For Those Who Fear They've Committed The Unpardonable Sin

[Guest Butero]

...

I totally reject the notion I have anything to prove. Jesus stated that there was one unpardonable sin, and never said it could only be committed by unbelievers. I would suggest the burden of proof is on you to show that only unbelievers can commit this sin....

Hello Butero,

Mr Shiloh is correct concerning the burden of proof. If scripture only reveals the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit has been committed only by a non believer it is up to you to demonstrate the premise that it can be committed by a believer.

If you may, can you tell me what a believer would need to do to commit this sin ?

And again, I disagree. Jesus simply told a group of people they were in danger of committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. He never said a believer couldn't commit that sin, so the burden of proof is on you and Shiloh to show otherwise. If you insist on holding to that position, just know that I will never agree, and will just reject it. That is like the commandment to honor Father and Mother. I can't point to an example of a born again Christian ever breaking that commandment, but I did see Jesus accuse the Pharisees of breaking it. Does that mean that a Christian cannot commit that sin? The very idea is ludicrous to me.

I already gave an example of how a Christian can commit that sin. They could see a man casting out devils, and accuse him of doing it through the power of Satan. If it really was the Spirit of God, they commited blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

[Guest ninhao]

And again, I disagree. Jesus simply told a group of people they were in danger of committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. He never said a believer couldn't commit that sin, so the burden of proof is on you and Shiloh to show otherwise. If you insist on holding to that position, just know that I will never agree, and will just reject it. That is like the commandment to honor Father and Mother. I can't point to an example of a born again Christian ever breaking that commandment, but I did see Jesus accuse the Pharisees of breaking it. Does that mean that a Christian cannot commit that sin? The very idea is ludicrous to me.

The burden of proof falls upon the person who is introducing a premise which is not specifically supported by available evidence. You have readily admitted that in the only situation that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is mentioned in scripture it was directed at non believers; therefor it is up to you to show how, and why it applies elsewhere.

I already gave an example of how a Christian can commit that sin. They could see a man casting out devils, and accuse him of doing it through the power of Satan. If it really was the Spirit of God, they commited blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Ok. Still the burden is upon you to show this is possible. If you can't then it is simply your premise without foundation.

[Guest shiloh357]

You are mistaken on this point Shiloh. Anyone is capable of speaking a word against the Holy Ghost.

But so far, you have not demonstrated that from Scripture. You keep making the claim, but show from Scripture that ANYONE (including Christians) can commit that sin. Still waiting for the biblical corroboration for that statement.

Common sense. I know that anyone can open their mouth and speak blasphemous words against the Holy Spirit. What is to stop someone from doing that, short of having their voice box removed?

There is no question Jesus was speaking to unbelievers, but he never said that the sin could only be committed by unbelievers.

Common sense??? In other words, you don’t have a shred of biblical evidence to support your assertion? Bottom line: The Bible doesn’t support your assertion so you’ll just evade having to admit that as long as you can, right?

You know that anyone can blaspheme the Holy Spirit? How do you know? What is the biblical basis for your knowing this? You are making a theological statement and you need to provide biblical reasons for your assertion. “Common sense” doesn’t cut it.

What is stop someone from committing that sin? The Holy Spirit. Paul, in Galatians 5:16-26 teaches us that a life internally governed by the Holy Spirit is the best impediment against sin. The problem for you is explaining how a person indwelt by the Holy Spirit could blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

You need to understand that there is a moral and spiritual condition that accompanies such a sin. It doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Blasphemy is another word for slander. Why would a genuine follower of Jesus seek to slander the Holy Spirit and injure His reputation? What is there in a Christian that would will such a thing? The person who commits this sin is motivated from a deep hatred and rejection of God. The notion that someone can just up and blaspheme the Holy Spirit

This is the only recorded account of this sin being mentioned. I have never agreed with the notion that the more serious sins have to be repeated over and over and over again, just the make sure we get it. One time is enough. No, I don't think Paul would sound the warning over and over and over again. He was addressing specific issues related to differen't churches, and this was not one of them. In the church of Corinth, he spent time attacking the sin of adultery where incest was involved, and said to turn such a one over to Satan. I don't see him repeating that same warning over and over again, even though it was obviously very serious.

You are denying what would be intuitive to any of us. To know of a sin that could doom someone to hell without any possibility of redemption or forgiveness for the rest of their lives is not merely a “serious sin.” It is the ONE sin no one wants to commit. It is the one sin you would really want people to be informed about.

