Forgiveness paradox, maybe?

[jon4545]

For starters, I am no Christian, although I am deeply concerned about this “unforgivable sin” and it’s implications.

In Mat 6:14-15, it says if you do not forgive men their trespasses, god will not forgive you… this seems to be a facet of the “unforgivable sin,” insofar one is not given forgiveness(salvation?) if one does not forgive…

A) “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

B) “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases” psalm 103:3

C) John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

and, of course, the big one:

D) “Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness,”

It seems the first two quotes(A, B) are sort of opposed with the last ones(C,D). Also, why should Mark 3:29, for instance, take precedence over psalm 103:3?

I hear the argument… “well, god forgives all sins, but…” then they link to Mark 3:29…and talk about a “Subjective” experience and walking with the “holy spirit” etc etc…this argument takes on a more ascetic and philosophical perspective(which is not bad of course)… Isn’t one of the big things with Christian belief the “paradox” of Jesus Christ as both Man and God? By extension… cannot this contradiction in “forgiveness” also be apart of one’s “faith”… that despite the fact that there is seemingly an unforgivable sin, everything is in the end “forgiven”…

Would not “forgiving” someone who has commited an “unforgivable sin”(seeing good as evil or whatever, misplacing the power or movement of god’s spirit in another power(devil))… would not forgiving this, be, in itself, “unforgivable?”

OR…Would forgiving the “unforgivable” be the highest “state” of forgiveness…and the highest testament to the holy spirit??

A new paradox reveals itself in my last statement… it would seem that in forgiving the unforgivable, i am still accepting the power of the holy spirit(the power to forgive)… despite the fact that what is forgiven is antithetical to the holy spirit itself.

Which would lead me to believe that unconditional forgiveness and acceptance through whatever religious or philosophical perspective, is in itself an expression of the holy spirit even if it professes not to be.

 

[Shin]

Unforgivable sins are unforgivable because they presuppose lack of repentance, for one reason or another.

To deny the Holy Spirit is to deny God in a way that prevents true repentance and salvation, without supernatural virtue you are not going to Heaven.

God does not forgive what you do not repent. He forbears for a time to punish it, which is sometimes spoken of as forgiveness, but in actuality if you ultimately do not repent, you will ultimately not be forgiven.

 

[jon4545]

I don’t think you quite understood what I was getting at…maybe you did…

So are you saying a “lack of repentance” would be in seeing the “unforgivable sin” as “forgivable”??? That this would be the “sin”… too much forgiveness?

Why do you take one passage more strongly than the other?

Because this would be the only “sin” such a person with the perspective I outlined would “commit”… this person would, in all other avenues of life, be giving, charitable, gentle… the model “christian”…except for this feeling/idea of “forgiveness”

Is not the ultimate expression of the holy spirit in forgiveness? Does it really matter if we “believe” that the forgiveness comes from the holy spirit or not? Either way the forgiveness is an expression of the holy spirit?

 

[Alindawyl]

A lack of repentance IS the so-called “unforgivable sin”. Regardless of the circumstances of the sin, any sin for which the sinner is not repentant is unforgivable because the sinner doesn’t want to be forgiven. God respects the free will that he gave us and allows such a person to end up in hell if they die without repenting.

 

[Shin]

Hmmm.

I am rereading what you said and am having difficulty quite understanding where you are with this all.

Christ being both Man and God is not a strict paradox or contradiction. We don’t truly have any of those. We just have matters that appear that way perhaps at first until you go down into the substance of what is actually occurring.

God requires forgiveness of us for each other because, among other reasons, the fact that He reserves judgement to Himself and so we are to rely upon Him.

I think perhaps if you restated what you first posted that would help? We can get to the bottom of anything by defining meanings of terms if it comes to that.

 

[jon4545]

For starters… is it even for us to say who has or has not committed the “unforgivable sin”? Insofar as the unforgivable sin brings one to hell… and only god can do that? Only god can judge someone in such a way? It’s not for man to judge or decide(even in his own mind) who will or will not go to hell(based upon one’s own “personal” interpretation)… is an act of interpretation(your going to hell because you committed such a sin) an act of “judgment”

It seems to me the MOST important teaching of Jesus is unconditional acceptance and forgiveness… and this idea MUST carry through into one’s interpretation of the Bible… or else you are left with “interpretations that judge”(i see this ALL the time with Christians… judgments disguised in “subjective” and “supreme” interpretations… thus negating a central principle of equality and unconditional acceptance as well)

I am simply saying forgiving the unforgivable is the highest state of walking with the holy spirit… “belief” itself becomes a non-issue, … attributing the “power” to “forgive” is irrevelant(unforgivable sin… attributing good to evil etc)… the only thing that matters is “unconditional acceptance”… no matter the philosophical or religious avenue one uses to get there… only in this way can someone be truly close with the spirit of Christ.

