# Blasphemy of the H.S. and apostasy ...



## amishrockstar

*Most people that I've read or heard talking about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit tend to believe that the unpardonable sin is a willful and prolonged rejection of the gospel after coming to a good (mental) understanding of it .... if that's the case, then how are we to understand guys like Adoniram Judson? His father was a pastor, the gospel was preached in that house, Adoniram was a hardened athiest, and yet God saved him and used him as a missionary later on in life ... also, what do we do with guys like Franklin Graham who grew up hearing about Christ and the gospel, yet he turned to a lifestyle of debauchery only to be convicted later on and come to faith in Christ?
Any thoughts?
THANKS!*


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I guess my question would be can a regenerate, justified, spirit indwelt believer become an atheist? I don't think so.



> (1Jn 2:19) 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.
> 
> 
> (1Jn 5:9) If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
> 
> (1Jn 5:10) He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.


----------



## amishrockstar

I don't really see what that question has to do with my question ... do you have any thoughts on a person who rejects Christ and the gospel, yet becomes a Christian later on in life (in light of the (above) understanding of the blasphemy of the H.S.)?
THANKS


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

amishrockstar said:


> *Most people that I've read or heard talking about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit tend to believe that the unpardonable sin is a willful and prolonged rejection of the gospel after coming to a good (mental) understanding of it .... *



Concerning Judson
By what you have stated this gentleman obviously didn't reject the gospel for that set prolonged time whereby God doesn't permit or grant repentance any longer. He ended up embracing Christ.

Concerning Graham
And turning to a life of debauchery is not necessarily the same as pronouncing Christianity a lie. It is living in deep sin and grieving the Holy Spirit though.


----------



## amishrockstar

I'd agree ... 
how is it then that many believers assert that the blasphemy of the H.S. is (basically) a willful rejection of the gospel?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

amishrockstar said:


> I'd agree ...
> how is it then that many believers assert that the blasphemy of the H.S. is (basically) a willful rejection of the gospel?


Because a total lifelong rejection of Christ is unforgivable.


----------



## amishrockstar

Adoniram did reject the gospel that he grew up hearing from his father

Graham had to reject it because he knew what it was and still went another way


----------



## amishrockstar

alright, so you would understand blasphemy of the H.S. as a life long rejection... not something that can happen in a person's life (during a point in time before they die)?
In other words, you wouldn't see that sin as possibly being committed when someone is 39 and then they can live until they are 67; you'd see the sin as simply the result of a life lived without God?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

They didn't reject it to death though. After death is judgment. (Heb 9:27) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

amishrockstar said:


> alright, so you would understand blasphemy of the H.S. as a life long rejection... not something that can happen in a person's life (during a point in time before they die)?



You were defining blasphemy of the Spirit by how others defined it. I believe it can be a specific act here on earth also. It seems Jesus was speaking about a specific thing when he mentioned it. But to be honest with you it has been a doctrine I have read about with a little confusion. I do know if you die without being justified before God you have entered the Unforgiven Zone. Rejecting God, His Christ, and His Word is unpardonable after death.


----------



## amishrockstar

Thanks for your reply,
I've heard other people who hold to the same view that you do ... I'm still working through my own understanding of that sin. I would be curious to know how someone who believes that the 'sin' is something that can be committed particularly during a certain point in time, would answer the above questions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

(1Jn 5:16) 

If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.


