Eternal Sin

strobe

Mark 3:28-29

"28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

Hey, I only heard about the eternal sin relatively recently (well I'm sure I heard about it before but it slipped under the radar somehow until recently). I think Philologos mentioned it in a thread in AH and someone mentioned it again in a thread running in here at the minute.

I was just wondering what exactly constitutes blaspheme? Also seeing as God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit is God etc doesn't that mean that blaspheming against any of the Trinity would be blaspheming the Holy Spirit seeing as they are all the same chap? Also would the eternal damnation be activated if someone had never read Mark 3:28. Also (I really need a different word than 'Also' to start sentences of this sort, any suggestions?) is eternal sin mentioned anywhere other than Mark 3:28? It would seem like it should be mentioned every 3 or 4 chapters being the most important piece of knowledge that has ever existed in the universe.

Also (damn it...) any comments or theological ponderings on the eternal sin general? Why it exists, why specifically the Holy Spirit, why God would forgive murdering a million Christian saints and their families but not this, etc?

Donatello

CCC1864 "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."[136] There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.[137] Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

^ That is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

strobe

Ah, so blaspheming against the Holy Spirit just means not being a Christian then Donatello? Not asking for Jesus' forgiveness rather than just saying the Holy Spirit is a bit of a prick, for example?

Quo Vadis

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is final refusal to repent.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states

"Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."

There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss. CCC - 1864 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm#1864

strobe

Is this CCC-1864 a purely Catholic interpretation of things or is it generally accepted across all the blue chip denominations?

Donatello

Read what the Catechism says. Bearing in mind that this is the Christianity forum, a bit of basic respect for the beliefs of others, if not for God Himself, would not go remiss.

More info here or here.

An unforgivable sin is simply a sin which you do not repent. There’s really nothing mysterious or mystical about it. God has told us over and over that if we sincerely repent our sins and ask for mercy, we will be forgiven. No sin, not even murder or abortion, will condemn a soul if only it is repented.

Even Hitler, for example, could have been forgiven by God if he had genuinely repented at the moment of his last breath and appealed to Christ for mercy. But did he? Well, no one but God knows.

Now, we might wonder why, given God’s magnanimous grace, so many persons persist in their sins and make no effort to repent them. Why do so many souls condemn themselves to hell because of unrepentant, and therefore unforgivable, sins? Well, there are two basic reasons: either they didn’t believe that their behavior was sinful, or they simply didn’t believe in the concept of sin itself. The very fact that anyone has such erroneous beliefs can be explained by the concept of sin against the Holy Spirit.

Read more here.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

Is this CCC-1864 a purely Catholic interpretation of things or is it generally accepted across all the blue chip denominations?

Its a valid question strobe as it is the Christianity forum not the Roman Catholicism forum.

They are quoting from the Cathecism of the Roman Catholic Church, so yes just of that denomination. I'm sure if you look to commentaries on a google such as Matthew Henry's or John Wesley's you will find some other thinking in respect to what it means.

antiskeptic

My view on the unforgiveable sin goes as follows:

- the Holy Spirit is the one who mediates God salvation to mankind. That is to say, it is the work of the Holy Spirit to "convict the world of sin righteous and judgement". If a person is convicted (or convinced) then they will satisfy God's criterion for salvation and salvation will be applied to them

If, one the other hand, they resist being brought to conviction then naturally they will be remain lost and will be condemned finally.

The unforgivable sin then, is the sin of resisting the work of the Holy Spirit. It is unforgiveable per definition because committing it means you can't be brought to salvation in order that all your other sins be forgiven.

In short: the unforgiveable sin is the sin of refusing to be saved. Not even God can forgive the sin of a person refusing to be forgiven.
__________________

---

Quo Vadis wrote:

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is final refusal to repent.

antiskeptic wrote:

In short: the unforgiveable sin is the sin of refusing to be saved. Not even God can forgive the sin of a person refusing to be forgiven.

SNAP!

strobe

Donatello wrote: »

Bearing in mind that this is the Christianity forum, a bit of basic respect for the beliefs of others, if not for God Himself, would not go remiss.

Thanks for the info man.

I don't think I'm being disrespectful though, am I? I actually make a conscious effort not to be whenever I post in here(A&A is a different story of course), even to the point of googling whether or not certain phrases or titles should be capitalised before I make a post...

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

Is this CCC-1864 a purely Catholic interpretation of things or is it generally accepted across all the blue chip denominations?

I've never heard it put quite like that..

Donatello

philologos wrote: »

Its a valid question strobe as it is the Christianity forum not the Roman Catholicism forum.

