Blasphemy against holyspirit
- Thread starter Naveen949134
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A friend (in real life) recently quipped in answered to a dig directed at him saying, "I'm just going to behave nonchalant," which perfectly illustrated his reception of the slight to his person (although it was funny because it also happened to illustrate a characteristic of the actual dig). And another friend (in unreal life, that is, here) expressed what seemed to be a novel idea to me, I've never heard it even suggested before anyway, that each heart can have characteristic of each of these soils at one time or another. But, even though I was inclined to run with this idea, I just proceeded on the side of caution and looked to either prove or disprove this possibility, and your links provided me the perfect and most convenient opportunity. In Jesus' explanation of the good soil, He mentions a "good" heart. One might even say a twice good heart considering two different words, kale and (kai; And, even, also, namely) agathe, are both used, and both, essentially, mean "good." Interestingly, of the first, "kalos," The Strong's Lexicon's Corresponding Greek/Hebrew Entries has "The Hebrew equivalent often associated with "kalos" is "tov...This word is used to describe God's creation,..." and Usage: submits, "In the New Testament, "kalos" is frequently used to describe...and the inherent goodness of God's creation..." And of the second word, agathos' Meaning: "intrinsically good, good in nature, good whether it is seen to be so or not, the widest and most colorless of all words with this meaning."
So, the first chance I get, the next time I happen to see my real life friend showing any sign of concern, I intend to make sure I don't miss the opportunity to tell him that, "I've noticed you seem a bit chalant today."
So, the first chance I get, the next time I happen to see my real life friend showing any sign of concern, I intend to make sure I don't miss the opportunity to tell him that, "I've noticed you seem a bit chalant today."
31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
(Matthew 12:31-32)
These verses say emphatically that blashemy against the Holy against the Holy Spirit is NOT FORGIVEABLE either in this AGE or the world to come. Rather than trying to understand what Jesus was talking about you dismiss Jesus warning altogether saying "Fortunately for us all, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is forgivable. but that it cant be while "we are knowingly persist in doing it." This is not what the verse says. Jesus said this sin will will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. Until you take Jesus at His word you will not understand this verse
(Matthew 12:31-32)
These verses say emphatically that blashemy against the Holy against the Holy Spirit is NOT FORGIVEABLE either in this AGE or the world to come. Rather than trying to understand what Jesus was talking about you dismiss Jesus warning altogether saying "Fortunately for us all, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is forgivable. but that it cant be while "we are knowingly persist in doing it." This is not what the verse says. Jesus said this sin will will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. Until you take Jesus at His word you will not understand this verse
Where is the word "unforgivable" in Matt.12:31-32
31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever is speaking a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever is speaking against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
(Matthew 12:31-32)
31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever is speaking a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever is speaking against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
(Matthew 12:31-32)
Jesus said that all sin is forgivable except blasphemy against the HS (MT 12:31), which in context seems to mean attributing evil to God (MT 12:24-32).
Paul indicated (in HB 6:4-6) that apostasy is also unforgiveable, because the person who commits that sin will never repent (cf. HB 12:17).
Such blasphemy is akin to calling good evil and evil good (IS 5:20, cf. HB 5:14). Such a person is completely corrupt or demonized and self-condemned (TIT 3:11, JN 3:19-20, cf. RM 14:22).
IOW, the crucial choice is between belief and blasphemy (attributing unrighteous hate to God). Much of GW teaches that God is omniloving (1TM2:3-4, JN 3:16, etc.), and Jesus, Paul and John define divine righteousness most succinctly as love for all (MT 5:44&48, 22:37-40, 1TM 2:3-4, 1JN 4:8), but souls may be hateful and reject rather than reflect God’s love/grace, although they ought to want (be biased toward) oneness or spiritual unity by way of answering the prayer of Jesus in JN 17:20-23.
Paul indicated (in HB 6:4-6) that apostasy is also unforgiveable, because the person who commits that sin will never repent (cf. HB 12:17).
Such blasphemy is akin to calling good evil and evil good (IS 5:20, cf. HB 5:14). Such a person is completely corrupt or demonized and self-condemned (TIT 3:11, JN 3:19-20, cf. RM 14:22).