Here is Calvin



> There is a sin unto death I have already said that the sin to which there is no hope of pardon left, is thus called. But it may be asked, what this is; for it must be very atrocious, when God thus so severely punishes it. It may be gathered from the context, that it is not, as they say, a partial fall, or atransgression of a single commandment, but apostasy, by which men wholly alienate themselves from God. For the Apostle afterwards adds, that the children of God do not sin, that is, that they do not forsake God, and wholly surrender themselves to Satan, to be his slaves. Such a defection, it is no wonder that it is mortal; for God never thus deprives his own people of the grace of the Spirit; but they ever retain some spark of true religion. They must then be reprobate and given up todestruction, who thus fall away so as to have no fear of God.
> 
> Were any one to ask, whether the door of salvation is closed against their repentance; the answer is obvious, that as they are given up to a reprobate mind, and are destitute of the Holy Spirit, they cannot do anything else, than with obstinate minds, become worse and worse, and add sins to sins. Moreover, as the sin and blasphemy against the Spirit ever brings with it a defection of this kind, there is no doubt but that it is here pointedout.
> 
> But it may be asked again, by what evidences can we know that a man’s fall is fatal; for except the knowledge of this was certain, in vain would the Apostle have made this exception, that they were not to pray for a sin of this kind. It is then right to determine sometimes, whether the fallen is without hope, or whether there is still a place for a remedy. This, indeed, is what I allow, and what is evident beyond dispute from this passage;but as this very seldom happens, and as God sets before us the infinite riches of his grace, and bids us to be merciful according to his own example, we ought not rashly to conclude that any one has brought on himself the judgment of eternal death; on the contrary, love should dispose us to hope well. But if the impiety of some appear to us not otherwise than hopeless, as though the Lord pointed it out by the finger, we ought not to contend with the just judgment of God, or seek to be more merciful than he is.


----------



## Iconoclast

They were ascribing the Lord's work to be of the power of satan,rather than the Holy Spirit. It was a specific sin.
It is not unbelief, or blasphemy per se.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Iconoclast said:


> They were ascribing the Lord's work to be of the power of satan,rather than the Holy Spirit. It was a specific sin.
> It is not unbelief, or blasphemy per se.



This raises a whole new set of questions. And I will bow out for tonight.


----------



## VictorBravo

Iconoclast said:


> They were ascribing the Lord's work to be of the power of satan,rather than the Holy Spirit. It was a specific sin.
> It is not unbelief, or blasphemy per se.



I think that is right. I'm not so sure it is a kind of sin that we would see today. What I mean by that is that we cannot identify a particular "step on a crack and you're dead" sort of sin that cannot be foregiven upon faith. 

I know a guy who, in a period of serious oppression and rebellion, did everything he could to try to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. It was the strangest thing, for a while he was obsessed with trying to foreclose the possibility of salvation. 

But the Holy Spirit won, he was converted, and has been one of Christ's subjects for many years.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Iconoclast said:


> They were ascribing the Lord's work to be of the power of satan,rather than the Holy Spirit. It was a specific sin.
> It is not unbelief, or blasphemy per se.




I agree with you. I think the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is defined in this passage in Mark:


Mar 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 
Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 
Mar 3:30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

victorbravo said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were ascribing the Lord's work to be of the power of satan,rather than the Holy Spirit. It was a specific sin.
> It is not unbelief, or blasphemy per se.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is right. I'm not so sure it is a kind of sin that we would see today. What I mean by that is that we cannot identify a particular "step on a crack and you're dead" sort of sin that cannot be foregiven upon faith.
> 
> I know a guy who, in a period of serious oppression and rebellion, did everything he could to try to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. It was the strangest thing, for a while he was obsessed with trying to foreclose the possibility of salvation.
> 
> But the Holy Spirit won, he was converted, and has been one of Christ's subjects for many years.
Click to expand...


This gets kinda sticky also for other reasons. What if a Jewish man claimed he became a Christian and that the Holy Spirit has now created new life in him. And his neighbor said it was rubbish and that he was following a false deceptive spirit. Is that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Would that be unforgivable. Is there any chance for this man to repent and be reconciled to God? 

This is a very complex issue. I do know of one thing that is unforgivable. A final rejection of Christ. When does this happen. It may vary from individual to individual. I know not when or how. I would refer you back up to the post with Calvin's Comment on 1 John 5:16.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were ascribing the Lord's work to be of the power of satan,rather than the Holy Spirit. It was a specific sin.
> It is not unbelief, or blasphemy per se.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you. I think the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is defined in this passage in Mark:
> 
> 
> Mar 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
> Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
> Mar 3:30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
Click to expand...


