Blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

[StanJ]

16 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, that is not about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.   Again, there is no way a believer in Jesus can commit a sin that is rooted in unbelief and rejection of Jesus.

That's the whole point as to why it's unforgivable, because it's only a believer that can blaspheme the Holy Spirit. It's the same rationale that shows only Believers can become apostate. You can't blaspheme the Holy Spirit if you don't know the Holy Spirit and you don't know that the work that is being done is the Holy Spirit. That's why Jesus warned the Pharisees in Matthew 12 after the accused him of doing the work of healing by the devil. They had gotten very close to committing the unpardonable sin.

[Guest shiloh357]

25 minutes ago, StanJ said:

That's the whole point as to why it's unforgivable, because it's only a believer that can blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

No, that is incorrect.  The Pharisees committed that sin and they were not believers.     And a believer cannot commit that sin because it is rooted in unbelief and rejection of Jesus.    You cannot accept Jesus as Savior and Lord, but also reject Him as Savior and Lord at the same time.   The heart of a Christian is transformed at the time they are saved.  There is nothing in the heart of a truly saved person that would prompt them to commit that sin. 

Quote

It's the same rationale that shows only Believers can become apostate. You can't blaspheme the Holy Spirit if you don't know the Holy Spirit and you don't know that the work that is being done is the Holy Spirit.

The fact that the Jesus accused the Pharisees of blasphemy means that they knew it was the Holy Spirit.    You cannot slander someone on accident or unknowingly.   In this case it was a deliberate attempt to injure God's reputation.    Blasphemy is done with both eyes open.  It is a direct act of open rebellion against God.

And in the Bible, the ONLY people who committed Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit were unbelievers.  There is not ONE example in the NT of any Christian committing that sin.  The entire context of that sin surrounds unbelievers, not believers blaspheming God.

Quote

That's why Jesus warned the Pharisees in Matthew 12 after the accused him of doing the work of healing by the devil. They had gotten very close to committing the unpardonable sin.

No, if you read Mark 3, they had committed that sin.  They were not close to it, they had done it.   That is also borne out in Luke.   Matthew doesn't have Jesus saying, "Watch out, you're about to commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.  When you take all three Gospel accounts together, it is clear that they were guilty of that sin.

[Guest Robert]

9 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit can only be understood in the context in which it is presented.   It is not mentioned in any epistle, and that is significant.   It is only mentioned in connection with Jesus' earthly ministry AND it is only mentioned in connection with the casting out of demons. 
The ONLY people in the Scriptures who committed it were unbelievers who hated Jesus and His ministry.

Blasphemy is slander.  It is not done on accident.  It is intentional.   It is a deliberate attempt to injure God's reputation.  No one can unknowingly do such a thing.   When you slander someone, you know what you're doing and you expect it to have a particular effect.   There is evidence that the religious leaders knew or strongly suspected that Jesus was the promised Messiah and they hated Him all the more for it.    They  were deliberately attempting to injure the reputation of the Holy Spirit.

The reason it is unforgivable is not because it is so "over-the-top,"   so heinous that not even God can forgive it.   That would make man more powerful than God if man can sin outside of God's power to forgive/cleanse/redeem.    Rather, it is unforgivable because the kind of person who would knowingly slander the Holy Spirit is irretrievably wicked.   There are people who are so wicked that their hearts are seared and they cannot hear the voice of God and as a result are unable/unwilling to repent.    The people who commit this sin have so utterly rejected God that their act of blasphemy is purposeful, premeditated and they are wholly committed to it.   It is unforgivable because of the impenitence of the offender.

For that reason, if you are worried enough that you have to ask, "Have I committed the unpardonable sin?"   You haven't.  And if you had committed it, you wouldn't care.

Too often, this sin is used by false teachers and false "miracle" workers to frighten other believers into silence, in order to shut down any attempt challenge their questionable doctrines and so-called "miracles."    I have lost count of the number of times I have seen that happen.  If you believe you have the truth, questions should not threaten you.

