Unforgivable Sin?

by Low-Key Lysmith 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  blondie

  Notice how the WTS tries to define something that is not in the Bible. They use words such as "doubtless."

  w93 4/1 p. 14 Who Are Following the Light of the World? ***

  John 9:16 relates: "Some of the Pharisees began to say [about Jesus]: ?This is not a man from God, because he does not observe the Sabbath.?" How perverted their hearts were! Here a marvelous healing had taken place, but instead of expressing joy for the formerly blind man and appreciation for the healer, they condemned Jesus! By doing so, they doubtless sinned against the manifestation of God?s holy spirit, an unforgivable sin.?Matthew 12:31, 32.

  w92 9/15 p. 9 Jehovah Forgives in a Large Way ***

  Some sins are unforgivable. Jesus Christ said: "Every sort of sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven." (Matthew 12:31) So, then, blasphemy against God?s holy spirit, or active force, will not be forgiven.

  But what does that mean?

  w92 9/15 p. 9 Jehovah Forgives in a Large Way ***

  Only God knows if a person has committed the unforgivable sin. However

  Paul shed light on this matter when he wrote: "If we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgment." (Hebrews 10:26, 27) A willful person acts deliberately, or is "obstinately and often perversely self-willed." (Webster?s New Collegiate Dictionary) Anyone willfully and obstinately continuing to practice sin after he knows the truth is not forgiven. Hence, it is not so much the sin itself as it is the heart condition, the degree of willfulness involved, that affects whether the sin is forgivable or not. On the other hand, what is likely the case when an erring Christian is deeply disturbed about his wrongdoing? His great concern probably indicates that he has not, in fact, committed an unforgivable sin.

  Certain Jewish religious leaders who opposed Jesus did commit willful, and thus unforgivable, sin.

  The sin of Judas Iscariot also was unforgivable. His betrayal of Jesus was the willful, deliberate culmination of a course of hypocrisy and dishonesty. For instance, when Judas saw Mary anoint Jesus with costly oil, he asked: "Why was it this perfumed oil was not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor people?" The apostle John added: "[Judas] said this, though, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief and had the money box and used to carry off the monies put in it." Soon thereafter, Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. (John 12:1-6; Matthew 26:6-16) True, Judas felt remorse and committed suicide. (Matthew 27:1-5) But he was not forgiven, since his deliberate, persistently selfish course and his treacherous act reflected his sin against the holy spirit.

  Do you see the circular reasoning here?

  Why is Judas condemned to eternal destruction for betraying Jesus but not Peter who denied him 3 times?

  Did all the Pharisees and scribes of that time commit the unforgivable sin?

  What about Paul who as Saul stood and watched with agreement when Stephen was stoned and who round up Christians to turn them over to the authorities?

  Blondie
• 

  Incense_and_Peppermints

  Do you see the circular reasoning here?

  o0o, i luv that ... kinda like doublespeak.
• 

  euripides

  The scripture citing the "Unforgivable Sin" against the Holy Spirit has already been provided but when you ask

  if there is a scripture that says something about not being forgiven for declaring yourself an athiest? Can any of you bible scholars out there help me out?

  perhaps you are thinking of Psalm 14:1

  The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.

  or Psalm 53:1, an almost parallel verse,

  The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God," They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is no one who does good.

  Euripides
• 

  Honesty

  This was something that bothered me for years. I never really knew what THE actual sin against the Holy Spirit (especially as we were taught that it was an active force like electricity) and as far as I knew---if this was the worst POSSIBLE thing we could do---why wasn't it clarified, and OFTEN, so as not to miss it?

  In my own feeble mind, wouldn't it be reprehensible to call ones self a Christian, and then turn your nose up on the "emblems" that we were told to accept, and to totally disregard the whole reason for Christ's being here----to conquer death by his resurrection that would show us that he really was who he said he was?

  The WTS can rename their hideous cult to "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses" or whatever the official title is, but it doesn't change a thing. At all. Just one more ploy to attract those who like the word "Christian" in the name of their religion. The wolves in sheep's clothing as it were. Nasty, slimy, destructive wolves.

  They are denying the Christ--are setting themselves up to be gods--and are most definetly sinning against the Holy Spirit.

  God'll get'em for THAT!

  Amen,

  It wouldn't surprise me if the 'disgusting thing that causes desolation' is really the demon inspired Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society with its blood guilty GB of Jehovah's Witnesses.
• 

  rebel8

  Mark3:29 whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit has no forgiveness forever, but is guilty of everlasting sin.

  I have no idea anything about the "scriptural basis" of the unforgivable sin doctrine. What I was told growing up, is:

  apostacy=any speaking out against JWs

  apostacy=unforgivable sin

  everlasting=something lasting until death as a human, not the same as eternal, which means forever

  death=paying your dues for committing an unforgivable sin

  Therefore, apostates can only be forgiven if they repent some time before death, still must die at Armageddon [absolutely no way around dying], then J will resurrect them. Dying cleanses them of the sin.
• 

  FairMind

  Blondie showed how the WTS would like for us to believe that sinning against the Holy Spirit is to reject them as Jehovah’s appointed ones. There must be certain actions that qualify as sinning against the Holy Spirit or this sin wouldn’t be mentioned in the Bible. Whatever these sins are they are most assuredly not the disagreeing with the WTS GB.

  FairMind
• 

  confusedjw

  No sin is unforgivable! Comitt the worst sin and wait seven years. All the cells in your body are replace by then and you are a different person than the one the "committed the sin". Easy huh?

  I think the only unforgivable sin is looking for it.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Well I hope that I caught this posting before my fever ridden mind confused anyone. To Correct myself, Q says something like, " Everyone who speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven, but he who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." The idiom "son of man" simple means humans, not a specific Messaianic title as it is misunderstood by Luke; so simply put Q was saying that sinning against men is forgivable but sinning against God is not. Mark kew Q but hoped to avoid confusion about the idiom "son of man" and so pluralized it and slightly changed the wording, Mark then said, "All sins will be forgiven the sons of men and whatever blasphemes they utter; but whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness but is guilty of eternal sin." Matt uses both Q and Mark. First he paraphrases Mark," Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men but the blasphemy agaist the Spirit will not be forgiven" he then continues with Q "and whoever says a word agaist the son of man (mankind) will be forgiven, but whoever speaks agaist the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or that to come(expanding on Mark's eternal sin).

  Luke has been influenced by the later yet loading of the expresssion with messianic meaning. Daniel's use of the idiom has become a centerpiece of Jewish expectations and the context of Daniel then changed the meaning of the term itself. As a result, Luke aparrently thought "son of man" meant Jesus. This of course would not have happpened later when the Divinity of Jesus was firmly established.