Amen. And since one rejects the power of the Holy SPirit, He will not apply any pardon for this sin. Its a grand subject, too vast for me to stay above... Perhaps the reprobate are all guilty of this sin. Therefore no blood is aplied to them. NO pardon, no atonement. Since we know that the elect and reprobate sin alike, tainted with Adam's sin, maybe there si something to this thought, I dont know.


----------



## Wannabee

Some thoughts - There seems to be an intangible line between one who truly falls away (apostate) and a backslider. On one hand we see the horror of Hebrews 6. On the other hand we see the incredible love, mercy and grace of a doting Father bringing His child to repentance in Hebrews 12.
The Pharisees had the truth, and were responsible for proclaiming that truth. But they got in the way of the truth and failed to recognize *the Truth *when they stared Him in the eye. And the work that Jesus did was said to come from Satan. That's blaspheme against the Holy Spirit; when His work is clear but contributed to the Father of Lies. For someone who has the truth of God and understands it to make such statement is unforgivable.
Remember the words of Hebrews 6, 
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.​Consider Owen -


> ...it is a total renunciation of all the constituent principles and doctrines of Christianity. Such was the sin of them who forsook the gospel and returned to Judaism; this was accompanied by the open and public renunciation of the gospel. This is the "falling away," - a voluntary resolved relinquishment of and apostasy from the gospel, the faith, rule, and obedience thereof, which cannot be done without casting the highest reproach and contumely [1. Rudeness or contempt arising from arrogance; insolence. 2. An insolent or arrogant remark or act.] upon the Person of Christ Himself.
> Abridged Commentary p.98


----------



## Archlute

Although the _impoenitentia finalis_ is a common view regarding this sin, as I have been preaching through Mark's Gospel for the past several months I have come to the conclusion that the unforgivable sin spoken of there cannot be committed today. What we have here is a specific rejection of Christ's identity while upon the earth, and the signs by which the Holy Spirit testified to that as being ascribed to the work of Satan by the leaders of Israel. Jerome and Chrysostom held this view, and Dr. Kim Riddlebarger takes this position as well in his recent sermon series on Mark's Gospel (although I can no longer find some of those sermons on his blog - sorry, I would have set a link to it here otherwise).

Also, there are good reasons to see this sin in Mark, and those other sins mentioned in the epistle to the Hebrews and 1 John, as being separate issues. I have not the time to explicate here, but I may post some of the studies that I came across regarding this if I have time later on.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Archlute said:


> Although the _impoenitentia finalis_ is a common view regarding this sin, as I have been preaching through Mark's Gospel for the past several months I have come to the conclusion that the unforgivable sin spoken of there cannot be committed today. What we have here is a specific rejection of Christ's identity while upon the earth, and the signs by which the Holy Spirit testified to that as being ascribed to the work of Satan by the leaders of Israel. Jerome and Chrysostom held this view, and Dr. Kim Riddlebarger takes this position as well in his recent sermon series on Mark's Gospel (although I can no longer find some of those sermons on his blog - sorry, I would have set a link to it here otherwise).
> 
> Also, there are good reasons to see this sin in Mark, and those other sins mentioned in the epistle to the Hebrews and 1 John, as being separate issues. I have not the time to explicate here, but I may post some of the studies that I came across regarding this if I have time later on.



I have read this view, and humbly disagree. The sin is not attributed to Christ, it is attributed to the Holy SPirit, who continues to reveal Christ. So to say it could only be committed when Christ walked the earth, is to conclude the Holy Spirit does not work in the world anymore. Mark 3:29 says, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness.” “whoever” does not fence this sin to the time of Christ being on the earth. Much like when Jesus says, whosoever believes in me shall have eternal life. The “whosoever” in this passage is clearly not limited to the time Christ was on the earth.


