The unpardonable sin

[Guest Butero]

BUTEROAs I said, my belief on the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is quite differen't than Shiloh's. I do believe it is possible to commit that sin today, and don't see any reason why the Apostles would have had to give further warnings on top of what Jesus had already done.

SHILOHBecause the gospels were not the first writings to be made in the New Testament cannon. There would have been no way to to take for granted that EVERYONE had read the Matthew Mark and Luke. You simply could not take that chance on an issue that could affect salvation for eternity. So if it were something a Christian could commit, we would see repeated warnings in all the epistles. We would see teachings about what EXACTLY this is sin is in order to avoid it completely. Nothing would be left to chance since this is a sin that could permanently bar from salvation forever. Something of that degree of importance, would be a major teaching all over the New Testament.

BUTERO Nobody knows the exact date any of the New Testament books were written. All anyone can do is guess. In the case of the epistles, they were letters to individual churches and they were addressing problems at those churches. I don't think blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was a rampant problem then, anymore than I see it as one today.

Everyone didn't have these epistles in their possession, so even if Paul had addressed the topic in them, that didn't guarantee everyone knew about it. Paul and the other Apostles likely said a lot of things as they traveled around that were not included in the epistles, and they could very well have spoken on the topic of blasphemy against and speaking against the Holy Ghost.

God inspired the writings of what would become the cannon of scripture, meaning that he knew this topic would covered in the gospels, therefore there was no need for more repetition in the epistles. I don't think this kind of argument you have presented is at all convincing.

BUTEROI do believe it is possible to commit that sin today,

SHILOHNo, because the context won't allow for it. The simple matter is you cannot make a case from the Bible that true Christians can commit that sin. Secondly, the sin was only committed by unbelievers who were trying discredit Jesus' ministry and His obvious role as Messiah.

The degree of rebellion that would have to occur in the heart of a person to openly blaspheme the Holy Spirit precludes them from being a Christian in the first place.

BUTERO I can easily make a case from the Bible Christians can commit this sin. The act of speaking a word against the Holy Ghost is an unpardonable sin. Anyone could do that. Jesus spoke out against the sin when someone was guilty of doing it, and those people happened to be unbelievers. So what? That doesn't mean that a Christian couldn't do it in another setting. It just means that in the instance where Jesus gave the warning, it was against unbelievers.

Now to your final comment. I cannot imagine a true Christian wilfully committing blasphemy or speaking a word against the Holy Ghost. At the same time, I can imagine a situation where a sinner would do that. The only way I can see a Christian doing it is if they got angry with God and decided to renounce their Christianity. I don't think this sin takes place very often, and as I said already, I don't know of anyone that has committed it. I did hear a woman on a radio show one night that implied she had committed this sin intentionally after renouncing her Christianity, but I have never known anyone personally that committed the sin. I do tend to believe that doing this would have to be wilful. I don't think people do it by accident, and there is no question that Satan uses the fear that someone might have accidentally committed the sin to torment true Christians.

[OneLight]

The argument that this can only be attributed to those who claim Jesus was casting our demons through the power of Satan, calling the Holy Spirit evil, brings to light the question of where else do people call the Holy Spirit evil? Jesus tells us we are either for Him or against Him. If this is correct, are we not calling the conviction of the Holy Spirit somehow evil when we refuse to accept His conviction onto repentance? If we don't believe that the conviction is of God, we must think it is not of God. If it is not of God, who is it from? Since the spirit world is either of God or Satan, given that the spirit of the flesh is considered evil also, then the Holy Spirits work can only be seen as from God or from Satan. I see the rejection of His conviction as blasphemy also.

[Guest Butero]

It is attributing the work of the Spirit to the devil. If God were to perform a miraculous healing for instance, and someone were to claim that it was not by the power of the Spirit, but by the power of the devil that man or woman was healed, that would be blasphemy against the Spirit.

