I saw that you posted some questions on Horne’s website. I don’t think he checks theologia anymore. It hasn’t been updated in years methinks.

Why don’t you try his blog or tumblr? He should have an email on there somewhere.

http://www.hornes.org/mark/

Cheers,
K.

Using that definition makes it difficult to criticize even the obvious hucksters preying on the faithful (Benny Hinn, Peter Popoff). I mean I’m pretty sure that what they are doing is ungodly and greed-motivated but I wouldn’t bet my life on it though it seems clear they do more harm than anything.

Absolutely. I’m the first person in line to remind people that we are actually called to judge fellow believers, and test the spirits. In fact, I’ve discovered that I have gifts of discernment, and often am able to tell “what’s up” far earlier than most people around me.

So to me, it’s a matter of resolving the tension, because on the one had, I can’t just set aside what I feel Christ’s words are telling me. On the other, is a whole smattering of practical implications that need to be accounted for.

Hey man, it’s up to you to produce, I can’t produce evidence for something doesn’t exist.

Ok. And I believe that criticizing the Brethren, mocking their sincerity and cutting down that which we do not fully understand is sin, and I believe this is a passage that speaks into our tendency to run off at the mouth. What’s the difference?

Using that definition makes it difficult to criticize even the obvious hucksters preying on the faithful (Benny Hinn, Peter Popoff). I mean I’m pretty sure that what they are doing is ungodly and greed-motivated but I wouldn’t bet my life on it though it seems clear they do more harm than anything. There is a lot of fakery and self-importance infesting Christendom if you haven’t noticed – with your definition it will flourish.

I think we’re both hitting but it needs to be a combination, I see what your saying about the actual use of words but there is an attitude behind those words that is essential for the sin to be commited because then there is no seperation between the accidenal and intentional statements.

Fully agreed! That’s why I post things to a blog! Your input has really helped me sort through this topic. Happy times.

My definition of blasphemy is wrong while you don’t even have a definition or at least a definition to constitute the unforgivable sin. You said one thing, then changed it, then changed it again yet I am wrong and NO ONE shares your view.

My view has always been simple: blasphemy – speaking against – the Holy Spirit is unpardonable. What that actually means practically is changing – I’m figuring this out like all of us are. But the core principal has gone unchanged for my part.

Now, when you say that “no one” shares my view, do you mean no one you know? No one you’ve read? You can’t have read EVERY commentary ever produced on this passage. Kind of a strong statement, don’t you think?

In a way, you’re actually saying what I’ve always believed: that the heart that is turned off of God will inevitably commit such a sin. As Keith mentioned on City of God, if you’re worried that you might have committed the Unforgivable Sin you probably haven’t, because if you had, you wouldn’t care.

But the whole point for writing on this and exploring the topic in the way I am is because as the church moves through times of change and as various doctrines dominate and recede, sometimes we forget important teachings – we sacrifice some truth for the sake of other truth.

So, does God look at the heart? Yes. Christ also says that those who love Him obey Him – faith without works is dead. So God, while looking at the heart, also judges and evaluates what we actually do.

So, whether it’s glib speak or the pronouncement, “Blank blank blank, the Holy Spirit!” I believe Christ made it clear that we can utter, with our mouths, a blasphemy that nullifies and voids our salvation.

What other issues are connected to this, and what this sin practically looks like, we can continue to explore. But I think we need to understand the importance of what we actually do – words create and words destroy. We do not understand the power they have, though as you have reminded me, words come from some place within.

I think what you’re looking for is the attitude behind the words that makes the difference.

“Ok. And I believe that criticizing the Brethren, mocking their sincerity and cutting down that which we do not fully understand is sin, and I believe this is a passage that speaks into our tendency to run off at the mouth. What’s the difference?”
The difference is, ok ya speak into our lives, but is “criticizing the Brethren, mocking their sincerity and cutting down that which we do not fully understand” the unforgiveable sin? No.

“The definition is not a mysterious or debatable one. Blasphemy means, and has always meant, using defamatory, disrespectful, and irreverent speech. That’s what it means!”

No, and thats what you don’t get. The speech is the by -product of unbelief and an attitude of hatred against God. God’s concern has alwasys been the heart of the person. What if one those pharisees present was Paul? Hypothetically, what if a prarisee that Christ was talking to became a TRUE believer in the kingdom presented by the Holy Spirit, was their salvation already forfeit? I don’t think so.

