can do with the souls of humankind whatever S/He wishes and we are without recourse if the outcome falls against us. It’s just that — well, Jesus came to show us what the Father is like. He showed us forgiveness, humility, peacableness, reasonableness, courage… many things, but vindictive, punitive, unloving or dictatorial attitudes do NOT show up in the record of His life. So the fact that most humans have a deep-seated need to hate or despise SOMEONE as “other” than themselves and to protect/separate themselves from “the bad guys” by consigning them to eternal torment is more a statement about the condition of humankind than it is about the character and the intent of God.
Maybe the “unforgivable sin” is passe and we are living in the earthbound past by clinging to it. Maybe the Scripture is reading your heart by proposing the idea. I’m not suggesting that we should allow ourselves to run rampant with sin or wink at sin in others, but that we should grow up in Christ and be governed in our attitudes and actions by the example of Jesus.
Maybe, just maybe, the eyes of Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth to find and support those who cannot be happy with the idea of even one soul left in torment, unredeemed, bereft of comfort and consolation.
Or, as the poet Eyvind Earle so eloquently put it: “I wonder, God, do You have any friends who are like YOU?”
Comment by: Mike O
16I’m almost done doing an exhaustive survey of the New Testament searching for every verse that says *anything* about these two questions:
1) What does the Bible say it takes to BECOME a Christian?
2) What does the Bible say it should look like if you ARE a Christian?
It’s been going quite slow, but one thing that has jumped out at me - and I’m sorry that I don’t have everything correlated yet, it’s just notes in the margins of my Bible - is that to BECOME a Christian, you have to BELIEVE that Jesus is the Son of God.
Comment by: Mike O
17Here’s a couple of verses that I ran across in the past few days. I would agree with these that “unbelief” isn’t “unforgivable,” but you do need to believe to be a Christian. Thomas didn’t believe, but Jesus apparently didn’t hold that against him. Paul didn’t believe, and even persecuted the church, yet he became a primary father of our faith.
Thomas the unbeliever (John 20:24-29):
Paul, the unbeliever (1 Timothy 1: 12-17):