Calvinism & Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

YOu are taking a passage and trying to make it say more than it says. Christ is addressing a very specific issue. You are trying to address a broad one.

 

But this is a specific example of a general topic we are debating (why people ultimately end up in Hell). It has to fit into the whole premise, if the premise is accurate.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric B:
But this is a specific example of a general topic we are debating (why people ultimately end up in Hell). It has to fit into the whole premise, if the premise is accurate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are discussing a specific example of a general topic. The problem is that the specific example you are discussing is not the specific example Christ was using.

To illustrate: if A is the set and B and C are subsets, it does not follow that B=C even though they are both related to A.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slain Arminian:
For example, if one is to say that salvation is not conditional, then every detail of God's Word should support it. If any details don't support it, then the overall general statement needs modification.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Salvation is conditioned only on God's gracious sovereign choice. Every detail of God's word supports that. Sorry you don't understand it. I don't know how else to say it. Scripture uniformly defends this.

Man's choice apart from God's sovereign intervention is always to reject God. No one is seeking for God. However, that really has nothing to do with this passage. The unpardonable sin is a very specific sin that cannot be committed today. Whatever its relation to soteriology, it is a non-issue today.

 

Thanks SA, you hit the nail on the head regarding the subset.
Larry, you're saying that the Word of God supports your position, but when we show scriptures that contradict it, you dismiss it as basically, irrelevant.
Even if the unpardonable sin is not possible today, it does represent a specific case that would be totally moot if preterition was true.

 

It is interesting to hear something new, a private revelation from God. [II Peter 1:20] I never knew that the 'unpardonable sin' could not be committed today. I have a new revelation too. Stealing and bad language are no longer sinful. When you believe this error I will receive your error also. Let's blame it on a dispensation teaching.

Calvinism says that election is conditioned by God's sovereign choice. Biblical theology says, believing in Jesus with true repentance brings to the person his election and hope of everlasting life. Faith or belief in Jesus has always been the criterion for entering Heaven. [John 3:16] Under the former covenant people trusted in the Lord Jehovah and trusted in their hope of Heaven. [Habakkuk 2:4]

Dr. Berrian

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric B:
Larry, you're saying that the Word of God supports your position, but when we show scriptures that contradict it, you dismiss it as basically, irrelevant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where are these Scriptures? I have not dismissed any Scripture as irrelevant. I have insisted on proper exegesis of the passages.

Furthermore, I am not sure what your point on preterition is. Preterition is where God simply lets people go the way they are going.

I think SA's point is that he believes this passage says that all sins are forgiven except for the unpardonable sin which he considers to be unbelief. I contest that is not what the passage says. Then you bring in preterition for some reason. You will have to make your connection a little clearer.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
It is interesting to hear something new, a private revelation from God. [II Peter 1:20] I never knew that the 'unpardonable sin' could not be committed today.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't either till I started studying it. This is not new revelation. It is about 2000 years old and it is defended by numerous people in numerous articles and publications.

You show me Christ casting out demons and people ascribing it to the work of Satan and I will show you the unpardonable sin. However, since Christ is not on earth casting out demons, then it is impossible to attribute that work to Satan. I really don't know why this is hard.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have a new revelation too. Stealing and bad language are no longer sinful. When you believe this error I will receive your error also. Let's blame it on a dispensation teaching.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My initial reaction was to edit your post to remove this remark. However, I will leave it in and admonish to cease from this type of argumentation. Next time I will edit it to save face for those who post it and to keep the thread on a serious note. If you have something to say about the discussion at hand, then say it. Don't make ridiculous statements that undermine your argument. This has nothing to do with dispensations. I do not even know where that came from.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Biblical theology says, believing in Jesus with true repentance brings to the person his election and hope of everlasting life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please show the verse where repentance brings election. I have asked you numerous times to support this statement from Scripture and you have yet to do it. I know why you haven't done it yet, but I wonder if you know why.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Faith or belief in Jesus has always been the criterion for entering Heaven. [John 3:16] Under the former covenant people trusted in the Lord Jehovah and trusted in their hope of Heaven. [Habakkuk 2:4] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one here denies this. You have accidently (and inconsistently) stumbled on biblical truth. The question you must answer is what brings this faith out of spiritually dead people?

