The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Spirit blasphemy - unpardonable sin

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#85

So Don, are you saying that Romans 2:4 says that his goodness, forbearance, and long suffering does not lead to repentance? In the beginning of the verse it says ‘Or you despise’ this is truly a commitment that Christ did these things in spite of their possible lack of understanding. :frowning_face:

The ‘Or do you despise’ is the rub… I would say the thing Christ did was beyond what any of them were ready to concede to, though for us it is a given… for the first century Jews it was life and death. The understanding of history and context is important in my view. :confused:

#86

That verse doesn’t say that those three lead to repentance; it says that God’s GOODNESS leads to repentance. And I have already said that I believe His goodness does lead to repentance in my reply to Davo.

However, having said that, let me affirm that I have no problem at all including God’s forbearance and patience also working to lead us to repentance.

#87

Indeed… and I understand that goodness to be forgiveness that aids repentance. It’s in the same league as reconciliation, i.e., an established reality, which once realised in repentance all many of blessing opens up. Jesus ministered forgiveness to many quite apart from any required repentance… His forgiveness being a gift.

#88

But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Mt.6:15)

Matthew 5:7
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Matthew 6:14
For if you forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you.

Matthew 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35 That is how My Heavenly Father will treat each of you, unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

Mark 11:26
But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Matthew 6:12,14,15 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors…

Luke 6:37,38 Judge not, and you shall not be judged: condemn not, and you shall …

Mt.21:31Which of the two did the will of the father?”

They say, “The first.”

Jesus says to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and the prostitutes go before you into the kingdom of God. 32For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and you having seen, did not even repent afterward to believe him.

Lk.3:7 Then John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Therefore produce fruit worthy of repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

James 2:13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that has showed no mercy; …

#89

All good and important texts and certainly not contrary to what I’m saying.

#90

How is it, in light of those texts, that you don’t have the cart before the horse?

#91

Perhaps you can show how in your opinion I have. I’ve even specifically affirmed some of those texts you mentioned… it is Paidion who for example dismisses such as not pertinent because he renders forgiveness relative to what he considers “blunders” (his interpretation alone) believing this is grounds for not applying his rule of required repentance.

#92

“His rule” also happens to be Jesus’ rule:
Watch yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and IF he repents, forgive him. (Luke 17:3)

Oh yeah… I know. You think He is saying that if the brother happens to repent, forgive him. But if he doesn’t repent, forgive him anyway. But that is not what Jesus said. He didn’t say, “If your brother sins, forgive him.” He said, “If your brother sins, rebuke him.” Jesus indicated here that forgiveness is conditional upon repentance.

#93
  1. The Greek word translated as “forgive” is “αφιημι.” In the verses quoted above, the word does not mean “forgive” in the sense that I was using the word; rather it means “pardon.” When you truly forgive a person, it is in response to his repentance, and you will have restored your relationship with that person. But you can pardon a person without his repentance, and your relationship with him will probably not be restored. For example, suppose you have a business, and one of your employees has stolen some money from your till. You confront him with it, but he denies it. He hasn’t repented (hasn’t had a change of heart and mind concerning what he has done), He doesn’t regret what he did in any way, but you decide to pardon him regardless of his attitude. You require nothing of him; you don’t demand that he repay the money or make restitution in any way. But the good relationship you previously had with him has not been restored regardless of your pardoning him.

In the New Testament, we need to differentiate between the use of the word “αφιημι” as “to forgive” and its use as “to pardon.”

  1. The word “αφιημι” is not limited to these two uses; it has MANY different meanings. If it always means “forgive,” then Matthew 4:11 would read:

Then the devil forgave Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.

Indeed, consider all these meanings of “αφιημι” as given by the lexcon of the Onlne Bible Program:

  1. to send away
    1a) to bid going away or depart
    1a1) of a husband divorcing his wife
    1b) to send forth, yield up, to expire
    1c) to let go, let alone, let be
    1c1) to disregard
    1c2) to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic) 1c21) of teachers, writers and speakers
    1c3) to omit, neglect
    1d) to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit
    1e) to give up, keep no longer
  2. to permit, allow, not to hinder, to give up a thing to a person
  3. to leave, go way from one
    3a) in order to go to another place
    3b) to depart from any one
    3c) to depart from one and leave him to himself so that all mutual claims are abandoned
    3d) to desert wrongfully
    3e) to go away leaving something behind
    3f) to leave one by not taking him as a companion
    3g) to leave on dying, leave behind one
    3h) to leave so that what is left may remain, leave remaining
    3i) abandon, leave destitute
#94

Oh yeah!? I didn’t say that either. Perhaps you DIDN’T read my post79 above where I CLEARLY state…

As can be seen… Jesus’ teaching from that text (Lk 17:3-4) is with regards to the brethren (NOT non-believers) and as such as He says if a brother repents it is incumbent upon the offended or aggrieved brother to forgive, period.