IOW, the crucial choice is between belief and blasphemy (attributing unrighteous hate to God). Much of GW teaches that God is omniloving (1TM2:3-4, JN 3:16, etc.), and Jesus, Paul and John define divine righteousness most succinctly as love for all (MT 5:44&48, 22:37-40, 1TM 2:3-4, 1JN 4:8), but souls may be hateful and reject rather than reflect God’s love/grace, although they ought to want (be biased toward) oneness or spiritual unity by way of answering the prayer of Jesus in JN 17:20-23.
The word forgivable does not occur in Matt.12:24-32.
The word unforgivable does not appear in Heb. 6:4-6.
The Bible does not say fully demonised people are unforgivable. Poor "Legion" was not forgivable?
Quoting scriptures which do not say what you are asserting, but pretending they do, does not demonstrate that the scriptures say what you are asserting they claim.
The word unforgivable is not in the Bible. The concept of unforgivable is not in the Bible. The only Bible version that has the word unforgivable in it is the AMP (Amplified Bible?), which has it twice.
I don't understand why you are so determined to foist a word into the Bible that isn't there, just to justify an unnecessary doctrine you happen to have picked up from somewhere and then built an elaborate theological mythology around.
The crucial choice is between speaking what you realise is true, and deliberately lying. Outside are all those who love and make lies.
The word unforgivable does not appear in Heb. 6:4-6.
The Bible does not say fully demonised people are unforgivable. Poor "Legion" was not forgivable?
Quoting scriptures which do not say what you are asserting, but pretending they do, does not demonstrate that the scriptures say what you are asserting they claim.
The word unforgivable is not in the Bible. The concept of unforgivable is not in the Bible. The only Bible version that has the word unforgivable in it is the AMP (Amplified Bible?), which has it twice.
I don't understand why you are so determined to foist a word into the Bible that isn't there, just to justify an unnecessary doctrine you happen to have picked up from somewhere and then built an elaborate theological mythology around.
The crucial choice is between speaking what you realise is true, and deliberately lying. Outside are all those who love and make lies.
Again you exemplify the need for interpretation of meaning as well as for translation of words.
We illustrate that interpretations can disagree. Hence the need to emphasize unity regarding the
Gospel kerygma while striving for agreement regarding secondary didachaic details.
Striving for agreement is aided by quoting what disputed and citing relevant Scripture, please.
I am open to amending my opinion if yours seems better/truer.
Apparently your first point is that "will not be forgiven" does not mean "unforgiveable".
I disagree and will not amend my understanding of English semantics regarding this point.
Next point?
We illustrate that interpretations can disagree. Hence the need to emphasize unity regarding the
Gospel kerygma while striving for agreement regarding secondary didachaic details.
Striving for agreement is aided by quoting what disputed and citing relevant Scripture, please.
I am open to amending my opinion if yours seems better/truer.
Apparently your first point is that "will not be forgiven" does not mean "unforgiveable".
I disagree and will not amend my understanding of English semantics regarding this point.
Next point?
So, if I say,
"A student being disrespectful to their teacher will never be forgiven," and one student is being disrespectful to their teacher and refuses to repent and continues to act disrespectfully, while a second student is being disrespectful to their teacher but upon challenge repents and begins to show respect, would you say that the edict means neither student will ever be forgiven, whether they repent or not?
"A student being disrespectful to their teacher will never be forgiven," and one student is being disrespectful to their teacher and refuses to repent and continues to act disrespectfully, while a second student is being disrespectful to their teacher but upon challenge repents and begins to show respect, would you say that the edict means neither student will ever be forgiven, whether they repent or not?
Man you are on a mission to prove that Gods power is weak and He can't keep us, that we can be snatched out of His hand, that He gives us to the Son just for some to turn around and walk away Him from later.
I'm sorry man, but this seems the most important thing in your life to prove, the weakness of God. I don't get it, not that you can hold this view, but you seem to make it the center of your purpose, to proclaim we can lose salvation. You know who I say can make this argument the best? Those who have never exsperianced the true saving power of the only God through His Son Jesus. When you have never been spiritually resurrected, or "born-again", when you've never been transformed fundementally from the inside out by His Spirit completely rewiring our minds and rearranging our priorities completely by His power. By being born of the Spirit and reconciled to God in REAL LIFE, like for really real.
