The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Revival's Reason-3)

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#21

You may understand the Greek better than I. The CLNT has the text read: “…that in the oncoming eons, He should be displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus”. Does this mean that “His kindness” is to us, or that He will display His universal kindness to us? In it’s direct translation it seems ambigious — hence my tentative proposition that it can be read this way.

You haven’t considered the future plurality of ages in your equation, so your calculations are off. According to Paul, as of 60AD, there is at least two more ages to come. Eternity would just be another one age. Unless of course you have reason to believe that an age has since passed between the writing of Ephesians and today. In which case, you will have to explain what age this was. So far, you have not engaged with my post on this point.

#22

the age from which Jesus spoke was one age. that age ended either with His death and resurrection, or with the sacking of Israel in 70AD. quite possibly, those are two ages.
so we are in either the “age which is to come” already, or the next age after that.

exactly how is this then an “eternal” sin?

#23

This current age from creation to final judgment in Rev 20:11-15 and the age to come which I believe to be eternity. 2 ages. God bless.

#24

Hi corpselight

Being guilty of the unpardonable sin is not the result of one act but a process of living that causes them to forsake the faith and be moved away from the gospel they once heard making it impossible for them to be renewed again unto repentance. Hebrews 6:4-6. Why? because there heart has been hardened to the point of no return. The only way to be presented holy and unblameable and unreproveable in God’s sight is to continue in the faith and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel. Col 1:22-23.

#25

You’re still not engaging with my post or with anything Paul has said. Paul writes of a future plurality of ages. A current age from creation to final judgement would be an age we are living in at present. That means there are at least another two ages to come.

I have updated my previous post since you last commented. Please check it if you haven’t already.

#26

I believe that this age was included in the plurality of ages as you put it. Like Jesus said this age and the age to come. 2 ages. Besides, you just told me you don’t know how many ages there are and now you are telling me there are atleast 3. I think we will agree to disagree. God bless.

#27

I’m only restating what Paul said: that in the future there will be multiple ages. Thanks for your discussion brother, Godspeed to you.

#28

The Destruction of Jerusalem could have ended an age and this would have ended one of Paul’s future-plural ages. But this would then allow Holy Spirit-blasphemers to be forgiven today, and in any other future age we may have. If one wants to support ECT with the Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, they would have to argue that there is only one genuinely future age, as Aaron has done. This is inconsistent with the testimony of Paul.

Though he takes it more figuratively than I, I think snitzelhoff’s position that the self-willed hardening against Yahweh’s grace lasts for ages is great. It could also be said, as I tried to say, that this is an age-lasting sin because Yahweh actively withholds His forgiveness for ages because of it. If had thought it, I would probably have adopted snitzelhoff’s position myself — it seems more consistent with my Arminian views.

#29

Roofus,

Thanks for your response. :slight_smile:

Now, I’ve never been able to accept this interpretation, as it seems to be a tautology, as if: “it is impossible to renew them to repentance while they remain unrepentant”. Sounds like: “it’s impossible to lift a man if he remains on the ground” Huh?

Every time I hear “tautology,” I think of the Dufflepuds from Narnia saying things like, “That water is powerful wet stuff!” At any rate, you raise a good point: at first brush, it does seem tautological to say that it’s impossible to renew someone to repentance that stubbornly refuses to be moved away from the apostatized state. I would point out two things, though:

First, the author of Hebrews occasionally states the obvious for rhetorical purposes. For instance, in Hebrews 11:6, he points out that the one that would come to God must believe that He is. Second, the author is writing to people who might renounce Jesus out of desperation to avoid more persecution, and he is saying, “Think carefully about that. That means crucifying Him all over again. That means publicly shaming Him. How can you come back to repentance while you’re doing that?”

#30

I was thinking about verses 7-8, the bit immediately following what we’ve been discussing in Hebrews 6, and a thought occurred to me. Here is the text:

For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.

The practice of burning fields has been around for a very long time–pretty much since the beginning of agriculture. And it’s always had one purpose: to clear out the weeds and thistles and thorns and prepare the field to accept good seed and yield good crops. In other words, if just tilling the field didn’t work, burning it was the next step, not as a sign that the field would never be any good and was to be abandoned, but in order to make it into a good field. I find it interesting, then, that of all the illustrations the author could have used to demonstrate the harsh judgment coming to apostates, he used one that, particularly to a society familiar with the practice, was redemptive, through and through.

#31

I refer you to your words above:

But perhaps you don’t remember writing that, since apparently you did not write it yourself but only copied it (and other things as well) from here: jmmgrace.com/Letters/ll-feb-10.html

I now recall we had an issue with you last time around with posting other people’s work as if it were your own.

Sonia

#32

thanks, unlike Revival, you actually engaged with my post :slight_smile:
Revival’s reply was so irrelevant, i thought it was likely he’d quoted my post by mistake :unamused:

snitzelhoff (what an awesome handle), i’m liking your grasp of this situation.
also, what you say about verses 7-8 is highly important and probably key to understanding the whole thing.
Roofus makes a good point, but i think you’ve answered him well, too.
Roofus, i like how you try to see into possible problems to get them answered. i love how you’re able to engage with this discussion even though you don’t agree at this stage and want to be convinced on the best possible evidence and not simply for comfort’s sake.

#33

Whoops! I thought because it followed my post that you were asking for some further clarification of my view! :smiley:

#34

it’s all good lol
even so your reply was far more relevant than Revival’s… :laughing:

#35

Thanks for the encouraging words. I wish that I could say being thorough was always fun, but “it’s how I’m wired”!