If Paul sinned in ignorance yet he found mercy, how are we without excuse today?

If Paul sinned in ignorance yet he found mercy, how are we without excuse today?

Paul’s testimony in 1 Timothy 1:13 begins with a seemingly unforgivable predicament. He openly confesses that before his salvation he was “a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.” Under the kingdom program, blaspheming the Holy Spirit was an unpardonable sin (Matthew 12:31-32), which means that Paul could not have been redeemed in that dispensation. Yet God revealed a brand new program of grace, and Paul became the first convert under this administration. His salvation was not an exception to the rule but a demonstration of it—showing that even the worst offender could be utterly forgiven through the cross of Christ. In this way, Paul’s conversion sets the pattern for all who would follow, proving that ignorance and rebellion are fully covered by the riches of God’s grace.

It is important to see that Paul’s ignorance did not excuse his guilt. Romans 1:20 makes clear that man is “without excuse,” because creation and conscience testify to God’s reality. Ignorance may describe the condition of man, but it never removes accountability before God. Paul still needed mercy, and his salvation was entirely based on the sheer grace of God revealed in Christ. This is why he calls himself the “chief of sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15), not to glorify his past, but to magnify the mercy that reached him. His example teaches us that salvation is not earned by merit or diminished by ignorance, but rests solely on the finished work of Christ.

Being human, Paul still remembered his past, yet he teaches us in Philippians 3:13-14 to “forget those things which are behind, and reach forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” In this present age of grace, we are called to reckon ourselves dead to sin (Romans 6:11), to renew our minds, and to press forward in Christ rather than dwell on former failures. The lesson is clear: our past does not define our standing, for in Christ we are made new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17). The call is not to remain bound by guilt but to walk in the liberty of grace, pressing on toward maturity and service.

Thus, Paul’s testimony is both a warning and a comfort. It warns us that man cannot plead ignorance as an excuse, for all are accountable before God. Yet it comforts us that God’s grace abounds even where sin once reigned, and that no sinner is beyond hope. Paul’s pattern of forgiveness shows us that in this dispensation of grace, mercy is extended to all who believe, and the proper response is not to look backward in despair but to move forward in faith, rejoicing in the liberty we have in Christ.

Reaction from the post above:

REACTION:

Regarding blasphemy, Paul persecuted Christ instead of the Holy Spirit from what we know.

ANSWER:

The stoning of Stephen is the moment where Saul, (aka. Paul), blasphemed the Holy Spirit. 

Scripture tells us that Stephen spoke not in his own wisdom, but by the Spirit of God. Acts 6:10 declares that “they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake.” His testimony was Spirit-driven, and in Acts 7:51 he directly confronted Israel’s leaders, saying, “Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.” This shows that their rejection was not against a man, but against the Spirit Himself.

At that very scene Saul was present. Acts 7:58 records that the witnesses laid their garments at his feet, and Acts 8:1 adds that Saul was consenting to Stephen’s death. He was not a passive observer; he gave approval to the silencing of the Spirit’s witness. In doing so, Saul aligned himself with those who resisted the Spirit, and this is precisely what Jesus warned of in Matthew 12:31-32 when He spoke of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—a sin of deliberate rejection, not mere ignorance.

Stephen’s death marked a turning point in God’s program. Israel had rejected the Father through the prophets, the Son through crucifixion, and now the Spirit through Stephen’s testimony. Saul’s involvement places him squarely in that rejection. By consenting to Stephen’s death, he participated in the blasphemy against the Spirit, the ultimate rejection of God’s witness to Israel at that time.

Thus, the stoning of Stephen stands as the incident where Saul blasphemed the Holy Spirit, resisting and consenting to the rejection of the Spirit’s testimony. Yet it also stands as the backdrop for the greatest display of grace, showing that God can transform even the most hardened resister into a vessel of His truth.

--------------
Credits: This post originated from another great question asked by a good friend.
Thank you, Dennis, for reminding me of this fact.