----------



## Archlute

Amazing Grace said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although the _impoenitentia finalis_ is a common view regarding this sin, as I have been preaching through Mark's Gospel for the past several months I have come to the conclusion that the unforgivable sin spoken of there cannot be committed today. What we have here is a specific rejection of Christ's identity while upon the earth, and the signs by which the Holy Spirit testified to that as being ascribed to the work of Satan by the leaders of Israel. Jerome and Chrysostom held this view, and Dr. Kim Riddlebarger takes this position as well in his recent sermon series on Mark's Gospel (although I can no longer find some of those sermons on his blog - sorry, I would have set a link to it here otherwise).
> 
> Also, there are good reasons to see this sin in Mark, and those other sins mentioned in the epistle to the Hebrews and 1 John, as being separate issues. I have not the time to explicate here, but I may post some of the studies that I came across regarding this if I have time later on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read this view, and humbly disagree. The sin is not attributed to Christ, it is attributed to the Holy Spirit, who continues to reveal Christ. So to say it could only be committed when Christ walked the earth, is to conclude the Holy Spirit does not work in the world anymore. Mark 3:29 says, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness.” “whoever” does not fence this sin to the time of Christ being on the earth. Much like when Jesus says, whosoever believes in me shall have eternal life. The “whosoever” in this passage is clearly not limited to the time Christ was on the earth.
Click to expand...


The sin is attributed neither to Christ nor the Holy Spirit, but rather to the scribes who came down from Jerusalem - be careful!

The sin is said to be against the Holy Spirit, but the signs and wonders which Christ worked were the object of the accusation. Both Christ and the Spirit are in view, but the Spirit is prominent as he is the witness to Christ's divinity.

When Christ said "whoever", this must be taken within the framework of that period of redemptive history. Anyone who lived at that time, and who attributed the supernatural works of Christ to Satan could have been given the same warning. The Holy Spirit does indeed still work today, but he does not work by visible miracles given in the presence of the visible Christ. That is why the "whoever" could truly apply then, but not now. The "whoever" of belief in Christ is of a different scope, and it applies to all men until the return of Christ, because it is faith in the message of the Gospel. The Gospel can still be heard today by men, while miracles in the presence of Christ cannot still be seen.


----------



## Wannabee

Ah, the challenge of understanding doctrine in the midst of narrative. Adam's perspective deserves consideration, but sure changes the way we look at "whoever" in the gospels (which can be challenging anyway). But I would say that the Pharisees in Mark's Gospel are the example of the doctrine of Hebrews 6, and that Jesus was expressing the same doctrine that the writer of Hebrews is attempting to exposit.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Archlute said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although the _impoenitentia finalis_ is a common view regarding this sin, as I have been preaching through Mark's Gospel for the past several months I have come to the conclusion that the unforgivable sin spoken of there cannot be committed today. What we have here is a specific rejection of Christ's identity while upon the earth, and the signs by which the Holy Spirit testified to that as being ascribed to the work of Satan by the leaders of Israel. Jerome and Chrysostom held this view, and Dr. Kim Riddlebarger takes this position as well in his recent sermon series on Mark's Gospel (although I can no longer find some of those sermons on his blog - sorry, I would have set a link to it here otherwise).
> 
> Also, there are good reasons to see this sin in Mark, and those other sins mentioned in the epistle to the Hebrews and 1 John, as being separate issues. I have not the time to explicate here, but I may post some of the studies that I came across regarding this if I have time later on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read this view, and humbly disagree. The sin is not attributed to Christ, it is attributed to the Holy Spirit, who continues to reveal Christ. So to say it could only be committed when Christ walked the earth, is to conclude the Holy Spirit does not work in the world anymore. Mark 3:29 says, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness.” “whoever” does not fence this sin to the time of Christ being on the earth. Much like when Jesus says, whosoever believes in me shall have eternal life. The “whosoever” in this passage is clearly not limited to the time Christ was on the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sin is attributed neither to Christ nor the Holy Spirit, but rather to the scribes who came down from Jerusalem - be careful!
> 
> The sin is said to be against the Holy Spirit, but the signs and wonders which Christ worked were the object of the accusation. Both Christ and the Spirit are in view, but the Spirit is prominent as he is the witness to Christ's divinity.
> 
> When Christ said "whoever", this must be taken within the framework of that period of redemptive history. Anyone who lived at that time, and who attributed the supernatural works of Christ to Satan could have been given the same warning. The Holy Spirit does indeed still work today, but he does not work by visible miracles given in the presence of the visible Christ. That is why the "whoever" could truly apply then, but not now. The "whoever" of belief in Christ is of a different scope, and it applies to all men until the return of Christ, because it is faith in the message of the Gospel. The Gospel can still be heard today by men, while miracles in the presence of Christ cannot still be seen.
Click to expand...