They are quoting from the Cathecism of the Roman Catholic Church, so yes just of that denomination. I'm sure if you look to commentaries on a google such as Matthew Henry's or John Wesley's you will find some other thinking in respect to what it means.

Two things: it's actually called the Catechism of the Catholic Church - there is no 'Roman' in the title of the book, and the Catholic Church is not actually a denomination!

philologos

In terms of Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church only amounts for a portion of Christians. There are other Christians outside of the RCC. As far as I'm concerned when I say the Apostles Creed at church and it makes reference to the holy catholic and apostolic church this is referring to Christianity in general (catholic means universal). The RCC is a particular denomination in the universal Christian church.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

Two things: it's actually called the Catechism of the Catholic Church - there is no 'Roman' in the title of the book, and the Catholic Church is not actually a denomination!

What part of this doesn't describe the Roman Catholic church?

1. A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

What part of this doesn't describe the Roman Catholic church?

1. A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

That's congregationalist theology. That is not how the Catholic Church describes Herself.

lmaopml

strobe wrote: »

Ah, so blaspheming against the Holy Spirit just means not being a Christian then Donatello? Not asking for Jesus' forgiveness rather than just saying the Holy Spirit is a bit of a prick, for example?

Well strobe, I agree that you really try very hard to understand things in a mixed up world and stuff like that....you are, after all only trying to understand people and differences in outlook for whatever personal reasons you have, or else you are just studying others views out of sheer curiosity and because you are really trying hard to learn and stuff like that - bless!

...but forgive me, you're not 'that' dumb surely that you don't know that posting this particular 'emboldened' by me in my quote, expression would be just a tad over the line, no matter how 'lovely' you post most of the time?

I'm sure it got some great 'go you ye rebel' laughs though...

ffs..*snores* and disappointed.

strobe

lmaopml wrote: »

Well strobe, I agree that you really try very hard to understand things in a mixed up world and stuff like that....you are, after all only trying to understand people and differences in outlook for whatever personal reasons you have, or else you are just studying others views out of sheer curiosity and because you are really trying hard to learn and stuff like that - bless!

...but forgive me, you're not 'that' dumb surely that you don't know that posting this particular 'emboldened' by me in my quote, expression would be just a tad over the line, no matter how 'lovely' you post most of the time?

I'm sure it got some great 'go you ye rebel' laughs though...

ffs..*snores* and disappointed.

Well Lmaopml, (I think I just got the username btw, it's a whole acronym thing right? I used to think it was Welsh or something.) I really appreciate your condescension, it is quite sweet really my little silly sausage.

I suppose I could have said 'the Holy Spirit is an awfully abrupt fellow at times' but that would have allowed for quite a bit of wiggle room in terms of whether or not it was blasphemy, as that could be considered constructive criticism rather than an insult. As I believe I implied in my earlier posts, I am unsure as to what precisely would constitute blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and wished to convey my presently held belief (at the time) that it was an insult or something along those lines.

My rebellious nature and that of my compatriots is entirely separate from the matter to hand, I assure you. Although admittedly we do enjoy a private chuckle at times, you have us bang to rights there.

Now, off to bed with you. If you are snoring even whilst typing my guess is that you are accruing some significant sleep debt. Or, even the worser, have some type of chronic respiratory ailment.

Don't be disappointed, in every life we have some trouble, but when you worry you make it double I am reliably informed. So ye know, don't worry, be happy.

=============================

lol Anyways... cheers to the people that attempted an answer and to engage the theological question posed rather than... well, ye know (see above).

newmug

strobe wrote: »

Also would the eternal damnation be activated if someone had never read Mark 3:28. Also (I really need a different word than 'Also' to start sentences of this sort, any suggestions?) is eternal sin mentioned anywhere other than Mark 3:28?

Aswell!

lmaopml wrote: »

Well strobe, I agree that you really try very hard to understand things in a mixed up world and stuff like that....you are, after all only trying to understand people and differences in outlook for whatever personal reasons you have, or else you are just studying others views out of sheer curiosity and because you are really trying hard to learn and stuff like that - bless!

...but forgive me, you're not 'that' dumb surely that you don't know that posting this particular 'emboldened' by me in my quote, expression would be just a tad over the line, no matter how 'lovely' you post most of the time?

I'm sure it got some great 'go you ye rebel' laughs though...

ffs..*snores* and disappointed.

Does anybody else find it difficult to understand this post?

I love the Holy Spirit BTW:)

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

That's congregationalist theology. That is not how the Catholic Church describes Herself.

a : an assembly of persons : gathering; especially : an assembly of persons met for worship and religious instruction


I'm less interested in how the Catholic church describes herself (eg: one true church) and more interested in how the English language describes the Catholic church.

