Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

[Guest shiloh357]

I will acknowledge only God knows for sure if a man will be held accountable for saying things that are blasphemous against the Holy Spirit in ignorance.

Actually we have the Bible to tell us. It is not some unknowable mystery. We (or at least those of who are willing to admit it) know what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is, what it entails, what the exact parameters are. It is senseless to say that we cannnot really know. We can, and we do. We are not in the dark.

However, by the very definition of the word, and the fact it does not say it must be done knowingly,

The very essence of the word precludes that it could be done unintentionally. Again, you cannot hate God on accident. I would love to see you produce a scenario where a person could genuinely hate God but not know it.

To blaspheme is not necessarily to hate God. I am not even sure the Pharisees in their mind hated God. They certainly hated Jesus who is God, but they still claimed a relationship with Jehovah.

From the Bible account where blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was committed, we do indeed see what it entails, and it is possible for anyone to attribute the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil. They can do so without realizing they are by having been deceived.

First of all, because Jesus said they blasphemed the Holy Spirit, it demonstrates that they knew Jesus was operating by the power of the Holy Spirit. It shows that they knew exactly what they were saying. Noswhere does it say that they did it on accident. Jesus treats it as intentional. They blasphemed both Jesus and Holy Spirit, but only against the Holy Spirit is it unforgivable.

According to Mark chapter three, there were two ingredients: 1. They accused Jesus of doing His works by the prince of demons, and 2. that he was inhabited by the prince of demons. It was more than merely attributing His works to demons. They called the Holy Spirit a demon.

Again, anyone who was mistaught that certain supernatural manifestations are of the devil are not blaspheming the Holy Spirit. You are trying to remove the element of motive, and you are wrong for doing so. Those who repeat an error due to a lack of proper education are not in the same class as the person who knowingly taught the error with the full knowledge that it was indeed error.

A person who claims that speaking in tongues is of the devil, because they were raised to believe such is not the same as a person who chooses to defame God's character by attributing the works of God to the devil in the full knowledge that they are injuring God's reputation. There is no way that cannot be done out of hatred for God. No one defames a person they love or care about.

When it comes to blasphemy, motive is everything. That is the dividing line between someone caught up in error, and someone who is out to bring reproach to God's Name.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh,

It is obvious we are getting nowhere in this exchange so I will leave with this. Regardless of who is right or wrong in this argument, I see no harm in advising caution be used when speaking against what may well be a move of God. Yes, there may be some that fear they have committed such a transgression, but the fact they are still concerned about it shows they have not since it is the Spirit that leads us to Christ.

I still do not agree with you but see it is useless to continue arguing with you over it so all I have to say is, if someone wants to risk being found guilty in the sight of God by attributing what may turn out to be the works of the Spirit to the devil, having confidence Shiloh is right, go right ahead. I will continue to use restraint in this area.

Im sorry you feel that way. Words mean things. I have to go by that. Yeah I am so sure people are going to run right out and start calling every supernatural manifestation they see as being of the devil.

The problem you and I are runnining into, is your inability to demonstrate how a Christian could desire to purposefully injure God. The only way you have around it, is to remove the element of motive, and still call it blasphemy, which is logically impossible. Someday you might get to where you understand. Until then...

[Openly Curious]

When I was relatively new to the faith, back around 1993-94 I went to a place called the airport christian fellowship with a friend. In this place they had what was caled "the Toronto blessing" by the media. There was people falling down, laighing uncontrolabley, roaring like lions and alot of other unusual stuff. My friend and I looked at each other and agreed that this was not of the Lord.

Upon reflection, I really can't say whether the Lord had a hand in it or not, but if it was genuine Holy Spirit stuff, would I not have been guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirirt?

You are not guilty of blasphemy of the Holy Ghost because you do not believe something to be from the Lord which is what you and your friend decided. A person should use decernment in their Christian walk for the Bible tells us even to test the spirits to see if they be of God. Not every spirit is of God.

You indeed would have been if you believed it was God working in the meeting and then said they were doing it through the power of Satan. However, what is genuine and what is not genuine is where the struggle is for most. People can't seem to tell because it's all based on faith we can only go on witnesses from people that they have been saved, set free and delivered by the power of God. It is not up to us to judge the work of God in anyones life we just have to accept or reject their witness. Just as we do when we read the Bible either we believe the disciples writings and the apostles writings and John's prophetic writings in Revelation these are all witnesses to us of the miracles, salvation of souls, the healings, being set free from demons, even seeing of things to come etc,. Either one will choose to believe their witness or they don't.