That is not the biblical definition of the sin. That is the modern pentacostal definition, but is usually leveled at people by those seeking to control others and intimidate them into silence.

Any time a spiritual manifestation is seen it needs to be questioned and challenged. Not every healing comes from God. Not every miracle is sign from or testimony of God.

It absolutely is a Biblical definition of the sin. You are correct that some Pentecostals try to scare people into keeping silent about strange manifestations in church with this sin, but that still doesn't mean the definition is wrong. I am Pentecostal, but don't agree with everything that takes place in full gospel circles, especially among charasmatics.

I remember hearing Benny Hinn try to scare people from "speaking out against his anointing." He was doing some questionable things and didn't like people questioning him about it. We need to be careful about twisting the Word to promote our own doctrinal agenda. I don't think God would be too pleased with that either. I understand the abuse you are talking about, but that still doesn't mean the definition I used is wrong.

As to your last comment, I don't know about that either. I don't think it is my responsibility to question and challenge every spiritual manifestation. I don't think I should assume everything I see is from God either. Sometimes things are from God, sometimes there is no way to know, and at other times, someone is a complete phony, like in the movie "Elmer Gantry." I do believe all true healings come from God. I also recognize that there are some unscrupulous ministers that will place people in their audience who will claim to be sick and get healed to advance their ministry and raise money. The fact there are abuses doesn't mean my definition is incorrect. Let's return to the passage in question again.

Matthew 12:22-32

22 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.

23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

We see Jesus casting out a devil and the multitude acknowledging the miracle. The Pharisees didn't want to accept it was of God, and they wanted to discredit Jesus, so they accused him of performing this miracle through the power of the devil. While I am by no means wanting to put fear on people so they won't attack Pentecostal preachers, you can see a paralel between what was occuring in this story and what occurs today when there are people with certain religious prejudices determined to discredit any miracle that takes place. You might have a die hard Baptist who has been taught that all Pentecostals are of the devil standing against legitimate miracles today as the Pharisees were in this story, accusing the minister of performing miracles through the power of Satan. That is not the same as simply questioning the authenticity of something. This is literally making false accusations against the work of the Spirit as the Pharisees did. The story goes on.

25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

Jesus states what should be an obvious truth. The demons that were possessing this man were part of the devil's kingdom. If you have an army and they turn on their own men and destroy them, it won't be long till they are destroyed. In order to survive, they have to be in unity, and focused on their enemies, not each other. Satan's enemy is God and his angels, not the demons, so it would make no sense for him to help someone defeat his own followers, in this case demons.

27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

Even the religious crowd knew about demons and tried sometimes successfully to cast them out. Jesus asks the question, "by whom do your children cast them out?" In other words, if Jesus is casting out devils by the power of the devil, then it would stand to reason that the children of the Pharisees were doing the same thing.

28 But if I cast out devils by the Spririt of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

If they are now ready to acknowledge that he could not have done this through Beelzebub, prince of the devils, and are willing to accept the fact it was by the power of the Holy Ghost, that means God's Kingdom has arrived on earth. God's Kingdom is real. We don't see this Kingdom on a map, but it is a literal Kingdom, and only the born again can truly see it. The Kingdom is within us. Christians are citizens of God's Kingdom, and we are his Ambassadors on this earth. We don't possess any powers within ourselves, but any miracles that take place are the result of the Holy Ghost working through us. Whenever a true miracle is done in Jesus name, it is evidence of the reality of God's Kingdom, and the fact God has servants in this world.

29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Jesus goes on to elaborate more about this in another passage. Many times, a person who is possessed has multiple devils inside, like in the story of the man who called himself Legion. That was not the man's real name, but one of the devils (the strong man) possessing him spoke through him and called himself Legion because there were many devils residing in his body. In order to cast them out, you first had to cast out the strongest devil, and then you could cast out the rest. Along the same lines, if a devil is cast out of a man, and that man never becomes a follower of Christ, he is like an empty house. There is nobody there to protect him. In that state, he is vulnerable to become possessed again. He is only protected if he becomes a Christian and God's Spirit takes up residence in his earthly temple. God will not allow a Christian to become possessed, because his Spirit will not share that body with devils.

