Unpardonable Sin
Posted by Anon for now on Monday, 16 November 1998, at 4:19 p.m.
I have been very troubled the last several weeks over something....
I attended a children's church service with my kids at a local church I was visiting. During the service, the youth pastor asked the children if they wanted a special touch from the Lord. About 20 or more went up and he laid hands on them and every single one fell down on the ground one by one. 2 of the adult helpers fell down as well, leaving the rest of the children unattended (except by me and the youth pastor) and rather rowdy. Some of the children who were laying on the floor up front were lifting up their heads and peeking around and then laying down again. Towards the end of the service, the youth pastor told them that Jesus doesn't mind if they just fall down because their friends do it. I was troubled by this and I don't know why... coming from a Pentecostal background, this ordinarily wouldn't be unusual, but I had never seen this kind of thing with so many young children before and had never heard that sort of comment from a pastor.
The problem doesn't lie with them, it lies with me. I came home and talked to my husband about it, because I wasn't convinced that all of what took place was genuine and said so out loud.
I'm so upset to have even said anything out of my mouth, even to my dh....I may have committed the unpardonable sin by questioning the goings on at this nice church (who am I to question these things?...I don't even know why I did) I feel horrible... I don't know what to do...
Do any of you have any scriptures to lead me to or any advice? How do you know if you've stepped over the line? How do you know that you've committed the unpardonable sin? Am I doomed? I'm so scared!
Christian lobotomy?
Posted by William Eaton on Wednesday, 18 November 1998, at 12:04 a.m., in response to Unpardonable Sin, posted by Anon for now on Monday, 16 November 1998, at 4:19 p.m.
Hi,
One thing is for sure, you didn't commit the "unpardonable sin". (For a number of reasons, primarily, you didn't blaspheme the Holy Spirit.)
You said:
"""The problem doesn't lie with them, it lies with me. I came home and talked to my husband about it, because I wasn't convinced that all of what took place was genuine and said so out loud. I'm so upset to have even said anything out of my mouth, even to my dh....I may have committed the unpardonable sin by questioning the goings on at this nice church (who am I to question these things?...I don't even know why I did) I feel horrible... I don't know what to do... """
You bring up an interesting dilemma that plagues Christians everywhere: Do we use our brains, or not?
When God created us, He could have easily created a race of robots that would act and react to every situation in a predictable way, using a preconceived set of instructions.
Instead, He choose to create us with a brain capable of discernment and choice.
We all know the mistakes that can be made if that mind isn't subject to God and to His will, *but* do we really understand that the mind is just as capable of right-choices --if we are walking in the light?
God never intended that the wonderful gift of volition be viewed as something negative, something that we should seek-at-all-costs to avoid using.
No, He has given us minds to be used for His glory. It brings Him no glory when we don't use our minds in situations (such as the one you mentioned) and follow blindly a course of action without careful thought. How else do we think God is going to lead us? Are we to expect Him to speak audibly whenever there is a dangerous situation? Usually He expects us to put two and two together, and not plunge head-long into something when we aren't sure that it is His will.
It's the enemy of our souls who shouts "UNPARDONABLE SIN!" when we question something that we are not sure about. Do we seriously think that God is pleased when we blank our minds and follow every wind of doctrine that blows our way? I think not.
Satan needs a passive mind to be able to effectively work his devices, and if he can also promote the idea that a passive mind is a "spiritual" mind then he has achieved a great victory.
When we use our *redeemed* minds, to make judgments, discern His will, and question things we don't understand, we are doing exactly what God intended.
My point being that you should never over-ride concerns. If you are growing in the knowledge of God's Word, your mind (through decisions, judgments, etc.) is going to be the primary way that He leads and ultimately keeps you from disaster.
Ok, up until this point I haven't commented on the specific situation that brought this about (the youth pastor's actions) only the problem that you said was within yourself-- your attitudes, etc.. But concerning the "laying on of hands", I personally wouldn't let anyone lay hands on me, or my children, unless I was certain of the source--both the message and the messenger.
William
Re: Our minds, God's Creation
Posted by William Eaton on Wednesday, 18 November 1998, at 12:17 a.m., in response to Christian lobotomy?, posted by William Eaton on Wednesday, 18 November 1998, at 12:04 a.m.
For an in-depth study on this topic you might want to check out the book: WAR ON THE SAINTS by Jessie Penn-Lewis. It is available in the bookstore for $4.79.
It is one of the most insightful books that I've ever read concerning the relation between Christianity and Volition.
Here is the link:
http://www.chfweb.com/biblebook.html#spiritualwarfare
URL Suggested: <Title: Bookstore>
Re: Unpardonable Sin
Posted by Valerie on Thursday, 19 November 1998, at 12:15 a.m., in response to Unpardonable Sin, posted by Anon for now on Monday, 16 November 1998, at 4:19 p.m.
Dear Anon,
When you put your faith in Jesus Christ for your salvation, did you know that you were sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day He brings you home - into His presence, forever? Picture the canning process - The jar is completely purified and cleansed before anything can be put in it, then once it is filled it is sealed to keep all contaminates out and that which remains inside is pure till the seal is broken and the jar opened.You have been made pure by the blood of Jesus and have been sealed by the Holy Spirit. To reject the saving grace of Jesus Christ once it has been made real to you would be unpardonable. What would be left to save you? Nothing. That's what makes it unpardonable. By questioning things you either don't understand or that are confusing to you is absolutely not rejecting the blood of Jesus Christ for your salvation.
You have been given the Holy Spirit which will guide you and teach you - you may reserve the right to question anything or any teaching from anyone, so long as it is done in a humble spirit before God where you are open to receiving His revelation of truth. And this truth He will reveal to you through His Word - and He will reveal it to you in His time. We are to depend on the Holy Spirit and His Word in this way *so that* we will not be led astray. You were being honest, and that is exactly what we should be, while allowing Him to reveal His truths to us.
With love and prayers,
Valerie
Re: Unpardonable Sin
Posted by Janet, MD on Friday, 20 November 1998, at 4:04 p.m., in response to Unpardonable Sin, posted by Anon for now on Monday, 16 November 1998, at 4:19 p.m.
I believe the others have phrased my thoughts more eloquently, but I still feel the need to express my thoughts.
Is the Lord glorified in action we do simply because our friends do? I am uncomfortable with that concept and the pastor that encourages such behavior. Yes the movement of the Spirit in our lives can bring us to our knees, but the Spirit doesn't move us all in the same way.
I believe I hear you saying, I want my children to move where the Spirit moves them, not as some one tells them to move. I agree, let them learn through the teachings of His word and His Spirit, not through the words of men.
A study of the unpardonable sin
Posted by Kevin Megill on Friday, 20 November 1998, at 6:34 p.m., in response to Unpardonable Sin, posted by Anon for now on Monday, 16 November 1998, at 4:19 p.m.
Hi,
Amen! I agree with Valerie that the unpardonable sin is "to reject the saving grace of Jesus Christ once it has been made real to you". Here are my reasons ...
---
A study on the unpardonable sin.
(see below for-William's dissenting opinion...)
Passages to look at:
Matthew 12:22-45 (the unpardonable sin is mentioned in verses 31-32).
Mark 3:20-30 (the unpardonable sin is mentioned in verses 28-30).
Luke 11:14-12:12 (the unpardonable sin is mentioned in verse 10).Jesus' teaching about the unpardonable sin happened in the middle of some other incidents and some other teachings of Jesus. Each of the three gospels presents a different mix of these events. Let's start by listing the basic pattern of events and teachings from each passage, concentrating on the CORE IDEAS of each teaching. Afterwards, we'll draw some conclusions about what the unpardonable sin means.
---
The passage in Mark is the shortest, and proceeds as follows:
1. Jesus was teaching and performing miracles, and the crowd's response was huge.
2. Jesus' family's response was to be embarrassed for him and to try to take custody of him and bring him home.
3. The response of the scribes was to say "He is possessed by Beelzebub" and "He casts out demons by the ruler of the demons".
4. Jesus gave the parable of the strong man. (I.e., Satan would not be doing the things Jesus was doing, it'd be undermining his own kingdom!)
5. Jesus mentioned the unforgivable sin:"Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin ..."
The passage adds that he said this because they were saying "He has an unclean spirit".
What are the core spiritual principles involved?
1. The core issue seems to be how people were responding to Jesus' obviously supernatural ministry. The crowd flocked to him. His family was embarrassed. The Pharisees attributed it to Satan.2. Jesus' response to the Pharisees was first a teaching and second a warning.
a. The teaching emphasized the clear purpose and effect of his healing -- not just to show power, but to deliver people from Satan. Jesus was saying they needed to look at the fruit, and notice that this was of God, not Satan, because it was destroying Satan's kingdom, not building it up.
b. The warning emphasized two classes of sins. First, that all other sins and blasphemies could be forgiven, no matter what they were. Second, that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was unforgivable. The implication of the words "but is guilty of an eternal sin" seems to show that the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is by its very nature a much more serious sin than merely general blasphemy.
The Scripture says that he said this "BECAUSE they were saying ‘He has an unclean spirit'", so apparently what they were saying was connected with blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
---
Now Matthew 12:22-45
1. Jesus was teaching and performing miracles, and the crowd responded in amazement.
2. The response of the Pharisees was to say "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebub the ruler of the demons."
3. Jesus gave the parable of the strong man. This time, though, in the middle of the parable, we get these words:"But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."
4. Jesus says:
"He who is not with Me is against Me; and he does not gather with Me scatters."
5. Jesus mentions the unforgivable sin:
"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come."
6. Jesus emphasizes that evil speech is an indication of an evil heart.
First he says, "Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit." Then he emphasizes that the Pharisees cannot say what is right, since their hearts are wrong, and warns them of eventual judgment.
7. The Pharisees ask for a sign (38ff ). Jesus responds by rebuking them for their unbelieving response to the clear evidence of His Messiahship and warns them of coming judgment.
8. Jesus gives the parable of the unoccupied house (when an unclean spirit goes out of a man, ... it returns and the last state is worse than the first ...)