Ananias and Sapphira in the book of Acts were believers even though some would judge them and say that they were not saved because after all a believer can't do that because the spirit wouldn't lead them to do that. But you will notice they both had the Holy Spirit. But they decided (conspired together) to lie to the Holy Ghost and keep back part and then you read that they were both taken up dead. Of course it doesn't say in that story that blasphemy of the Holy Ghost took place but it does show one should be cautious in dealing with and speaking against the person of the Holy Spirit.

God Bless you richly in your search for truth

Openly Curious

[RGR]

Shiloh,

It is obvious we are getting nowhere in this exchange so I will leave with this. Regardless of who is right or wrong in this argument, I see no harm in advising caution be used when speaking against what may well be a move of God. Yes, there may be some that fear they have committed such a transgression, but the fact they are still concerned about it shows they have not since it is the Spirit that leads us to Christ.

I still do not agree with you but see it is useless to continue arguing with you over it so all I have to say is, if someone wants to risk being found guilty in the sight of God by attributing what may turn out to be the works of the Spirit to the devil, having confidence Shiloh is right, go right ahead. I will continue to use restraint in this area.

Talk about overreacting and dramatization! I didn't see Shiloh at any time or point say that someone was free to go about calling every movement within the church of the enemy.

Ya know, maybe I'm sensitive to this issue to begin with. When I turned my life back to God 4 1/2 years ago, Satan tried to continually convince me in some way or anothe that I had blasphemed the Holy Spirit. It was at times what seemed to be an incessant, continual attack upon my mind. By the time I would figure it out that I really hadn't committed the sin, he would come along again and put me back on the same vicious cycle again. I'm sorry but, again, I am real sensitive to this issue.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh,

It is obvious we are getting nowhere in this exchange so I will leave with this. Regardless of who is right or wrong in this argument, I see no harm in advising caution be used when speaking against what may well be a move of God. Yes, there may be some that fear they have committed such a transgression, but the fact they are still concerned about it shows they have not since it is the Spirit that leads us to Christ.

I still do not agree with you but see it is useless to continue arguing with you over it so all I have to say is, if someone wants to risk being found guilty in the sight of God by attributing what may turn out to be the works of the Spirit to the devil, having confidence Shiloh is right, go right ahead. I will continue to use restraint in this area.

Talk about overreacting and dramatization! I didn't see Shiloh at any time or point say that someone was free to go about calling every movement within the church of the enemy.

Ya know, maybe I'm sensitive to this issue to begin with. When I turned my life back to God 4 1/2 years ago, Satan tried to continually convince me in some way or anothe that I had blasphemed the Holy Spirit. It was at times what seemed to be an incessant, continual attack upon my mind. By the time I would figure it out that I really hadn't committed the sin, he would come along again and put me back on the same vicious cycle again. I'm sorry but, again, I am real sensitive to this issue.

If a person still has a desire to be saved, they could not possibly be guilty of this sin, because it is God's Spirit that brings conviction as well as a desire to serve God. Since that is the case, it is obvious you didn't commit the unpardonable sin. I just have concerns for those that would lightly attack things they don't understand, because I don't want them to risk actually committing blaspehemy of the Holy Spirit.

Yeah, and lightly attacking things is simply not blasphemy. Attacking in ignorance is not blasphemy.

The only way you can support your position is to remove the motive from the action. It is not words themselves, that constitute the blasphemy, but the heart intentions behind the words. Blasphemy is the product of spirit of rebellion. Rebellion is not accidental, it is not unintentional. It is only blasphemy when your intention is damage the reputation of the Holy Spirit. By refusing to make the distinction between those who simply mistaken in their assessment of spiritual things due to a improper education in these matters, and someone who knows the truth but seeks to damage the Holy Spirit's reputation anyway, there is no way to have a serious discussion about this subject with you.

You are trying to change the definition of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, by broadening to include Christians. You have to go beyond the biblical definition of the sin, and you are wrong for doing that.

[Guest shiloh357]

That being said however, since I already gave the dictionary definition of blasphemy and it does not say the act must be done willfully, how can you back up your position? I am not trying to change the definition of blasphemy. The definition I gave was out of a Greek dictionary. You are trying to add to the definition to make it fit your beliefs. It almost sounds as though you got this definition of what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is out of a commentary and are going to defend this wrong idea to the end. Simply look up the word blasphemy in a Greek dictionary and see where it says blasphemy must be done intentionally.

Look at the definition you gave. The dictionary does not have to say, "This must be done intentionally." The definition it gives, assumes intention. Let me redraw an earlier analogy: Someone tells me a lie, knowing that their information is false. I do not know it is a lie, and I trust this person to tell me the truth. I repeat the lie, thinking that I am telling truth. Now applying some really simple logic here, lying is a purposeful misrepresentation, is it not?? A person is only lying when they knowingly give false information/testimony. I, who was given the false information, and spread the false information in ignorance, would not qualify as a "liar." Only the person who knowingly falsified the information is the liar.