Those who are not followers of Jesus are his enemies. Many in the religious crowd thought they were followers of God because they could trace their roots to Abraham, yet Jesus point blankly told them they were of their Father the devil. Those who do not follow Jesus, rather than being a postitive force for good, gathering sheep into the fold, are instead scattering would be Christians abroad. Of course, that was what the Pharisees were trying to do. They didn't want anyone following Jesus because he was a threat to their positions.

31 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.

What just happened to cause Jesus to make this statement? When he had cast out a devil through the power of the Holy Spirit, the religious crowd accused him of doing this through the power of Beelzebub, the pince of the devils. Making these kind of accusations regarding the work of the Spirit is considered blasphemy, and won't be forgiven. We need to be careful about attacking miracles that take place, because we may be speaking out against the Holy Ghost. I have no problem with questioning things, and if you find something is phony, by all means say so, but we need to be careful.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whoseover speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Jesus takes things further with this verse. He goes so far as to say that if we say something evil about him, you can be forgiven. On the other hand, if you speak against the Holy Ghost, there will be no forgiveness. It is obvious this goes beyond rejecting salvation, and it is also obvious that anyone could commit this sin. Anyone can open their mouth and speak against the Spirit. That is why Jesus gave us this stern warning. He wanted us to be careful when we open our mouth about the works of God.

[Guest Butero]

The argument that this can only be attributed to those who claim Jesus was casting our demons through the power of Satan, calling the Holy Spirit evil, brings to light the question of where else do people call the Holy Spirit evil? Jesus tells us we are either for Him or against Him. If this is correct, are we not calling the conviction of the Holy Spirit somehow evil when we refuse to accept His conviction onto repentance? If we don't believe that the conviction is of God, we must think it is not of God. If it is not of God, who is it from? Since the spirit world is either of God or Satan, given that the spirit of the flesh is considered evil also, then the Holy Spirits work can only be seen as from God or from Satan. I see the rejection of His conviction as blasphemy also.

That is an interesting point, and I see where you are coming from, but simply rejecting salvation isn't the same as attributing the convinction to the devil. Most people that come under conviction know it is God's Spirit they feel. They make excuses for not accepting Christ, like they are not good enough, or they are not ready. The danger they face is that the Spirit may quit convicting them, and when that occurs, they won't seek salvation. The other thing to worry about is that they may not get the chance to accept Christ later because none of us have any guarantee about our next breath, let alone thinking we can get saved in a month or a year or two down the road. Today is the day of salvation. Now is the acceptable time.

[Shiloh62]

As I said, my belief on the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is quite differen't than Shiloh's. I do believe it is possible to commit that sin today, and don't see any reason why the Apostles would have had to give further warnings on top of what Jesus had already done.

Because the gospels were not the first writings to be made in the New Testament cannon. There would have been no way to to take for granted that EVERYONE had read the Matthew Mark and Luke. You simply could not take that chance on an issue that could affect salvation for eternity. So if it were something a Christian could commit, we would see repeated warnings in all the epistles. We would see teachings about what EXACTLY this is sin is in order to avoid it completely. Nothing would be left to chance since this is a sin that could permanently bar from salvation forever. Something of that degree of importance, would be a major teaching all over the New Testament.

I do believe it is possible to commit that sin today,

No, because the context won't allow for it. The simple matter is you cannot make a case from the Bible that true Christians can commit that sin. Secondly, the sin was only committed by unbelievers who were trying discredit Jesus' ministry and His obvious role as Messiah.

The degree of rebellion that would have to occur in the heart of a person to openly blaspheme the Holy Spirit precludes them from being a Christian in the first place.