This idea of “unconditional acceptance” is in direct contrast with say someone who many here probably consider the devil incarnate, Friedrich Nietzsche(a man who cherished an “order of rank” vs christian ideals of equality)… however, even Nietzsche be should “redeemed” in the eyes of a true Christian( i think atleast).

It should not be up to the individual to “know” or “decide” in his own personal mind… who is or is not “redeemed”… the only state that matters is unconditional forgiveness

Thus…

A) “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

B) “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases” psalm 103:3

Take precedence over…

C) John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

and, of course, the big one:

D) “Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness,”

 

[jon4545]

"
A lack of repentance IS the so-called “unforgivable sin”. Regardless of the circumstances of the sin, any sin for which the sinner is not repentant is unforgivable because the sinner doesn’t want to be forgiven"

Ok… but how, in the perspective I have outlined, would the person be sinning in the first place…what is their to “repent” for? No sin exists to begin with in my perspective… unless you see my perspective as “sinful” in itself or against the “nature” of the holy spirit.

 

[Shin]

the only thing that matters is “unconditional acceptance”

Well, you see there you have a problem. You are putting a mere concept above God. God is more than that. That would be, technically idolizing the concept.

God is not just one concept that we can reduce Him to, or say is more important than anything else. God is God. God is most important. He relates to us in ways which are often very gigantic and huge, and tremendous, and bottomless… but not quite singular to our perception, though He Himself is in certain ways, absolutely singular.

There are times when for example, we must not unconditionally accept someone. For examine, in cases of bad behavior, it is often more helpful to punish the behavior so as to correct it, or discourage it, or pay the price of justice for it. God is also Justice. He is Love. He is Truth. He is Goodness itself.

God passes down certain practices, for examine, excommunication, which is not unconditional acceptance, but rejection from the community because of grave and obstinate bad behavior. Which one sees certain parallels to Hell to.

I don’t want to minimize forgiveness here, but to say there is more to God than forgiveness. There is a reason for the emphasis on forgiveness – to save mankind from damnation and permanent exclusion from God, an exclusion man is now born into this world in – from birth we are in original sin, in the domain of the devil. And we have far to go to come to the home that He desires for us.

 

[jon4545]

I get what your saying, Shin… but what I am concerned with is whether or not my idea of the unforgivable sin, is in itself, “unforgivable”… Because, quite frankly, while I am not a “believer,”(or a "non-believer either) there is something intrinsically motivating me towards “acceptance”… and the idea of going to hell is a terrible one…and one that does not seem to be in line with a forgiving Christ… anyways…

“God is not just one concept that we can reduce Him to, or say is more important than anything else. God is God. God is most important. He relates to us in ways which are often very gigantic and huge, and tremendous, and bottomless… but not quite singular to our perception, though He Himself is in certain ways, absolutely singular.”

How is this not a concept too? Just because you say “god is god” does not remove you from the same process of interpretation.

I said earlier, that an interpretation itself may be a judgment(of others and the interpretations of others).

My interpretation seeks to rid oneself of personal interpretations(or personal bias) and thus, in speaking with what you said, relate to that which is beyond us and our personal interpretations(god)…this is done by understanding one’s thoughts within a framework of “unconditional forgiveness” because it removes the idea of judgment(which would distance ourself from the holy spirit). It is more than a some sort of fixed idolization of a concept.

 

[VetA]

For starters, I am no Christian, although I am deeply concerned about this “unforgivable sin” and it’s implications.

In Mat 6:14-15, it says if you do not forgive men their trespasses, god will not forgive you… this seems to be a facet of the “unforgivable sin,” insofar one is not given forgiveness(salvation?) if one does not forgive…

A) “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

B) “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases” psalm 103:3

C) John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

and, of course, the big one:

D) “Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness,”

It seems the first two quotes(A, B) are sort of opposed with the last ones(C,D). Also, why should Mark 3:29, for instance, take precedence over psalm 103:3?

