The unpardonable sin

[Link]

I disagree with the idea that blasphemy means rejecting God and Christ as savior. I think the reason this idea is so popular is because people just don't know what the word 'blaspheme' means, and have not looked up the Greek word translated 'blaspheme' in Matthew. It means to speak against, villify, etc. Jesus said that whoever blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, it would not be forgiven him. One of the gospel accounts rewords it saying whoever speaks a word against the Holy Ghost will not be forgiven

So the unforgivable sin is not grieving the Spirit, or resisting the Spirit, or rejecting the Spirit, but rather speaking against the Spirit. (And one may be able to grieve, resist, and reject with one's words as well, so the concepts are not mutually exclusive.)

So you end up with people saying that the unforgivable sin is dying while rejecting Christ and His salvation. This does not stand up to reason if we closely examine it.

Dying is not a sin. So 'Dying without accepting Christ' is not a sin separate from the sin of not accepting Christ.

Rejecting Christ's salvation is not an unforgivable sin. If it were, Paul would not have been saved. He rejected Christ's salvation at first. And the fact that Paul was forgiven for rejecting Christ even to the extent of persecuting the church proves the rejecting Christ is not unforgivable.

Jesus words about speaking against the Spirit being unforgivable do not fit into a lot of Christians soteriology-- idea of the doctrine of salvation. So what do they do? They redefine the word 'blaspheme'-- a nonsensical thing to do-- to mean something other than 'blaspheme' to make the passage fit their doctrine. Instead, what they should be doing is including this verse in their concept of soteriology from the get-go, and then they wouldn't have to jerry-rig an interpretation that fits their doctrine.

Usually, strong Once Saved Always Saved adherants figure out a way to argue away the possibility of blaspheming the Spirit. One argument is that it is not possible to do so these days. I do not see why it is not possible. People still have mouths. They are still able to speak. The Spirit still exists. Some argue that it was only possible to blaspheme the Spirit because Jesus was there doing miracles by the power of the Spirit. This does not make sense because Christ said whoever spoke a word against the Spirit would not be forgiven. He did not limit His statement to speaking against specific acts of the Spirit in the first century.

It bothers me that the Lord passed on this sobering teaching to the church, that many find frightening, and many Christians spend their time trying to convince their listeners not to worry about Christ's frightening words, explaining them away. Maybe Christ passed on these 'scary' teachings because He wanted us to have some holy fear about them.

I found an interesting passage in the Didache, a document probably written in the late first or early second century, that is probably the earliest commentary I know of on the unforgivable sin. The author said not to try a prophet while speaking in the Spirit lest you commit the unpardonable sin. Apparently, he considered it possible to blaspheme the Spirit by speaking against words spoken by the Spirit through a prophet, or by speaking against the Spirit by which the prophet spoke.

Honestly, it makes me uneasy when people say that speaking in tongues or modern prophecy is of the devil. If the Spirit is speaking through it, isn't that awfully close to what the Pharisees were doing in Matthew 12?

 

[billwald]

No way to judge the content <G> of random noise. "God is not the author of confusion," Satan is.

 

[DHK]

On the other hand, Link, are you limiting God?
Is God not powerful enough that he can forgive any sin?
Did he not say that he would save even to the uttermost?
Who are we to bind the hands of God and put our finite limitations on him because of our biased interpretation of his Word.
Are you going to walk up and tell someone that they can't be saved because the Bible tells me so!
DHK

 

[Helen]

I think Bible explains Bible better than extra-biblical sources do.

Jesus said blasphemy against the Holy Spirit could not be forgiven.

Jesus said the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth.

In Romans 1, Paul says that the wrath of God is being poured out on those who suppress the truth by their actions/lives.

Romans 1 also says no man has an excuse. Therefore it follows that every man (using the generic term here) is presented with enough truth about God to respond to one way or another. Some choose to follow, and the Bible indicates that those who make that choice are led by the Father to the Son who refuses none the Father gives Him. Others choose to suppress the truth in favor of the lie. THIS is the blasphemy against the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit. These people, who continually do that, gradually become hardened to the truth and end up hell-bound, because that is the destination of the lie.

Paul, as Saul, was a devout Pharisee. That means he really did care about the truth! He was zealous for what he considered the truth. Thus, when Jesus approached him with the real truth, Saul was immediately changed in terms of where he found the truth, but not in the fact that he had always wanted the truth.

God knows the heart and deals with us each that way -- individually.

 

[DHK]

Context:
Matthew 12:22-24 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

Matthew 12:31-32 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.

The Pharisees were confronted face to face with Jesus, his miracles, and his words. They just saw one that was blind and dumb. Jesus cast a demon out, and this person could both see and speak. It was a notable miracle that no one could deny. It was another miracle that attested to the deity of Christ. To deny such miracles was to deny the Spirit attesting of the deity of Christ. Certainly there was conviction there. How could there not have been!