I had't thought about that,but youre right Shiloh. That would be someting of the utmost importance would almost have to be included in every book rather than just a couple of gospels. What were the first books ofthe new testamet that were written?

[Guest Butero]

As I said, my belief on the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is quite differen't than Shiloh's. I do believe it is possible to commit that sin today, and don't see any reason why the Apostles would have had to give further warnings on top of what Jesus had already done.

Because the gospels were not the first writings to be made in the New Testament cannon. There would have been no way to to take for granted that EVERYONE had read the Matthew Mark and Luke. You simply could not take that chance on an issue that could affect salvation for eternity. So if it were something a Christian could commit, we would see repeated warnings in all the epistles. We would see teachings about what EXACTLY this is sin is in order to avoid it completely. Nothing would be left to chance since this is a sin that could permanently bar from salvation forever. Something of that degree of importance, would be a major teaching all over the New Testament.

I do believe it is possible to commit that sin today,

No, because the context won't allow for it. The simple matter is you cannot make a case from the Bible that true Christians can commit that sin. Secondly, the sin was only committed by unbelievers who were trying discredit Jesus' ministry and His obvious role as Messiah.

The degree of rebellion that would have to occur in the heart of a person to openly blaspheme the Holy Spirit precludes them from being a Christian in the first place.

I had't thought about that,but youre right Shiloh. That would be someting of the utmost importance would almost have to be included in every book rather than just a couple of gospels. What were the first books ofthe new testamet that were written?

And while you are telling us the answer to this question, please tell us how you know which books were written first? I hear people make all kinds of comments like this, but I don't see how it is possible to know the answer. How would I know for instance, whether Mark was written before Matthew, or whether or not Luke was written before or after the epistles? I could see how you might be able to make an educated guess as to which epistles were written first, based on the missionary journeys of Paul, but I don't see how anyone can know the precise dates each book were written. In addition to that, none of them were that far apart. The final book, Revelation, was written by the Apostle John, and he was one of Jesus' followers. That means every book of the Bible was completed within the lifetime of Jesus' followers, so this issue of one being written before the other isn't much of an argument.

[Shiloh62]

Yes, Butero - I agree with that logic. I think Shiloh's post was the answer to a prayer for me - I've already shown it to her and she's very comforted by it.

I am happy to hear she is at peace. Sometime back, I went to a tent revival where a famous evangelist was preaching. He told the story of a man who came into the tent and wanted to speak. What he told everyone was that for a long time, God's Spirit had been convicting him to get saved, and he refused. Over time, he said he got hard, and God quit dealing with him. In his mind, he had committed the unpardonable sin, because though he wanted to get saved now, he couldn't feel God anymore, so it was too late.

What saddened me about that story was the way the evangelist let this man go on believing this lie in order to scare others into running to the alter that night. It did cause a lot of people to get saved, and that is great, but God cares about that man's soul as well. He clearly had not committed the unpardonable sin. He hadn't attributed the works of the Spirit to the devil, and he hadn't spoken a word against God's Spirit. In addition to that, he wanted to get saved, which proves to me God was still dealing with him.

For all I know, the evangelist may have believed the man committed the unpardonable sin, and he may have been sincere in allowing that deception to continue, but I would have liked to have had an opportunity to try to tell that poor soul that God loved him and would save his soul if he would make a committment to Christ right now.

As I said, my belief on the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is quite differen't than Shiloh's. I do believe it is possible to commit that sin today, and don't see any reason why the Apostles would have had to give further warnings on top of what Jesus had already done. In addition, Jesus went so far as to say that if we speak a word against the Holy Ghost, it wouldn't be forgiven. Of course someone could do that. Even so, I don't know of anyone personally that has committed that sin, though Satan loves to make people think they have. The main thing with your friend is that she have peace. I doubt she would be one that would commit that sin anyhow.