I think we’re both hitting but it needs to be a combination, I see what your saying about the actual use of words but there is an attitude behind those words that is essential for the sin to be commited because then there is no seperation between the accidenal and intentional statements. The unforgivability doesn;t come from any lack in God’s grace, but from the pharisees choice to reject God’s means of forgiveness.” You;re right, true believers or not
they were in a position to know to better and in spite of this knowledge and in spite of being witness to these miracles they;re words are not just ignorant or prideful but are intentionally slanderous against God. A heart that speaks such words, in such outright rebellion they will never accept The Father;s only Son.

If that’s how you see yourself then you have bigger problems.

Of course I don’t. I’m simply saying authority doesn’t equal rightness, and many people apply authority wrongly! I get the impression you are evaluating my position through that criteria – I’ll find sympathetic support, but can we just focus on the argument for now?

Luther was a rebel but what was he rebelling against?, only things that were not scriptural.

Ok. And I believe that criticizing the Brethren, mocking their sincerity and cutting down that which we do not fully understand is sin, and I believe this is a passage that speaks into our tendency to run off at the mouth. What’s the difference?

And I believe that the blasphemy is unbelief. I haven’t cited anyone else.

It’s fine that you believe this… but it’s wrong. It’s like saying, “I believe hot dogs are vehicles.” Blasphemy has a specific definition, and that definition is not “unbelief.” Christ actually gives us the definition – speaking against. We know this because of proximity and parallel sentence structure. The words used in the original, “speaks against,” mean just that; using words against. The definition is not a mysterious or debatable one. Blasphemy means, and has always meant, using defamatory, disrespectful, and irreverent speech. That’s what it means!

What are you using to justify your alternate definition of the word and how does the passage, or any other source, support it?

I feel like this means when you are witness to the Holy Spirit at work, and He is presenting the truth of God’s Kingdom, the sin against the spirit is to deny that truth. If one denies that this presentation is of God, the only alternative whether spoken or not is that is of somewhere else, as Christians we know that that alternative is satan and his kingdom.

Ok, THIS was a great insight Jay. Puts a fresh spin on things.

This actually fits in with something I said earlier: the rule Christ discloses applies to those who should know better. When demons are being cast out, sight being restored, and people being raised from the dead, any by-stander really should know better! Good observation.

I want you to also consider things are they are now: these miracles aren’t happening every day, and yet we know the Spirit is at work. So how does this apply?

As Believers, Jesus has promised us the Helper – the Spirit. So, arguably, our potential to discern should be heightened. Our understanding and insight into the spiritual should be greater. We then do not need the same degree of evidence to know whether the Spirit is at work or not. Essentially, we have less of an excuse. The Kingdom is in our midst.

They were His people, He did many miracles before them, to show them that he was their King and could save them. In this instance Christ told them what the result of their defiance would be, the unforgivable sin.

But did Christ didn’t tell them this? You’re assuming a certain definition of blasphemy that is entirely unsupported.

“Who did Paul appeal to when he schooled Peter on joining the party of the circumcision? Who did Luther appeal to for authority when hiding out in Wartburg?”

THE SCRIPTURES! Your instances are so radically unusable! Peter and Paul were at the top of the heirarchy, there was no one higher to appeal to. As well both of them believed in power of elders and deacons. If thats how you see yourself then you have bigger problems. Luther was a rebel but what was he rebelling against?, only things that were not scriptural. These examples are not applicaple to our discussion.

“He does not say unbelief is unpardonable. He says blasphemy is.”

And I believe that the blasphemy is unbelief. I haven’t cited anyone else.

28 “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

I feel like this means when you are witness to the Holy Spirit at work, and He is presenting the truth of God’s Kingdom, the sin against the spirit is to deny that truth. If one denies that this presentation is of God, the only alternative whether spoken or not is that is of somewhere else, as Christians we know that that alternative is satan and his kingdom.

Again to me, all of this can be connected to damnation through disbelief. The hardening of one’s heart is not an instantaneous act, but a gradual defiance of the Holy Spirit. Saul once loved and followed The Lord, but his heart was hardoned and he fell away from God. These are the pharisees with Christ. They were His people, He did many miracles before them, to show them that he was their King and could save them. In this instance Christ told them what the result of their defiance would be, the unforgiveable sin.

Do we not preach that those who do not accept Christ, even in ignorance, will not perish? Do we not preach that instead of squashing tragedy before it starts, God actually uses it? Do we not preach that the Way is narrow?

Where do you establish this “overarching” message? It is no more overarching than the message, “We are under a curse, God is just, and destruction is coming.” You need to strike a balance, and I don’t read that in your comment.

Would you care to offer an interpretation of that particular passage? It has something to teach us! What’s your take on Matt 12:32? Where does it fit in to your theology.

I’m actually asking.