The NT carries no warnings to believers about this sin.  If a believer could commit this sin and essentially be lost forever as a result, that would be the most important topic in the epistles, there would be copious amounts of warnings and teachings to ensure that believers don't commit this sin.   But we don't see that anywhere in the NT.    It is a sin rooted in unbelief, making it impossible for a committed follower of Jesus to commit it.  And there would be nothing in the heart of a committed follower of Jesus that would even prompt such a thing.

Exactly Shiloh, and that was my point: if someone is afraid they have committed it, then it means their heart has not turned to stone. It is decidedly rooted in unbelief, which a heart that has continually and repeatedly rejected the Lord demonstrates. And scripture would have had a solid warning for believers were we capable of doing such a thing.

In short: it is unforgivable because the one who commits it doesn't want to be forgiven. At that point, they hate God and mean it.

Edited September 11, 2016 by RobertS

[Guest Robert]

59 minutes ago, StanJ said:

That's the whole point as to why it's unforgivable, because it's only a believer that can blaspheme the Holy Spirit. It's the same rationale that shows only Believers can become apostate. You can't blaspheme the Holy Spirit if you don't know the Holy Spirit and you don't know that the work that is being done is the Holy Spirit. That's why Jesus warned the Pharisees in Matthew 12 after the accused him of doing the work of healing by the devil. They had gotten very close to committing the unpardonable sin.

If you don't know the Holy Spirit, then you aren't a believer in the first place. So if having to have to Holy Spirit is a per-requisite to blaspheme Him, how would the Pharisees be able to do so when they were not believers?

 

Shiloh357 explains this very well:

50 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, that is incorrect.  The Pharisees committed that sin and they were not believers.     And a believer cannot commit that sin because it is rooted in unbelief and rejection of Jesus.    You cannot accept Jesus as Savior and Lord, but also reject Him as Savior and Lord at the same time.   The heart of a Christian is transformed at the time they are saved.  There is nothing in the heart of a truly saved person that would prompt them to commit that sin. 

The fact that the Jesus accused the Pharisees of blasphemy means that they knew it was the Holy Spirit.    You cannot slander someone on accident or unknowingly.   In this case it was a deliberate attempt to injure God's reputation.    Blasphemy is done with both eyes open.  It is a direct act of open rebellion against God.

And in the Bible, the ONLY people who committed Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit were unbelievers.  There is not ONE example in the NT of any Christian committing that sin.  The entire context of that sin surrounds unbelievers, not believers blaspheming God.

No, if you read Mark 3, they had committed that sin.  They were not close to it, they had done it.   That is also borne out in Luke.   Matthew doesn't have Jesus saying, "Watch out, you're about to commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.  When you take all three Gospel accounts together, it is clear that they were guilty of that sin.

 

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the "final symptom" of a heart that has rejected the Lord, not a "sin" a Christian would commit. Otherwise, all Satan would have to do is get any Christian to "blaspheme" the Holy Spirit and he would have a potent weapon that could defeat anyone's salvation and deny God on all levels, break Scripture in several places, and would have destroyed the Church while it was still in its' infancy.

Edited September 11, 2016 by RobertS

[Guest shiloh357]

11 minutes ago, RobertS said:

If you don't know the Holy Spirit, then you aren't a believer in the first place. So if having to have to Holy Spirit is a per-requisite to blaspheme Him, how would the Pharisees be able to do so when they were not believers?

 

Shiloh357 explains this very well:

 

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the "final symptom" of a heart that has rejected the Lord, not a "sin" a Christian would commit. Otherwise, all Satan would have to do is get any Christian to "blaspheme" the Holy Spirit and he would have a potent weapon that could defeat anyone's salvation and deny God on all levels, break Scripture in several places, and would have destroyed the Church while it was still in its' infancy.

 

16 minutes ago, RobertS said:

Exactly Shiloh, and that was my point: if someone is afraid they have committed it, then it means their heart has not turned to stone. It is decidedly rooted in unbelief, which a heart that has continually and repeatedly rejected the Lord demonstrates. And scripture would have had a solid warning for believers were we capable of doing such a thing.

In short: it is unforgivable because the one who commits it doesn't want to be forgiven. At that point, they hate God and mean it.

All very well said, Robert! 

