Dear John:
Is there any sin so bad that God, through Jesus Christ, cannot forgive it?
Holy cow; I sure hope this is just a theoretical question!
Either way, it’s a trick question. Because the answer is yes—and, simultaneously—no.
So in the Bible Jesus names one sin—and one sin only—that cannot be forgiven. At Matthew 12:31-32 Jesus says:
“And so I tell you every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
For centuries theologians, philosophers, and others unsuited for normal employment have bent their minds trying to decipher what exactly Jesus is saying there. If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one, they’ve pondered, how is it okay to blaspheme against one, but not the other?
Interesting question! Reason people go to seminary!
But I think the answer to this particular puzzler is positively easy.
I think that what Jesus is saying is that he understands perfectly well why some people will reject him. He has, after all, presented himself in mortal form—as the Son of Man—which he knows automatically renders subject to question the idea that he is in fact the creator of man.
See the trickiness? Having the only unpardonable sin be the rejection of Christ means that by definition no Christian can possibly commit that sin. And neither can any non-Christian, since you can’t reject from your life someone who’s never been in your life.
So the answer to your questions is that, yes, there is a sin that God cannot forgive—but it’s a sin that virtually no one on earth is capable of committing. Christians can’t commit it because they’re Christian, and non-Christians can’t commit it because they’re not.
As for Christians who renounced Christ, who are no longer Christian? Two things: 1. If they don’t care (and they can’t, since they no longer believe that Christ is any more real than the tooth fairy), then the question of what their new relationship is to Christ is the ultimate moot point; and: 2. As much ire as I know this will bring me [and it did: see below], my vote is that such a person was never really a Christian in the first place—by which I mean that their Christianity was always immature. And that’s certainly no crime.
What’s really interesting about Matthew 12:31 is that it says right there, in plain black and white, coming straight from the mouth of Jesus, that God forgives people who aren’t Christian.
[Update: I've shut down comments to this post because ... well, because how many times can I say that I didn't say what I'm being accused of having said?]
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 135 comments }
« 1 2
Congratulations. You’ve fallen for the no true Scotsman fallacy. No “true” (in your words “mature”) Christian would ever stop believing. Sorry, but you are dead wrong. There are plenty of atheists who were once mature Christians. I had a very deep “personal relationship” with Jesus. That was my reality. For years he was the one I relied on with my whole being. I was certain of being saved, and that was a major part of my identity. Like many others I became an atheist for the not at all immature reason that all the evidence pointed away from there being a god, and especially away from the idea of a Christian god. The more I learned about the world/universe the more the evidence grew until the evidence and my desire to accept the truth (of where the evidence pointed, obviously you won’t agree this is the truth) outweighed my years and years of faith and personal experiences and strong desire to continue to be a Christian.
Of course you will say this is evidence that I wasn’t a mature Christian. Your logic is severely flawed. Your statement is that no “mature” Christian would reject Christ and then your proof of that is that anyone who has rejected Christ is an immature Christian. That is circular reasoning at its finest.
The reason a statement like you made draws ire is because it’s kind of offensive that you, a stranger think you know more about the state of the inside of my mind than I do. Your opinion of me may mean nothing to me, however you are spreading a myth that is already quite common among Christians (including people I know personally). It’s quite arrogant for you to presume that you are a more “mature” Christian than every single person who was formerly a Christian was before they became an atheist/agnostic/something else. Or deciding that someone else’s brand of Christianity is far more immature than yours, and that explains why they no longer follow it. It’s preposterous, and, to engage in the sort of mind reading that clearly think you can do, I think you (and others who say this) are making this argument because you can’t imagine that someone like you, a “mature” Christian could ever change their mind, because that would mean that there is a possibility it could happen to you, which is unimaginable, and it would mean there is a possibility you could be wrong. Also the very existence of all of us who are atheists or agnostics or something else who were previously (true) Christians raises the theological issue of if (according to Christianity, since we don’t believe any of it) you can be saved and then lose your salvation or if those atheists/agnostics/etc. are still saved, neither of which is all that palatable, so you try to solve this instead by convincing yourselves we were never really saved in the first place.