What are the core spiritual principles involved?
1. That Jesus' Messiahship was clearly in evidence.
2. That the Pharisees rejected that evidence.
3. That they did this because their HEARTS were wrong.
4. That rejection of the Messiah was going to lead inevitably to judgment.Everything in the passage reinforces these basic principles.
The parable of the strong man shows, as in Mark, that Jesus is not acting in cooperation with Satan. But the really significant thing is the statement in verse 28, where Jesus turns the parable around and asks, "Suppose that I do things by the Spirit of God, and NOT by Satan? What would be the implication?" He emphasizes that that would mean THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAD COME UPON THEM -- i.e., they were being given an amazing opportunity and rejecting it meant rejecting the kingdom of God, meant rejecting the Messiah.
Two verses later, he says "He who is not with Me is against Me". Jesus' point was that the Pharisees HAD to make a choice -- not to accept Him for who He was meant judgment for rejecting Him.
In mentioning the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit He again distinguishes between OTHER blasphemy and that. In particular, He mentions that they can be forgiven for blaspheming against the Son of Man. He emphasizes the eternal nature of blasphemy against the Spirit.
Next, He talked about the way their words proved their hearts were wrong -- and that they needed to repent at a heart level to be right with God. Whatever the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit involves, it is connected with a wrong HEART response to God, not merely the wrong words.
In verses 43-45 He emphasized that men are given a WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY by the grace of God, and if they don't respond as they should during that time, their last state ends up worse than the first. If someone is set free from an unclean spirit, the purpose of that freedom is to lead them to the Holy Spirit, to let Him fill them instead. If they don't let Him have their lives, their is nothing left for them but to relapse back into worse bondage than ever.
Now, look at Luke, then we'll draw some conclusions.
---
Luke 11:14-12:12
The sequence of events:
1. Jesus was teaching and performing miracles, and the crowd marveled.
2. The response of the Pharisees was to say "This man casts out demons by Beelzebub the ruler of the demons."
3. The Pharisees also demanded a sign.
4. Jesus gave the parable of the strong man. In the middle of the parable, we get these words: "But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."
5. Jesus said: "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he does not gather with Me scatters."
6. Jesus gave the parable of the unoccupied house.
7. Jesus said the real blessing comes from obeying God.
8. Jesus reproved that generation for neglecting their opportunity.
9. Jesus gave the parable of the lamp.
10. Jesus reproved the Pharisees for their hypocrisy.
11. Jesus told his disciples to beware the Pharisees.
12. He encouraged them to trust God and not fear the Pharisees.
13. He talked about the importance of standing up for Him."... everyone who confesses me before men, the Son of Man shall confess him also before the angels of God; but he who denies Me before men shall be denied before the angels of God."
14. Now, in this context, Jesus mentioned the unpardonable sin:
"And everyone who will speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him."
What are the core principles?
1. Again, the overall theme is the opportunity that was available to the people and the Pharisees, and their slowness to take it. The Pharisees and the crowd were exhorted to respond with obedience instead of hypocrisy.
2. In chapter 12, the emphasis moves to the difference between true believers -- the disciples -- and the hypocritical Pharisees. Jesus emphasized that the disciples should be bold because it is being right with God that really matters.Verses 8-9 emphasize that our eternal destiny depends on what we do with Christ, and whether we are willing to identify with Him or instead reject Him. Verse 10 clarifies -- even if someone denies the Son of Man, they can be forgiven, but the thing they must not do is to commit the sin of speaking against the Holy Spirit.
---
Conclusions.
First, we have a fundamental question to settle.
Had the Pharisees already committed the unpardonable sin?
They said that Jesus cast out demons by Satan's power, and thus accused Jesus of having "an unclean spirit". Mark makes it clear that it was because of this, and in reference to it, that Jesus made His statement about the unpardonable sin.
When Jesus distinguished between speaking against the Son of Man and speaking against the Holy Spirit, it sounds as though He was giving them a warning -- as though He was saying "Be careful! You may be able to speak against me, and be forgiven -- but you are coming perilously close to speaking against the Holy Spirit, which will not be forgiven."
I think that Jesus was warning the Pharisees, not because they had ALREADY committed the unpardonable sin, but because they were CLOSE to doing so.
That means that merely saying "He is doing that by Satan", while it may have blasphemed Jesus, did not yet really constitute blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Which makes sense -- after all, the Pharisees weren't saying anything wrong about the Holy Spirit Himself, they were merely denying that Jesus was operating by His power.
But I do think the Pharisees were very close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
That means that we know the following.
1. The theme of all three passages was the people's need to respond to the window of opportunity they had to accept Jesus as Messiah.
2. As Matthew emphasized, the real question is not a person's words but his heart.
3. The Pharisees had not committed the unpardonable sin, but they were close to committing it.
4. Speaking against the Spirit was always sharply contrasted with speaking against the Son of Man.Read those again -- carefully!
Let's take the first three points and bring them together. The people had a window of opportunity to respond to Jesus. Because the real question is one of the heart, their response to Jesus needed to be a heart response, not merely a verbal one. The Pharisees were close to committing the unpardonable sin because their hearts were so hard, because down deep they were shutting out the call of God to salvation.
Now why was speaking against the Spirit contrasted with speaking against the Son of Man? We need to remember that to those in that day, Jesus had not yet been revealed as the Second Person of the Trinity. They weren't thinking of Him yet as God in the flesh, but as a man SENT from God. When Jesus said "speaking against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but speaking against the Spirit of God cannot", they heard it as saying "You can reject God's messenger and be forgiven by God, but if you reject God Himself, how can you be forgiven?"
That is, "speaking against the Son of Man" represented an external reaction to the person and ministry of Jesus. "Speaking against the Holy Spirit" represented an internal, heart-level rejection of the work of God in one's life. Jesus was saying "Be careful! It's one thing, Pharisees, to speak against my ministry with your mouths. But if you are simultaneously rejecting the work of God in your hearts, you will have no hope. When you reject my miracles, you are on the verge of rejecting the One who does the miracles. To shut me out, you will have to shut out the Spirit. Every time you slander me, you also harden your heart inwardly against God's purpose for you. You close your window of opportunity. And THAT sin, the sin of rejecting the Spirit's call to salvation, is one for which you can never find forgiveness."
---
Application today:
1. As we witness, we need to be aware of the real issue -- people can reject our church, our moral convictions, our Bible, our Savior -- but all we really see is the angry words on the outside. The real question is what these words show about the state of their hearts. The Holy Spirit is knocking - - are they pushing Him away? Or are they willing to yield? We need to pray that people will have soft hearts before God. We need to warn them (if the timing is appropriate) that their heart response to God goes far beyond whether they accept or reject us as messengers.
It's instructive to consider hell in light of this teaching. The only people in hell will be those who've committed the unpardonable sin. The only unpardonable sin is to reject the forgiveness of God when He offers it by His Spirit. And that's a sin that people commit NOW, in their lifetime on earth, thus sealing their eternal destiny.
2. Clarifications.
a. While it is the inward response to the Spirit that defines the unforgivable sin, yet a person cannot accept salvation inwardly without accepting Christ outwardly. If someone rejects Christ, they show clear evidence that they aren't really saved. "...every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God" -- 1 John 4:4.
b. I'm not sure whether the unpardonable sin can happen in a single moment. Maybe it can. Or maybe it's a process in which a person continually hardens his heart, only reaching the point of no return when he dies.
3. While we as Christians can never commit the unpardonable sin, we can still learn from the principle involved. Whenever I find myself scoffing at someone who claims to speak or act by God's Spirit, I need to ask myself, "Is it possible that I am closing myself off against something God is trying to do?" We need to have open hearts and minds, be willing for God to do things in new ways. See Luke 5:38-39. Once we have searched our hearts and cultivated an open attitude, we have every right to test that person's claims by the Scripture. If they fail the test, we can confidently assume they are not speaking from the Holy Spirit. Wanting to be open doesn't mean I can throw discernment out the window!
In Him,
Kevin Megill
Re: Unpardonable Sin
Posted by Kim Frey on Friday, 20 November 1998, at 8:03 p.m., in response to Unpardonable Sin, posted by Anon for now on Monday, 16 November 1998, at 4:19 p.m.
I also grew up in a Pentecostal church, and had a great fear of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. I've come to understand that we are to have DISCERNMENT when it comes to things of the Spirit. Christians need to be careful not to allow an "anything goes" attitude. The Bible says to try the spirits (I John 4:1). Anything involving the Holy Spirit should give a Christian a feeling of peace, not confusion. God is not the author of confusion. (I Cor. 14:33) The uneasiness you felt may have been the Holy Spirit opening your eyes to error.
Am printing out--now, if you could just explain...
Posted by joni on Saturday, 21 November 1998, at 8:58 a.m., in response to A study of the unpardonable sin, posted by Kevin Megill on Friday, 20 November 1998, at 6:34 p.m.
that "touch not God's anointed" doesn't mean we can't disagree with certain teachings, maybe... I could have a discussion with my cousin who seems to think that any criticism or disagreement with any teaching is a BIG sin! Isn't that statement to be read literally -- it meant not to "physically" attack?
Thanks and God bless.
Joni
If I may say, peace is not the test of whether or not something is true.
Posted by joni on Saturday, 21 November 1998, at 9:08 a.m., in response to Re: Unpardonable Sin, posted by Kim Frey on Friday, 20 November 1998, at 8:03 p.m.
Peace is not the test of whether or not something is true.
I have felt strong, strong feelings of "peace" when involved in new age practices, and others can tell you the same thing. False religion can counterfeit just about every aspect of Christianity. Even "fruit" is not the test. If fruit were the test, I'd be Mormon. Grin!
Yes, Satan can counterfeit "peace" and "fruit"--watch out!
The scripture is the final word on whether on not something is from God.
Hope this doesn't sound too preachy!
God bless.
Joni
I don't agree!! Nothing can 'imitate' the peace of Christ!! HE alone can give me that kind of peace *warm fuzzies* :o) nt
Posted by Nicole WA on Saturday, 21 November 1998, at 9:59 a.m., in response to If I may say, peace is not the test of whether or not something is true., posted by joni on Saturday, 21 November 1998, at 9:08 a.m.
