sins not in ignorance unpardonable?

[Scott]

1 Time. 1:13 reads: "Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief."

I was surprised at Calvin's comments on this passage, especially his reliance on the separation of the first from the second table of law. See what he says below.

Because I did it ignorantly in unbelief "œI obtained pardon," said he, "œfor my unbelief; because it proceeded from ignorance;" for persecution and oppression were nothing else than the fruits of unbelief.

But he appears to insinuate that there is no room for pardon, unless when ignorance can be pleaded in excuse. What then? Will God never pardon any one who has sinned knowingly? I reply, we must observe the word unbelief; 20 for this term limits Paul´s statement to the first table of the law. Transgressions of the second table, although they are voluntary, are forgiven; but he who knowingly and willingly breaks the first table sins against the Holy Spirit, because he is in direct opposition to God. He does not err through weakness, but, by rushing wickedly against God, gives a sure proof of his reprobation.

And hence may be obtained a definition of the sin against the Holy Ghost; first, that it is open rebellion against God in the transgression of the first table; secondly, that it is a malicious rejection of the truth; for, when the truth of God is not rejected through deliberate malice, the Holy Spirit is not resisted. Lastly, unbelief is here employed as a general term; and malicious design, which is contrasted with ignorance, may be regarded as the point of difference. 21

Accordingly, they are mistaken who make the sin against the Holy Ghost to consist in the transgression of the second table; and they are also mistaken, who pronounce blind and thoughtless violence to be a crime so heinous. For men commit the sin against the Holy Spirit, when they undertake a voluntary war against God in order to extinguish that light of the Spirit which has been offered to them. This is shocking wickedness and monstrous hardihood. Nor is there room for doubting that, by an implied threatening, he intended to terrify all who had been once enlightened, not to stumble against truth which they knew; because such a fall is destructive and fatal; for if, on account of ignorance, God forgave Paul his blasphemies, they who knowingly and intentionally blaspheme ought not to expect any pardon.

But it may be thought that what he now says is to no purpose; for unbelief, which is always blind, can never be unaccompanied by ignorance. I reply, among unbelievers some are so blind that they are deceived by a false imagination of the truth; and in others, while they are blinded, yet malice prevails. Paul was not altogether free from a wicked disposition; but he was hurried along by the thoughtless zeal, so as to think that what he did was right. Thus he was an adversary of Christ, not from deliberate intention, but through mistake and ignorance. The Pharisees, who through a bad conscience slandered Christ, were not entirely free from mistake and ignorance; but they were instigated by ambition, and base hatred of sound doctrine, and even by furious rebellion against God, so that maliciously and intentionally, and not in ignorance, they set themselves in opposition to Christ. 22

Thoughts on this?

 

[Scott]

What about a wilful violation of the 4th commandment?

 

[Scott]

Matthew Henry comments: "If Paul had persecuted the Christians wilfully, knowing them to be the people of God, for aught I know he had been guilty of the unpardonable sin; but, because he did it ignorantly and in unbelief, he obtained mercy."

 

[JohnV]

Scott:

I have been wondering about something along the same lines. It seems that we have a long term concept of what we would like most of all, and aim or goal or desired end, but we often get sidetracked from that, briefly forgetting our long term goals for the sake of some brief respite, happiness, or fulfillment of some kind. A man may want to be faithful to his wife, but be enticed at a weak moment to do what he really does not want to do in the long run, and which he really knows better not to do; but his momentary desires may over ride his long term desires, and be led astray. He knows better, but the moment siezes him and won't let him go. I've taken a rather common example of it, but there are many smaller or greater matters of similar import, such as what's going on along the gulf coast. Sometimes its need, sometimes its just a fulfillment of a desire at the precise time when it is a weakness in the person.

The question in not whether it is sin, because we know it is. The quesion is whether it is unpardonable, without judging all backsliding as unpardonable. For the position that Paul was called to, I think that Calvin's judgment is right. But I don't think that you can apply that universally to every such situation without regard to the maturity of the person. And it is for that reason that we have to acquiesce to God's judgment, and not take upon ourselves the question of when such a sin is unpardonable.

Just some random thoughts.

 

[Robin]

Hmmm...let's see....David plotted the death of Uriah after knowingly committing adultery with his wife. Is David in heaven?



Robin

 

[just_grace]

...

Originally posted by Robin
Hmmm...let's see....David plotted the death of Uriah after knowingly committing adultery with his wife. Is David in heaven?



Robin

Yes with the rest of us, as unworthy as we are. It's Grace and thats all.

I still hold hope for Judas as slim as it seems, but knowing how Christ felt on the cross I do not give up hope, besides, Love never gives up such things..

Lord have mercy.

 

[Peter]

Not me.

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

 

[just_grace]

...

Originally posted by Peter
Not me.

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Yeah, I said it was slim...never close the door though, only God can do that.

None of us fully understand Scripture.

Typed reverently and respectfully.

[Edited on 9-3-2005 by just_grace]

 

[Peter]

I disagree with Calvin. Notice Paul speaks of sins against the 2nd table as well:

1 Time. 1:13 reads: "Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief."

 

[Scott]

The insinuation of 1 Tim. 1:13 is that Paul would not have been granted mercy if he had acted with knowledge (as opposed to his ignorance). All reformed commentators that I have seen seem to agree and take a similar approach, suggesting in one form or another that if Paul was not ignorant, his particular sin (persecuting the church, having Christians killed and imprisoned, etc.) would not have been forgiven.

One commentator said this was the unpardonable sin (M. Henry also suggests this possibility). To consciously know and understand who Jesus is and yet to actively persecute his church in the manner of Paul (having the people killed and executed) is unpardonable.

I would note that no commentator is saying that all intentional sins are without pardon. Calvin says intentional violations of the first table (I can't agree with that), and others saying active persecution with full knowledge of who Jesus is.

What say ye?

 

[Anton Bruckner]

But being ignorant, gives the connotation of warranting mercy. I don't think that scripture should be isolated from all the doctrine Paul expounded, because Paul was an avaracious proponent of by Faith alone, and Salvation being solely determined by God as per Roman's 9.

I think Paul used himself as being ignorant, not as a means of warranting mercy, but to highlight, that it was of pure mercy, by showing mercy in comparison to his utterly pathetic state.

If being ignorant warranted Mercy, then out goes the window, Romans 1, and all pagans who haven't heard the Gospel have a right to be saved.

[Edited on 9-9-2005 by Slippery]

 

[JKLeoPCA]

In Paul's claim to ignorance, I see as saying that he is testifying that in being a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; he had not yet any gleam of light (as yet internally) to even see or hear Christ. He was previously in darkness, and thus an enemy of Christ and the Cross. He was acting as a natural, or animal man, not able to comprehend the things of the Spirit. Light enters a room and cockroaches flee. Paul was conditioned to fight the light back out of the Pharisees world, so he persecuted a group that presented a Messiah that did not fit what they were taught to look for. But when the light of the Spirit did enter into him, It stopped him cold, and was no seed falling on the wayside, or on the stony ground, but landed upon fertile soil, prepared by God before hand in this zealous Pharisee.

So I find his claim to be one of being, before salvation, found so far outside the faith, and being so zealously opposed to it, but yet, not from within, he was shown mercy. thus the worst of sinners can be saved. Yet as a warning, if you are within the church and are not ignorant of it's claims, testimonies, and signs (in that time). You should beware such blasphemy, and persecutions.