My mistake Arch, but it is specifically said to be against the Holy Spirit, not against Christ or His works or anything else. 31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 *Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him*; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Christ does not give a specific account of the object of their criticism. He only speaks of Blaspheming the Holy Spirit. What many fail to realize is the sin of blaspheming is a sin of the tongue. Wannabee is exactly correct in connecting this with Hebrews 6. It is a known, malicious, calling of the working of the Holy Spirit evil, and can still happen today, but it cannot be committed ignorantly. What this means is that there is some sort of mental assent or knowing that the Holy Spirit is actually the one doing the work, but in an attempt to suppress that truth in unrighteousness the person blasphemes against it. This sin comes from a heart that is so hard toward the things of God that it will never repent, and God in his purposes has refused to bring it to repentance. 1 Cor. 2:14 tells us, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: For they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” We cannot confess what we cannot receive because it is foolishness to us, but through the work of the Holy Spirit He opens our blind eyes to see the truth. Scripture then goes further by telling us that we cannot even say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:3 says, “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed; and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” 

Christ Himself said the power of casting out devils comes from the Spirit of God.. *28But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.* And since they attributed it to the spirit of the devil, they directly sinned against the Spirit and not Christ. For if it was against Christ, then there is forgiveness in that.

As an aside, your thoughts about "whoever" being fenced becasue of miracles is a stretch, bt I will give it a tad more thought. If I had to do this everytime the word was used,I would be playing biblical hopscotch!!!. In fact this wasnt even about miracles, becasue even when some asked for a sign(miracle, Christ said NO, the only sign you will get is Jonah.
[/B]


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I believe Hebrews 6:1-8 is quite other than the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit spoken of in the Gospels, the former – per verses 7-8 – pertains to “the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it”, that is, hearts under the ministry of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Gospel, some earth/hearts bringing forth herbs and others thorns and briers, which I take to refer to those hearts in covenant community which are not of the election of grace.

The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a specific sin of calling the _Spirit_ of Christ (or of God – He is the same Spirit) the evil spirit. I know men whose anointing is such (I think of Reformed Baptist Al Martin) that the Holy Spirit is powerfully manifest through their speaking. Were one to say, “This is the spirit of the devil speaking through Martin” that would come close – I think it being a matter of differing in degree (with the sin in the Gospels) than differing in kind. It is the same Holy Spirit speaking through a man.

No doubt it is a rare thing to see nowadays, yet I do not think impossible.


----------



## Archlute

Amazing Grace said:


> My mistake Arch, but it is specifically said to be against the Holy Spirit, not against Christ or His works or anything else. 31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 *Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him*; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.



It was a sin against both Christ and the Holy Spirit. They were directing their accusations against Christ, and so many would have thought that they were sinning against him alone, but Christ surprises them with his statement that they are also sinning against the Holy Spirit; in doing so he nowhere denies that they are sinning against him. That is the nature of our Lord, he endured sin on our behalf with silence while upon this earth, but he alerts the scribes to an implication of their sin that they had not previously considered.





> Christ does not give a specific account of the object of their criticism. He only speaks of Blaspheming the Holy Spirit. What many fail to realize is the sin of blaspheming is a sin of the tongue. Wannabee is exactly correct in connecting this with Hebrews 6. It is a known, malicious, calling of the working of the Holy Spirit evil, and can still happen today, but it cannot be committed ignorantly. What this means is that there is some sort of mental assent or knowing that the Holy Spirit is actually the one doing the work, but in an attempt to suppress that truth in unrighteousness the person blasphemes against it. This sin comes from a heart that is so hard toward the things of God that it will never repent, and God in his purposes has refused to bring it to repentance. 1 Cor. 2:14 tells us, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: For they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” We cannot confess what we cannot receive because it is foolishness to us, but through the work of the Holy Spirit He opens our blind eyes to see the truth. Scripture then goes further by telling us that we cannot even say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:3 says, “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed; and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.”



The warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews must be read in their own setting. The thesis underlying that letter (or sermon, as Dr. Johnson argues) is that Christ is superior to everything in the Mosaic system toward which the Jewish Christians were turning back, and that if they did turn back to those shadows, there would remain no salvation for them, as they were leaving the superior high-priest/sacrifice of Christ, toward which all of those shadowy rituals pointed. Whereas the sin in the synoptics refers to a completely different situation. 





> Christ Himself said the power of casting out devils comes from the Spirit of God.. *28But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.* And since they attributed it to the spirit of the devil, they directly sinned against the Spirit and not Christ. For if it was against Christ, then there is forgiveness in that.



They sinned against both, as they sought to discredit the growing ministry of Christ with their slander, which if you study the preceding chapters you will be able to see that they had already attempted to plant the seeds of dissent among his disciples with their whisperings, but they also sinned against the Holy Spirit in attributing the miraculous work to Satan. The sin against Christ could be forgiven, even if the sin against the Spirit could not.





> As an aside, your thoughts about "whoever" being fenced because of miracles is a stretch, bt I will give it a tad more thought. If I had to do this every time the word was used,I would be playing biblical hopscotch!!!. In fact this wasn't even about miracles, because even when some asked for a sign(miracle, Christ said NO, the only sign you will get is Jonah.



You're beginning to get it! Serious biblical exegesis requires hard work, deep thought, repeated studying of the various aspects within a single Gospel account, as well as among the synoptics, and then further with the relation of Saint John's Gospel to that of the synoptic's accounts. It can often make one lay down exhausted and weary in the head, but the end is a richer picture of the love and accomplishment of God come in the flesh - well worth the toil. 

Although this was specifically about a particular exorcism, exorcisms and various miraculous signs are tied together in their purpose within the Gospels, which is to attest to the arrival of the Kingdom of God. The healing testify to the power of Christ over the effects of the fall, both upon the bodies and souls of men, and the exorcisms testify to the power of Christ over the kingdom of Satan. They could have just as well attributed the earlier healing of the paralytic, or the man with the whithered hand to Satan as well with the same effect. These things were all the power of the Holy Spirit in testifying to the Kingdom of God and to His Christ.


----------



## Wannabee

Archlute said:


> The warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews must be read in their own setting. The thesis underlying that letter (or sermon, as Dr. Johnson argues) is that Christ is superior to everything in the Mosaic system toward which the Jewish Christians were turning back, and that if they did turn back to those shadows, there would remain no salvation for them, as they were leaving the superior high-priest/sacrifice of Christ, toward which all of those shadowy rituals pointed. Whereas the sin in the synoptics refers to a completely different situation.


This is accurate, except the result is the same. I won't die on this hill. But there is more to consider. In both cases we have believers in God's Word who deny Christ and turn away from the truth. The Pharisees could not deny the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus for obvious reasons. But those who believed (not unto salvation) in God's Word, including Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection, and turned back to Judaism committed the same sin. They both turned from the saving truth that had been revealed to them and toward a religious system that condemned them. In both cases they depended upon "dead works" for salvation, rather than the living Savior. Both Jesus and the writer of Hebrews is calling on men to repent and believe. Then, in chapter 6 we have the writer pointing out that the washings (not baptisms), laying on of hands and resurrection with eternal judgment, while having merit under the law, do not lead to salvation. All of these works the Pharisees/Judaisers relied upon rather the Messiah.
The Pharisees were enlightened with all that God had revealed to that point. The Judaizers were enlightened with all that God had revealed up to the point of the writing of Hebrews. The writer, in v 3, says they will leave this behind, if God permits (cf John 6:44).
Verse 4 even says that they are partakers of the Holy Spirit, they've tasted the heavenly gift, tasted the good word of God and the power of the age to come. And yet those who fall away from all of this cannot renew their repentance. They've blasphemed the work of the Holy Spirit and are eternally cut off. There was no more knowledge for them to gain. They had all they needed. Like the Pharisees (of which some of them may have been), they conclude that the crucifixion of Jesus was just. There is no more sacrifice for them. 