Yes, but...
Posted by William Eaton on Saturday, 21 November 1998, at 11:41 a.m., in response to I don't agree!! Nothing can 'imitate' the peace of Christ!! HE alone can give me that kind of peace *warm fuzzies* :o) nt, posted by Nicole WA on Saturday, 21 November 1998, at 9:59 a.m.
In a sense you are right, ultimately nothing Satan imitates compares with the true peace of God. The same can be said for joy, etc..
But there are multitudes that do experience a type of peace (joy, etc.) that can be quite deceptive, especially if the person isn't familiar with God's true peace. Even if one has experienced the "peace of God" that passes all understanding this isn't a surety that such a person cannot be blinded by sin and accept something far less in a future encounter with Satan's wiles.
No "feeling", no matter how good it feels, should ever be a substitute for a knowledge (and understanding) of what God has already revealed about Himself, via the Scriptures. (As Joni points out!)
What do you think?
btw, Kevin, as usual, you have given us a lot to think about with your note above. I plan to jump in with a couple of questions later!
William
Hi joni . . .
Posted by Catherine on Saturday, 21 November 1998, at 12:02 p.m., in response to If I may say, peace is not the test of whether or not something is true., posted by joni on Saturday, 21 November 1998, at 9:08 a.m.
You said . . .
Even "fruit" is not the test. If fruit were
the test, I'd be Mormon. Grin!Yes, Satan can counterfeit "peace" and "fruit"--watch out!
/////////////////////////////////////////////
I don't completely agree.Jesus said that we would know false prophets by
their fruit. Mt 7: 16 and then again in v. 20.I think the tree analogy in this chapter conveys
the message that fruit takes time to be produced. So looking at the Mormons going door to door and their other individual "good deeds" is not really looking at the longer picture of the "tree" bearing fruit. (my opinion only, BTW)I do agree that Satan counterfeits both fruit and peace and one can certainly believe they are at
"peace" when involved with a counterfeit. However,
there is NO comparison to the peace found from knowing our Savior!God Bless.
Catherine
Thanks for the word, "ultimately" William!!
Posted by joni on Saturday, 21 November 1998, at 12:07 p.m., in response to Yes, but..., posted by William Eaton on Saturday, 21 November 1998, at 11:41 a.m.
The peace that surpasses all understanding is, to me, the peace that I have salvation in my Lord, Jesus Christ. Nothing can take that away from me.
Besides, when we are to test the spirits, aren't we to test them in light of scripture? What is our yardstick to test anything, if it's not the scripture? Surely, it's not our feelings!
That said, I do believe that the Lord wants us to have a deep and abiding sense of peace when we are in His will.
Blessings.
Joni
Hi, Catherine! What do you think of Phil 1: 15-18
Posted by joni on Saturday, 21 November 1998, at 1:04 p.m., in response to Hi joni . . ., posted by Catherine on Saturday, 21 November 1998, at 12:02 p.m.
Interesting discussion, huh?
Matthew chapter 7 also says:
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in YOUR name, and in YOUR name drive out demons and perform many miracles.' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers.'"
I wonder how many followers these prophets had who were also calling on the name of the Lord. It's human nature to seek after signs and miracles, so they may have had large followings, yet Jesus clearly states that these prophets were not saved.
Was the doctrine sound enough that their followers were saved?I find Philippians 1 15-18 also rather interesting.
"It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former PREACH CHRIST OUT OF SELFISH AMBITION, NOT SINCERELY, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this, I rejoice."
I think these two passages of scripture indicate that it is possible to produce fruit out of selfish ambition or false motives (A tree NOT right with God.). After all, Paul says that the gospel IS being preached. I think we can assume from that statement that people are probably being saved. But if the teachers' hearts are not right with God, I believe (my opinion only) that it's only a matter of time before their doctrines are so perverted that they are unable to bring their followers to the saving grace of Christ.
I believe fruit is one evidence of a right relationship with God. I also believe sound doctrine is another evidence. If a man is truly filled with the Holy Spirit his doctrine should line up with Scripture! Sure, we can disagree on the finer points of theology (human MISunderstanding?!!!), but the Holy Spirit will not allow us to drift too far away, in my opinion.
You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. Titus 2:1
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. 1 Timothy 4:16
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Acts 17:11Just my ramblings on an interesting discussion!
Blessings!
Joni
I most definitely agree, in addition to the peace God gives me...
Posted by Nicole WA on Saturday, 21 November 1998, at 2:31 p.m., in response to Yes, but..., posted by William Eaton on Saturday, 21 November 1998, at 11:41 a.m.
about certain issues in *my* life, I must constantly run it by His Word. For me, God has given me a sense of peace about things, that cannot be mistaken for any wiles of the devil. I still run it by His Word :o) I agree that people who have not experienced this peace find it in other aspects of life.....drugs, sex, money and other tricks of Satan. I thank the Lord daily that I know who He is, and pray for those who do not. It truly saddens me to know there are people who have not experienced the love, peace and joy that God offers freely :o)
God bless you, Nicole
Re: If I may say, peace is not the test of whether or not something is true.
Posted by Kim Frey on Saturday, 21 November 1998, at 7:41 p.m., in response to If I may say, peace is not the test of whether or not something is true., posted by joni on Saturday, 21 November 1998, at 9:08 a.m.
I agree we need to use the Bible as our ultimate measuring stick! We're all Christians here...I hope:-) Yes, there are lots of other religions proclaiming peace, even "salvation." Satan's tactics include counterfeiting everything that God offers to His people. My point was just because something happens in a church doesn't make it godly, and we are supposed to weigh what goes on according to His Word. I feel I Cor. Chapter 14 gives a good explanation of how the Holy Spirit is supposed to move in the Church.
A little logic
Posted by Steve on Sunday, 22 November 1998, at 1:19 p.m., in response to Unpardonable Sin, posted by Anon for now on Monday, 16 November 1998, at 4:19 p.m.
Consider the following.
If the unpardonable sin is to attribute to some work of God the work of the Devil, and if we are instructed to "try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone into the world." (I John 4:1), then our salvation is hanging by the tenuous thread of one wrong judgment.
If we do follow the instructions to test everything, and if we are all human and thus fallible, then there is a good likelihood that in the course of our lives we will, at least once, make such an error. Consequently, no one would be saved.
Some would argue that we are not ever to question those in authority. However, if we do not "try the spirits", "many shall follow their pernicious ways." (II Peter 2:1,2)
Surely nothing can separate us from the love of God (Rom. 8:38,39) or pluck us out of His hand.(John 10:29)
My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness.
Re: A study of the unpardonable sin-- Another perspective
Posted by William Eaton on Tuesday, 24 November 1998, at 10:40 p.m., in response to A study of the unpardonable sin, posted by Kevin Megill on Friday, 20 November 1998, at 6:34 p.m.
Hi Kevin,
You certainly pull out the stops when you decide to do a study!
I have a few disagreements... (don't I always? *g*) but this is a pretty important topic and I'm sure that there are many who may want to jump in with their thoughts.
--for Kevin's complete study...
At 10:18 PM 11/22/98 , you wrote:
>Amen! I agree with Valerie that the unpardonable sin is "to reject the
>saving grace of Jesus Christ once it has been made real to you".I believe that the reasons for my disagreements stem from your premise. I think that it is a mistake to assume that just because a sin was not pardoned, that makes it unpardonable. Unpardonable/unforgivable doesn't mean unpardoned or unforgiven. In other words there are sins that may go unpardoned because of a lack of repentance, but certainly these sins can not be equated with an *unpardonable* sin which by it's very nature is unpardonable.
Anyway, that is the premise I start with but I'll go through your note and comment individually on each of your points.
>Passages to look at:
>
>Matthew 12:22-45 (the unpardonable sin is mentioned in verses 31-32). Mark
>3:20-30 (the unpardonable sin is mentioned in verses 28-30). Luke
>11:14-12:12 (the unpardonable sin is mentioned in verse 10).First, let me skip over most of your summary. I agree with your heart/mouth emphasis (it's not just words but the heart behind the words...) and your general layout.
>That means that merely saying "He is doing that by Satan", while it may
>have blasphemed Jesus, did not yet really constitute blasphemy of the Holy
>Spirit. Which makes sense -- after all, the Pharisees weren't saying
>anything wrong about the Holy Spirit Himself, they were merely denying that
>Jesus was operating by His power.Actually I believe that they were... they were charging the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil. This is brought out in each of the passages. The things that Jesus was doing were not being done in His humanity, it was through the power of the Holy Spirit.
>Speaking against
>the Spirit was always sharply contrasted with speaking against the Son of
>Man.Exactly! Wasn't this the reason He spoke of the unpardonable sin? Maybe they had committed it, maybe not, but it seems a pointless exercise to bring up the subject unless what was happening was an example of the unpardonable sin.
>Let's take the first three points and bring them together. The people had a
>window of opportunity to respond to Jesus. Because the real question is one
>of the heart, their response to Jesus needed to be a heart response, not
>merely a verbal one. The Pharisees were close to committing the
>unpardonable sin because their hearts were so hard, because down deep they
>were shutting out the call of God to salvation.Here again, He doesn't chide them for rejecting His message but it was the *works* that the Holy Spirit was accomplishing that they were speaking against. He explains the unpardonable sin to them after they claimed His *works* were satanically motivated.
>Now why was speaking against the Spirit contrasted with speaking against
>the Son of Man? We need to remember that to those in that day, Jesus had
>not yet been revealed as the Second Person of the Trinity. They weren't
>thinking of Him yet as God in the flesh, but as a man SENT from God. When
>Jesus said "speaking against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but speaking
>against the Spirit of God cannot", they heard it as saying "You can reject
>God's messenger and be forgiven by God, but if you reject God Himself, how
>can you be forgiven?"