And yet? Instead of being convicted or yielding to the evidence being presented; they attributed those very works of Christ to the work of Satan. They said that healed that man or cast out the demon, by the power of Satan. The unpardonable sin, or that which results here in blashphemy against the Holy Spirit, is attributing the works of Christ to the work of Satan. Jesus refuted this in his argument following verse 24.

Can this happen today? No. We are not in the physical presence of Jesus. He is not performing miracles and demonstrating his deity by doing so in this day and age. It is not possible to commit this sin in this day and age. Context is everything here.
Donkey's don't give verbal warnings either. Some things only happen at certain times in history.
DHK

 

[TexasSky]

Blaspheme is not merely speaking evil against someone.

According to many bible translators, it is attributing the actions of man to God and attributing the actions of God to man. (Though I suppose in the strictest terms that is speaking evil.) They take this definition from verses like Isaiah 36:10 and Numbers 12:2-9

There is also the fact that the bible says that Christ is the only way unto the Father. To say otherwise is to call the God a liar.

 

[hillclimber]

(Acts9:3) A light flashed and being knocked to the ground, hearing a BIG voice say, "Why do you persecute Me?"

I'd believe in a flash, and instantly recognize my life to that point, however faithful and righteous, was completely useless. Nothing like meeting the Lord for an eye opening (er shutting) experience.

Yes the sin of unbelief.

 

[tamborine lady]

DHK said:

Who are we to bind the hands of God and put our finite limitations on him because of our biased interpretation of his Word.
`````````````````````````````

Exactly!! And yet there are people that do exactly that and say they are NOT doing it!!

DHK also said:
And yet? Instead of being convicted or yielding to the evidence being presented; they attributed those very works of Christ to the work of Satan. They said that healed that man or cast out the demon, by the power of Satan. The unpardonable sin, or that which results here in blashphemy against the Holy Spirit, is attributing the works of Christ to the work of Satan. Jesus refuted this in his argument following verse 24
```````````````````````````````````
Tam says:
(bold letters were made bold by me)
And yet there are people today who say that some things are caused by satan, and will stay stedfast on their opinion till their dying day even though there is tons of evidence to the contrary. What do you suppose God will think of those people??

Selah,

Tam

 

[Brian30755]

What do you suppose God will think of those people??

I believe God will say: "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."

As quoted above:

Matthew 12:31-32 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.

Christ said that blasphemy of the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven. He didn't say that blasphemy of the Holy Ghost only means when the works He did were attributed to Satan. As a matter of fact, He plainly said "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."

I agree with what Link said in the OP. It's one thing when someone says that "speaking in tongues is not for today"; it's quite another to suggest that "speaking in tongues is of the devil".

 

[tamborine lady]

Briansaid:

I agree with what Link said in the OP. It's one thing when someone says that "speaking in tongues is not for today"; it's quite another to suggest that "speaking in tongues is of the devil".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tam says:

That was exactly my point Brian.

Tam

 

[tamborine lady]

So when people attribute speaking in tongues as being from satan, and call the speakers heritics and such, then they are putting themselves in great danger from the Lord.

I know we believe different things. but if those people are wrong, they are dealing with fire!!

Selah,

Tam

 

[Link]

Helen wrote,

>> Romans 1 also says no man has an excuse. Therefore it follows that every man (using the generic term here) is presented with enough truth about God to respond to one way or another. Some choose to follow, and the Bible indicates that those who make that choice are led by the Father to the Son who refuses none the Father gives Him. Others choose to suppress the truth in favor of the lie. THIS is the blasphemy against the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit.<<


The problem with your theory is that it does not agree with what Jesus said. Jesus said that the sin that could not be forgiven was BLASPHEMY against the Holy Spirit. He further explained that whoever SPOKE AGAINST the Holy Ghost could not be forgiven. The sin is a sin of speaking, not a sin of rejecting something internally only.

What were the Pharisees doing in Matthew 12 when Jesus warned them that whoever spoke a word against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven in this age or the age to come? They had called the Holy Spirit Beelzebub! They had called the Holy Spirit a devil!

If rejecting the truth were unforgivable, then everyone who has ever rejected the truth of the Gospel could not repent and be forgiven. How many people resist the truth until they finally repent? How many people even grow up hearing salvation messages preached and hold the pew until their knuckles turn white, but later repent? If someone hears the truth once, but resists, where does the Bible say that that person is beyond hope? I do not see this in the Bible.

