Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit
I recently read a paper on the Blasphemy of the HOly Spirit by a friend with whom I am having a debate on the 5 points of Calvinism (www.geocities.com/prchdaword/currentdebates.html) . He has taken the Non-Calvinist position. His position on the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is that it is "spiritual suicide" in which one willfully abandons the Christian faith after being a "real Christian" and "really saved" at one point in time. Obviously, as a Calvinist I disagree, since Christ has clearly said that the one who comes to Him, he will in no wise cast out.
It is my understanding that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the willful rejection of the witness of the Spirit about Jesus Christ.
I was also able to recently discuss this with an Arminian friend of mine. I argued this way, and I wanted to see what you guys thought about this:
In the Old Testament, there is one sin that God says he "will not hold him guiltless" , which is taking the name of the Lord in vain. My understanding of this, is that to take someones name is to choose to represent their character and person. To take the name of God in vain, or to count as a common thing, would be to profess to be of God while really not being of Him and thus, insulting his name and counting it as a common thing, and not holy.
Secondly, if the Bible is inhernetly cohesive, as I believe it is, and the New Testament only mentions one sin as "unforgiveable", then it would seem to be the case that the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" and its ensuing consequences - being placed outside of the forgiveness of God - would be the parallel of second commandment and its ensuing consequences.
Hence, the "blasphemy of the HOly Spirit", or the "sin that leads unto death" is to profess to be a Christian - perhaps for the benefits of Christianity - while in their heart willfully rejecting the witness of the Spirit of God unto faith and repentance. Hence, the true state of such a one is professing to be Christian but still in a state of unbelief. Perhaps the one who is not willing to be saved on God's terms of faith and repentance.
I think there are examples of this in the new testament. For instance, in Matthew 7:21-23, there are those who did apparently Christian things but were not really for Christ "never knew them." In Hebrews 6:4-6 the author proposes the hypothetical for his readers that there are those who were "enlightened" (NOT regenerated!!!) and if they "fall away", or apostasize - which is to willfully reject their professed faith - to renew them again to repentance. Obviously the author of Hebrews is not convinced that this could ever be true of true Christians for he immediately follows in verses 7-12 that he is confident of "better things" for his audience especially of things which accompany salvation. His intention is not to scare his audience, but to exhort them to persevere in their Christian faith and not to revert back to the dead works of Judaism.
The same is the case in Hebrews 10:26-31. The author shows that if Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system, thus bringing about its end, and even current blasphemy to the all sufficient atonement of Christ, then there is no other sacrifice for sins if a person has rejected the only atonement which can truly bring about forgiveness.
The apostle John speaks of those who were "of us" - that is, they were professing to be Christians- but they went out from us ' that is, they abandoned their Christian profession, THUS proving that they "were never really of us" (I John 2:19). Here is an important point for it clearly shows that it is not the case that those who at one time seem to be Christian by simple profession but then later abandone the faith ever were really Christians. True Christians remain true Christians as John continues to say: "for if they had been of us they would have remained with us, but their going out showed that none of them belonged to us."
A final point, that Christians cannot commit the sin is that Christ would never condemn one for whom He died for. Recall that the atonement is substitutionary. That is, Christ died FOR, or IN THE PLACE OF OTHERS. He did not die for Himself, or as punishment for His own sins but for the sins of others. In Romans 8:31-39 we are faced with several rhetorical questions about the Christian losing what God has freely and graciously given. Recall verse 34: "Who is it that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died - more than that who was raised to life." For one to argue that a true Christian can lose their salvation through the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is to argue that Christ can condemn the very one for whom He endured an eternal punishment for! Who is really counting the blood of the covenant of grace a common thing (cf. Hebrews 10:26-31). For if one is willing to assert that the death of Christ can be undone by a certain sin, I don't think one has an understanding the atonement or salvation, and is an unfit minster of the Gospel.
Well, enough of that. Let me know what you guys think.
It is my understanding that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the willful rejection of the witness of the Spirit about Jesus Christ.
I was also able to recently discuss this with an Arminian friend of mine. I argued this way, and I wanted to see what you guys thought about this:
In the Old Testament, there is one sin that God says he "will not hold him guiltless" , which is taking the name of the Lord in vain. My understanding of this, is that to take someones name is to choose to represent their character and person. To take the name of God in vain, or to count as a common thing, would be to profess to be of God while really not being of Him and thus, insulting his name and counting it as a common thing, and not holy.
Secondly, if the Bible is inhernetly cohesive, as I believe it is, and the New Testament only mentions one sin as "unforgiveable", then it would seem to be the case that the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" and its ensuing consequences - being placed outside of the forgiveness of God - would be the parallel of second commandment and its ensuing consequences.
Hence, the "blasphemy of the HOly Spirit", or the "sin that leads unto death" is to profess to be a Christian - perhaps for the benefits of Christianity - while in their heart willfully rejecting the witness of the Spirit of God unto faith and repentance. Hence, the true state of such a one is professing to be Christian but still in a state of unbelief. Perhaps the one who is not willing to be saved on God's terms of faith and repentance.
I think there are examples of this in the new testament. For instance, in Matthew 7:21-23, there are those who did apparently Christian things but were not really for Christ "never knew them." In Hebrews 6:4-6 the author proposes the hypothetical for his readers that there are those who were "enlightened" (NOT regenerated!!!) and if they "fall away", or apostasize - which is to willfully reject their professed faith - to renew them again to repentance. Obviously the author of Hebrews is not convinced that this could ever be true of true Christians for he immediately follows in verses 7-12 that he is confident of "better things" for his audience especially of things which accompany salvation. His intention is not to scare his audience, but to exhort them to persevere in their Christian faith and not to revert back to the dead works of Judaism.
The same is the case in Hebrews 10:26-31. The author shows that if Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system, thus bringing about its end, and even current blasphemy to the all sufficient atonement of Christ, then there is no other sacrifice for sins if a person has rejected the only atonement which can truly bring about forgiveness.
The apostle John speaks of those who were "of us" - that is, they were professing to be Christians- but they went out from us ' that is, they abandoned their Christian profession, THUS proving that they "were never really of us" (I John 2:19). Here is an important point for it clearly shows that it is not the case that those who at one time seem to be Christian by simple profession but then later abandone the faith ever were really Christians. True Christians remain true Christians as John continues to say: "for if they had been of us they would have remained with us, but their going out showed that none of them belonged to us."
A final point, that Christians cannot commit the sin is that Christ would never condemn one for whom He died for. Recall that the atonement is substitutionary. That is, Christ died FOR, or IN THE PLACE OF OTHERS. He did not die for Himself, or as punishment for His own sins but for the sins of others. In Romans 8:31-39 we are faced with several rhetorical questions about the Christian losing what God has freely and graciously given. Recall verse 34: "Who is it that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died - more than that who was raised to life." For one to argue that a true Christian can lose their salvation through the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is to argue that Christ can condemn the very one for whom He endured an eternal punishment for! Who is really counting the blood of the covenant of grace a common thing (cf. Hebrews 10:26-31). For if one is willing to assert that the death of Christ can be undone by a certain sin, I don't think one has an understanding the atonement or salvation, and is an unfit minster of the Gospel.
Well, enough of that. Let me know what you guys think.
posted by prchdaword at 6:38 PM
0 comments