I hear the argument… “well, god forgives all sins, but…” then they link to Mark 3:29…and talk about a “Subjective” experience and walking with the “holy spirit” etc etc…this argument takes on a more ascetic and philosophical perspective(which is not bad of course)… Isn’t one of the big things with Christian belief the “paradox” of Jesus Christ as both Man and God? By extension… cannot this contradiction in “forgiveness” also be apart of one’s “faith”… that despite the fact that there is seemingly an unforgivable sin, everything is in the end “forgiven”…

Would not “forgiving” someone who has commited an “unforgivable sin”(seeing good as evil or whatever, misplacing the power or movement of god’s spirit in another power(devil))… would not forgiving this, be, in itself, “unforgivable?”

OR…Would forgiving the “unforgivable” be the highest “state” of forgiveness…and the highest testament to the holy spirit??

A new paradox reveals itself in my last statement… it would seem that in forgiving the unforgivable, i am still accepting the power of the holy spirit(the power to forgive)… despite the fact that what is forgiven is antithetical to the holy spirit itself.

Which would lead me to believe that unconditional forgiveness and acceptance through whatever religious or philosophical perspective, is in itself an expression of the holy spirit even if it professes not to be.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 6:14-15[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Psalms 103:3[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]John 3:16-19[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 3:29[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[VetA]

Unforgivable sins are unforgivable because they presuppose lack of repentance, for one reason or another.

To deny the Holy Spirit is to deny God in a way that prevents true repentance and salvation, without supernatural virtue you are not going to Heaven.

God does not forgive what you do not repent. He forbears for a time to punish it, which is sometimes spoken of as forgiveness, but in actuality if you ultimately do not repent, you will ultimately not be forgiven.

basically committing yourself to hell. God would like to forgive it but because of the hardness of the heart of the subject they wont allow God to save them ie they will not repent. so that means God forgives, but he only forgives when you are truly sorry and fully commit to do penance for your wrongs and correct the wrong you have done.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The unforgiveable sin is refusing forgiveness. Really, that is the only way you can end up in Hell when it comes down to it. Everybody in Hell has committed this unforgiveable sin (Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit).

 

[SonCatcher]

How is this not a concept too? Just because you say “god is god” does not remove you from the same process of interpretation.

I said earlier, that an interpretation itself may be a judgment(of others and the interpretations of others).

My interpretation seeks to rid oneself of personal interpretations(or personal bias) and thus, in speaking with what you said, relate to that which is beyond us and our personal interpretations(god)…this is done by understanding one’s thoughts within a framework of “unconditional forgiveness” because it removes the idea of judgment(which would distance ourself from the holy spirit). It is more than a some sort of fixed idolization of a concept.

By saying “God is God,” we do not conceptualize or define him in any way. Rather, we step away from that process recognizing its futility. Saying “God is Love” would be such a conceptual definition like you are charging, but he did not say that.

Your interpretation does not seem overtly harmful so long as it remains in the realm of open discussion. All of these things we are still learning about even after millennia of studying.

The important question is for you: Do you hear God calling you? If so, you need to answer (not to me, to Him).

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Hi jon4545

A new paradox reveals itself in my last statement… it would seem that in forgiving the unforgivable, i am still accepting the power of the holy spirit(the power to forgive)… despite the fact that what is forgiven is antithetical to the holy spirit itself.

Which would lead me to believe that unconditional forgiveness and acceptance through whatever religious or philosophical perspective, is in itself an expression of the holy spirit even if it professes not to be.

Interesting ponderings so far. I hope you find what you are looking for jon4545. Anyway, I thought I would add my own thoughts.

Christians are to forgive people for being bad to us. Forgiveness can’t mean that we redefine behavior so as to understand that bad behavior is good. Jesus is talking about when people sin against us. When you couple forgiveness with “acceptance”, it seems as though you might be tending toward a view that would not permit us to believe that anyone had sinned against us. If someone steals what is ours, we can and should forgive the act without malice. We may or may not need compensated. Depending on circumstances, it is probably better for the offending party to make restitution. But we cannot admit that stealing is acceptable.

As for our forgiving of actual sins, Christ is warning us that we have a tendency to be overly conscious and have long memories of when others trespass against us, while being forgetful and less concerned about our own trespasses against God and others. The unforgiving soul is so self-blinded that it cannot perceive its own need, and is not even capable of being forgiven? To receive forgiveness requires a submission, a certain lowliness that seems irreconcilable with an inability to forgive in turn?