Again, in regards to BRETHREN this is indeed the case… I’ve never argued different — however, what you extrapolate from that is NOT verifiable, i.e., that God ALWAYS required of man in general repentance in order to imbibe of His favourable forgiveness.

Jesus said quite a number of times… “your sins are forgiven” without any mention of repentance in the texts — it was a gracious unmerited gift. Sometimes repentance was involved BUT the textual evidence shows this was not carte blanch.

#95

Here I suspect that the term “brother” in context of the times referred to one’s fellow member of the Jewish race/religion. We have this habit of reading the Bible as though it were written directly to us in our time. It causes a lot of confusion.

I haven’t always, but I have come to believe Don is right about this GIVEN HIS DEFINITION OF REPENTANCE AND FORGIVENESS. Others will understand repentance and forgiveness in other ways. Perhaps these ways will be consistent with the original scriptures and perhaps not. Sometimes it’s difficult to discern exactly what the writer meant. However, if forgiveness requires the restoration of a loving, trusting relationship, then I can’t see how that can even happen without repentance. If every time I encounter someone, that person attacks me, how am I to have a loving, trusting relationship with him/her? What if the reason refuses to even see me? How can that bond be restored? I may offer forgiveness and beg the person to receive it but until he/she does, there is no relationship—not because I refuse it, but because the other person refuses it.

#96

That’s a good realisation to come to Cindy.

That’s just it though… forgiveness isn’t required to be defined solely as… “the restoration of a loving, trusting relationship” — no one BEFORE coming to faith in Christ could ever claim to have been in such a thing Him — unless there’s something I don’t know… always possible.

Perhaps such is impossible so you never will, BUT THAT in no way stops you from forgiving them fully from your heart… THAT is within your purview to freely give. Some might choose to minimise your gracious forgiveness as being a mere pardon or whatever but not true forgiveness… but such an attitude probably only reflects on them.

#97

That’s just the thing, though. As far as I can understand, this is an argument about words, while we all seem to substantially agree with the same truth. Letting go of hurt and not making a record of wrongs nor holding them against our fellow creatures, and loving one another is what we’re to do on our end. Relationships must be mutual, however, and without willingness from both parties, cannot be restored. Aside from difficulties in communication, does it matter which words the other uses to mean the same thing?

Don has some important things to say, and he works to communicate them by making a distinction between “forgiveness” (which, for him, must be received with repentance of the wrong done in order to “complete the circuit” so to speak) and “pardon.” For him, pardon seems to mean what you mean by the word “forgiveness.”

Maybe you’re young enough not to remember, but it hasn’t been so very long ago that women were expected to “forgive” their wayward and abusive husbands and continue in the relationship, repeatedly forgiving, forgiving, forgiving an unrepentant and abusive overlord. By forgiveness, it was meant that she would remain in the relationship and submit to the abuse patiently. I remember one young woman coming to our (very large, prominent) church with a broken arm and bruises on her face. The pastor publicly praised her faithfulness and forgiveness and longsuffering and assured her that her meek and obedient spirit toward her husband would be rewarded when he was saved. As far as I know, that never happened. I hope he didn’t eventually kill her.

This is one reason some folks hesitate to use just the one word: forgive: for all things related to refusing to hold offenses against the offender. Don is (if I understand him sufficiently) trying to say something more complex than can be said using only the word “forgiveness” to apply to both the case of the unrepentant and the repentant offender. The abused wife can still hold her husband in her heart and love and let go of his wrongs whilst living in a safe place and keeping herself out of the abusive situation. That is to say, she is not in an active relationship with her husband though she is not holding his abuse against him. Back in “the day,” such a woman might have been accused of not forgiving her husband and being at odds with the commands of God. That, I think we can all agree today, would be unfair to her in the extreme, yet I have seen it done.

I really do see Don’s point (though I’m sure I see it through my own lens) and his need to have distinct words to apply to two very different situations. And I don’t think that, at the heart level, we disagree much at all—any of us.

#98

Hmm.:confused:

#99

Wouldn’t that be the case with the both the unrepentant who (1) blaspheme the Holy Spirit and also those (2) unrepentant who have not blasphemed the Holy Spirit? Thus there is no difference between the two, since both are not pardoned. Yet Christ makes a difference between the two, saying group (1) shall not be pardoned, but group (2) shall be pardoned.

Secondly, is it correct or incorrect that blaspheming the Holy Spirit just once is a sin that is not pardoned according to:

“From these passages, if their intended meaning is to be understood from their surface meaning, if a person says something bad about the Father, he can be forgiven, and if he says something bad about Jesus, he can be forgiven, but if he says something bad against the Holy Spirit (and “blasphemes” and “speaks against” always appears in the aorist–so if he says something bad even once), he can never be forgiven.”

