Real Unpardonable Sin: A Prophetic Think Tank
What certain sin member in what certain sin category?
The sin of belief is but a general placeholder. It waits for a quintessential kind of belief among all of its possibilities to narrow it and be that categories sole member, which would then be used to represent the entire category and then any other members we wish to speak about which might resemble it. We assume that the disciples were not operating on our view of sin or righteousness as any kind of sin or righteousness we choose. They had one revealed and deadly one in mind and all others are derivatives. If they had one revealed and really deadly one in mind they can use the forgivable ones as a way to speak by way of analogy to that most important one which is not forgivable, but the cant speak directly about the unforgivable one as a way to refer to those that are not even on a transcendent radar screen. This was Christ’s method of teaching: hold out a pedestrian, mundane version of a precious spiritual truth to see who’s hearts take it directly to the related but central truth of concern, and see who shows rage, evil intent and apathy about the hated suggestion that what is entirely spiritual and hidden is the real ruler of our affections.
Therefore biblical interpretation has as its first task to identify how the writers hierarchically ranked concepts because if we don’t we will give ourselves illegal licenses to rank them ourselves. We will in effect place ourselves in the moral position of the Pharisees. We can’t be in the business of spiritual malpractice in teaching others that its ok to satisfy the quintessential sin or righteousness by the lesser ones (forgivable or by physical display). That would be that we are teaching, in translation, how people can miss Christ himself.
Motivational Kinds within the spiritual category that have to do with a Christian belief, both good and bad, are such as doctrine, propositional truth, sacrament, logic, conclusion and premise, text and context, prophecy, miracle, and a host of others. A least we have all of them before us and none are entirely hidden for our perusal and choice. When we read our theologies, however, we don’t like to treat one as standing alone in its own category, which the others go into and without which would cause the whole system to collapse. Others have tried to put one at the top, but the results are never profound enough to serve, as it should, to bring the entire scheme higher than it is, or as more than just another kind of religious philosophy as it is a powerful argument for Christianity itself.
One stands alone in quality just as one can’t be spoken of quantitatively like any other. Its one, not many, specific not general. With sin, as well as “righteousness,” in historical and popular theology, is certainly spoken of as a general or general sin that assumes the category of sin. Because of this, all its sin examples and members are general as well. The general members are forced into objects like:
- Generally against the Holy Spirit, specifically against blasphemy”
- General sin against Jesus, specifically against lack of faith in Him
- General a doctrinal sin, specifically against disbelief in the truths of the Church.
- Prophecy, denial of the gift of prophecy.
- Jesus, denial of faith alone in Jesus
Can you see my point? If we are talking about the one, single deadly sin that can’t be forgiven, why are we settling on a general sin against a faith object in a general category instead of a particular sin in a particular category?
What is a Miracle in Relation to the Subject of Sin
A miracle is a communication and evidence for a transcendent God, something that mere humans could never perform on their own. I would like to bring out the point that if the Bible is a real revelation from a Trascdencen Supreme Being, you cant, like how we do with sin, diffuse the “miracle” concept out into a wide and various category of competing members. There is one real Miracle in a class of its own.
In Christianity, the other kinds of revelation are doctrines, for example, which exist for the sole purpose of explaining the implications of some aspect of an idea or miraculous occurrence within the New Testament. Ideas can be true but they are not transcendent, we must remind ourselves. What came directly from transcendence is always first before our eyes because everything else is going to be the product of man by the insular workings of his mind and world, including our doctrinal formulations. What came from Transcendence is a revelation, phenomena, an appearance, a revealing of the power, nature, and existence of God, which is knowledge, but before it is turned into words and ideas so we cant think about it as well as just experience it.
Without the proof of the miraculous phenomenon, both as the driving function within its narrative and as a historical fact that something otherworldly actually happened, that God has actually entered time and space to speak to man and make His will known, Christianity would be just another naive collection of novel ideas about some weird guy in Judea that said something like “believe in me because I am God.” My point is that “doctrine” is not a miracle, its a possible human derivation of a miracle. Its an indispensable conceptual human construction but not the source of our divine knowledge. Miracles, in theory, would be, whether by direct manifestation before our eyes or by inference from documents. Let’s just get this right off the bat and separate in our minds the difference between a concept and a phenomenon of information that necessitates and demands the concept for its human creation and outer projection.
The claim of a miracle alone, like Jesus healing the blind, is a proof of deity, but it’s not enough, and Jesus did not go around saying or implying “I perform miracles, so I am the Messiah.” If he performed any miracle that is real its a miraculous symbol and part of the whole miraculous revelation to which he intends to point our attention. You need the demonstration that this miracle is set in context with the entire Jewish revelation for it to be a miracle from its God. This is why Jesus rejected the proposed miracles of Satan in the temptation because turning stone to bread, jumping off the pinnacle of the Temple and being saved by Angels, or accepting your title of King of the World would be miracles, but only selfish ones without being prophesied for him in the Jewish revelation. He must suffer and die on the Cross and resurrect and fulfill many other things written about him. And before you say that the miracle of the resurrection is enough, that also has to be prophesied for Messiah in the Jewish revelation for him to claim his due ordination before the faith of Man.
Please go to the next page…