Your position is inconsistent here. You admit that faith is necessary but you cannot account for passages like Rom 3:10-17 and Eph 2:1-3. Clearly man is dead with no interest in seeking God. Yet in salvation, man suddenly starts seeking God. Why?

 

It is true that all of humankind is dead in sins and has no interest in God. The thing that brings sinners toward God is when He starts His operation of the Holy Spirit on the life of a sinner. The calling of the Spirit overrides the rebelliousness of man. Some, however, do reject Christ. Also, many have never hear the name of Jesus, so apparently, it is nigh unto impossible for people like this to 'find Christ, or to be found by Him.'

Repentance is connected to believing because the word, 'repentance'{metanoia} itself means, 'to reverse ones idea of sin, by seeing it as a holy God sees sin.' Strong's Concordance p. 47 under Greek Dictionary of the New Testament.

If the Holy Spirit does not convict of sin in this way, how can a sinner turn away from his or her sin and believe in Jesus? The Spirit places the sinner in such a mind set that he or she must make a decision one way or another.

Also, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings by my last post.

"Ray"

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
The thing that brings sinners toward God is when He starts His operation of the Holy Spirit on the life of a sinner. The calling of the Spirit overrides the rebelliousness of man. Some, however, do reject Christ. Also, many have never hear the name of Jesus, so apparently, it is nigh unto impossible for people like this to 'find Christ, or to be found by Him.'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is all very biblical at face value. I don't disagree with anything you said. However, I know from your previous posts that you do not mean it as I would.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Repentance is connected to believing because the word, 'repentance'{metanoia} itself means, 'to reverse ones idea of sin, by seeing it as a holy God sees sin.' Strong's Concordance p. 47 under Greek Dictionary of the New Testament. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not the issue. You are still avoiding the question. The question is what verse identifies repentance as leading to election? Why don't you just give the verse.

You are almost right on repentance. Repentance is a change of mind that results in a change of behavior. It is a turning from sin and self to God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If the Holy Spirit does not convict of sin in this way, how can a sinner turn away from his or her sin and believe in Jesus? The Spirit places the sinner in such a mind set that he or she must make a decision one way or another.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes ... and when the Holy Spirit effectually calls a person, they will make a decision to repent and believe in Christ. If it is not the effectual call, they will make a decision to reject.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings by my last post. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't hurt my feelings. They don't get hurt very easily. I simply want to direct our attention to what Scripture actually says and how the truths of Scripture correlate. I used to believe just like you do. But in reading Scripture, I began to realize that it led to contradictory "truth," and ultimately compromised the sovereignty of God. I had never read Calvin (still haven't) or anything other Calvinist. I came to it through Scripture.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slain Arminian:
I wasn't trying to say all sin would be forgiven but blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but that all sin was forgivable but blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this and in fact, I think it is what I stated in a previous post. I don't think anyone argues the former except for some arminians who argue that the only thing that sends man to hell is unbelief (which some consider the unpardonable sin). Some argue that Christ forgave all] sin at Calvary and now man just has to accept it. Failure to accept is the unpardonable sin. However, if all sin was forgiven, then the sin of unbelief must also be forgiven which leads us to universalism. No one here will accept that. That latter view you state is the obvious choice.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But I'm still asking you, Pastor Larry, or any other Calvinist, how does one reconcile the three passages on blasphemy of the Holy Spirit with irresistable grace?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forgive my ignorance but I still don't understand how these two are related. First, the unpardonable sin is a first century affair. Second, it is the attributing of the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan. Third, if someone is of the elect, they would not have committed it. Do you think that the "irresistable grace" that can draw a sinner's heart can't keep him from the unpardonable sin? I don't.