Hebrews 10
26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​


----------



## amishrockstar

Most of the replies on this thread have been very useful --THANKS! 
But I've been getting private messages about this thread from some guy who believes that Arminians are NOT and cannot be Christians...
Here's the short conversation that I've been having...

*"I read your post on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
2 things i'd like to say.
1) Franklin Graham is an arminian, he was NOT brought up in a christian home, he does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, his Dad is an enemy of the truth.
2) see this long article written by a man about this issue.
here is the link.
http://www.godsonlygospel.com/Blasph...%20Spirit2.htm"
*
I responded:

"So only people who grow up in Calvinist homes can commit the unpardonable sin??? Franklin Graham was told that Jesus was/is the ONLY way of salvation ... why couldn't he have rejected Christ (which he did) and harden his heart against the gospel (which he did)?
I'll have to read the article later; it seems to deal more with charismatics/Pentecostals and their particular view of the 'sin.'"

and the last response that I got is this:

*"Hi Matthew.
Franklin Graham was brought up to believe in a false Christ who was begging for him to make that decision.
Franklin Graham believes he's saved (he's not regenerate) because he accepted the beggar god who shed his blood equally for those in hell as he did for those in heaven and apparently loves those in hell as **much as he loves those in heaven.
Both Franklin Graham and his dad preach salvation by works, that is - salvation not conditioned on the blood and righteousness of Christ alone but on the free will choice of the sinner.
If you believe you worship the same God and believe in the same Jesus as Billy and Franklin Graham then you are a lost man. an idolater."*

What do you do with the MAJORITY of popular Reformed pastors today? Most of them have come from some sort of Dispensational, non-Calvinistic background? What of R.C. Sproul, Ken Gentry, Gene Cook Jr., James White, on and on...? Many solidly Reformed guys today would believe they were saved BEFORE they became convinced of "Calvinism"

(Please note: I'm NOT saying that ALL Arminians are Christians --many are not-- just like I'm NOT saying that ALL Calvinists are Christians --many aren't)

ANY THOUGHTS?


----------



## Archlute

amishrockstar said:


> What do you do with the MAJORITY of popular Reformed pastors today? Most of them have come from some sort of Dispensational, non-Calvinistic background? What of R.C. Sproul, Ken Gentry, Gene Cook Jr., James White, on and on...? Many solidly Reformed guys today would believe they were saved BEFORE they became convinced of "Calvinism"



Amen. That is true of me (the saved before Calvinism, not the popular Reformed pastor part ) as well as for many men who are now ministers in the PCA/OPC/URCNA. They will state it that way as well, e.g. "I was saved in a Calvary Chapel, and then after much study became convinced of the doctrines of the Reformation". Salvation comes through faith in Christ, not through being Reformed in doctrine. Reformation is more about the health of the church and her mission than about ruling poor individual souls out of the kingdom. If it were the case that you must self consciously embrace the doctrines of grace for your salvation, you could find a hot place in hell for many of the great saints of the church, including just about all of the early fathers, many of whom tended towards moralism.

I would guess that with the hyper-Calvinist views such as he holds this fellow is no minister, or if he is, he has a congregation of about five highly bitter people, two of whom happen to be himself and his unhappy wife (they are out there...). If this is the case, don't even waste your time with him.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Archlute said:


> I would guess that with the hyper-Calvinist views such as he holds this fellow is no minister, or if he is, he has a congregation of about five highly bitter people, two of whom happen to be himself and his unhappy wife (they are out there...). If this is the case, don't even waste your time with him.