So it would not need to be an ongoing practice of continually blaspheming the Holy Spirit, but merely a one time occurence of doing so that results in one not being pardoned?

Is this comment on the mark:

“It is also interesting to note that Mark says “never has forgiveness” which in the Greek is in the “present indicative tense.” This is similar to the intent of Jesus’ words in Jn 3:18 where “he who does not believe is condemned already” – rendering the person who being in a position of continued unbelief or in this instance, constant blasphemy, as not being able to change as long as that position was being held. This thought is further strengthened as blasphemes being in the “aorist tense” means the action as having occurred at some juncture, and being in the “subjunctive mood” meaning the possibility of it reoccurring i.e., as long as they remained in that condition of heart such an action was still possible.”

http://www.pantelism.com/other/blasphemy.html

#101

The comment wasn’t my remark, but a quote of someone else who is also a universalist & was referring to merely the “surface meaning”. I posted it asking questions related to the aorist remark, rather than any conclusions concerning final destiny (universalism or otherwise). BTW, there is tons of material in this thread showing that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit passages fail to refute universalism. Also Jason Pratt has argued from Mk.3:28 that they can be interpreted in support of universalism.

#103

I think, for a question this serious, every effort needs to be made to get a correct understanding. I would not characterize it as ‘mental gymnastics’ to ask for understanding, really.
Unless we try to twist it to fit our objectives.

#104

The surface meaning, as in superficial based on English mis-translations cloned by the pro ECT biased endless hell club boys? Or the original Greek as read by early church universalists, who at times were many (if not a vast majority) in number?

1 Like
#105

A few thoughts on all of this, late in the day, perhaps. First, I believe it is important not to draw conclusions without taking context into consideration.

Jesus did all His miracles through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. We know that from many scriptures. (I have no idea who Jack Cottrell is).

Jack Cottrell: Scripture says that Jesus was “full of the Holy Spirit” (Luke 4:1). To what end? What were the purpose and result of such filling? All agree that its main purpose, after the pattern of the Spirit’s OT work, was to empower Jesus for his ministry, or to equip him with those gifts necessary to fulfill his mission. In this respect the difference between Jesus’ filling and the filling of OT leaders thus was not qualitative but quantitative. This seems to be confirmed by John 3:34, “For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure.” The key statement is the latter part of the verse, “for God gives the Spirit without limit” (NIV). The KJV translates it thus: “for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him,” i.e., unto Jesus. The words “unto him” are not in the original; but the “preferable” understanding is as the KJV has it, that “the Father gives the Spirit to the Son without measure” (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, 1971:246-247).
What does this mean? Abraham Kuyper says it means that the Holy Spirit endowed Christ’s “human nature with the glorious gifts, powers, and faculties of which that nature is susceptible.” And in terms of John 3:34, “he lacked nothing, possessed all; not by virtue of His divine nature, which can not receive anything, being the eternal fulness itself, but by virtue of His human nature, which was endowed with such glorious gifts by the Holy Spirit” (The Work of the Holy Spirit, 1966:94-95). I agree: the purpose for Christ’s being filled with the Holy Spirit was the empowerment of his human nature for his mission.
Jesus’ ministry was characterized and energized by “the power of the Spirit” (Luke 4:14; see Acts 10:38). This relates especially to his kingly ministry, i.e., to his role as the Messianic King who came to establish his authority over all things. This has particular relevance to his purpose of overthrowing the devil’s usurped dominion and establishing his own eternal kingdom in its place (Acts 26:18; Col. 1:13).
The Holy Spirit’s role in Christ’s kingly mission is clearly stated in reference to Christ’s work of casting out demons, something he did throughout his ministry. On one occasion he cast out a demon that was causing a man to be blind and mute (Matt. 12:22). His enemies accused him of doing so by the power of Beelzebul, i.e., Satan (vv. 23-24). Jesus refutes this charge (vv. 25-27) and then declares, “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (v. 28). This is in effect exactly what he was claiming to be doing; he was binding the strong man (the devil) and was plundering his domain (v. 29). In doing so he was fulfilling that part of the Isaiah 61 prophecy for which the Spirit of the Lord had anointed him, “to set free those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18b).
Jesus says he is doing this “by the Spirit of God.” In Luke 11:20 he says the same thing, only here he says he is casting out demons “by the finger of God.” In the OT “the finger of God” is a symbol of his mighty power (Exod. 8:19; 31:18; Ps 8:3); here it is a symbol of “the power of the Spirit” (Luke 4:14). As Dale Moody says, “The Spirit came to Jesus . . . at his baptism to enable him to invade the demon-infested dominion of Satan and deliver those in bondage” (Spirit of the Living God, 1968:36). Also, “By the power of the Holy Spirit poured out on him after his baptism, Jesus bound the Strong One, Satan, so now his underlings are unable to stand before the Stronger One, Jesus” (ibid., 40). When Jesus shared his Spirit-given power over Satan’s kingdom with his disciples, he shared their joy in seeing people delivered from Satan’s clutches (Luke 10:17-21). “At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit,” Luke says (v. 21).
Can we assume that this same “power of the Spirit” that energized Jesus to cast out demons was the source of his power to perform miracles in general? This is inferred by many. Building upon Matt. 12:28, R. A. Torrey says, “Jesus Christ wrought His miracles here on earth in the power of the Holy Spirit” (The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, 1910:260). Edwin Palmer reasons the same way. Beginning with Matthew 12:28 he says, “Here again, we see clearly that at times Jesus performed miracles, not by the Father nor because he as man received supernatural power from the second Person of the Trinity, but because the Holy Spirit had given him the gift to do so” (The Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit, 1974:71). “It was the Holy Spirit who was really the author of those miracles, even if they were done through Jesus”.