Those who have been born again in truth have a MUCH higher regaurd for the power of God and what He's actually in control of then you display in your arguments. I don't think you do it on purpose, I think you do it because your eyes can't see the truth yet and you can only think of these things in the flesh, because you don't know the Spirit yet so all these things are foolishness to you. Again I truly pray you can take a step back and at least see that everything you argue for degrades the power of God and puts salvation on the backs of men ultimatly. You argue for a weaker God OFTEN. Sorry the God of truth is a God of POWER and the POWER to change the hearts of men, and I testify that when ANY person is blessed with this gift of salvation from God, they declare His power with all their passion, not argue day in and out for His weakness. Just sayin.
I'm sorry man, but this seems the most important thing in your life to prove, the weakness of God. I don't get it, not that you can hold this view, but you seem to make it the center of your purpose, to proclaim we can lose salvation. You know who I say can make this argument the best? Those who have never exsperianced the true saving power of the only God through His Son Jesus. When you have never been spiritually resurrected, or "born-again", when you've never been transformed fundementally from the inside out by His Spirit completely rewiring our minds and rearranging our priorities completely by His power. By being born of the Spirit and reconciled to God in REAL LIFE, like for really real.
Those who have been born again in truth have a MUCH higher regaurd for the power of God and what He's actually in control of then you display in your arguments. I don't think you do it on purpose, I think you do it because your eyes can't see the truth yet and you can only think of these things in the flesh, because you don't know the Spirit yet so all these things are foolishness to you. Again I truly pray you can take a step back and at least see that everything you argue for degrades the power of God and puts salvation on the backs of men ultimatly. You argue for a weaker God OFTEN. Sorry the God of truth is a God of POWER and the POWER to change the hearts of men, and I testify that when ANY person is blessed with this gift of salvation from God, they declare His power with all their passion, not argue day in and out for His weakness. Just sayin.
If one considers, as I do, that all sins, including all sorts of blasphemies, are applicable to the Blood of the Lamb's power of atonement, save this one offense, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, then perhaps this is not a sin not categorical sin of the flesh, or 'natural' sin, but as of an elevated level of spiritual significance. If so, then this would collaborate with the additional need of repentance, being a gesture that nobody is able to physically perform except by the spirit, i.e. "...God seeks those who worship in spirit." Afterall, one is hard pressed to worship in spirit unless one 'dies to self.'
I have held thus far, and have yet to be moved from it, that there is (only) one acceptable (freewill) offering of man that pleases God, his faith. And, per God's assurance that, "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more" and
"But My righteous one will live by faith;
and if he shrinks back,
I will take no pleasure in him.” Heb10:38
The Holy Spirit testifies of Him, and so if He, the Holy spirit, didn't witness to the pharisees that Jesus is the Son of God when they insisted that Jesus did His work by Beelzebub, which would've have effectively implicated the Holy Spirit to be a liar, then it was only because the Spirit had yet to be empowered to witness (but that is a possibility I've yet to devote more study into).
In conclusion, it is apparent to me that, if denying the testimony (Word) of Son is not forgiven, neither then, now, nor later, then faith in Him is one's only acceptable offer, ever.
I have held thus far, and have yet to be moved from it, that there is (only) one acceptable (freewill) offering of man that pleases God, his faith. And, per God's assurance that, "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more" and
"But My righteous one will live by faith;
and if he shrinks back,
I will take no pleasure in him.” Heb10:38
The Holy Spirit testifies of Him, and so if He, the Holy spirit, didn't witness to the pharisees that Jesus is the Son of God when they insisted that Jesus did His work by Beelzebub, which would've have effectively implicated the Holy Spirit to be a liar, then it was only because the Spirit had yet to be empowered to witness (but that is a possibility I've yet to devote more study into).
In conclusion, it is apparent to me that, if denying the testimony (Word) of Son is not forgiven, neither then, now, nor later, then faith in Him is one's only acceptable offer, ever.
