Yeah, it could very well be. I'm not sure, and I admit I'm not rock solid on the whole unforgivable sin thing. What gets me is that when the John verse: "17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death." is matched up to "the wages of sin is death" (I note the singular), I have to conclude that John may be only talking about physical death. In 17, he doesn't even say "equals" death, he just says "lead[s] to". In my mind, the totality of scripture is that sin itself is never excusable in the "eternity" sense. I don't see how God could let some (actual) sins "slip by" and not be dealt with before one of His children enters Heaven. I think that Christ has dealt with each and every sin committed by one of His children.
The next two verses tell us when that "unforgivable sin" can happen. My understanding is that only the elect would be able to commit that sin. If this is true then all other sins could be forgiven.
I'm not sure I'm following. If an elect could commit an unforgivable sin, or let's say if he ever DID commit an unforgivable sin, then how could he be an elect? In the Reformed understanding, ALL the sins of the elect are dealt with, "forgiven" before they enter Heaven. To us, God's standards would require no less.
I see what you may be saying as quite a contrast to what MD is talking about. Venial sins are, by my understanding of Catholicism, comparatively Mickey Mouse sins, and God might let them slide. However, an unforgivable sin, it would seem to me, would be huge, and never allowed to slide when committed by anyone.
From my understanding there is only one unpardonable sin that an elect can commit and the only time that can be commited would be when they are delivered before Satan (death) and the Holy Spirit speaks through them. Only the elect are called to do this. That testimony will open many eyes and ears to truth. If they don't allow that to happen they are condemned as Satan and the fallen angels are.
And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:
For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.(Luke 12:11-12)
What hour? I believe this "hour" is Satan's hour of temptation referred to in Revelation 17:
12.And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. 14.These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for He is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with Him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
The chosen, called and faithful are His elect. They are the ones that face Satan (death) and allow the Holy Spirit to speak through them (as on Pentecost). All others will be deceived by Satan:
Rev.12:9.and the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
11.And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto death. (Death is one of Satan's names)
If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and He shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. (1John 5:16)
Intercessory prayer is very powerful but here we are told that we should not pray for one committing that sin, the unpardonable sin. Note that here too "sin" is singular when it is about the unpardonable one, as the one you noticed, "the wages of sin is death".
In my mind, the totality of scripture is that sin itself is never excusable in the "eternity" sense. I don't see how God could let some (actual) sins "slip by" and not be dealt with before one of His children enters Heaven. I think that Christ has dealt with each and every sin committed by one of His children
I'm not sure of this at all. My belief is that He died for our sins but we must repent of those sins to be forgiven.
Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
If we haven't repented but believe, we will be saved but what happens to the unrepented for sins?
Mark 16:16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
"However, an unforgivable sin, it would seem to me, would be huge, and never allowed to slide when committed by anyone".
As far as I know there is only one and it is huge. He won't allow it to slide. That is why only the elect can commit it. They know truth while the spirit of slumber has been placed on others for their protection, so they can't commit it. It's only when you know the truth of Satan coming first, pretending to be Christ, that you will be held responsible.
.....Ping
This is me and not the RC Church here, okay?
I like to distinguish between the STATE of Sin and various pertiklar ACTS which are sinful or "sins". "Big 'S' Sin" and "little 's' sins".
When we're in the state of sin we commit sins. Cain't do otherwise without grace. But In "Sin" we are headed for death. We are carnal, not pneumatic (!) and since the Fall, flesh without spirit is moribund.
FOr us'ns, when you're in a state of Grace, you could catch yourself looking at someone especially babe-alicious and entertaining the notion of using her for your psychological and physical pleasure, which would be, inter alia, a sin against charity. But it's SUCH a habit for the average guy type individual that it almost happens on auto-pilot.
So a couple of scenarii: (1) You find yourself as above and say, YEAH! that's a fun fantasy, I believe I will continue to fantasize about using this person, abusing her and my body, committing the sins which "in action, lust" (that would be Shakespeare) leads to in order to enable the tryst in the No-tell motel.
In that scenario, I am obviously enjoying the concept of a whole bunch of sins of which "lust" or "adultery in the heart" could be viewed as just a part. I am in my imagination eagerly endorsing (though of course I TELL myself it's just a fantasy) rejecting God's teaching, will, and charity and in general using a young woman for whom Jesus was content to die as a device, as I say, to make me feel good in lots of different ways.I respectfully submit that there is a huge difference in what MY response needs to be on either scenario. Whatever else needs to happen, I need to do some serious inventory on my self, my faith, and the way and purposefullness with which I approach God.
The second scenario though is more like a brief and quickly noticed failure to obey Peter's (I think) advice to be sober and vigilant. The minute I catch myself, I already have a plan to deal with the problem - a plan which is or at least includes asking for grace and forgiveness.
I sort of kind of tentatively think that while both offenses, compared with the glorious purity of God are obscene, the first involves the eager imperilling of one's own soul, the enjoyment of a fantasy of life without grace, a real and intentional dabbling and dawdling in the possibility that just maybe life withOUT Jesus and all that pesky charity and truth stuff would be better.
I'm trying to suggest that both acts are sinful, but one amounts to a rejection of grace. I don't mind that the boss-lady thinks Robert Redford looks better than I do. But our relationship would be in trouble if she was spending a LOT of time imagining life with him.
That's kind of sort of where we're going with this mortabl venial thing.
But it's just a theological "!!!TILT!!! to suggest that God would "let them slide", and part of the idea of purgatory is, in fact, straightening out the books on the consequences of (or healing self-inflicted wounds caused by) venial sins -- all of 'em.
Inquisition? Please check this. I might be off base here.