I know many like this. Hopefully I will spend eternity with them, but I cant stand to be around them one minute on this earth...


----------



## Blueridge Believer

amishrockstar said:


> Most of the replies on this thread have been very useful --THANKS!
> But I've been getting private messages about this thread from some guy who believes that Arminians are NOT and cannot be Christians...
> Here's the short conversation that I've been having...
> 
> *"I read your post on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
> 2 things i'd like to say.
> 1) Franklin Graham is an arminian, he was NOT brought up in a christian home, he does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, his Dad is an enemy of the truth.
> 2) see this long article written by a man about this issue.
> here is the link.
> http://www.godsonlygospel.com/Blasph...%20Spirit2.htm"
> *
> I responded:
> 
> "So only people who grow up in Calvinist homes can commit the unpardonable sin??? Franklin Graham was told that Jesus was/is the ONLY way of salvation ... why couldn't he have rejected Christ (which he did) and harden his heart against the gospel (which he did)?
> I'll have to read the article later; it seems to deal more with charismatics/Pentecostals and their particular view of the 'sin.'"
> 
> and the last response that I got is this:
> 
> *"Hi Matthew.
> Franklin Graham was brought up to believe in a false Christ who was begging for him to make that decision.
> Franklin Graham believes he's saved (he's not regenerate) because he accepted the beggar god who shed his blood equally for those in hell as he did for those in heaven and apparently loves those in hell as **much as he loves those in heaven.
> Both Franklin Graham and his dad preach salvation by works, that is - salvation not conditioned on the blood and righteousness of Christ alone but on the free will choice of the sinner.
> If you believe you worship the same God and believe in the same Jesus as Billy and Franklin Graham then you are a lost man. an idolater."*
> 
> What do you do with the MAJORITY of popular Reformed pastors today? Most of them have come from some sort of Dispensational, non-Calvinistic background? What of R.C. Sproul, Ken Gentry, Gene Cook Jr., James White, on and on...? Many solidly Reformed guys today would believe they were saved BEFORE they became convinced of "Calvinism"
> 
> (Please note: I'm NOT saying that ALL Arminians are Christians --many are not-- just like I'm NOT saying that ALL Calvinists are Christians --many aren't)
> 
> ANY THOUGHTS?




According to this dude one must have a perfect understanding of Calvinism to possibly be saved. It sounds like salvation by works to me. Is there anyone here that had a perfect understanding of the doctrines of grace when they believed? Is there anyone here who knew everthing perfectly when they were saved and had no need to grow in grace and knowledge?
If I were you I'd block this dudes e-mails. In the words of Barney Fife, when he was speaking to Andy about Earnest T. Bass, he said: HE'S A NUT.


----------



## amishrockstar

Ya, I agree, he's pretty 'nutty' ... 
it's sad to think he's on P.B. though ...
I got another private message from him ...

*"Hi Matthew.
you are correct about Gene Cook, R.C Sproul and James White, they believe they were gospel believers along time before they became "calvinists".
They also believe that arminians are true gospel believers.
They also believe that they believe the SAME gospel as arminians.
These men are false prophets."*

There was much more, but I didn't feel like posting it all.
So much for Reformed teachers huh?
What do you think?


----------



## amishrockstar

Hmmmm....
Could the Philippian jailor have been saved without being catechized in the 5-points of Calvinism???


----------



## Archlute

amishrockstar said:


> Hmmmm....
> Could the Philippian jailor have been saved without being catechized in the 5-points of Calvinism???




Exactly. Solus Christus...


----------



## amishrockstar

I came across this quote on a friends "facebook" site ... 
"I hold that many are saved who do not believe in effectual calling ... 
We do hope the hearts of many are a great deal better than their heads." 
- C. H. Spurgeon.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

amishrockstar said:


> I came across this quote on a friends "facebook" site ...
> "I hold that many are saved who do not believe in effectual calling ...
> We do hope the hearts of many are a great deal better than their heads."
> - C. H. Spurgeon.




Didn't you know? Spurgeon was unsaved as well!


----------