-
1
- Show all
Its not my sole purpose, I just copied that from the internet. Its all you guys wanna keep talking about so sometimes, i will respond to it. The OSAS cope is so huge you shove it into every conversation.Re "If one considers, as I do, that all sins, including all sorts of blasphemies, are applicable to the Blood of the Lamb's power of atonement, save this one offense, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, then perhaps this is not a sin not categorical sin of the flesh, or 'natural' sin, but as of an elevated level of spiritual significance.": Yes! And that is the sin of apostasy or viewing God as evil even after experiencing His goodness via the HS. (Heb.6:4-6)
PaulThomson said:
So, if I say,
"A student being disrespectful to their teacher will never be forgiven," and one student is being disrespectful to their teacher and refuses to repent and continues to act disrespectfully, while a second student is being disrespectful to their teacher but upon challenge repents and begins to show respect, would you say that the edict means neither student will ever be forgiven, whether they repent or not?
I would understand the edict as meaning that no one will ever be forgiven while they are being disrespectful, and that if they stop being disrespectful, they can be forgiven, so that the penitent student will be forgiven, buit the impenitent student will not. Which is why I do not see the unforgivable sin anywhere in scripture. I think you are imposing an unreasonably strict and merciless meaning upon those biblical texts.
So, if I say,
"A student being disrespectful to their teacher will never be forgiven," and one student is being disrespectful to their teacher and refuses to repent and continues to act disrespectfully, while a second student is being disrespectful to their teacher but upon challenge repents and begins to show respect, would you say that the edict means neither student will ever be forgiven, whether they repent or not?
I would understand the edict as meaning that no one will ever be forgiven while they are being disrespectful, and that if they stop being disrespectful, they can be forgiven, so that the penitent student will be forgiven, buit the impenitent student will not. Which is why I do not see the unforgivable sin anywhere in scripture. I think you are imposing an unreasonably strict and merciless meaning upon those biblical texts.
Aside of my policy to view everyone with a "good eye," I lean toward agreement here in consideration of the name YHWH revealed to Moses in Exo 34 and confirmed in Numbers 14, Psalm 103, and Joel 2, Nehemiah 9, Jonah 4, Micah 7, Isaiah 55, Lam 3, Daniel 9, Matt 18, Luke 6, Eph 4, etc, etc, etc, "The LORD is compassionate and gracious...abundundant in mercy"
* @GWH It's BibleHub that is causing the lag (ad interference perhaps?) Anyway, I've found one example of a plea for the forgiveness of apostasy, Jeremiah 14:7
“Although our iniquities testify against us, O LORD, act for Your name’s sake! Truly our apostasies have been many, We have sinned against You."
* @GWH It's BibleHub that is causing the lag (ad interference perhaps?) Anyway, I've found one example of a plea for the forgiveness of apostasy, Jeremiah 14:7
“Although our iniquities testify against us, O LORD, act for Your name’s sake! Truly our apostasies have been many, We have sinned against You."
-
1
- Show all
Yes. I am looking at a case where the second student genuinely repents. Does the edict mean they cannot be forgiven ever?
It has everything to do with the case Jesus is citing in Matt. 12:24-32.
I affirm English semantics and maintain that "the person doing X will never be forgiven" does not have to mean "it is unforgivable for a person to be doing X ." I have demonstrated it with an example.
It has everything to do with the case Jesus is citing in Matt. 12:24-32.
I affirm English semantics and maintain that "the person doing X will never be forgiven" does not have to mean "it is unforgivable for a person to be doing X ." I have demonstrated it with an example.
No, you are comparing apples and oranges. Viewing the HS as evil is not comparable to disrespecting a fellow human.
As for semantics, I have shared how blaspheming the HS per Matt.12:24-32 is equivalent to apostasy, which is unforgiveable because the soul is demonic and will never repent per Heb.6:4-6 (cf. John8:42-52).
As for semantics, I have shared how blaspheming the HS per Matt.12:24-32 is equivalent to apostasy, which is unforgiveable because the soul is demonic and will never repent per Heb.6:4-6 (cf. John8:42-52).