In that spirit, what part of congregation doesn't describe the Catholic church?

Irish Fire

It’s a bigger sin to follow the Roman Catholic Church, bunch of hypocrites so you’re all fecked!!!!

newmug

Irish Fire wrote: »

It’s a bigger sin to follow the Roman Catholic Church, bunch of hypocrites so you’re all fecked!!!!

Please explain:eek: To be honest, I would've thought protestants are the biggest hypocrites, just following the whims of that english Henry the 8th, and all the other "Christian" branches are just deluded!

Irish Fire

newmug wrote: »

Please explain:eek: To be honest, I would've thought protestants are the biggest hypocrites, just following the whims of that english Henry the 8th, and all the other "Christian" branches are just deluded!

Well lets see now.....

The R.C.C. covered up all its "scandals" for years, they ruled with hell fire and brimestone teachings. They instilled the fear of god into people instead of the love of god. R.C.C. followers need to bring the church to its knees and make the leaders accountable or make them repent (for the want of a better word) The people that follow by these teachings are as bad as the church itself. And just to clarify I'm not a protestant or of the other "christian" branches as you put it

Oh and by the way your comment against other christian branches would be considered to be a sin so go and repent in your R.C.C.

philologos

newmug wrote: »

Please explain:eek: To be honest, I would've thought protestants are the biggest hypocrites, just following the whims of that english Henry the 8th, and all the other "Christian" branches are just deluded!

The Reformation in England took place before Henry VIII and would have taken place without him. I attribute that reformation more to John Wycliffe (300 years before the Reformation made the first translation of the Bible), William Tyndale, Thomas Cranmer, Richard Hooker. Most of the dispute surrounded the inability of people to access the Bible for themselves in their own language. Tyndale brought the first translation of the Bible from the Hebrew & Greek rather than from Latin into England as he was living in Antwerp at the time and he was eventually burned at the stake, as would Thomas Cranmer later. People read these openly at the back of the churches during the service while the priest was speaking in Latin.

As the Bible started to circulate more and more people read it and found that many of the practices of the RCC weren't in keeping with the Bible at that time and as such made an effort to restore it. Although Anglicanism was actually fairly tame in how much it reformed the church, it still kept the vestments, church structure, thinking surrounding infant baptism and so on. Indeed, it could claim Apostolic succession because it kept all the same priests that were in the RCC beforehand.

I don't see how that is hypocritical or how that means I am following Henry VIII because he was the powerhead who sped the process of the Reformation in England along.

If you want to discuss the Reformation you should probably start a new thread, because it is off-topic here.

Donatello

Irish Fire wrote: »

Well lets see now.....

The R.C.C. covered up all its "scandals" for years, they ruled with hell fire and brimestone teachings. They instilled the fear of god into people instead of the love of god. R.C.C. followers need to bring the church to its knees and make the leaders accountable or make them repent (for the want of a better word) The people that follow by these teachings are as bad as the church itself. And just to clarify I'm not a protestant or of the other "christian" branches as you put it

Oh and by the way your comment against other christian branches would be considered to be a sin so go and repent in your R.C.C.

Nobody doubts that the leaders of the Church sinned and mishandled things, aided and abetted by the people whom they had malformed.

However, I am interested in what teachings you referring to? Be careful you don't commit the sin against the Holy Spirit!

Irish Fire

Donatello wrote: »

Nobody doubts that the leaders of the Church sinned and mishandled things, aided and abetted by the people whom they had malformed.

However, I am interested in what teachings you referring to? Be careful you don't commit the sin against the Holy Spirit!

I was wondering when you would throw your oar in......

For a start I'd love to know how I can commit a sin against something that I don't believe in.......

As for the teachings....... You've read them......

newmug

First off, drop the "Roman" bit, I'm Irish. And Catholic.

Irish Fire wrote: »

Well lets see now.....

The R.C.C. covered up all its "scandals" for years

See post 18 in the link below:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71742892

Irish Fire wrote: »

they ruled with hell fire and brimestone teachings

Fire and brimstone is part of it. Its what happens when you die if you didnt do Gods will when you were alive. It may frighten people, but its purely fact, the Catholic Church didnt just make it up. It would be bigger hypocracy to ignore it just cos it makes people uncomfortable.

Irish Fire wrote: »

They instilled the fear of god into people instead of the love of god.