So this incident took place during the time period of Jesus’ earthly ministry. He was being accused of performing miracles by being given power, not by the Holy Spirit, but by Beelzebub/Satan/the Devil. It was a very specific incident although no doubt His other miracles were also ascribed to having been performed by the power of the Spirit.

How does this impact our understanding of an unpardonable sin? I don’t know yet, but I think the whole context has a lot to do with how we figure it out in light of the rest of scripture.

#106

Let’s say a criminal whose punishment according to God’s law of justice is to be stoned to death & he “shall not be pardoned” (i.e. “not be let off” the hook for this crime’s punishment), so the people stone him to death. Just because the criminal was “not pardoned” (let off) from the due punishment of stoning and his crime was, in that sense, “unpardonable”, that does not mean Love Omnipotent, i.e. God, ceased to love him or was incapable of - forgiving - the criminal for his - sin - postmortem if he confessed & repented.

Compare these verses in Numbers 15 which some commentaries have linked to the Spirit blasphemy Synoptic passages in the New Testament books of Matthew, Mark & Luke:

27 Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering. 28 The priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be pardoned. 30 But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. 31‘Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.’” (Numbers 15:27-31)

Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death. (Leviticus 24:16)

Luke 12:10 And everyone who shall be declaring a word against the Son of Man, it shall be pardoned him, yet the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit shall not be pardoned.

Luke 12:10 does not say what the penalty for blasphemy is that will “not be pardoned”. Compare the Old Testament passages above, where the penalty was death. Likewise when Ananias & Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit, they died physically (Acts 5):

But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit…why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost… Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost (Acts 5:3-6, 9-10).

Compare also the following, which refer to death as the penalty:

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. (1 John 5:16)

28 A man that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:28-29)

1 Cor.11:27 Therefore whoever should eat the bread or should drink the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and in this manner let him eat of the bread, and let him drink of the cup.
29 For the one eating and drinking not discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30 Because of this, many are weak and sick among you, and many are fallen asleep.

2 Chr.16:16 But they mocked the messengers of God, despising His words and scoffing at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD against His people was stirred up beyond remedy.
17 So He brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans, who put their choice young men to the sword in the sanctuary, sparing neither young men nor young women, neither elderly nor infirm. God gave them all into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.

And revealed it hath been in mine ears, By Jehovah of Hosts: Not pardoned is this iniquity to you, Till ye die, said the Lord, Jehovah of Hosts. (Isaiah 22:14)

20 "Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed. (Isaiah 65:20)

What is the consequence that will not be pardoned (or “let off”) for blaspheming the Holy Spirit? Could it be death, whether in “this age or in the age to come” (Mt.12:32), e.g. the millennium? Perhaps an imminent or immediate death, and or divinely sanctioned capital punishment. A death that ends their opportunity for salvation by grace in their mortal life & ships them off to corrective punishment, such as in a place the rich man (Luke 16:19-31) went to? For as long as it takes.

Is Love Omnipotent incapable of forgiving any sin or loving any sinner?

Are these sins (of apostasy & blasphemy) forgivable:

1 Tim.1:19 holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and thereby shipwrecked their faith. 20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme

TDNT is “one of the most widely-used and well-respected theological dictionaries ever created”. It says re the remedy for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:

“It denotes the conscious and wicked rejection of the saving power and grace of God towards man. Only the man who sets himself against forgiveness is excluded from it. In such cases the only remedy is to deliver up to Satan that he may learn not to blaspheme (1 Tim 1:20)” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, TDNT, ed. Kittel, Vol.1, p.624, by Beyer).