The Evangelical Universalist Forum

JRP vs. Matt Slick on the Sin Against the Holy Spirit

Makes sense. I was actually thinking somewhat the same, although not with quite as much narrative input as you were.

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 man’s blasphemy is the next man’s 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 ‘cautious man’? No. But there are ‘cautious men’ 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 ‘blasphemy’, 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.

Ran, Excellent post.

I thought so too Ran.

Incidentally, I should probably clarify that I’m the mod who called a temp-ban warning against me, for suggesting an actually insulting variant of Aaron37’s pseudonym. I shouldn’t 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 wouldn’t normally make such an intra-post punitive mod-edit giant flaming red; but again, it was against myself, and I don’t think it hurts to point out that I am not morally perfect. That’s part of being a penitent. :slight_smile: )

Also, on the topic of A37’s copying from John Piper: on a quick readthrough, it looks like he only copied one sentence (repeated twice by JP). Interestingly, it’s a sentence that doesn’t at all fit JP’s 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 Slick’s 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.)

Also, good contribution, Ran. :smiley:

:smiley:

The word “blasphemy” is simply a transliteration of the Greek word blasphemia, which is derived from two different Greek words: (1) blapto = “to injure, harm; hinder,” and (2) pheme = “to speak; a saying; a rumor.” Thus, the concept of blasphemy is simply to engage in any kind of “injurious speaking.” 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 — that is “blasphemy.” In addition to the noun form above, it also appears in Scripture as a verb (blasphemeo = “blaspheme”) and an adjective (blasphemos = “blasphemous”). Therefore, to answer yet another question posed above, when the Lord talks of “speaking against” or “speaking a word against,” 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 don’t endorse all the theological doctrines of this person. There’s a big difference between not endorsing any and not endorsing all.

(If you really didn’t 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 ‘blasphemy’.)

Yes, Jason, you are correct. I mean’t to say all.

As an aside: I’m wondering why Jesus doesn’t have the same regard of the blaspheming the Son of Man as He does the Holy Spirit?

*“And 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.” - 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 Jesus’ 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 Jesus’ 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 aren’t abiding in the will of God to see for themselves?

You’re 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 Spirit’s work in the lives of others and calling it bad or even evil isn’t.

I’m unsure if I mentioned it, but (after poking around a bit on CARM’s 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 can’t find that I’ve done so yet this time–but 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 didn’t 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 hasn’t done that yet, and I I have no expectation that he will, and even if I did (which I don’t) 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.)

I doubt he will respond due to the bad experiences in the past dealing with UR’s ( mostly Tentmaker). But I hope I am wrong.

Me, too. But I have nothing against him if he doesn’t. 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 doesn’t reply–since 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 isn’t approaching the topic with an eye toward trying to synch it up with Calv theology per se. He’s aiming at a more general rebuttal to Kath theology (broadly speaking–though as it happens he isn’t nearly as broad as he needs to be there. :wink: ) He might have done this from a Calv synchronization (or at least tried) elsewhere already. Matt’s a very prolific author after all!

Is there any grammatical rule that forbids the interpretation that one cannot be forgiven while they are committing the sin against the Holy Spirit?

I don’t think so; but admittedly I’m 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 don’t think the grammar specifically says “while” (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 it’s 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 ‘unforgivable sin’ …Christ 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 - there’s nothing there TO forgive. A lunatic, even a malicious lunatic, will be corrected in this life or in the life to come.

Christ did not bore our ability to choose.Therefore unbelief is the eternal unforgivable sin.