>
>That is, "speaking against the Son of Man" represented an external reaction
>to the person and ministry of Jesus. "Speaking against the Holy Spirit"
>represented an internal, heart-level rejection of the work of God in one's
>life. Jesus was saying "Be careful! It's one thing, Pharisees, to speak
>against my ministry with your mouths. But if you are simultaneously
>rejecting the work of God in your hearts, you will have no hope. When you
>reject my miracles, you are on the verge of rejecting the One who does the
>miracles. To shut me out, you will have to shut out the Spirit. Every time
>you slander me, you also harden your heart inwardly against God's purpose
>for you. You close your window of opportunity. And THAT sin, the sin of
>rejecting the Spirit's call to salvation, is one for which you can never
>find forgiveness."Every supernatural thing that Jesus did was motivated by the Holy Spirit of God... therefore anyone who claimed that those supernatural works were Satan inspired were guilty of the unpardonable sin. They could reject His message all day long and still be able to obtain forgiveness--apparently many did-- but those who saw the supernatural power of the Spirit and charged it to Satan had committed the unpardonable sin. At least I don't see any other reason for Him bringing the issue up. Am I missing something here?
>Application today:
>
>1. As we witness, we need to be aware of the real issue -- people can
>reject our church, our moral convictions, our Bible, our Savior -- but all
>we really see is the angry words on the outside. The real question is what
>these words show about the state of their hearts. The Holy Spirit is
>knocking - - are they pushing Him away? Or are they willing to yield? We
>need to pray that people will have soft hearts before God. We need to warn
>them (if the timing is appropriate) that their heart response to God goes
>far beyond whether they accept or reject us as messengers.I realize that it is hard to apply the message today, because we don't have many operating in the supernatural power of the Spirit. But I believe that the same standard applies to any minister of the Gospel operating under the power of the Holy Spirit-- if he casts out demons, heals the sick, raises the dead, etc.-- and someone attributes the power to Satan, then the Holy Spirit has been blasphemed and there isn't any hope of repentance. (Do I really need to put a disclaimer here about discernment and Mt 7:21?)
>It's instructive to consider hell in light of this teaching. The only
>people in hell will be those who've committed the unpardonable sin. The
>only unpardonable sin is to reject the forgiveness of God when He offers it
>by His Spirit. And that's a sin that people commit NOW, in their lifetime
>on earth, thus sealing their eternal destiny.Only if your premise is correct. I think that there will be many in hell that will be there for sins that Jesus would have pardoned if only they would have repented.
>I'm not sure whether the unpardonable sin can happen in a single moment.
>Maybe it can. Or maybe it's a process in which a person continually hardens
>his heart, only reaching the point of no return when he dies.The unpardonable sin is by its very nature a one-time sin. There cannot be a process involved. If at some point (during the process) a person could change, then they certainly haven't committed the unpardonable sin. When the sin is committed, it's over.
>3. While we as Christians can never commit the unpardonable sin, we can
>still learn from the principle involved.Well, I guess that would be another discussion, but for now I'll just say that it seems possible for a Christian to apostatize and speak against the Holy Spirit, but there will be those who contend that they never were Christians to begin with. Oh well, a good place to end. *grin*
I know you've been super busy with James (I'm still trying to find time to digest it all) so respond at your convenience.
William
P.S. Due to lack of time...
Posted by William Eaton on Wednesday, 25 November 1998, at 8:08 a.m., in response to Re: A study of the unpardonable sin-- Another perspective, posted by William Eaton on Tuesday, 24 November 1998, at 10:40 p.m.
By the way, Kevin, often when dealing with doctrinal issues, I post a general response and don't always add all the personal comments to "soften" my message or disagreements. *grin* But just for the record, as always, I really respect and appreciate you!
William
Re: A study of the unpardonable sin-- Another perspective
Posted by Steve on Wednesday, 25 November 1998, at 8:33 a.m., in response to Re: A study of the unpardonable sin-- Another perspective, posted by William Eaton on Tuesday, 24 November 1998, at 10:40 p.m.
William,
How would you handle the dilemma arising from the fact that we are to try the spirits and be on our guard against false prophets. It sounds to me as though you're saying a Christian who made one erroneous judgment would have committed the unpardonable sin and thus would lose his salvation. (I am assuming your definition of the type of judgment that would be risky.) I believe we are all still fallible (until our sanctification is complete), and consequently liable to err, at least on occasion. Is your solution that we refrain from making any such judgments? I would think frauds would welcome this solution. It is clear from your "Christian lobotomy" post that you believe we should be discerning. Do you not think a Christian could make an "honest mistake" in such a case?
Steve
Re: A study of the unpardonable sin-- Another perspective
Posted by William Eaton on Wednesday, 25 November 1998, at 11:38 a.m., in response to Re: A study of the unpardonable sin-- Another perspective, posted by Steve on Wednesday, 25 November 1998, at 8:33 a.m.
Hi Steve,
Actually I believe that is possible to make a judgment in ignorance and not be guilty, but having said that, I wouldn't encourage anyone to jump to conclusions about the source of supernatural activity without first making sure about their judgment. Those that Jesus referred to were not babies in the faith... they were leaders who knew--or at least should have known-- the implications of their words.
Like I alluded to in my post, there will be those who cast out demons and perform miracles, who are doing it by Satan's power. (Mt 7, Rev. 12, etc.) So my note in no way should encourage a lack of discernment. Just be sure you KNOW before you speak.
Kevin mentioned that it isn't just the words, but from the heart that these blasphemies come, and imo if the heart is so blinded to the truth of the workings of the Holy Spirit, then this wouldn't be an off the cuff pronouncement based upon a casual observation, but a heartfelt judgment that a person has taken.
If you are asking me where the line is to be drawn, I don't know, but I would strongly suggest that a person should not be referring to situations without a clear understanding of the consequences, lest they be guilty.
In the same context Jesus says:
(Mat 12:36-37 KJV) But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Scary huh?
It's worth noting that the miracles that were being done were by nature designed to prove the validity of the Messiah, so there wouldn't be "questionable" miracles, or a mixed signal generated between message and miracle as might be the case with other ministries.
What do you think?
William
Re: I was always taught...
Posted by caroline in Ca on Thursday, 26 November 1998, at 7:45 a.m., in response to Re: A study of the unpardonable sin-- Another perspective, posted by William Eaton on Wednesday, 25 November 1998, at 11:38 a.m.
The unpardonable sin was ignoring the Holy Spirit resulting in the *ultimate* failure to accept Jesus Christ as our Savior during our lifetime.
The preacher was wrong...
Posted by William Eaton on Thursday, 26 November 1998, at 9:04 a.m., in response to Re: I was always taught..., posted by caroline in Ca on Thursday, 26 November 1998, at 7:45 a.m.
If this is the case then you don't have an "unpardonable" sin, only "unpardoned" sins.
Blasphemy is something that must be actively engaged in, ignoring the Holy Spirit (however reprehensible) is passive, and in no way could be considered blasphemy.
What do you think?
William
The rock and the cliff
Posted by Steve on Thursday, 26 November 1998, at 4:24 p.m., in response to Re: A study of the unpardonable sin-- Another perspective, posted by William Eaton on Wednesday, 25 November 1998, at 11:38 a.m.
William,
I appreciate what you wrote concerning idle words. James (3:3-12) also warns us to be on our guard about what we say, and judging (anyone) is a serious matter (Matt. 7:1-5). We are, however, instructed to try the spirits and to be on our guard against false prophets. We both realize that one's position on the doctrine of eternal security is relevant to this discussion, and that we are on opposite sides of that question (we need not debate that now).
The question that began this thread was not only about the unpardonable sin. It was about a Christian and the unpardonable sin. A Christian's hope is not in what he or she can do, but in Christ who is faithful. The image I have of our salvation is that we are firmly planted in the middle of the Rock. Nothing can separate us from God or pluck us out of His hand. We still have our free will and will commit sin (though we expect that our lives will not be characterized by sin). In some cases God will chastize the wayward child, just as we chastize our own children, but He will not forsake them. When I imagine your position, I see us instructed to go to the edge of a cliff ("try the spirits"). With one false step we tumble into the bottomless pit.
Steve
P.S. I hope I didn't misrepresent your position; it was not meant to be a caricature.
Accidental Apostasy? God's hand=Slippery Slope? I think not!
Posted by William Eaton on Friday, 27 November 1998, at 9:23 a.m., in response to The rock and the cliff, posted by Steve on Thursday, 26 November 1998, at 4:24 p.m.
Hi Steve,
I was too stuffed last night to respond so maybe I'll do it this morning before diving into the leftovers!
At 05:24 PM 11/26/98 , you wrote:
>I appreciate what you wrote concerning idle words. James (3:3-12)
>also warns us to be on our guard about what we say, and judging (anyone)
>is a serious matter (Matt. 7:1-5). We are, however, instructed to
>try the spirits and to be on our guard against false prophets. We
>both realize that one's position on the doctrine of eternal security
>is relevant to this discussion, and that we are on opposite sides
>of that question (we need not debate that now).This brings us to an apparent paradox: On the one hand, we have the "eternal security" of the believer -- and on the other hand, we have the Bible, much of which is concerned with warnings to be on guard against being led astray.
I don't think that any of my statements go beyond the warnings that are found in Scripture.
My first note didn't mention the unpardonable sin, except to assure the lady that she had not committed it, primarily because she had not blasphemed the Holy Spirit. I don't think you have a problem with that.
My other note dealt specifically with Kevin's study on the unpardonable sin, did you disagree with something there?
>The question that began this thread was not only about the unpardonable
>sin. It was about a Christian and the unpardonable sin.It was also about the propriety of questioning an event that had happened in Church. Most of my reply dealt with that-- did you disagree with something there?
>The image I have of our salvation is that we are firmly planted in
>the middle of the Rock. Nothing can separate us from God or pluck
>us out of His hand. We still have our free will and will commit sin
>(though we expect that our lives will not be characterized by sin).
>In some cases God will chastize the wayward child, just as we chastize
>our own children, but He will not forsake them. When I imagine your
>position, I see us instructed to go to the edge of a cliff ("try the
>spirits"). With one false step we tumble into the bottomless pit.The problem is with the analogy. Your image (the Rock) doesn't seem to need the warnings of blasphemy (or the other warnings of Scripture for that matter). As far as your representation of my position, it certainly doesn't fit.