Ideally, forgiveness would be given by the one offender and received gratefully by the offender. Now we need to forgive those who offend regardless of whether they will be grateful. But apparently, it only does us good, not them. And likewise, God is willing to forgive sins in a way that will benefit the sinner. But forgiveness must be received, not forced upon another.

 

[Shin]

I get what your saying, Shin… but what I am concerned with is whether or not my idea of the unforgivable sin, is in itself, “unforgivable”… Because, quite frankly, while I am not a “believer,”(or a "non-believer either) there is something intrinsically motivating me towards “acceptance”… and the idea of going to hell is a terrible one…and one that does not seem to be in line with a forgiving Christ… anyways…

My interpretation seeks to rid oneself of personal interpretations(or personal bias) and thus, in speaking with what you said, relate to that which is beyond us and our personal interpretations(god)…this is done by understanding one’s thoughts within a framework of “unconditional forgiveness” because it removes the idea of judgment(which would distance ourself from the holy spirit). It is more than a some sort of fixed idolization of a concept.

It seems you’re a little more in the realm of philosophy than revealed religion in some of this, i.e. taking absolute concepts and moving forwards with them.

Acceptance perhaps you are equating with love? I.E. you feel love accepts all? I.e. the emotion, not love as an act of will?

 

[jon4545]

“Christians are to forgive people for being bad to us. Forgiveness can’t mean that we redefine behavior so as to understand that bad behavior is good. Jesus is talking about when people sin against us. When you couple forgiveness with “acceptance”, it seems as though you might be tending toward a view that would not permit us to believe that anyone had sinned against us”

Well, I do sort of view Christ’s message as beyond traditional morality… of course, “bad behavior is not “good””… it is simply, forgivable.

In a way, yes, “sin” loses it’s “fear-factor” in my interpretation. Because there is no longer “fear” of hell, sin becomes something different… “fear of hell” is, in my opinion, a contemptible way to base one’s faith… it also seems like a very dishonest way of being “drawn” to the holy spirit.

Sin would simply be that state in which someone is not “unconditionally accepting and forgiving”… To posit “conditions” on forgiveness is to put the world in a sort of “order of rank” and lose the most important message of Christian “equality.”

This is where I feel Christ’s “compassion” comes into to play… and in order to become “fair” when giving out things “justice,” we must first develop a certain state of mind, develop our own “compassion”… this “compassion” flows from unconditional acceptance…

I don’t see how one can carry out God’s “justice” w/o first becoming compassionate.

Just as God is beyond our interpretation…something beyond that which is “conceivable”… thus is the scope of his “forgiveness”

“”“the unforgiving soul is so self-blinded that it cannot perceive its own need, and is not even capable of being forgiven? To receive forgiveness requires a submission, a certain lowliness that seems irreconcilable with an inability to forgive in turn?”

“Ideally, forgiveness would be given by the one offender and received gratefully by the offender. Now we need to forgive those who offend regardless of whether they will be grateful. But apparently, it only does us good, not them. And likewise, God is willing to forgive sins in a way that will benefit the sinner. But forgiveness must be received, not forced upon another.”""

I get what your saying… i don’t see how it contradicts what I’m saying(if that’s even your intention…or if you’re just trying to explain forgiveness in a different light), lol

I am not saying one should not have the humility to receive God’s forgiveness. My contention is that a state of mind where nothing is beyond forgiveness is closest to God, including the “unforgivable sin”… Thus, in this state of mind, you sort of contradict and accept the holy spirit at the same time.

“”“By saying “God is God,” we do not conceptualize or define him in any way. Rather, we step away from that process recognizing its futility. Saying “God is Love” would be such a conceptual definition like you are charging, but he did not say that.”""

Let’s say ok, we cannot conceptualize him(obviously)… we must still “act” in some manner or another that brings us closest to Him, right? And is that not from “compassion”?

"The important question is for you: Do you hear God calling you? If so, you need to answer (not to me, to Him). "

How does one “answer to Him”

Again, what I really have not got a straight answer on… is if, with my perspective on “forgivness” I am, from a traditional Christian view… actually “sinning”? And thus going to hell? I’m not trying to be “difficult”… This is very important to me, as I can not so quickly discount the idea of “hell” like many atheists.