Eh, when were you last at Mass:rolleyes:

Irish Fire wrote: »

R.C.C. followers need to bring the church to its knees and make the leaders accountable or make them repent (for the want of a better word)

So you're suggesting I bring my own church to its knees, to its leaders "repent" for something? In other words, you want Jesus to "repent" I'm assuming you mean that my churches administrators, ie priests and bishops, should repent (cos Jesus is its leader!) But what exactly is it they should repent for? Every person should obviously repent for their own sins, but you seem to think there has been some sin comitted en masse by the administrators of the CC!?! Well there hasnt! Aswell, God will only ask you about your own sins when you die, not the sins of others.

Irish Fire wrote: »

The people that follow by these teachings are as bad as the church itself.

:mad:

Irish Fire wrote: »

And just to clarify I'm not a protestant or of the other "christian" branches as you put it

Oh and by the way your comment against other christian branches would be considered to be a sin so go and repent in your R.C.C.

No it wouldn't. Which commandment did it break? I just stated a fact.

philologos

newmug wrote: »

First off, drop the "Roman" bit, I'm Irish. And Catholic.

That's what the church is called. The catholic church is the universal Christian church of which the RCC is a part of (a denomination).

Getting into a strop because people don't understand it the same way you do is simply not going to work, it's simply childish.

Irish Fire

newmug wrote: »

First off, drop the "Roman" bit, I'm Irish. And Catholic.

You are part of the R.C.C.

So you're suggesting I bring my own church to its knees, to its leaders "repent" for something? In other words, you want Jesus to "repent" I'm assuming you mean that my churches administrators, ie priests and bishops, should repent (cos Jesus is its leader!) But what exactly is it they should repent for? Every person should obviously repent for their own sins, but you seem to think there has been some sin comitted en masse by the administrators of the CC!?! Well there hasnt! Aswell, God will only ask you about your own sins when you die, not the sins of others.

Sad sad answer, "oh yeah lets hold God and Jesus oh and don't forget the holy spirit" how can you hold somone/something accountable when they don't exit in form on the planet?? And yes I do think a sin has been commited en masse, the leaders of the R.C.C. covered up what happened and still happens so therefore they are accountable!!! end of story....

Quo Vadis

The word "Catholic" means "universal," in the sense of "according to the totality" or "in keeping with the whole."

The proper official name of the Church is the Catholic Church.

Within the Catholic Church, 'Roman Catholic' is a unitary term that describes the Latin Rite branch of the Catholic Church, a counterpart to 'Eastern Catholic' which describes the Greek Rite branch. Both of these branches submit faithfully to the Pope’s authority. Roman in this context means 'Latin Rite'.


It all depends how people attempt to use the term and why.

Ian Paisley often attempted to use this childish charade to whip up anti Catholic bigotry in Northern Ireland, in an attempt to pretend Catholics were foreigners and second class citizens in their own country, in order to demonise them, and in order to establish the sectarianism and bigotry of Catholics as normal and acceptable practice, and we all know where that led . . . .

philologos

Quo Vadis wrote: »

The word "Catholic" means "universal," in the sense of "according to the totality" or "in keeping with the whole."

The proper official name of the Church is the Catholic Church.

Within the Catholic Church, 'Roman Catholic' is a unitary term that describes the Latin Rite branch of the Catholic Church, a counterpart to 'Eastern Catholic' which describes the Greek Rite branch. Both of these branches submit faithfully to the Pope’s authority. Roman in this context means 'Latin Rite'.

If the catholic church is the universal Christian church. The only solution for you in respect to Protestants is to say that they are not Christians. If not then this position is inconsistent because if they are Christians they belong to the universal Christian church.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Ian Paisley often attempted to use this childish charade to whip up anti Catholic bigotry in Northern Ireland, in an attempt to pretend Catholics were foreigners and second class citizens in their own country, in order to demonise them, and in order to establish the sectarianism and bigotry of Catholics as normal and acceptable practice, and we all know where that led . . . .

For some posters here who expouse bigotry against non-Roman Catholics on this forum bringing up Ian Paisley would be like the pot calling the kettle black.

Quo Vadis

philologos wrote: »

If the catholic church is the universal Christian church. The only solution for you in respect to Protestants is to say that they are not Christians. If not then this position is inconsistent because if they are Christians they belong to the universal Christian church.

And what about the Protestants who claim you do not have to be a member of any Church to be Christian ? Are you all right ?

philologos wrote: »

For some posters here who expouse bigotry against non-Roman Catholics on this forum bringing up Ian Paisley would be like the pot calling the kettle black.