Your analogy made it sound easy to blaspheme the Holy Spirit ("one false step...") -- that couldn't be farther from the truth! In fact, if one accepts the position that blasphemy is more than the spoken word (and I've done nothing but reinforce this idea) and is a matter of the heart, then it would be impossible for the *believer* to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Only an *unbeliever* could possibly blaspheme the very source of his salvation.
It is not an easy thing to change the heart. (Which makes salvation so miraculous!) Unbelievers can certainly *say* "Jesus is Lord", but getting them to *believe* "Jesus is Lord", is quite another task. The cliff of the heart doesn't have too many leap-off points!
People say all of the time that they are capable of believing (remember, heartfelt belief is what we've been talking about) whatever they choose, but they are mistaken. An example:
Suppose I told you George Washington never existed. You've never experienced George Washington with your physical senses. You've never seen him, never heard him, yet you *believe* he existed. Now if one were a master of his own will, he should be able to choose to believe George Washington never existed, but I say it would be nearly impossible for one to believe George Washington never existed. It's possible, but highly unlikely. Of course one could *say* "I don't believe George Washington existed" but it would ring hollow given the state of his heart.
Certainly it would be easier for one to believe George Washington never existed than it would be for a *BELIEVER* in Jesus Christ-- A "BELIEVER* in the workings of the Holy Spirit-- to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. So when you equate my position with one who is "one step" away from destruction, you err greatly.
In the notes I've posted on this topic, I've done nothing more than warn, in the same way the Bible warns, against foolish activities like blaspheming the Holy Spirit -- and encourage Christians not to fear to practice godly discernment concerning ministries and practices in the church.
Perhaps you assumed that questioning the activities of a minister was in some way related to blasphemy as did the woman in her first note? If I haven't been clear to this point, let me vehemently deny that assumption. In fact, I didn't even see the necessity of dealing with the "unpardonable sin" aspect of her note because of it's irrelevancy.
Questioning something you aren't sure about is not the same thing as pronouncing Satan as the source of an activity. The very fact that you place Satan as the source, indicates, not a questioning heart, but a sure heart --a heart that is confident of its position. This is okay if an activity or ministry is not of the Holy Spirit, but if it is, then it is blasphemy. In other words, we need to be sure we are sensitive to the Holy Spirit and not reacting foolishly. (By the way, I *do* pronounce Satan as the source of some activities and don't hesitate to do so when I am *sure* about it.)
The Bible is written to Christians.
The Bible warns against blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
William warns against blaspheming the Holy Spirit. *grin*Now we can, and should, debate what blaspheming the Holy Spirit is, but I don't think that its relevancy to Christians should be dismissed so quickly -- if my position is correct.
Sure, it is important to warn against hardening the heart against God's grace and mercy, but to equate this with blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (unpardonable sin) seems contrived.
If, however, it is true that the unpardonable sin is charging the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil (as I contend) then it would be foolish (imo) not to warn Christians to take heed. The Bible does the same thing when it warns Christians to be wary of deceivers, false teaching, etc..
At least that's the way I see it.
Thanks for jumping in, I look forward to your response at your convenience!
William
Re: Christian lobotomy?
Posted by Jennifer on Friday, 27 November 1998, at 2:10 p.m., in response to Christian lobotomy?, posted by William Eaton on Wednesday, 18 November 1998, at 12:04 a.m.
What exactly do you think it means to "Blaspheme the Holy Spirit?" We have been having a discussion on that in S.S. Just wondering what your thoughts are!
Thanks,
Jennifer
Re: Christian lobotomy?
Posted by William Eaton on Friday, 27 November 1998, at 2:24 p.m., in response to Re: Christian lobotomy?, posted by Jennifer on Friday, 27 November 1998, at 2:10 p.m.
Read on Sister! *grin* There are a few notes below that deal with this issue. (And I suspect there will be more!)
William
Re: A study of the unpardonable sin
Posted by Peggy K. on Saturday, 28 November 1998, at 6:11 a.m., in response to A study of the unpardonable sin, posted by Kevin Megill on Friday, 20 November 1998, at 6:34 p.m.
Kevin,
How are you doing? I haven't been around much lately, but popped in to see what was happenin'.
I'm am not entirely sure what constitutes the "unpardonable sin", but was wondering how these two statements of yours are consistent with one another.
You said: "I agree with Valerie that the unpardonable sin is 'to reject the saving grace of Jesus Christ once it has been made real to you'...
3. While we as Christians can never commit the unpardonable sin, we can still learn from the principle involved."
In Christ,
Peggy
Re: Explaining apparently contradictory statements
Posted by Kate Megill on Saturday, 28 November 1998, at 3:34 p.m., in response to Re: A study of the unpardonable sin, posted by Peggy K. on Saturday, 28 November 1998, at 6:11 a.m.
Hi and welcome back!
I didn't mean anything mysterious or deep.
When I quoted Valerie, saying the unpardonable sin was to "reject the saving grace of Jesus Christ once it has been made real to you", I had in mind a man who UNDERSTANDS the gospel clearly, but REJECTS it and refuses to believe. It was real to him in its clarity, but he never surrendered to it. Under this interpretation, there's no contradiction in saying that a Christian can't commit the unforgiveable sin.
I don't know if Valerie meant the same thing, of course.
Did I misunderstand you? Was there another contradiction I don't even see? :-)
In Him,
Kevin Megill
Once Saved, Always Saved?
Posted by William Eaton on Saturday, 28 November 1998, at 5:54 p.m., in response to Re: A study of the unpardonable sin, posted by Peggy K. on Saturday, 28 November 1998, at 6:11 a.m.
Hi Peggy, (and All)
Great to have you back!
I don't mean to speak for Kevin or Steve, but it seems to be the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" that keeps one from a straightforward interpretation of these passages.
If it were not for that doctrinal bias, doesn't the literal text suggest what I've shared? Perhaps I'm wrong, or not seeing it clearly but this seems that way to me.
For example, put yourself in the shoes of those hearing the message of Jesus Christ -- wouldn't it have been natural to conclude that Jesus' statement was a warning to all who would charge the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan? Or would the assumption be that Jesus wasn't talking to them, because, after all, they were elect?
Maybe I'm asking the wrong person this question (actually I've never heard you espouse that it is impossible for one to fall away) but I do know that you have a background that stresses the sovereignty of God. I, too, strongly believe in the sovereignty of God, but I'm not encumbered with the notion of "once saved, always saved" which seems (to my finite understanding) to be the sticky point in this discussion.
Personally, I've never had a problem believing that we have a responsibility for our actions, a "free will", at least a limited freedom, which becomes the basis for our accountability before God.
Limited before regeneration because of our sinful nature -- we could choose how big of a sinner we wanted to be! But once the Spirit of Christ came in regeneration, did our "will" simply switch sides and become at once incapable of rejecting Christ? Didn't it become "more free", if you get my drift?
In other words, do we become incapable of rebellion once regenerated? Are we locked into our regenerated state (a great place to be!) regardless of our volition?
I do believe totally in the security of the *believer* from God's side (His promises are immutable!), He has promised it, and we can rest in His offered security. However, I don't believe that after having received that free gift of God, one is rendered *incapable* of giving up the faith.
To me, it is inconceivable that all of the warnings in Scripture are table dressings that really aren't needed after one is "saved". I do understand that many believe that the warnings are given for our *temporal* well being, but it seems that many of the warnings go beyond our present state and have a bearing upon our eternal well being as well.
I don't want anyone to get the idea that we are "one false step" from destruction for reasons I've already given, but it seems *possible*, (however remotely) to reject the blessings of an Eternally Faithful Father, and return, like the dog to its own vomit. (2 Pet 2:20-22--SEE BELOW)
I know that the easy answer is to say that such a person never received it in the first place, but if so, then "eternal security" is a moot point anyway. e.g. If John received Christ at age 12 and to all appearances, lived all his life professing to be a Christian who loved and served God -- then 40 years later "falls away" by rejecting God and denying Him before others -- is it really satisfactory to say that he never knew Christ? If so, the doctrine of "eternal security" didn't mean much for him if it could be so easily explained away.
If it is so easy to be deceived into thinking that one is a Christian, then who can ever be sure that they have made a real decision? To me there is much more security in knowing that God will never forsake me, nothing can separate me from Him, no one can pluck me from His hand -- as long as my heart is toward Him, He will even work in me to will and do His good pleasure. (Phil 2:13) He enables me to walk consistently with Him. This creates in me an unwavering desire to *always* serve Him and never want to jump out of His Hand.
That, my friends, is true eternal security!
William
(2 Pet 2:20-22 KJV) "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."
Re: A study of the unpardonable sin-- Another perspective
Posted by Kevin Megill on Saturday, 28 November 1998, at 5:59 p.m., in response to Re: A study of the unpardonable sin-- Another perspective, posted by William Eaton on Tuesday, 24 November 1998, at 10:40 p.m.
Hi William,
I appreciate your comments and along with you I welcome anyone else who might want to jump in with their own thoughts on this passage. Ultimately, you and I may have to simply agree to disagree on this! I understand your position a little better, and I think it's a logical one. (I think mine's logical too, of course! *grin* ).
I've already said my say (in great detail!) and I don't have much to add, except to respond to a couple of points where I may not have made my meaning clear enough.
1. I wrote:
"I agree with Valerie that the unpardonable sin is 'to reject the saving grace of Jesus Christ once it has been made real to you'."
You wrote:
"I think that it is a mistake to assume that just because a sin was not pardoned, that makes it unpardonable. Unpardonable/unforgivable doesn't mean unpardoned or unforgiven. In other words there are sins that may go unpardoned because of a lack of repentance, but certainly these sins can not be equated with an *unpardonable* sin which by it's very nature is unpardonable."
My response:
I don't believe I'm confusing unpardoned with unpardonable. Those in hell will have committed several sins -- all of them unpardoned -- but only one which was also unpardonable, the sin of rejecting salvation.
