To some, saying that God is love is blasphemy without adding the usual caveats and exclusions. What is blasphemy? People have all sorts of notions about God - is blasphemy to be merely mistaken about God? Is Calvinism blasphemy? Since, ultimately, God IS the author (allower) of evil by their thinking. Blasphemy is ugly depending on how your ears are tuned. But one manâs blasphemy is the next manâs doctrine in service of his God.
A cautious man would say that God IS, and leave it at that. Which begs a thousand questions left unanswered. Is there a human like our âcautious manâ? No. But there are âcautious menâ who have stopped asking or even acknowledging questions that other less-cautious (by some standard) men ask.
And then along comes Paul in Romans and says that men by natural theology can come to know God (and are without excuse) and all that without a word of scripture.
When Christ uses the word âblasphemyâ, we can see that He means something quite unnatural and the product of religion and which goes beyond error and into a realm of pure chaff and dross, that is, non-existence where there is nothing TO forgive or not.
Incidentally, I should probably clarify that Iâm the mod who called a temp-ban warning against me, for suggesting an actually insulting variant of Aaron37âs pseudonym. I shouldnât have given into temptation and done that (suggest the super-vulgar insulting variant, I mean.) Fair is fair, and I deserve a temp-ban warning for it, so I figured I ought to do it myself to myself.
(I wouldnât normally make such an intra-post punitive mod-edit giant flaming red; but again, it was against myself, and I donât think it hurts to point out that I am not morally perfect. Thatâs part of being a penitent. )
Also, on the topic of A37âs copying from John Piper: on a quick readthrough, it looks like he only copied one sentence (repeated twice by JP). Interestingly, itâs a sentence that doesnât at all fit JPâs basic Calvinistic theology, but fits Arm theology well enough (although this was written way back in 1984, so maybe he was Arm back then??). So it was an appropriate sentence for A to port over in that regard at least.
(I will also point out that I critted Matt Slickâs article on much the same ground, namely that his attempt at defending a hopeless interpretation for Matt 3:29 and parallels fits much better into Arm theology than into Calv.)
The word âblasphemyâ is simply a transliteration of the Greek word blasphemia, which is derived from two different Greek words: (1) blapto = âto injure, harm; hinder,â and (2) pheme = âto speak; a saying; a rumor.â Thus, the concept of blasphemy is simply to engage in any kind of âinjurious speaking.â When one says something with the intent to hurt, harm or hinder another; when one defames and slanders another; when one spreads destructive rumors and malicious whisperings, and speaks in such a way as to bring great, perhaps irreversible, injury to another â that is âblasphemy.â In addition to the noun form above, it also appears in Scripture as a verb (blasphemeo = âblasphemeâ) and an adjective (blasphemos = âblasphemousâ). Therefore, to answer yet another question posed above, when the Lord talks of âspeaking againstâ or âspeaking a word against,â He is really declaring essentially the very same thing, just in somewhat different language. Both are depicting one whose intent is to injure others with what is declared against them. Such intent is blasphemous, by definition of the Greek term.
Ref: Al Maxey ( I do not endorse all theological doctrines of this person)
Surely you mean you donât endorse all the theological doctrines of this person. Thereâs a big difference between not endorsing any and not endorsing all.
(If you really didnât endorse any, that would also include whatever theological doctrines are involved in the quotation you cited from him concerning the theological meaning and application of âblasphemyâ.)
As an aside: Iâm wondering why Jesus doesnât have the same regard of the blaspheming the Son of Man as He does the Holy Spirit?
*âAnd whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.â - Matthew 12:32 *
Is not the Son of Man, that is Jesus, and the Spirit of God of the same essence as God? Or does the role the Holy Spirit in the heart of the Believer have anything to do with it? Or would it have to do with Jesusâ temporary life on earth, where the higher ups would not necessarily regard Him of any special status? Yet it seems to me that they are accusing Jesus of having an unclean spirit. Perhaps Jesusâ retort is meant to get them to think of their own relationship with the Spirit of God, even within the context of their own traditions? I mean, how can they believe in the Holy Spirit if they arenât abiding in the will of God to see for themselves?
Youâre definitely touching on it there. I always took it to mean that a negative opinion of Jesus due to an honest mistake, especially from hearing false info, is excusable. But seeing his goodness clearly, and more specifically seeing the Holy Spiritâs work in the lives of others and calling it bad or even evil isnât.
Iâm unsure if I mentioned it, but (after poking around a bit on CARMâs main page to try to find the proper way to do so), I sent a courtesy alert for this article yesterday.
As I usually remind my readers (though running back through the thread I canât find that Iâve done so yet this timeâbut now would be a good time to repeat it!): if Matt does not answer it (here, there or anywhere), this does NOT in itself mean anything against him personally; against non-universalism generally; against Calv theology or soteriology in particular; in favor of universalism generally; in favor of the particular type I believe, teach and promote; or in favor of my article.
Now, if he decides, for example, to overtly ignore most of my article so that he can concentrate on a point near the end; and does so as though I was just pulling that point out of nowhere (instead of out of my previous discussion in the article); and expects people to pay attention to his own rationales after trying to get them to ignore mine outright; and does so while condemning me for something I didnât do while doing that same thing himself: then you might with some plausibility draw a few inferences about him personally, and his particular grasp of the issues involved.
But he hasnât done that yet, and I I have no expectation that he will, and even if I did (which I donât) it would still be better to wait until he did that kind of thing. (And even if he did, I know most of you have enough sense not to extrapolate even that into some kind of specially important validation of the article, or in favor of universalism of one or another kind, or against non-universalism of one or another kind, etc.)
Me, too. But I have nothing against him if he doesnât. And I expect other Kaths here to respect him on that, too, and not try to treat a lack of reply (which is probable) or even a dismissive one as some kind of auto-victory for me or for universalistic theology.
That also goes for any Arms here, if he doesnât replyâsince I was particularly critical of his attempt in terms of basic Calv soteriology, and accounted Arm soteriology as being more internally consistent than Calv for this saying.
I will reiterate, though, as I said in my commentary, that he isnât approaching the topic with an eye toward trying to synch it up with Calv theology per se. Heâs aiming at a more general rebuttal to Kath theology (broadly speakingâthough as it happens he isnât nearly as broad as he needs to be there. ) He might have done this from a Calv synchronization (or at least tried) elsewhere already. Mattâs a very prolific author after all!
I donât think so; but admittedly Iâm not good enough at it myself to be supremely sure.
I will however point out (as I did before) that practically all commenters agree, whatever their soteriology, that no one can be forgiven while they are committing the sin against the Holy Spirit. So people who are actually experts in Greek have no problem understanding this to be included in principle.
That being said, I donât think the grammar specifically says âwhileâ (or the equivalent construction) either, in any of the three accounts (GosMatt and GosMark being the same scene; GosLuke reporting Jesus saying it sometime later.)
If the sin is unbelief then any interpretation based on that is a silly circular argument. We all start there in ignorance.
If the sin is something else, example: saying the Holy Spirit is not from God, but Satan - one could be operating out of ignorance or maliciousness. In either case itâs a hindrance and will not be rewarded, but punished. We see that with the goats.
Nonetheless, His kingdom will advance until everyone confesses Him.
But to the whole question of âunforgivable sinâ âŚChrist died for our sins, but to say He died for our lunacy is to miss the meaning of the cross. He bore our sins, not our insanity. Strictly speaking, lunacy has no being and cannot be forgiven - thereâs nothing there TO forgive. A lunatic, even a malicious lunatic, will be corrected in this life or in the life to come.