Oh,man! That is so wrong! He needs to stop preaching. Remember the 99 sheep and the one that was lost? The lost one should have and in that case did get the attention. God,peace be with this man that was lied to,that wasnt nice what that preacher did, and he is not preaching your word.

[Guest Butero]

Yes, Butero - I agree with that logic. I think Shiloh's post was the answer to a prayer for me - I've already shown it to her and she's very comforted by it.

I am happy to hear she is at peace. Sometime back, I went to a tent revival where a famous evangelist was preaching. He told the story of a man who came into the tent and wanted to speak. What he told everyone was that for a long time, God's Spirit had been convicting him to get saved, and he refused. Over time, he said he got hard, and God quit dealing with him. In his mind, he had committed the unpardonable sin, because though he wanted to get saved now, he couldn't feel God anymore, so it was too late.

What saddened me about that story was the way the evangelist let this man go on believing this lie in order to scare others into running to the alter that night. It did cause a lot of people to get saved, and that is great, but God cares about that man's soul as well. He clearly had not committed the unpardonable sin. He hadn't attributed the works of the Spirit to the devil, and he hadn't spoken a word against God's Spirit. In addition to that, he wanted to get saved, which proves to me God was still dealing with him.

For all I know, the evangelist may have believed the man committed the unpardonable sin, and he may have been sincere in allowing that deception to continue, but I would have liked to have had an opportunity to try to tell that poor soul that God loved him and would save his soul if he would make a committment to Christ right now.

Oh,man! That is so wrong! He needs to stop preaching. Remember the 99 sheep and the one that was lost? The lost one should have and in that case did get the attention. God,peace be with this man that was lied to,that wasnt nice what that preacher did, and he is not preaching your word.

The thing is, this evangelist was normally pretty sound, and he had led a lot of souls to Christ over the years. I don't have any way of knowing his heart, so I don't know if he really believed that man had committed the unpardonable sin or not, but I do not this. Jesus wanted to save that man's soul along with everyone else in that meeting, and allowing him to go on believing a lie was terrible. I hope and pray that man got saved at some point.

[Guest shiloh357]

And while you are telling us the answer to this question, please tell us how you know which books were written first? I hear people make all kinds of comments like this, but I don't see how it is possible to know the answer. How would I know for instance, whether Mark was written before Matthew, or whether or not Luke was written before or after the epistles? I could see how you might be able to make an educated guess as to which epistles were written first, based on the missionary journeys of Paul, but I don't see how anyone can know the precise dates each book were written. In addition to that, none of them were that far apart. The final book, Revelation, was written by the Apostle John, and he was one of Jesus' followers. That means every book of the Bible was completed within the lifetime of Jesus' followers, so this issue of one being written before the other isn't much of an argument.

You are missing forest for the trees. We don't have "precise" dates, buts but there are cultural indicators in the letters, not to mention datable extrabiblical events that are alluded to in the NT that helps us to date it. You need to remember that the Bible is a book of its times. We can get into fairly close range particularly since for example the Bible doesn't include major historical events that were in close proximity to the period of the apostles such as the destruction of the Temple or the bar kochba revolt. The book of Acts is a wealth of historical and geographical data that can be verified extrabiblically and it allows us to assign approximate dates. You see, we know which missionary journey Paul was on when he wrote his epistles, and we can date those journeys by using the the peripheral historical data that the book of Acts provides and even the stuff it doesn't provide.

All that aside, the fact remains that it would be highly irresponsible for Paul to avoid mentioning and warning of the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit on the grounds that "well, they read about it from Matthew." That defies any kind of logic. Paul would not take that for granted. He could not just assume that they had either read it or would get around to it later.

Not only that, But Paul was in the habit of reminding people of what they already knew. Paul like to revisit the basics that had already been covered. If Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was such a major concern, he would have wasted no time, making sure that EVERYONE knew everything they needed to know, even if it meant repeating himself. Paul's main concern was getting people saved, and this would have been one thing on the top of his list. It is too serious to brush aside assuming they will pick up on it later.