To me, with all due respect, it seems that you are searching so hard for something to discredit biblical soteriology that you are grasping at straws. I have never heard anyone try to connect this passage with anything having to do with election or the doctrines of grace. If you are aware of someone, please let me know where they are published so I can read them.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Where are these Scriptures? I have not dismissed any Scripture as irrelevant. I have insisted on proper exegesis of the passages. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These scriptures on the unpardonable sin, and betraying Christ meaning it ha dbeen better if you had not been born, for example.
You say they have nothing to do with this, but we see that they do contradict preterition.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...Then you bring in preterition for some reason.
I am not sure what your point on preterition is. Preterition is where God simply lets people go the way they are going. You will have to make your connection a little clearer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because then why a distinction between sins that are unpardonable when the majority of the people have no chance for pardon anyway?
(all of their sins are effectually unpardonable, including those in the 1st century when this sin was supposedly possible)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Third, if someone is of the elect, they would not have committed it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So if a non-elect copmmits it, what's the difference from if he had not committed it (and just died in all his other sins). This is the point I'm trying to make.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> To me, with all due respect, it seems that you are searching so hard for something to discredit biblical soteriology that you are grasping at straws. I have never heard anyone try to connect this passage with anything having to do with election or the doctrines of grace. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are not searching so hard for these things, they are just there. Calvinists think we have no biblical basis for our belief, and we just believe in free will for some sentimental human reason (seems fair) or for pride (saved ourselves); and that all the scriptural support is in their favor, but when I first read Calvinistic doctrine, it just seemed at odds with scripture as a whole. I couln't right away think of all it conflicted with, but this is one of them. Just like many of you speak of how you were exposed to Arminian teaching, but then ran across scripture that seemed to contradict free will. Free will vs. God's sovereignty is a difficult paradox, so we have to be careful making such positive statements as the doctrine of preterition (which is at the heart of the Calvinist-Arminian debate, so this is why it comes up). How the truths of scripture square together sometimes defies our limited theology.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These scriptures on the unpardonable sin, and betraying Christ meaning it ha dbeen better if you had not been born, for example. You say they have nothing to do with this, but we see that they do contradict preterition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven’t seen it. You have not made your point. Reference a commentary or an author that makes it better than you do and I will look it up. The connection is not there. The distinction of the unpardonable sin deals with the depth of the Jews’ leaders rejection. It was a comment on the national status of the leaders. Read Carson’s commentary on Matthew. He will explain this. When you miss the Jewish context of this pericope, you end up where you are – completely misunderstanding the point and attaching significance to it that it doesn’t have.

On these doctrines as a whole, when you start studying through Scripture, these things take shape. I do not believe there is a biblical basis for your position. I believe it contradicts explicit revelation. It misunderstands free will. I hope that you will continue to study this issue to come to a clear understanding of why we believe what we do.

 

Wow, what a reversal! On Romans 9, you insist it is individual, and I the national state of Israel. Now, on the unpardonable sin, I always saw it as individual, and you're saying it is about national Israel.
But I believe I am being true to the contexts of both. Jesus did say "...it will not be forgiven him...", and this makes it look like a warning to individuals; and it was individuals He was speaking to.
There may not be much scholarship to quote from for our side. I think the Non-Calvinists have been pretty lax in responding to the charges and claims of Calvinism, with Vance, Rice and Hutson the only ones I know of to tackle it. (I'm leary of their brand of fundamentalism, which I argue with on the Music board and elsewhere). This I believe is what has allowed Calvinism to think it has such a monopoly on the truth in this area. Many Arminian evangelicals do go by what seems right rather than the scriptures, and are often apathetic to deep issues like this (favoring a religion of pure feelings), as Calvinists have rightly pointed out, but still, the Bible taken in its context, is the answer, not how many scholars and theologians are taking up a particular side.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric B:
On Romans 9, you insist it is individual, and I the national state of Israel. Now, on the unpardonable sin, I always saw it as individual, and you're saying it is about national Israel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Context context context.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There may not be much scholarship to quote from for our side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a reason for that. The people you cite are not scholars by any means. They may have been dedicated and zealous; they were not scholars.

 

I showed where the context does not support your views.
I never said the people I mentioned were scholars. I did discuss the reason there isn't much scholarship on our side.

 

What makes up a national state?

Individuals!