Remember dying is not a sin. Christ dies. If someone dies without believing the Gospel, their disbelief is a sin. But their dying in disbelief is not. If disbelief is unpardonable, then everyone who rejects the truth once cannot be saved later on. You would just have to share the Gospel once to everyone, and then those who heard would be beyond hope. That kind of attitude is certainly not the way to make inroads for the Gospel into Balinese Hindu society or into Mslim societies. They say it takes the average Muslim who converts 5 years of Christian witness before converting. At least that is what I heard about 6 years ago.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by tamborine lady:

So when people attribute speaking in tongues as being from satan, and call the speakers heritics and such, then they are putting themselves in great danger from the Lord.

I know we believe different things. but if those people are wrong, they are dealing with fire!!

Selah,

Tam

It is calling the kettle black.
You are in the same position. You say the same thing about those who oppose you. If one takes the position, that he, by the Holy Spirit, believes that tongues is heresy, and you believe the opposite--then you (by your own definition) have committed the same thing--blasphemy of the Holy Spirit from the other person's point of view--if we go by your definition!!
DHK

 

[tamborine lady]

But will you concede that one of us has it wrong?

Tam

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

This gets even more problematic if you look at something that isn't at all clear, the ultimate origin of sin and evil in the world. Most would say that Satan is the author of sin. But God created everything including Satan.

If you attribute sin and evil to God and in reality it was Satan (in some way we don't completely understand), then it would seem to me you're committing the unpardonable sin.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by tamborine lady:

But will you concede that one of us has it wrong?

Tam

NO. It is not an either or proposition because your premise is wrong. I don't agree with your definition of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, so based on that premise it is neither right nor wrong. It is like asking: What is right: apples or oranges??

I have stated my view very clearly: This is a sin that cannot be committed today. It was committed by the Pharisses who attributed the works of Christ (his miracles) to Satan. His miracles attested of his deity. Christ is not on this earth today performing his miracles that attest of his deity today. It is an impossible situation to duplicate. Therefore the sin is impossible to duplicate.

Example.
I do believe that tongues are of the devil and that the Charismatic movement in general will be used of Satan to bring about a one world church headed up by the Antichrist in the Tribulation. I am not going to be a part of it.

I do believe that many tongues speakers are directly influenced by demons.

I do believe that even some tongues speakers are demon possessed

I believe all of what I said is based on the Bible.'
DHK

 

[tamborine lady]

I rest my case. Whoso readeth, let him understand.

Working for Jesus,

Tam

 

[Link]

DHK wrote*********
I have stated my view very clearly: This is a sin that cannot be committed today. It was committed by the Pharisses who attributed the works of Christ (his miracles) to Satan. His miracles attested of his deity. Christ is not on this earth today performing his miracles that attest of his deity today. It is an impossible situation to duplicate. Therefore the sin is impossible to duplicate.
**********

Do you have any scripture or reason to back up this view? This seems more like an argument to explain away a difficult teaching to make oneself feel more at ease than taking the passage seriously.

Jesus said that WHOSOEVER spoke a word against the Holy Spirit, it would not be forgiven. Jesus said 'whosoever' and not 'anyone who sees me perform a miracle' or 'anyone who lives in the first century' or 'the group of Pharisees I am talking to right now.'

When Jesus said 'whosoever' did He mean it or not?

(And I realize we are dealing with English translation. Jesus said this in Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew most likely.)

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Link:

Do you have any scripture or reason to back up this view? This seems more like an argument to explain away a difficult teaching to make oneself feel more at ease than taking the passage seriously.

Yes I have the context of Scripture itself to back it up, and I am not trying to explain anything away. Read the context. Christ was doing miracles right before them. They were attributing them to Satan. That was the sin. It was a sin worse than blasphemy itself. What did the Jews accept as blasphemy:

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

John 10:31-33 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

The Jews defined blasphemhy as a man claiming he was God when he was not.
In Jesus view, the Jews were doing something more serious than even that.
DHK

 

[Link]

The Jews considered a man calling himself God when he was not blasphemy. That does not mean that blasphemy is limited to claiming oneself to be God.

Jesus said, 'if any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink.' Doesn't that apply to 'any man' or does it only apply to men who lived in the first century?

When Jesus said that God sent the Son that 'whosoever' believes on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life, does that apply to 'whosoever' or only to Pharisees who saw His miracles and came to Him by night.

Jesus said 'whosoever' and He meant 'whosoever.' So what reason is there to apply a different standard of reasoning to Matthew 12? There is no reason. Sure, Jesus made this statement about whoever would speak against the Holy Ghost in a specific context.

He was telling them a broad principle that was appropriate to tell them in their specific situation. But that does not mean the broad principle does not apply in other contexts. He said 'whosoever' and not 'ye.' (I realize this is translation, btw, and that Jesus was not speaking Early Modern English.)