OK, now let's apply that analogy to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy according to definition YOU gave, means vilification. To vilify means to blacken someone's character. It amounts to slander (which is also lying). You cannot slander, or vilify without knowingly doing so. To slander is to spread false information for the purpose of defaming the character of another, which is why it is a prosecutable offense in this country (U.S.). Even the judicial code of the United States knows that this is intentional. "Blasphemy," "Slander," "Libel," are simply three ways of saying the same thing. If I made up stories about you that are not true, and spread them on radio and print media, and caused you to lose your job, wrecked your reputation, with your family and friends, there is no way I could argue that what I did was unintentional.

Now on the same token, the members of the community who believe the lies I tell about you, and repeat them are not guilty of slander, libel because they were simply fed false information and had no way, or reason to seek corroboration. The only one guilty would be me. I would shoulder the full blame for the damages caused to you. Where slander is concerned, you cannot take someone to court for believing a lie, only for initiating it.

It is the same with blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. You are simply trying to skirt around the obvious. The very term blasphemy assumes intention. The Greek dictionary you cite actually supports my position in every sense. To be guilty of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, you must knowingly spread information for the express purpose of injuring the Holy Spirit's reputation. You must seek to discredit, and defame Him in the eyes of others. The motive and intention is everything. A person who, in ignorance, believed that incorrect information is not equally guilty of that sin. You simply cannot divorce intention from action make a blanket judgements against everyone who you think is guilty of this sin. There is simply more to it.

[Pilgrim7]

Those who blaspheme the Spirit of God, never know it. If a person is in fear that he has or may blaspheme the Spirit, it shows that his conscience is still alive and that there is hope. when the Spirit is blaslphemed, the conscience is dead, seared with a hot iron. He responds not the voice of conviction and reproof anymore. He attributes any conviction of wrong or reproof as the voice of the devil trying to deceive and discourage him.

God Bless,

Dennis

Edited January 29, 2006 by Pilgrim7

[Guest shiloh357]

If a person hears false information about another person and spreads the false information, they are still doing harm to the one they are sladering.

That is true, but they are not the one who ultimately bears the blame, and they are not slandering since their intention is not to cause harm. They are speaking what they think is truth.

It is an example of bearing false witness against your neighbor. It is a form of gossip. If the second person had not spread the lie, perhaps the whole issue would have died. How many more people believed the lie for the sake of the testimony of the second person?

It is only "false witness" when you know it is false, and spread it anyway. Yes it might qualify at best as gossip, but not all gossip is slander. What you are saying is true but does not speak to the issue of slander. People often speak things when they should shut up, but that is not germain to the issue at hand. That brings up another subject altogether.

Also, you keep speaking of people repeating lies. What about the person that started it?

Please read the analogy I gave. I have already stated that the person who starts a lie is the one ultimately to blame.

What if someone just observes something he or she doesn't think looks right and blurts out on their own that what is going on is not of God but of the devil? They were not repeating what someone else said, but are giving their own judgement. I have no problem with soemone questioning if it may be of God, but to attribute the works of God to the devil is something else.

Well, in asking this, you have already provided the motive. The motive of this person was not hurt or injure God but was a genuine feeling that what they say was not of God, but of the devil. They were not vilifying God, or attempting to discredit him, if we go strictly by your question. They may be wrong, and they may be premature in thier judgement, but they are not attempting to hurt or damage God's reputation. They were, in their misguided zeal attempting to correct what they sincerely thought was leading people away from God. That is not blasphemy.

[Guest NewPilgrim]

My pastor was preaching on this very passage last week. His concise exposition of the passage was that the unorgivable sin "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" is to refuse to acknowledge your need to be forgiven (in the etrenal sense, not for individual sins) dispite his conviction. Or to put it more simply, to reject salvation, which is sealed by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

To refuse the offer of salvation is the unforgivable sin. And I'm inclined to concurr

Also, in the light of the security of salvation (sorry for you chaps who dont think that salvation is secure) it is impossible to commit an unforgivable sin. Yeshua promises that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit, that he shall never cast us out and that NO, not even you can take yourself from his grasp. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, logically, is the domain of the unsaved, not the saved. Christ does not fail in his mission, nor does he break promises.

N.B. Any grievance with OSAS should be taken up through a new thread, lets not hijack this one

Edited January 29, 2006 by NewPilgrim

[Guest NewPilgrim]

hahahahaha Nice one PB

Edited January 29, 2006 by NewPilgrim