I have no time for bigotry from any source, Catholic or Prodestant, but being a Catholic who has first hand experience of the bigotry inflamed by Ian Paisley in North Ireland, I have every right to bring him up as a illustratory example of the type of behaviour we don't need here, and where it led in NI, particularly whenever a sly copycat Paisley type of bigotry is being attempted by any poster. (Not you)

philologos

Quo Vadis wrote: »

And what about the Protestants who claim you do not have to be a member of a Church to be Christian ?

What is a church? - I would consider the universal Christian church to be the ecclesia or the global body of believers. Simply put Christians. The church isn't the building, it's the people.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

I have no time for bigotry from any source, Catholic or Prodestant, but being a Catholic who has first hand experience of the bigotry inflamed by Ian Paisley in North Ireland, I have every right to bring him up as a illustratory example of the type of behaviour we don't need here, and where it led in NI, particularly when a copycat Paisley type of bigotry is attempted to be normalised by any poster.

By whom? - I'm not the one denying that your church is a legitimate church.

Irish Fire

Ah well.....

I'm off to clean the bathroom, or is THAT a sin........

antiskeptic

Quo Vadis wrote: »

And what about the Protestants who claim you do not have to be a member of any Church to be Christian ? Are you all right

I don't know of any Protestant who would say you don't need to be a member of the catholic church. They would only say you don't also need to be a member of a physical church (whether Protestant or Catholic).

The difficulty comes when a particular church lays claim to the right to determine who is or isn't a member of the catholic church. The Catholic church (as represented on this board) does this quite regularily.

Not that their laying claim matters a whole hill of beans in the end - what is or isn't the case is independent of their claim. It's just interesting to see how the argument is supposed to stack up. "We say so therefore it is" seems to be the root of it all.

Quo Vadis

antiskeptic wrote: »

"We say so therefore it is" seems to be the root of it all.

Incorrect, its not what we say, its what we believe our Lord said, that is a very important distinction, and we can now have a ping pong game of the Catholic interpretation of Scripture (which I agree with) versus your own interpretation.

I really don't begrudge what any sincere Protestant believes, maybe they are right and Catholics are wrong, I don't believe either will loose salvation if they sincerely practice what they do believe, but I do have an issue with Protestants who try to misrepresent what Catholics actually believe

Donatello

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Incorrect, its not what we say, its what we believe our Lord said, that is a very important distinction, and we can now have a ping pong game of the Catholic interpretation of Scripture (which I agree with) versus your own interpretation.

I really don't begrudge what any sincere Protestant believes, maybe they are right and Catholics are wrong, I don't believe either will loose salvation if they sincerely practice what they do believe, but I do have an issue with Protestants who try to misrepresent what Catholics actually believe

For those who aren't sure, there is a very good argument here as to why a person should rely on the Tradition of the Catholic Church, as opposed to their own private interpretation.

NO MATTER how much you study the Bible, it is still important to understand that there is more to Christianity than the Bible itself. The tradition of the Catholic Church, in fact, has as much value as the Bible. Why? Well, Church tradition determined which books constitute the Bible in the first place.
Two Meanings of Tradition
When speaking about tradition, it will help to understand that the word actually has two meanings relevant to the Church: ...

Read it here.

philologos

Donatello - Linking to articles as if they are fact is an inadequate way of discussing anything. Isn't it not better to present your own opinion yourself rather than relying on links?

Donatello

philologos wrote: »

Donatello - Linking to articles as if they are fact is an inadequate way of discussing anything. Isn't it not better to present your own opinion yourself rather than relying on links?

I learned my faith by following links. I like to present the sources of information and people can read it for themselves in their own time. In any case, it's unlikely that I can present Dr. Richmond's arguments better than he himself can.

lmaopml

Strobe, my apologies if I jumped the gun with your post and got very sarky with you lastnight when I posted...I was out of order, and I rather like reading your posts mostly, and should have known better. I'm sorry.

Morbert

Donatello wrote: »

CCC1864 "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."[136] There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.[137] Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

^ That is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

What is blasphemous about that? Are you saying "blasphemy" has been mistranslated?

strobe

No problem at all Lmaopml.

PDN

Moderator's Note
Any more sectarian or hateful comments against Catholics or Protestants will be infracted. Take your bitterness and bigotries somewhere else please.

Now, taking my mod hat off and putting my poster hat back on, let's return to the topic of the unforgiveable sin.

The context of the instances where Jesus talked about this was where the Pharisees were ascribing the miracles that He had wrought to the power of Satan. So, it would seem to me that blasphemy against the Spirit has something to do with calling 'satanic' what are genuine works of God.

In a similar vein Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matthew 5:21-22)

So, if we really want to make sure we don't blaspheme against the Spirit, maybe we should be more careful how we speak about our fellow Christians.