[StanJ]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Quote

 

No, that is incorrect.  The Pharisees committed that sin and they were believers.     And a believer cannot commit that sin because it is rooted in unbelief and rejection of Jesus.    You cannot accept Jesus as Savior and Lord, but also reject Him as Savior and Lord at the same time.   The heart of a Christian is transformed at the time they are saved.  There is nothing in the heart of a truly saved person that would prompt them to commit that sin.

Well then you'll have to show(exegete) that Jesus condemned them for having committed the unpardonable sin. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing in the Greek or English that conveys that's in have happened in the present tense. The warning is in the future tense.

Quote

 

The fact that the Jesus accused the Pharisees of blasphemy means that they knew it was the Holy Spirit.    You cannot slander someone on accident or unknowingly.   In this case it was a deliberate attempt to injure God's reputation.    Blasphemy is done with both eyes open.  It is a direct act of open rebellion against God.

Again please show(exegete) from the scripture where Jesus accuses them of blasphemy. All I see is a warning. I don't have a problem with understanding blasphemy I have a problem where you see it is actually haven't been done when there's no direct evidence in scripture other than Jesus warning of the sin.

 

 

And in the Bible, the ONLY people who committed Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit were unbelievers.  There is not ONE example in the NT of any Christian committing that sin.  The entire context of that sin surrounds unbelievers, not believers blaspheming God.

Now you're contradicting yourself because in your opening sentence you said that the Pharisees were believers and did commit the sin. Regardless there isn't an example of a lot of sin in the New Testament but there is a lot of warning about sin, and Jesus did most of the warning. 

 

 

No, if you read Mark 3, they had committed that sin.  They were not close to it, they had done it.   That is also borne out in Luke.   Matthew doesn't have Jesus saying, "Watch out, you're about to commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.  When you take all three Gospel accounts together, it is clear that they were guilty of that sin.

I have read Mark 3, and it doesn't say it there either but again please show (exegete) it for us. Affect now that you've referred to Mark 3 you'll notice that in verse 23, it says; "So he called them and spoke to them in parables:" when you condemn somebody for having done a sin, you don't speak to them in parables.

 

Edited September 11, 2016 by StanJ

[Guest shiloh357]

12 minutes ago, StanJ said:

Well then you'll have to show(exegete) that Jesus condemned them for having committed the unpardonable sin. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing in the Greek or English that conveys that's in have happened in the present tense. The warning is in the future tense.

This text does not reflect a future tense warning but is speaking purely in the present and past tense.

And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
(Mar 3:22-30)

And not only that, but the narrator of the text accuses them himself in vv. 22, and 30.  

Quote

Again please show(exegete) from the scripture where Jesus accuses them of blasphemy. All I see is a warning. I don't have a problem with understanding blasphemy I have a problem where you see it is actually haven't been done when there's no direct evidence in scripture other than Jesus warning of the sin.

There is no warning.  There is nothing like, "Do that again, and you'll be guilty of blasphemy.  The text makes it clear that they were guilty and it doesn't take more than a cursory reading.   You are spinning the the story to mean something it doesn't mean.    The future tense is only about the judgment and fate of a person who has done it.   It's not a warning that says, if you do it again, it will be blasphemy.    Your argument doens't even hold up under a simply reading of the text.   They were guilty, pure and simple. 

[StanJ]

40 minutes ago, RobertS said:

If you don't know the Holy Spirit, then you aren't a believer in the first place. So if having to have to Holy Spirit is a per-requisite to blaspheme Him, how would the Pharisees be able to do so when they were not believers?

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the "final symptom" of a heart that has rejected the Lord, not a "sin" a Christian would commit. Otherwise, all Satan would have to do is get any Christian to "blaspheme" the Holy Spirit and he would have a potent weapon that could defeat anyone's salvation and deny God on all levels, break Scripture in several places, and would have destroyed the Church while it was still in its' infancy.

The Pharisees were believers they just didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah. You're confusing the finishing off of the old Covenant with the implementation of the New Covenant and what was in effect then not now. The Pharisees didn't know the spirit of God the way we know the Holy Spirit now, but they could differentiate between the spirit of God and the spirit of the devil. This is why Jesus was warning them and explaining to them what they were perilously close to doing.