2. I wrote:
"That means that merely saying 'He is doing that by Satan', while it may have blasphemed Jesus, did not yet really constitute blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Which makes sense -- after all, the Pharisees weren't saying anything wrong about the Holy Spirit Himself, they were merely denying that Jesus was operating by His power."
You wrote:
"Actually I believe that they were... they were charging the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil. This is brought out in each of the passages. The things that Jesus was doing were not being done in His humanity, it was through the power of the Holy Spirit."
My response:
I agree that what Jesus was doing was IN FACT being done by the Holy Spirit -- but the Pharisees didn't know that (albeit due to their own hardhearted unbelief). In their hearts, they had no INTENTION of blaspheming the Spirit of God Himself, but only the man Jesus whom they did not recognize as being divine, nor as being empowered by the Holy Spirit. The question is whether their careless words, motivated by hard-hearted unbelief but not deliberately intended by them to be blasphemy, were an example of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, or only an example of blaspheming the Son of Man.
3. I wrote:
"Speaking against the Spirit was always sharply contrasted with speaking against the Son of Man."
You wrote:
"Exactly! Wasn't this the reason He spoke of the unpardonable sin? Maybe they had committed it, maybe not, but it seems a pointless exercise to bring up the subject unless what was happening was an example of the unpardonable sin."
My response:
Was I that unclear? My position is that Jesus brought up the unpardonable sin because THEY WERE IN DANGER OF COMMITTING IT. Hardly a pointless exercise!
In turn, may I ask you a similar question: under your interpretation, is there any distinction between blaspheming the Son of Man and blaspheming the Holy Spirit? Why bring up blasphemy against the Son of Man? Why distinguish between the two?
4. You wrote:
"... He doesn't chide them for rejecting His message but it was the *works* that the Holy Spirit was accomplishing that they were speaking against. He explains the unpardonable sin to them after they claimed His *works* were satanically motivated."
Certainly it was His WORKS they were rejecting, and not His message per se. But in the same context, Jesus emphasized the need for people to go beyond the works and recognize the MEANING BEHIND the works. His miracles were God's way of getting their attention, of telling them that the Messiah had arrived, the Kingdom was at hand.
To blaspheme the works -- which they were doing -- was to blaspheme the Son of Man, and could be forgiven. To blaspheme the God who tried to speak to them in those works was to commit an unpardonable sin.
5. You wrote:
"Every supernatural thing that Jesus did was motivated by the Holy Spirit of God... therefore anyone who claimed that those supernatural works were Satan inspired were guilty of the unpardonable sin. ..."
My response:
As I explained above, my position would be that since the Pharisees did not know that Jesus was motivated by the Holy Spirit of God, their intentions weren't blasphemous against the Spirit, and I believe that keeps this from being an example of the unforgiveable sin.and you continued:
"... those who saw the supernatural power of the Spirit and charged it to Satan had committed the unpardonable sin. At least I don't see any other reason for Him bringing the issue up. Am I missing something here?"
As I mentioned above, the reason for bringing up the issue is because they were in danger of committing it.
6. You wrote:
"I realize that it is hard to apply the message today, because we don't have many operating in the supernatural power of the Spirit."
My response:
This is NOT at all central to this discussion, but I would say this differently. I think we have many operating in the supernatural power of the Spirit, doing quite "ordinary" things like serving and teaching and giving unselfishly. But we don't have many using that supernatural power to do signs and miracles. Would you agree?
7. You wrote:
"The unpardonable sin is by its very nature a one-time sin. There cannot be a process involved."
I'm not certain of this, but I don't mind assuming it for the sake of argument from now on.
8. Now let me ask you a question. I think I understand your position, and it is the one I would take if I weren't taking mine! But there is an awkward and obvious question -- if God loves us so much then WHY is there a sin He won't forgive? My interpretation answers this satisfactorily -- although I want to go on record as saying that even if we DON'T understand why, we still have to take the Word of God as it is, without softening or changing it to conform to our understanding. But I'd like to know: do you have an answer for this question, under your interpretation?
In Him,
and with respect and appreciation for you too (*grin*),
KevinP.S. Just how DO you spell unforgiveable / unforgivable?
Re: A study of the unpardonable sin-- Another perspective
Posted by William Eaton on Saturday, 28 November 1998, at 6:36 p.m., in response to Re: A study of the unpardonable sin-- Another perspective, posted by Kevin Megill on Saturday, 28 November 1998, at 5:59 p.m.
Hi Kevin,
You wrote:
""As I explained above, my position would be that since the Pharisees did not know that Jesus was motivated by the Holy Spirit of God, their intentions weren't blasphemous against the Spirit, and I believe that keeps this from being an example of the unforgivable sin. ""
My response:
They *absolutely* knew that what He was doing was not *humanly* possible, that was why they charged Him with doing it via Satan's power. So I don't see how in any way it would be possible that they were simply rejecting the "man" Jesus.
You wrote:
""This is NOT at all central to this discussion, but I would say this differently. I think we have many operating in the supernatural power of the Spirit, doing quite "ordinary" things like serving and teaching and giving unselfishly. But we don't have many using that supernatural power to do signs and miracles. Would you agree? ""
I don't see that "ordinary" is equated with "supernatural". Miracles, signs, wonders, casting out demons, raising the dead, are supernatural and can only be accomplished via the Holy Spirit, or by some other "supernatural" power.
Concerning the rest of your statements, I'm sure we may end up disagreeing, but I honestly don't see how that you can equate "unforgiven" and "unforgivable".
He says: (Mat 12:32 KJV) "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."
Why contrast this world with the world to come?
Do you believe that there are people walking around right now that are unforgivable? Or that have committed the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit?
I guess my next question would be-- is blasphemy and rejection the same thing? You seem to be saying that rejection of the grace of Christ is blasphemy. I just don't see how the two can be equated.
I appreciate your (and Steve's) willingness to discuss this, and I hope that I don't sound too adversarial. I'm rethinking all that I've ever thought about this issue!
William
A concession and an answer
Posted by William Eaton on Saturday, 28 November 1998, at 6:48 p.m., in response to Re: A study of the unpardonable sin-- Another perspective, posted by Kevin Megill on Saturday, 28 November 1998, at 5:59 p.m.
You said:
""Was I that unclear? My position is that Jesus brought up the unpardonable sin because THEY WERE IN DANGER OF COMMITTING IT. Hardly a pointless exercise!""
My pathetic admission: *grin*
You are right -- I concede this point!
You said:
""In turn, may I ask you a similar question: under your interpretation, is there any distinction between blaspheming the Son of Man and blaspheming the Holy Spirit? Why bring up blasphemy against the Son of Man? Why distinguish between the two?""
I thought that Jesus made it clear that there *was* a clear distinction between the two. Blaspheme Jesus (people do it all of the time) and you can obtain forgiveness, blaspheme the Holy Spirit and you'll never obtain forgiveness in this life or in the life to come.
(Mat 12:32 KJV) "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."
William
Re: I never learned much from preachers...
Posted by caroline in Ca on Sunday, 29 November 1998, at 8:26 a.m., in response to The preacher was wrong..., posted by William Eaton on Thursday, 26 November 1998, at 9:04 a.m.
my attention span was too short and I am too distractible...but...
I dont think salvation is "forgiven sins" as such. We can still have salvation without having asked forgiveness for each sin we commit. Jesus died once for our overwhelming state of being in *sin*. The sin we were born into.
I do need to go back and look at the passages again...I want to say that in all cases, when Jesus was talking about the *unpardonable sin* he was talking to unbelievers (I am putting pharasees in the unbelieving group) but in the back of my mind, there seems to be something in Hebrews(?). so, I will come back to this if it hasnt scrolled off!
Re: Explaining apparently contradictory statements
Posted by Peggy K. on Sunday, 29 November 1998, at 10:57 a.m., in response to Re: Explaining apparently contradictory statements, posted by Kate Megill on Saturday, 28 November 1998, at 3:34 p.m.
Hi Kevin,
You said: "When I quoted Valerie, saying the unpardonable sin was to "reject
the saving grace of Jesus Christ once it has been made real to you",
I had in mind a man who UNDERSTANDS the gospel clearly, but REJECTS
it and refuses to believe..."Ok, that's where I misunderstood what you meant. In my mind something is not "made real" or made a "reality" unless one submits or surrenders oneself to it's concept. One can "understand" something without accepting it as a reality. So when you said "made real", I thought you meant when someone surrenders to the reality of the concept of the saving grace of Christ (which in my mind means the point of conversion).
You asked: "Did I misunderstand you? Was there another contradiction I don't even
see? :-)"Nope. It was only that one thing. :-)
Hope you and your family had a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday!
Grace and peace,
Peggy
"I agree with what Valerie said" ;D
Posted by Valerie on Wednesday, 2 December 1998, at 2:42 a.m.
Wow! Haven't had time to pop in here for a few days and all the posts sure got me thinking about what it was I had said!
I believe the unpardonable sin is clearly explained in Hebrews 6:1-6.
In particular, Heb. 6:4-6 "For it is imppossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they cruicify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."
Clearly - after having the truth of the gospel revealed to us to the point where we actually taste this heavenly gift - and then reject it, this then becomes unpardonable because there is nothing further that can be done.
Only the Holy Spirit can reveal the fulness of this gospel to us. I certainly have tried to the best of my ability to help people understand, and for reasons I can not fathom, some do and others do not. The only conclusion I can draw is the one that lines up with the Word (funny, how that works!) and that is that the Holy Spirit is the only one who can reveal the full truth about Jesus to us!
Blaspheming the Son of Man, would not qualify, I do not think, because Jesus said He did not come to condemn, but to save. Many blaspheme Jesus and then come to repentance. To have the truth revealed by the Holy Spirit - not just be witnessed to and never understand, but actually come to a saving knowledge, and then utterly reject it down in one's heart - that would do it.