You start by claiming that I’ve equated “true” with “mature,” when I’ve done no such thing. I’m real clear on the difference between those two words.
So, if you used to be a Christian, but are not anymore, its because you were “immature?” Well, how bloody convenient for you. No need to ever actually engage the ideas of the people who left, you know by pre-judgement that such people are “immature.”
And not just that. For if atheists like me reject Christianity for similar reasons as the former Christians, we must be doing it for “immature” reasons as well. We’re just too stupid or pig headed to realize it.
I never said that the move from Christianity to atheism or any other belief system is an act of immaturity. For a lot of people it’s a sign they’re maturing.
By claiming that the Christianity of leavers was “immature” you are making that claim, whether you desire to own up to it or not. Even with that aside, you seem to fail to realize just how incredibly patronizing your stance is. By necessity, declaring other forms of Christianity “immature,” or declare yours mature. If you demure from that, you are declaring it more mature, more adult, and therefore more correct.
With your work on promoting tolerance and acceptance for the LGBT community, there are many Christians eager and willing to declare you are not a Real True Christian. I would have hoped that your experience with that would help you see how that’s a game where the only winning move is not to play. But I see now that from your perspective, the importance difference between you and such people is that you’re right about who’s a Real True Christian, and that they’re wrong.
Of course I understand that it’s patronizing to call anyone immature. But the truth is that some belief systems are more immature than others. I can’t help that. That’s just a fact. And I can’t say I’m terribly interested in pretending it’s not.
If you know anything about the Independent Fundamental Baptist … version of Christianity, for instance, you know it’s the least mature understanding of Christianity it’s possible to have. And I’m real comfortable saying so.
I do play the “game,” all the time, of asserting what is and isn’t mature. That’s pretty much all I do here on my blog.
Having a belief not fully formed, not fully informed, or not fully realized is an un-matured/immature belief.
It doesn’t make the believer immature, nor does it make a non-believer immature having rejected it. I obviously read it differently than you did Nathaniel, but I can guarantee he was not saying the believer was immature.
Hypothetical here John:
Say that we have a Christian you shares beliefs that are pretty much 100% identical to yours on religion and faith. Then they end up deconverting. In that case, would that prove that their faith had been “immature” given that they ended up leaving it? Why or why not?
Yes, it would prove to me their faith was immature. It wouldn’t prove they were immature; in fact, I would assume them to now be more mature than they were when they were Christian.
John,
I don’t mean this in any disrespectful way, but couldn’t the same “no true scotsman” fallacy apply to your conversion to Christianity? Couldnt someone say that there is no way you could have been an real true atheist/unbeliever because there is no way one could not believe in God on an intellectual level and then suddenly become a Christian? That you were never a real “rabid anti-Christian”? Would that excuse make your conversion less amazing if you were never a true unbeliever to begin with?
Also, what if one converts from Islam or Hinduism to Christianity? Would it be fair to say that they must have never been a true follower of that religion if it was so easy for them to convert to Christianity? In my opinion, if you can use that excuse for former Christians, can’t you use it for any kind of conversion experience?
Great discussion. I also am a current agnostic and would have considered myself a very devout Christian. I would also call my deconversion process heart wrenching.
The question of how “mature” I was is certainly debatable (with different people coming to differnt conclusions no doubt)– but for me personally John’s comment didn’t offend. I don’t believe the Christian metaphysical ideas, so I’m forced to think that there are not really “Christians” anyway– although there really are mature, caring people who believe in Christian ideas. Of course, many of these Christians are more loving and mature than I am– and thus better people than I am by my own standards. So I’m all for mature, caring people, no matter what their metaphysics…
I’m a people-pleaser by nature. I don’t like that people think I’m damned. But they do. Lots of people. And if I thought like John or any other particular Christian there would still be tons of Christians who would think I was damned, immature, or just plain stupid. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any condemnation-free position in the world, so I’m looking for an internal one…
« 1 2