The reason unbelief cannot be forgiven is because NO ONE has an excuse not to believe!! Please read Romans 1:20!! from verse 18-to verse 32 the Lord talks about unbelief and its consequences.
Hello Cameron et @brighthouse98, rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is a forgivable sin (obviously), until the moment someone dies. The "unpardonable sin", on the other hand, cannot/will not be forgiven from the very moment that it is first committed.Still, continually rejecting God is forgiven since it's not the unpardonable sin.
The argument that I was discussing was the one concerning the atonement. Some believe Jesus paid for everyone's sin universally. Some believe in a limited atonement.Hello Cameron et @brighthouse98, rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is a forgivable sin (obviously), until the moment someone dies. The "unpardonable sin", on the other hand, cannot/will not be forgiven from the very moment that it is first committed.
As the Lord told us (about the "unpardonable sin"),
Matthew 1232 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.Mark 329 Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.
That's how I've come to understand it anyway
Blessings to you both in Christ!!
~Deuteronomy
A payment of "respect" toward the honor of the payment in question comes to mind. That is, I can offer you a dollar, but if you don't honor the American dollar and will only except the British pound as legal tender, what can I do about it?The argument that I was discussing was the one concerning the atonement. Some believe Jesus paid for everyone's sin universally. Some believe in a limited atonement.
As I know you are well aware, this is an ongoing argument on this site between those with Calvinistic and Armenian bents. I'm neither. My argument has to do with God's claim to being just.
Some believe that Jesus has indeed paid the sin debt for every person...past, present, and future. If this is the case, there are people in hell whose sins have been paid for. Not only are they paid for, but God has accepted Jesus blood as payment for their sins. Thus, there are people in hell whose sins are paid for and whom God accepted payment for their sins and still required another payment.
God is sovereign and can do as He pleases. But He cannot require a payment, accept a payment, and require a second payment and still be just.
If one doesn't believe God is just there is no quandary. But if God is just, how can He require payment, accept payment, and still require more?
God accepted the payment...blood for sins. So I don't understand your point.A payment of "respect" toward the honor of the payment in question comes to mind. That is, I can offer you a dollar, but if you don't honor the American dollar and will only except the British pound as legal tender, what can I do about it?
Salvation is a personal transaction in regard to each individual where Jesus is the payment, who faithfully forgives me for comparing him to the dollar, and God, on His part, accepts Him as good tender sufficient for payment in full yet, if I, of the other relevant party in this personal transaction question the legitimacy in regard to the power to pay, shall we say?, I would think that takes the offer "off the table," somehow...God accepted the payment...blood for sins. So I don't understand your point.
So God rescinds the offer? Or the actions of the individual negates what God has done?Salvation is a personal transaction in regard to each individual where Jesus is the payment, who faithfully forgives me for comparing him to the dollar, and God, on His part, accepts Him as good tender sufficient for payment in full yet, if I, of the other relevant party in this personal transaction question the legitimacy in regard to the power to pay, shall we say?, I would think that takes the offer "off the table," somehow...
So God rescinds the offer? Or the actions of the individual negates what God has done?
In my opinion, what the individual does has nothing to do with the equation. My only concern is whether or not requiring a debt, accepting payment for the debt, and then having done so requiring more is just.Something like that. Hence, without faith we cannot please God. Fiat likewise works by faith as two have to agree to the value of the fiat (payment) as equal weight to the value of the good purchased, and many do not agree that the exchange is of "fair value."
Another option is when Magenta pays me back for you, but you view it as just Magenta getting an extra 10 bucks credited to her account. Even though she intended it to go toward your account, you protested claiming that you didn't need her help...In my opinion, what the individual does has nothing to do with the equation. My only concern is whether or not requiring a debt, accepting payment for the debt, and then having done so requiring more is just.
Let's say you borrow 10 bucks from me. You agree to pay it back or do my laundry for a week. You don't pay it back but Magenta agrees to pay it for you and I accept her payment on your behalf. Would I be just at that point if I still required you to either pay me back the 10 bucks or do my laundry for a week?
But that's not what God did according to those who believe that Jesus for the sins of the world. And again, I'm not concerning myself with what people do. I'm concerning myself to what God has done and what it means in light of His justice.Another option is when Magenta pays me back for you, but you view it as just Magenta getting an extra 10 bucks credited to her account. Even though she intended it to go toward your account, you protested claiming that you didn't need her help...
Thank you for the additional clarity, brotherThe argument that I was discussing was the one concerning the atonement. Some believe Jesus paid for everyone's sin universally. Some believe in a limited atonement. As I know you are well aware, this is an ongoing argument on this site between those with Calvinistic and Armenian bents. I'm neither. My argument has to do with God's claim to being just. Some believe that Jesus has indeed paid the sin debt for every person...past, present, and future. If this is the case, there are people in hell whose sins have been paid for. Not only are they paid for, but God has accepted Jesus blood as payment for their sins. Thus, there are people in hell whose sins are paid for and whom God accepted payment for their sins and still required another payment. God is sovereign and can do as He pleases. But He cannot require a payment, accept a payment, and require a second payment and still be just. If one doesn't believe God is just there is no quandary. But if God is just, how can He require payment, accept payment, and still require more?
Still, continually rejecting God is forgiven since it's not the unpardonable sin. You still have people in hell whose sins are forgiven. My argument isn't that God cannot do this. He is sovereign and may do as He pleases. But I don't see how He can do it and remain just.
But that's not what God did according to those who believe that Jesus for the sins of the world. And again, I'm not concerning myself with what people do. I'm concerning myself to what God has done and what it means in light of His justice.
That's plausible if true. But some would argue that isn't possible any longer since Jesus isn't on earth doing works that can be attributed to Satan and not the Holy Spirit.Ok, I'm back with the justice of people in hell with all their sins forgiven, all sins and blasphemies except for blasphemy of the holy spirit.
So then, everyone in hell must've committed the unforgivable sin.
That's plausible if true. But some would argue that isn't possible any longer since Jesus isn't on earth doing works that can be attributed to Satan and not the Holy Spirit.
The unpardonable sin is attributing the works of Jesus to Satan and not the Holy Spirit. So I don't think it qualifies as common.If it is possible, then the definition might be regarding the holy spirit as 'common,' rather than holy. And that ties in with the respect payment which would be required of the savee.
Satan is common, he certainly isn't holy.The unpardonable sin is attributing the works of Jesus to Satan and not the Holy Spirit. So I don't think it qualifies as common.
I'm surprised your rubber band hasn't broken yet.Satan is common, he certainly isn't holy.