I think the reason He said it to the pharisees was because He knew what was in their hearts. He knew that they knew the truth in their hearts about Him and yet they chose to lie and give the credit to Satan. As priests they more than anyone should have been able to recognize the Messiah by the prophesies being fulfilled - and then when the Holy Spirit is demonstrated as being with Him through miracles, I believe those to whom He spoke *knew* the truth - yet were chosing to reject it. In His mercy, Jesus warned them to not pursue this course.In my own life, I repented, tasted that freedom for about a week, and then promptly had a good dose of the law dumped all over me for the next few years. I rejected it, and all I had learned about God. Anyone looking at the path I started walking for the next year or two would certainly have surmised I was "backslidden" and that I had rejected God. Yet, in my heart - which only He knew, I was crying to know this Jesus which I felt I had had a glimpse of, but Who went against everything I had been taught. In my "rebellion" the Holy Spirit was able to show me the wonderful, truth.
Had I rejected Jesus? No. Only the false one I had been given. He alone could have judged my heart then. Good thing!Anyway, there's what Valerie meant!
Love, Valerie
Blasphemy-Apostasy-Ignoring Christ (Three distinct experiences)
Posted by William Eaton on Thursday, 3 December 1998, at 5:40 p.m., in response to "I agree with what Valerie said" ;D, posted by Valerie on Wednesday, 2 December 1998, at 2:42 a.m.
Hi Valerie,
So you are the one who started this! *grin*
I wondered how long it would be until the Hebrews passage/s were brought into the discussion. By the way, Hebrews 10 also contains an interesting statement.
Anyway, I agree with the facts of your post up to the point where you equate the "falling away" in Heb. 6, with the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" in the Gospels... I think there is a difference between blasphemy and apostasy.
In fact, I believe the discussion has blurred three distinct experiences:
(If anyone disagrees, please show me where!)
1. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit-- This is actively *speaking* against the Holy Spirit. (imo-in my opinion)
2. Apostasy-- This is an active (willful) forsaking of the Faith by one who was in the Faith. (imo)
3. Ignoring/rejecting Christ when the Holy Spirit seeks to reveal Him.
All three are serious, all three can have areas where they overlap, but all three are distinct, separate experiences. The first two seem irreversible, but all three ultimately lead to eternal damnation.
The gospel passages (Mt 12, Mk 3, Lk 12,) deal with blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Hebrews 6 (and 10) seems to be dealing with the idea of apostasy. See further 1Pet 2:20f.
Ignoring and rejecting Christ is the common experience of all of mankind unless/until regeneration takes place.
Would you agree with these distinctions?
William
Re: Blasphemy-Apostasy-Ignoring Christ (Three distinct experiences)
Posted by Valerie on Thursday, 3 December 1998, at 11:32 p.m., in response to Blasphemy-Apostasy-Ignoring Christ (Three distinct experiences), posted by William Eaton on Thursday, 3 December 1998, at 5:40 p.m.
William,
I do see points 2 & 3, as both clearly being sins which would be unpardonable. Both of those being first dependant upon a revelation of truth by the Holy Spirit concerning Jesus.I am not sure about the first point though, "1. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit-- This is actively *speaking* against the Holy Spirit.
(imo-in my opinion)"
Would you consider one who speaks against the Holy Spirit without first having had truth revealed to them, guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit? Such as any unsaved person who does not see or understand the things of the Spirit?
Jesus points out in John 15:24 "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well."
Wouldn't the miracles Jesus did be considered a "revelation of truth" by the Holy Spirit - which was in actuality what they were rejecting?
Hebrews 10:29 lists three activities which would be considered unredemable. "How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Sprit of grace?"
I see these three mirrored somewhat in the points you listed. Rejecting Christ, forsaking the Faith, and speaking against the Holy Spirit. But I do not think that the Spirit is insulted by an ignorant person who speaks without having had a revealing of the Spirit first. Their foolish minds are darkened, so how can they truly know what they are saying? Can we understand the "Spirit of grace", to insult him, without having had it revealed to us?
I am afraid I may be speaking in circles without much clarity, especially as I am knew to delving into Biblical studies myself, only the past couple of years. (And my vocabulary to express myself, frankly, stinks! :D I'm hoping that's one of the things I will pick up on the more I hang around this place!)
To wrap this up, I do see your three distinct experiences, but since I see them contingent upon a revelation of the Holy Spirit first, I feel that they all fall under the unpardonable sin being a rejection of the revelation of truth from the Holy Spirit. I do not see speaking against the Holy Spirit without such revelation as being in this category.
(Are you shaking your head, yet? *G*)
Valerie
PS - I find all of this good for my mind, but ow! sometimes it hurts!
Re: Blasphemy-Apostasy-Ignoring Christ (Three distinct experiences)
Posted by William Eaton on Friday, 4 December 1998, at 7:52 a.m., in response to Re: Blasphemy-Apostasy-Ignoring Christ (Three distinct experiences), posted by Valerie on Thursday, 3 December 1998, at 11:32 p.m.
Hi Valerie,
Actually, I dealt with the issue in some of the other posts listed below....however, the point I'm trying to make (and thus far have been unable to get it across)--
The Bible says *blasphemy* is a *spoken* word -- *rejecting or ignoring* the Holy Spirit is not *blasphemy*.
Jesus says *blasphemy* of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
Try reading the text again with this in mind and I think you'll understand what I'm trying to get across (MT 12, LK 12, MK 3).
Blasphemy is active --rejecting or ignoring is passive.
(As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, I do believe that sometimes people say things in total ignorance that does not, in my opinion, constitute blasphemy.)
Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify --better get off to work now! *grin*
William
Re: Questions...blasphemous things...
Posted by caroline in Ca on Friday, 4 December 1998, at 8:48 a.m., in response to Re: Blasphemy-Apostasy-Ignoring Christ (Three distinct experiences), posted by William Eaton on Friday, 4 December 1998, at 7:52 a.m.
so if I think it, act on it but dont speak it it is pardonable?
Can we block the contents of our hearts and minds from God?
My emotions resist the thought that ignoring or resisting the Holy Spirit is passive. I remember the days and weeks that I was doing that before I was a Christian, and it was not passive. I was being compelled to come to Him and it was work resisting Him and such a burden was lifted when I finally made the decision to surrender to Him.
Re: Questions...blasphemous things...
Posted by William Eaton on Friday, 4 December 1998, at 8:13 p.m., in response to Re: Questions...blasphemous things..., posted by caroline in Ca on Friday, 4 December 1998, at 8:48 a.m.
Hi Caroline,
Your question:
"so if I think it, act on it but don't speak it it is pardonable?"
Jesus' Answer:
"(Mat 12:31-32 KJV) Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
It doesn't matter how much you resist, ignore, hide your head in the sand, run from the hounds of heaven--THIS DOES NOT EQUAL *BLASPHEMY*! (According to the Mt 12, Mk. 3, and Luke 12 passages)
Sorry for shouting but I'm suffering from a acute inability to communicate. Does anyone understand my point, or have I completely lost the ability to communicate?
Yikes! I hope "hounds of heaven" isn't blasphemy, at least I'm just typing it, not speaking it!
Seriously though, It's out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks and if the heart is full of blasphemies it usually will find its way out of the mouth. However, the standard that Jesus sets forth is in the passage above.
We can argue whether or not we are to take Him literally, (I take it literally, by the way) but I've yet to understand how one can equate *blaspheming the Holy Spirit* with *rejecting/ignoring the Holy Spirit*.
How can we change a clear warning to not *speak* against the Holy Spirit -- and make it mean don't ignore/resist/reject the Holy Spirit? Is this doing justice to the passages?
William
Re: sorry to exasperate you!
Posted by caroline in Ca on Friday, 4 December 1998, at 9:00 p.m., in response to Re: Questions...blasphemous things..., posted by William Eaton on Friday, 4 December 1998, at 8:13 p.m.
I actually thought I was asking 2 totally different things in this post! I felt that I left enough space between them to have them separate.
thanks for your answer...
Get ready to pull more hair, William!
Posted by Valerie on Friday, 4 December 1998, at 10:18 p.m., in response to Re: Questions...blasphemous things..., posted by William Eaton on Friday, 4 December 1998, at 8:13 p.m.
So ...
If one is ignoring, rejecting or resisting the Holy Spirit, they are safe until the moment they actually *speak* out words against the Holy Spirit - then their fate becomes sealed? If they do not *speak* those words they still have redemption available?
By George! I think I've got it!
Because ... by the time it does come out past their lips, it was so settled in their heart anyway, that it was never going to change?
This could be why Jesus says in John 15:22-25
"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, 'They hated Me without a cause.' "Is that it, William? I think I see ... and, and, by golly, I think I agree! *VVVBG*
(Sure hope I got this right!)
Valerie
May I jump in and attempt to explain? *grin*
Posted by Tamara Eaton on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 7:19 a.m., in response to Re: sorry to exasperate you!, posted by caroline in Ca on Friday, 4 December 1998, at 9:00 p.m.
Hi Caroline,
I'm going to jump in here and try to explain why I think it's so important that we stick with what Jesus actually said about blasphemy, using *His definition*, instead of trying to guess at what, in our minds, would constitute blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
1. Because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a SERIOUS charge, with ETERNAL consequences and unpardonable according to Jesus' Words.
We don't want to add to or take away from what Jesus has said about it.
2. Because who but the Lord Himself can judge for certainty whether someone has committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?
He DOES know the heart and intent of each one, and we don't.
Therefore, we feel compelled to warn others (just as Jesus did) against committing the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, using His definition of it, and His Words.
And we can have the assurance that if anyone is worried that they possibly committed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then the very fact that they're WORRIED about it, is a good sign they have not committed it. (If they are not worried, then it's possible that the Lord has already given them up and is no longer working in their hearts to bring them to repentance...but there again, only He can judge.)
So it is not up to us to judge whether someone has committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit or not, it is up for us to WARN others to take heed....
"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." -- Matthew 12:31-32
In His Abiding Joy and Strength,
Tamara
RE: Passive Resistance
Posted by Tamara Eaton on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 7:22 a.m., in response to Re: Questions...blasphemous things..., posted by caroline in Ca on Friday, 4 December 1998, at 8:48 a.m.
