Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

[CS1]

So the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is forgivable. It is impossible for the author to bring to repentance "those who have experienced the good things of heaven and shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the power of the age to come— 6 and who then turn away from God. " But with God nothing is impossible.

Here is the point: Jesus is the only one who said this term and spoke about this sin. Everyone else has to speculate in the Bible where else it may be said or give an opinion as to what they think it is in addition to what Jesus said it is.

I have seen people who were under the influence of drugs and alcohol blasphemy the Holy Spirit. I heard atheists blasphemy the Holy Spirit. Yet they were saved and now follow The Lord. It is a sin of knowledge and can't be done in ignorance. That is the point.

 

[GWH]

So the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is forgivable. It is impossible for the author to bring to repentance "those who have experienced the good things of heaven and shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the power of the age to come— 6 and who then turn away from God. " But with God nothing is impossible.

Only if the apostate repents, which Paul said is impossible, not because of God's impotence, but because of demonic decadence. This may be why Isaiah 6:9-10 is cited twice in the NT (MT 13:14-15 & ACTS 28:26-27).

 

[PaulThomson]

Only if the apostate repents, which Paul said is impossible, not because of God's impotence, but because of demonic decadence. This may be why Isaiah 6:9-10 is cited twice in the NT (MT 13:14-15 & ACTS 28:26-27).

Paul doew not say "repentance is impossible" for such people. He says it is impossible (for us, according to the context) to b=ring them to repentance. He does no say it is impossible for them to be brought to repentance. Again, saying to a class of students, "It is impossible to swallow a one metre long fish whole," is not the same as telling them, "It is impossible for a one metre long fish to be swallowed whole."

 

[GWH]

Paul doew not say "repentance is impossible" for such people. He says it is impossible (for us, according to the context) to b=ring them to repentance. He does no say it is impossible for them to be brought to repentance. Again, saying to a class of students, "It is impossible to swallow a one metre long fish whole," is not the same as telling them, "It is impossible for a one metre long fish to be swallowed whole."

I see no difference, but it looks to me like you are grasping at straws and straining at a gnat.

 

[PaulThomson]

PaulThomson said:
Paul does not say "repentance is impossible" for such people. He says it is impossible (for us, according to the context) to b=ring them to repentance. He does no say it is impossible for them to be brought to repentance. Again, saying to a class of students, "It is impossible to swallow a one metre long fish whole," is not the same as telling them, "It is impossible for a one metre long fish to be swallowed whole."

I see no difference, but it looks to me like you are grasping at straws and straining at a gnat.

If I say to my students, "It is impossible to swallow a one metre long fish whole," in context I am making a claim about us as humans.
If I say, "It is impossible for a one metre long fish to be swallowed whole," I am making a claim about one metre long fish. A lone metre long fish could be swallowed by a much larger sea creature.

 

[PaulThomson]

I see no difference, but it looks to me like you are grasping at straws and straining at a gnat.

There is nothing wrong with straining out gnats. If one falls into my tea, I take it out.
But what you are doing is swallowing the unforgivABLE camel along with your ungrammatical gnat.

 

[ewq1938]

Again, saying to a class of students, "It is impossible to swallow a one metre long fish whole," is not the same as telling them, "It is impossible for a one metre long fish to be swallowed whole."

No, that is the same thing in English. No, in English that is the same thing.

Changing the words around slightly doesn't change the meaning. The meaning is not changed by slightly rearranging the wording.

 

[GWH]

No, that is the same thing in English. No, in English that is the same thing.

Changing the words around slightly doesn't change the meaning. The meaning is not changed by slightly rearranging the wording.

Thank you ewq. The meaning was changed because P added "a much larger sea creature".

BTW, the meaning of "falling away" in the NT is not an accidental trip, but an intentional repudiation of saving faith, probably manifested by the opposite of the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

 

[PaulThomson]

No, that is the same thing in English. No, in English that is the same thing.

Changing the words around slightly doesn't change the meaning. The meaning is not changed by slightly rearranging the wording.

I can lead a horse to water... but I can't make it think.

 

[ewq1938]

I can lead a horse to water...

Learn to lead yourself there first before trying that.