The people of Paul’s day didn’t have a complete Bible to read from like we have so it can’t be taken for granted that they would have read Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Furthermore, I didn’t say anything about Paul repeating it over and over again. I pointed out that Paul doesn’t mention it ONCE anywhere in the NT to the churches. Intuitively, we would expect Paul to be quick to make sure new believers were informed about a sin that could cost them their eternal life with no hope of redemption or forgiveness, if such a sin existed. That would be number one on the list of things to teach about.

If this is true, then he is telling us that to blaspheme the Holy Spirit simply means to speak against the Holy Spirit.

IN that context, that is exactly right.

He first tells them about the serious offense of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and then tells us exactly what that means. Anyone is capable of speaking against the Holy Spirit. This argument doesn't help your position.

Actually it does, contextually. You are trying to split hairs over what is actually a form of Hebraic parallelism, which was common way of Rabbis teaching their students. It was a way of re-inforcing a concept. Jesus was saying that those who blasphme the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven and speaking agaisnt the Holy Spirit, as it is presented in THIS passage is the same as blasphemy. Jesus intended us to understand it that way. That’s why understanding cultural idioms are so important.

They were trying to attack Jesus, but they didn't know they were committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

(snip)

It is a real stretch to claim that they all knew he was really of God, just as it is reaching to say that the context proves only an unbeliever can commit blashpemy against the Holy Spirit or speak against the Holy Spirit.

Blasphemy is an attempt to injure God’s reputation. That is never done unknowingly. The reason slander is a criminal offense is because it is an intentinoal and malicious attempt to publically destroy another person’s reputation, which may cost them their job, their family and ruin them in other ways as well. In biblical terms blasphemy agaisnt God is always done knowingly. All forms of slander are done in full knowledge of the truth.

Jesus called it blasphemy agaisnt the Holy Spirit. Jesus acknowledged that it was an intentional, deliberate act of slander against the Holy Spirit by calling the Holy Spirit the prince of demons. I am not reaching for anything at all. You are simply not able to bring yourself to admit that there is more to this than you were previously aware of. The fact that you can’t support your claims with scriptural corroboration demonstrates the falsitity of your assertions.

There is no question that is true. At the same time, there are cases where someone really doesn't know any better, as was the case with Saul of Tarsus.

But that is neither here nor there in this discussion. Paul thought he was doing God’s work. He thought it was an act of righteousness to persecute the Jewish believers. But that is not really germain to our discussion. And it doesn’t mean that blasphemy can be accidental. It never is.

There was no need for this to be repeated over and over and over again to make it true.

First of all, it is not a case of needing to be repeated over and over again to make it true. The point is that it is mentioned ONE time in any of the epistles and it seem that the most dangerous sin in the world would be a popular topic of conversation and one that everyone needs to be aware of so that they don’t commit it. That is where common sense comes into play. The first thing every believer would need to know about is a sin that could forever cost them their salvation, but Paul never brings up the issue ONE time in any epistle. They didn’t have Bibles like we have so they didn’t have the luxury of reading Matthew 12 for themselves.

No it doesn't. There is no way to know that they realized Jesus was operating by the power of God? Some likely did, and some likely didn't, but we don't know for sure? Yes, they were trying to injur Jesus reputation, but that may be because they thought he was a fraud, and they saw that people were following this fraud, and wanted to turn them away from him by injuring his reputation?

You are not being honest about the meaning of blasphemy. Blasphemy or slander is always done with both eyes open. If you can’t be honest about the basic meanings of words, rational and intelligent debate with you is impossible. It is time for you to come to grips that blasphemy is an intention act and Jesus said so by calling it blasphemy. Denying basic facts like this only causes you to make a fool of yourself.

I don't have specific examples of Christians committing a whole host of sins, that I know they are able to commit.

Correction: You cannot provide any speicific examples of Christians committing blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That is the bottom line, here. I have known you long enough on these boards to know if you could have provided any Scripture, you would have. The truth is that you are trying to hide your inability to support your position behind a façade of defiance, but this is transparent. You have always been a person who searches high and low for evidence, but since your argument can’t be defended biblically and you are relying on your own alledged “common sense,” you resort to pretending that you have no obligation to support your assertions.