Hi Caroline,
RE: Passive resistance and passive rebellion
As parents, we have dealt with this before in our children and have stressed that this is just as much rebellion as any outward act. Yes, things are "churning" inside and *if left unchecked*, it eventually comes forth and manifests as active resistance and rebellion.
HOWEVER, in relation to committing the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit -- nowhere does Jesus say that it is passive resistance but rather *speaking against the Holy Spirit* (Matt 12:31-32).
As the Holy Spirit worked in all of our hearts to bring us to repentance that we might experience His salvation, no doubt most, if not all, initially had waves of resistance to turning our WHOLE lives over to His control instead of our own. If resistance to the Holy Spirit constituted blasphemy, who among us would be forgiven and saved?
Praise God for His grace and mercy in our lives!
Tamara
Re: Once Saved, Always Saved?
Posted by Peggy K. on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 7:28 a.m., in response to Once Saved, Always Saved?, posted by William Eaton on Saturday, 28 November 1998, at 5:54 p.m.
Hi William,
You said: "but it seems to be the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" that keeps one from a straightforward interpretation of these passages...Maybe I'm asking the wrong person this question (actually I've never heard you espouse that it is impossible for one to fall away) but I do know that you have a background that stresses the sovereignty of God."
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, but each time I started, I didn't know what to say. I know it must seem incredible that I could be at a loss for words, but it does happen sometimes. LOL
You are correct in saying that I've not spoken much on the topic, because it seems that no matter which side you take, there is trouble reconciling some parts of scripture. But, you are also correct in saying that I tend to lean heavily on the side of God's sovereignty, so I would also lean heavily in the direction of saying that "once saved, always saved".
It would be difficult for me to assert that the completion of a work that Christ began was up to me. There does not seem to be much hope in a Gospel that does not rely *entirely* on the saving works of Christ, alone. That does appear to leave the obligation of response and action to be left adrift, but I think you know me well enough to know that I believe that response is of the utmost importance, because our actions reflect upon the One we call Lord and Savior.
You said: "Personally, I've never had a problem believing that we have a responsibility for our actions, a "free will", at least a limited freedom, which becomes the basis for our accountability before God."
I guess the way that I see it is that through Christ, where once our will was enslaved by sin, it has now been freed by His grace to abide in Him and His will. My hope lies not in the faithfulness of my will, but in the faithfulness of His will.
Rom 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
Rom 5:11 Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.Peggy
Re: Get ready to pull more hair, William!
Posted by William Eaton on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 7:49 a.m., in response to Get ready to pull more hair, William!, posted by Valerie on Friday, 4 December 1998, at 10:18 p.m.
And I've still got a few tuffs of hair left too!
Seriously though, I don't have any idea why Jesus used that standard. The Greek language has plenty of words that would have indicated something different -- if He had intended something different (and wanted to let us know!).
Anyway, so you agree that ignoring/rejecting is a *state of mind* and speaking/blaspheming is an *active* manifestation?
William
Re: sorry to exasperate you!
Posted by William Eaton on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 8:05 a.m., in response to Re: sorry to exasperate you!, posted by caroline in Ca on Friday, 4 December 1998, at 9:00 p.m.
Caroline, I'm sorry I sounded so exasperated. *grin* I was experiencing a loss for words to convey the point I was trying to get across --seemingly no one was understanding what I meant.
After looking at your note again, I see you had two questions. I responded to your first question with Jesus' words, and I certainly agree with your second question/statement that God sees and understands our hearts and motivations!
William
Yes, I do.
Posted by Valerie on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 9:17 a.m., in response to Re: Get ready to pull more hair, William!, posted by William Eaton on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 7:49 a.m.
Yes, I agree.
I think my difficulty came in thinking that there could actually be something one could DO, as in *speaking* that would be so permanent. In my mind, I have always thought there was that chance that no matter what one did, they could still come to Christ. But reading beyond Christ's warning, re: what comes out of the heart of man, and then in Mark that they *hated* Him and His Father, I can see how this sin of blasphemy is unpardonable.
I will go back and read the posts again, as this does go back to the original discussion of what would actually constitute blasphemy. Is it the words used? Or a combination of what is in the heart and the fact that it actually comes out of the mouth? I think it *must* be the latter, and since He knew their hearts, their hatred, knew the gravity of the road they were heading. (I would think He must have stopped them in their tracks, hopefully with the result that some in their group may still have been able to believe on Him themselves.)Have a good day, William! And thanks for persevering.
Valerie
Tamara! I was wondering if you would jump in here!
Posted by Valerie on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 9:22 a.m., in response to May I jump in and attempt to explain? *grin*, posted by Tamara Eaton on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 7:19 a.m.
I had this picture of William coming to you and saying, "Can you explain to me why I am not being understood? This is so clear. It's written on the page." Maybe even, "Is this one of those 'women are different than men things', and I'm not explaining it right?"
I agree with you and understand it, too!
Have a good day, too!
Valerie
One more point for our situations today!
Posted by Valerie on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 9:47 a.m., in response to Yes, I do., posted by Valerie on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 9:17 a.m.
Today we have many out there who are performing "miracles", and many of us may feel skeptical about what they are doing. And I feel rightly so. Frauds have been found out in the past. But when I think of the the type of "healing miracles" done today compared with the ones Jesus performed, there is a distinct difference. The ones Jesus performed were visible, permanent and irrefutable that they happened! There was no room for doubt that a miracle had occurred!
Although I am not passing judgment on what is occurring today, at the same time I cannot ignore that many lack that visible, permanent and irrefutable evidence of Jesus' miracles! So, I do not feel that someone who may doubt their validity and voice it out loud would be coming close to the sin of blasphemy either.
With so many manifestations of the Holy Spirit being claimed out there these days, I can see how one might be afraid to voice their concern if they think it might be blasphemous. And in light of Tamara's and William's most recent posts this Sat. am, and my own understanding of it now, I commend "Anonymous" for her original post! She was being careful!
Boy! Have I just learned a thing or two this morning!
Valerie
God and Man; Hand in Hand ;)
Posted by Tamara Eaton on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 10:18 a.m., in response to Re: Once Saved, Always Saved?, posted by Peggy K. on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 7:28 a.m.
Hi Peggy!
It IS so good to see you posting! I couldn't help but laugh and remember the discussions on the Christian Homeschool Forum concerning God's sovereignty and man's responsibility --I once posted our views and then got emails from "both camps" thanking me for saying what they were trying to say! *grin* (Both fully convinced we were on their side. ;) )
This is all so interwoven that it's difficult for our limited, frail human minds to comprehend, much less try to explain --but I believe the scriptures teach that God predestinated and elected those who would believe as a part of His eternal plan from before the foundation of the world--AND His plan also decreed that they must exercise faith and freely choose to believe and receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Complicated to our minds, but not to God's, thankfully! *grin*
- There are scriptures that show predestination of all things *includes* man's free choices and actions.
- God predestinated man's freedom to choose good or evil --so He is not responsible for men's wrong choices.
- Predestination can't influence man's free choices because His "side" is not revealed to us.
So God has foreordained it all, as well as the means by which it all happens --including our prayers, actions, and responses!
The following scripture shows both election and man's free response:
2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."
God ordained that His plans would be carried out *through belief of the truth*. Even though we've been predestinated and elected, we must respond.
Ephesians 1:4 shows how He chose us before the foundation of the world.
Ephesians 4:5 shows we are predestinated.
Ephesians 4:11 shows God has an eternal plan and purpose.
2 Timothy 1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,"
Romans 9:11 "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;"
1 Peter 1:2 "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus..."
We've discussed all this before (and I think we were pretty much in agreement if my memory serves me!) so there is no need to respond unless you want to and have have the extra time, but I thought I'd throw these thoughts out again in light of your message.
I believe our understanding of "eternal security" is all related to our view of predestination and election and man's response and that we can trust God to give us the proper balance and understanding so that our theology doesn't hinder us from being able to properly interpret scriptures! His plan is beautiful --even if we are stretched in understanding it and have even greater difficulty explaining it. *grin*
In His Abiding Joy and Strength,
Tamara
Ummm....did you read William's response to "Anon for now"?
Posted by Tamara Eaton on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 10:39 a.m., in response to One more point for our situations today!, posted by Valerie on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 9:47 a.m.
Hi Valerie!
In case you missed William's response to "Anon for now", we DEFINITELY believe it's right to be discerning and we don't have to fear seeking God as to whether something is truly of Him or not. That should never be confused with blasphemy of the Holy Spirit --the scriptures are full of admonitions for us to be discerning and "test the spirits"!
And I think it was in one of William's messages to Kevin (or Steve?) later in the thread that he mentioned the same thing about the miracles Jesus did being rather different than what is generally going on today in the church! Good point!
Tamara
URL Suggested: <Title: Christian Lobotomy?>
You got it, Sister! And at this rate, he's going to have to cook lunch, too. *grin* (nt.)
Posted by Tamara Eaton on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 10:46 a.m., in response to Tamara! I was wondering if you would jump in here!, posted by Valerie on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 9:22 a.m.
nt.
P.S. Preservation and Perseverance...
Posted by Tamara Eaton on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 11:01 a.m., in response to God and Man; Hand in Hand ;), posted by Tamara Eaton on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 10:18 a.m.
What do you think about this...
The admonitions and warnings in the Scriptures are the very means by which God secures the true believer's perseverance.
"Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall" 2 Peter 1:10
And...the true believer will persevere because God will preserve him.
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ...Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are **kept by the power of God** through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." --(1 Pet 1:2-5)
Here we go again...all interwoven. *grin*
Tamara
I did read his posts - and they made me think...
Posted by Valerie on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 8:04 p.m., in response to Ummm....did you read William's response to "Anon for now"?, posted by Tamara Eaton on Saturday, 5 December 1998, at 10:39 a.m.
which then prompted me to "write out loud"! I had never considered all this before, but have certainly enjoyed it and learned somethings!
Thanks everyone - (and especially you, William, for your forbearance! *G*)Valerie