Sunday, February 08, 2009

Thanks for the input but let me clarify...Did the Lord die for...

Thanks to all who have taken the time to help me answer the question, did Jesus die for the sin of unbelief?

I appreciate your time.

However, I am not so sure if the post below have been read with clarity and understanding.

There are a few things to note. I have defined. what I meant by "unbelief" and I equated it with the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That is why I answered "no".

This needs to be tackled first. Am I making the equation spurious? Should I equate unbelief with the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit or I should not? Is this a proper equation, are they equivalent or are they not?

Then, secondly while you are there, then you may like to answer the question...
did Jesus die for the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

Thanks for your thoughts.


Dave Gosse said...

Then, secondly while you are there, then you may like to answer the question...
did Jesus die for the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

If He didn't, I'm done for. 8^>

But seriously, Lito, I think, when I study what is taught by the church(es) throughout history, and the complications that various interpretations bring, I think that some of these questions are "extranious" to the Gospel and salvation. St. Paul, a self-described "enemy of the gospel" had an encounter with the risen Christ and changed his wicked ways. Was Paul as Saul a blasphemer against the Holy Spirit? I don't know, but Paul used some very harsh terms as he judged his actions when he was still Saul, a pharisee and zealous for the Lord. Yet the Lord chose him for a special mission and personally guided him through that mission.

DRB said...

Dave, according to Acts, Paul washed away his sins in baptism, so he could not possibly have committed the unforgivable sin.

Also, he later said he had sinned in ignorance. By contrast, blasphemy against the Spirit is knowing and deliberate, as you can see in the case of those who accused Christ of casting out Satan by the power of Satan.

L P Cruz said...


I share DRB's analysis of blasphemy of the HS, in that is deliberate.

I looked at expert commentaries on this and it is attributing evil to the thing that the HS is doing which is good.

"extranious" to the Gospel and salvation.

I am becoming more convinced too, it is a bit of a red herring that I led myself into.

The last two posts have been ignited by a correspondent who happens to be a Calvinist, he was I believe trying to say that Limited Atonement is correct i.e. Jesus died for the sin of unbelief of the elect, but not the sin of unbelief of the non-elect.


J. K. Jones said...

Hey, LP.

How's the job search going? Your on the prayer list at our house.


L P Cruz said...


Thank you so much, quite a story. I think my company could not make others redundant until got back from my Portugal trip, I felt important. They had to wait for me to sack as all (LOL). If only I prolonged my vacation...

I am still looking for a job, nothing that concrete yet...

How about you? I hope you have found a position.


DRB said...

For what it's worth, I reworded some of my earlier comments here:

Did Jesus die for the unforgivable sin?

J. K. Jones said...


I am working. We make fireplaces, so business is tied to housing market, which is bad. I'm in environmental and safety, so I am hard to get rid of.

Praise God for a job.

L P Cruz said...


I had a read.

I realize now that what is wrong in the logic of some Calvinistic reasoning goes like this...

If Jesus died for all sins then all sinners would be saved. Because not all are going to be saved, then Jesus did not die for some sinners.

This is faulty (and I was led by the nose in trying to rebut this) because it collapses atonement with justification.

Also it is faulty because it mangles the concept of imputation. That is by the nature of their reasoning, they wrongly assume that because Jesus died for sins of the elect, then the imputation also has happened.

I will be posting also my conclusion to this exercise.


DRB said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DRB said...

Yes, those assumptions are contrary to the passages that say believers were children of wrath until they believed.

DRB said...

This message is in response to the question Mr. Glover asked me on the other Extra Nos page:

"Please tell me how you deal with Romans 9 without eisegetically explaining away the text to help it fit lutheran presuppositions."

The text says nothing about limited atonement. It does teach unconditional election, as do confessional Lutherans. We are not Arminians.

Scripture teaches unconditional election, so we believe that. Scripture teaches Jesus died not just for our sins but for the sins of the whole world, so we believe that, too.

L P said...


I thought that they were addressed to me as well.

He asked for an exegesis of Rom 9 and that could be a very long essay.

I also do not see how it is connected to Limited Atonement.