You would NEVER let me get away with such a tactic. Why don’t you just admit that all you have is your own opinion and it is nothing more than pride that is forcing you to descend to absurd logic and argumentation and keeping you in a biblically indefensible position?

Continued on next post

[Guest shiloh357]

Can you give a specific instance where a Christian ever failed to honor Father and Mother?

I Cor. 5:1

Based on your line of reasoning, I could claim a Christian is incapable of breaking this ordinance because I don't have an example of a Christian sinning in this area in scripture.

LOL, no you can’t. Besides, that is not really analogous to what I said at all. You are not using an example that is really tight. We have warnings to Christians about honoring their fathers and mothers. Paul mentions it. We don’t have ANY warnings to Christians about a sin that could doom them to hell forever. So your example doesn’t really speak to the issue I raised.

[Tinky]

I pointed out that Paul doesn’t mention it ONCE anywhere in the NT to the churches. Intuitively, we would expect Paul to be quick to make sure new believers were informed about a sin that could cost them their eternal life with no hope of redemption or forgiveness, if such a sin existed. That would be number one on the list of things to teach about.

Excellent point, Shiloh357!

[Guest Butero]

I pointed out that Paul doesn’t mention it ONCE anywhere in the NT to the churches. Intuitively, we would expect Paul to be quick to make sure new believers were informed about a sin that could cost them their eternal life with no hope of redemption or forgiveness, if such a sin existed. That would be number one on the list of things to teach about.

Excellent point, Shiloh357!

I don't even see this as a good point. What Shiloh is saying is that since we don't have any example of this sin being mentioned but to a group of Jesus' critics, that automatically means it cannot apply to people that are Christians. He further claims that I have to find an example of Jesus or Paul or someone in scripture repeating the warning to Christians to prove they can commit this sin. To me, this is ludicrous. I never demand anyone use such a standard. If the Bible says something is wrong, and tells us the consequences once or a thousand times, it is still just as valid. What is to stop anyone here from deciding to speak against the work of the Holy Spirit? What is to stop anyone from looking at a preacher casting out devils, and accusing them of doing so through the power of the devil? What is to stop them from doing so, even if they suspect it might be God, just to slander the minister?

[Guest shiloh357]

What Shiloh is saying is that since we don't have any example of this sin being mentioned but to a group of Jesus' critics, that automatically means it cannot apply to people that are Christians.

Any statement theological statement you make needs to be supported by Scripture. Your claim is that Christians can commit the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That requires you to provide, from Scripture, some corroboration to support that assertion. Everything we know about God and spiritual matters are informed by Scripture. Everything the Bible has to say about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit exists in one, limited context:

1. It only occurred during Jesus' earthly ministry (Matt. 12, Mark 3, Luke 11)

2. It was only committed by unbelievers (Matt. 12:24, Mark 3:22, Luke 11:15)

3. It occurred when Jesus was casting out a demon(s) (Matt. 9: 32-34, Matt. 12:22, Luke 11:14)

4. The specific act of Blasphemy was accusing Jesus of being possessed by the prince of demons (Mark 3:22) and that He is operating by the power of the same (Matt. 12:24, Mark 3:22, Luke 11:15)

That is all the Bible has to say about the blasphmey of the Holy Spirit. There is no other context in which this sin was committed. So everything we know about it, everything we teach about this sin MUST come from this limited context. You are not allowed to expand the sin to include anyone or anything outside this context. To claim that this same sin can be committed by Christians is to leave the realm of Scripture and enter into the realm of your own imagination and musings. You are not making a scriptural assertion, and this is obvious due to your glaring lack of biblical support in any of your posts.

He further claims that I have to find an example of Jesus or Paul or someone in scripture repeating the warning to Christians to prove they can commit this sin. To me, this is ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous, it's asking you to support your claim with biblical evidence and heretofore, you have failed to do so. You all you can do is assert your opposition to what I have said, but you cannot demonstrate from Scripture that your assertion has any merit. Your position is not based on the Bible, but on, as you say, "common sense," which upon closer examination is not really common sense at all because it operates opposite from what we can know intuitively.

I never demand anyone use such a standard.

But you have always been very quick to demand scriptural support from anyone you debate on any given biblical topic, me included. I simply pointed out here that Paul never once warns any of the churches in any of his epistles about a sin that can doom them to hell without hope. And true common sense would dictate that if such a sin existed, Paul would have made sure no one was ignorant about such a sin and would have spared nothing to guard his congregations against such, given what we know about Paul from his profile in the NT. Sorry Butero, but everyone else can see the problem with your assertion.