There's a difference between not having a savior and committing sins against God/Jesus. At that time no one was under the New Covenant. Jesus had instructed his Apostles to wait for The Advocate which is depicted in Acts 2. That doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit didn't exist, it just means that the new relationship under the New Covenant wasn't in effect. As to who has or hasn't ever committed the unpardonable sin I wouldn't know but Jesus did and so did John based on what he writes in 1st John 5. For sure rejecting Jesus was not the unpardonable sin because he himself says that's speaking against him was forgivable.

V31; For this reason I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy

V32; Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven. 

Nobody can blaspheme The Works of the Holy Spirit if they don't know that the holy spirit is doing the work and that is exactly what Jesus said. Well not exactly but that is what he was conveying.

[StanJ]

30 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

This text does not reflect a future tense warning but is speaking purely in the present and past tense.[/quote]

The word 'will' indicate future tense

And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
(Mar 3:22-30)

It might be more helpful if you used a modern more accurate English translation but in any event is a key to this verse above is that they will be in danger. If you have already committed the sin you're not in danger of committing the sin you have and are already eternally Damned.

And not only that, but the narrator of the text accuses them himself in vv. 22, and 30.  

V22 is accusing Jesus of being possessed by the devil and that's doing the healing by the devil. It was not blaspheming the Holy Spirit had done, but it was close, hence the warning.

V30 is the same thing and that they are accusing Jesus of having an unclean spirit which is why he differentiated between himself and the Holy Spirit.

There is no warning.  There is nothing like, "Do that again, and you'll be guilty of blasphemy.  The text makes it clear that they were guilty and it doesn't take more than a cursory reading.   You are spinning the the story to mean something it doesn't mean.    The future tense is only about the judgment and fate of a person who has done it.   It's not a warning that says, if you do it again, it will be blasphemy.    Your argument doens't even hold up under a simply reading of the text.   They were guilty, pure and simple.

Well if you want to use your own rationale, then there's also no wording that says "you're guilty of having blasphemed the Holy Spirit", despite me asking for it several times. From my perspective it seems you're not understanding the Elizabethan English of the KJV and as such you're trying to interpret that English with your modern 21st century understanding of the English language. I suggest you use a Modern English translation like the NET or MOUNCE. 

 

[Guest Robert]

26 minutes ago, StanJ said:

The Pharisees were believers they just didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah. You're confusing the finishing off of the old Covenant with the implementation of the New Covenant and what was in effect then not now. The Pharisees didn't know the spirit of God the way we know the Holy Spirit now, but they could differentiate between the spirit of God and the spirit of the devil. This is why Jesus was warning them and explaining to them what they were perilously close to doing.

There's a difference between not having a savior and committing sins against God/Jesus. At that time no one was under the New Covenant. Jesus had instructed his Apostles to wait for The Advocate which is depicted in Acts 2. That doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit didn't exist, it just means that the new relationship under the New Covenant wasn't in effect. As to who has or hasn't ever committed the unpardonable sin I wouldn't know but Jesus did and so did John based on what he writes in 1st John 5. For sure rejecting Jesus was not the unpardonable sin because he himself says that's speaking against him was forgivable.

V31; For this reason I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy

V32; Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven. 

Nobody can blaspheme The Works of the Holy Spirit if they don't know that the holy spirit is doing the work and that is exactly what Jesus said. Well not exactly but that is what he was conveying.

Then why did Jesus say:

" “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20, NASB, emphasis mine)

If our righteousness had top exceed their to enter the Kingdom, they weren't getting in either. No matter which way you try to "slice" that, they were not saved.

 

But Jesus had more to say on their salvation status:

 

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves." (Matthew 23:15, NASB, emphasis mine)

 

And

 

"“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell? " (Matthew 23: 29-33, NASB, emphasis mine)

 

The Greek word used for "hell" in both passages in Matthew 23 is geennēs (Strong's 1067), which translates to Gehenna. This is the garbage dump on fire that Jesus used as a reference to Hell (the Lake of Fire), not the "grave". Jesus was very clear that the Pharisees were not believers.

 

When it comes to choosing between Jesus' words and yours, I'll take His; yours contradict Scripture.

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2016 by RobertS
additional thoughts.