““The unforgiveable sin is refusing forgiveness. Really, that is the only way you can end up in Hell when it comes down to it. Everybody in Hell has committed this unforgiveable sin (Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit).””"

Well, I guess I’m not committing Blasphemy…however, i don’t think everyone here would agree that this is the only way to commit the unforgivable sin… if this truly is the case… then, who in their right mind wouldn’t want to receive “forgiveness”???.. supposing that “belief” in the One God, or Jesus himself is not a prerequisite for receiving forgiveness… it is simply receiving that which is “offered”?..

 

[Marc_Anthony]

“Well, I guess I’m not committing Blasphemy…however, i don’t think everyone here would agree that this is the only way to commit the unforgivable sin… if this truly is the case… then, who in their right mind wouldn’t want to receive “forgiveness”???.. supposing that “belief” in the One God, or Jesus himself is not a prerequisite for receiving forgiveness… it is simply receiving that which is “offered”?..”

The Church offers forgiveness through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You are also forgiven by saying a perfect act of contrition, that is, an act of contrition where you ask for forgiveness out of love of God rather than fear of Hell. Of course, Reconciliation is preferable because the Church assures forgiveness, but when you say an act of contrition it is very difficult to figure out if what you’ve said is a “perfect” act of contrition.

 

[jon4545]

The Church offers forgiveness through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You are also forgiven by saying a perfect act of contrition, that is, an act of contrition where you ask for forgiveness out of love of God rather than fear of Hell. Of course, Reconciliation is preferable because the Church assures forgiveness, but when you say an act of contrition it is very difficult to figure out if what you’ve said is a “perfect” act of contrition.

I imagine this is not “permanent”… insofar as I continue to have “doubts”

And no one has yet to tell me if I have anything to be forgiven for, lol… I don’t even know… I’m quite uncertain.

I suppose it goes back to being sinful by nature and needing forgiveness from an outside agent(Christ) for salvation…

Would the continual defiance of this idea(original sin)… be considered an “Unforgivable sin” insofar as one never “repents”(sees the “truth” in it)"… yet at the same time one is open to receive “forgiveness”…Seems all too contradictory

If I have to “choose” between being forgiven for an idea that seems absurd(orignal sin) and everlasting hell… I’ll choose the absurd idea… But my curious and doubtful mind will never give in(to the idea of original sin) unless literally faced with the choice… But i don’t think this is “how it works” so to say… being offered “forgiveness,” from obstinance in my case, at the moment before death… it would seem the only the thing that would cause me to “submit” at the moment before death, is the “fear” of death… and not the “love of God”… I am, of course, assuming that the “love of god” is not revealed… the only thing there will be is “fear of death”…and I could never submit to fear.

Of course, that is all moot, if my idea of the unforgivable sin is itself not being sinful.

 

[Alindawyl]

"
A lack of repentance IS the so-called “unforgivable sin”. Regardless of the circumstances of the sin, any sin for which the sinner is not repentant is unforgivable because the sinner doesn’t want to be forgiven"

Ok… but how, in the perspective I have outlined, would the person be sinning in the first place…what is their to “repent” for? No sin exists to begin with in my perspective… unless you see my perspective as “sinful” in itself or against the “nature” of the holy spirit.

I assume by “the person” you mean someone who has observed the sinner or who has been wronged by the sinner? Otherwise what you’ve said doesn’t make much sense to me.

An unforgivable sin is only unforgivable by God, because only God has perfect knowledge and knows when a person is truly not repentant. There’s no sin on our part in forgiving someone if their sin ends up being unforgivable. We don’t have the perfect knowledge of God. If a sinner expresses contrition, we must assume it’s sincere without a clear reason to think otherwise.

Of course, prudence must always be exercised as well. Even though we must forgive a penitent employee who was caught embezzling from our company, it would be rather foolish to hire that person back as, say, the chief financial officer without some reasonable indication that, after serving time and paying whatever fine was levied, they wouldn’t do the same thing again if surrounded by temptation. We can’t go around putting people in a near occasion of sin under a false idea of what it means to forgive.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

What about original sin seems absurd to you?

My guess is that you’re hung up on the idea of everybody being responsible for people’s sin, but if that’s the problem you have it’s a misunderstanding of the concept. Original sin is a confusing term; we’re really not inheriting responsibility for the sin of Adam and Eve, but rather the fallen state of mankind.