If the Bible says something is wrong, and tells us the consequences once or a thousand times, it is still just as valid.

That really misses the point, though. The original audience of Paul didn't have ready access to the Gospels. It's not like they could just pick up a copy like we can. I think we forget that while we have the luxury of a complete Bible, the original audience didn't. and so if there was a sin that could doom you to hell without hope, then Paul would not be able to take for granted that they knew of this sin. It would be at the top of his list of warnings and teachings to the fledgling congregations.

Such a sin would be the most important thing you could warn people about and if such a sin can be committed by Christians, the absence of any discussion of it in the letters written to the Christians is more than just a little conspicuous. Why wouldn't Paul take every precaution to warn them, whether he thought they knew it or not? Why wouldn't he repeat such a warning? As a pastor, you cannot take for granted that everything you say to your congregation is going to stick and so there are many important things that bear repeating over and over again.

What is to stop anyone here from deciding to speak against the work of the Holy Spirit? What is to stop anyone from looking at a preacher casting out devils, and accusing them of doing so through the power of the devil? What is to stop them from doing so, even if they suspect it might be God, just to slander the minister?

The very indwelling power and presence of the Holy Spirit. The very fact that a Christian is someone whose heart has been transformed, and they are made into an entirely new creation and old things have passed away and all things are made new. A new heart with a sincere desire to serve and please God indewlt and empowered by the Holy Spirit is the reason a Christian cannot commit this sin. There is no way a believer in Jesus can commit a sin that is rooted in a rejection and hatred of the Savior.

If you think you can commit this sin, if you think you have within you the will and motivation to commit this sin, you need to re-examine whether or not you are truly a born again Christian, because no authentic, spirit-filled believer can do it.

[Guest Butero]

The very indwelling power and presence of the Holy Spirit. The very fact that a Christian is someone whose heart has been transformed, and they are made into an entirely new creation and old things have passed away and all things are made new. A new heart with a sincere desire to serve and please God indewlt and empowered by the Holy Spirit is the reason a Christian cannot commit this sin. There is no way a believer in Jesus can commit a sin that is rooted in a rejection and hatred of the Savior.

If you think you can commit this sin, if you think you have within you the will and motivation to commit this sin, you need to re-examine whether or not you are truly a born again Christian, because no authentic, spirit-filled believer can do it.

I think from this comment, I have figured out the reason for our disagreement, and if so, hopefully I can clear things up now? I am speaking of "professing Christians," not true born again believers. The problem is that there are people who believe they are saved, but are not. I am also coming from the standpoint of ability to do something because we have a mouth and voicebox, not ability in that we would actually be willing to do it. Of course I would never speak blasphemous words against the Holy Spirit, but I am still physically able to do so. I just wouldn't. I wouldn't have done that as a sinner, because even then, I had no hatred for God.

There was a woman I heard on "Coast To Coast AM" one night. She said she was once a Christian, but had turned her back on God, and now she hates him. She is openly serving the devil, and openly a witch. She said she longs for the day when she is told to depart from God and thrown into hell. Was she ever really a Christian? She did the things one does to get saved. She said a sinner's prayer. She went to church, and lived as a Christian for a time, but was she really a born again believer? I don't see how God could have cast her into hell had she died while living right, but he knew from the start she wouldn't endure, so she wasn't really one of his sheep. The same thing applies here. A professing Christian could blaspheme the Holy Spirit, but they weren't really one of Jesus' sheep in the first place. They only believed they were.

[Guest]

Profess

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:8-10

And Be Saved

Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 2 Corinthians 3:3

Some Will, Most Won't

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:13-14

[Guest]

.... There was a woman I heard on "Coast To Coast AM" one night. She said she was once a Christian, but had turned her back on God, and now she hates him. She is openly serving the devil, and openly a witch. She said she longs for the day when she is told to depart from God and thrown into hell. Was she ever really a Christian? She did the things one does to get saved. She said a sinner's prayer. She went to church, and lived as a Christian for a time, but was she really a born again believer? I don't see how God could have cast her into hell had she died while living right, but he knew from the start she wouldn't endure, so she wasn't really one of his sheep. The same thing applies here. A professing Christian could blaspheme the Holy Spirit, but they weren't really one of Jesus' sheep in the first place. They only believed they were....

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1 John 2:19