What is Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

[Episaw]

Basically if a person were to say "That person is of an ungodly spirit" and be falsely accusing someone who was teaching rightly through the Spirit: that would be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. "Blasphemy" means to "injure the name/fame/reputation" and to call a person working and teaching by the Holy Spirit "anti-Christ" or "evil" or "not a Christian" or such would be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I suppose the lesson is, better be really careful about who you accuse. If you can't recognize the Holy Spirit, then you can't recognize God, and so can't be forgiven if you don't recognize the Spirit of truth.

I'd also quickly note that "unforgivable" is based on a terrible translation of "aion" and the passages basically say "does not have forgiveness in the age, or, the age to come" but says nothing about the ages afterward; or, even "eternity" itself. I believe it can, and will, be forgiven.

it has nothing at all to do with teaching. It is calling the work of the Holy Spirit the work of satan. That involves actual activity i.e. miracles or healing.

 

[Episaw]

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is to deny Christ into death. The sin of not believing can lead to the unforgivable sin of dying in denial of Christ. The Pharisees were saying that Jesus had a demon and that he was performing miracles by the power of the devil. They could have just as easily have said that there was a giant gas leak, they were all mass hallucinating, and Jesus himself wasn't real. The point is they were denying Him and who He was. At this point they were only in danger of committing blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Had they actually taken their denial of Him into death, they would have completed the unforgivable sin. It would also be the same as taking the Mark of the Beast. The Church is the Bride of Christ. God marks who are His like an engagement ring. Satan also puts a mark on those that are his (Mark of the Beast). The Mark of the Beast denies Christ as a person's bride groom (shows they belong to Satan), and the one that takes the mark denying Christ will take it into death with them. There is no saving you once you're dead.

No LeoS, It is calling the work of the Holy Spirit the work of Satan.

 

[John Hyperspace]

it has nothing at all to do with teaching. It is calling the work of the Holy Spirit the work of satan. That involves actual activity i.e. miracles or healing.

It must be nice to have 100% certainty concerning the meaning of singular passages translated from ancient languages which may or may not be the primary language of the speaker.

 

[Episaw]

It must be nice to have 100% certainty concerning the meaning of singular passages translated from ancient languages which may or may not be the primary language of the speaker.

Yes it is as it obviates the need for me to give my opinion on what to me is very clear in scripture.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Yes it is as it obviates the need for me to give my opinion on what to me is very clear in scripture.

Oh is it just opinion now? "No it isn't" had the ring of 100% certain truth from the mouth of God to it. Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding.

 

[*Cher]

No Cher. It is calling the work of the Holy Spirit the work of satan.

The Jehovah Witnesses does that.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I do believe that there are/have been faith healers along with the charletons and if one were to say a faith healer was from the devil, and they actually had the gift of healing, obe would be guilty of blashphamy of the holy spirit.

The reason I call them faith healers is from the bible.

Mark 5:34 He said to her, "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering."

Luke 17:19 Then he said to him, "Rise and go; your faith has made you well."

Mark 10:52 "Go," said Jesus, "your faith has healed you." Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.

I do not believe a charleton is blashpheming the holy spirit, but I could be wrong. Is sayng something from the devil is from God the samme as saying something of God is from the devil? I'll agree they are in the same vein, but I am not so sure God equates them.

So, let me get this straight. Are you saying that Jesus was a faith healer because He told some that their faith had made them whole? If so, then you are equating Him with modern so-called faith healers.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You equate blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to not choosing Christ. Others have done that. But not choosing Christ is forgivable if that person changes their heart, therefore, it isn't that simple. Guys, blasphemy means to SPEAK EVIL OF, to SPEAK AGAINST, to SLANDER.... which is all something we VERBALIZE. This is NOT the concept of not making a decision, not repeating the "sinners prayer" (which isn't even in Scripture).... it is SPEAKING evil again... in this case... the Holy Spirit.

The context of Messiah's comment starts here...

Matthew 12:24 Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, "This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub (satan), the ruler of the demons."

With respect to you all, the idea that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not making a choice for Christ sounds great, but it isn't what the words mean or what the context of the Scriptural reference is pointing to.

I agree. There was no mistake about Jesus' definition of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. It was attributing His miraculous works to the devil. To mean this means that anyone in today's church who casts out demons and does other miraculous works is representing Jesus, and so anyone accusing them of working by the devil is also blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

 

[dms1972]

Bible comnentaries usually have a religious bent because of dogma. Which is why I try to get my knowledge from the word of God itself.

Well that will always be the case to some degree, and just as much on forum. The chapter of the Bible prayerfully studied is best for gaining insight.

The issue usually is worry about some thought or other, many christians have struggled here, notably i think John Bunyan, and in Pilgrims progress, he shows his character struggling with thoughts during part of the journey which have been insinuated by the devil into Pilgrim's mind. Poor pilgrim struggles for a time till he becomes wise to the devil's schemes.

There are also other sins, against the Holy Spirit, which it is important not to confuse with an outright blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Yet any sin against the Holy Spirit is serious. But pastorally one does not want to exascerbate someone distress.

So while what I am saying is taken from theology, that theology has scripture and some good pastoral wisdom behind it in my opinion.

 

[Ken Rank]

I agree. There was no mistake about Jesus' definition of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. It was attributing His miraculous works to the devil. To mean this means that anyone in today's church who casts out demons and does other miraculous works is representing Jesus, and so anyone accusing them of working by the devil is also blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

Agreed brother, if they are truly representing him. Remember Matthew 7:22-23.... those folks believed they were operating "in his name" and were doing great works and he "never knew them." The "in your name" part is the key because in Hebrew, the idea of "name" is more in line with the name bearer's character, reputation, and authority rather than what they are called. So to do something "in his name" means doing it because it is in his will, in his authority, in line with his character, or adds to his reputation. My point? I would think there are some who put on a show, maybe even take credit as a healer and so forth... they might be doing great works but he might also not know them. This takes great discernment, something I am still trying to learn. Blessings.

 

[Jim Langston]

It must be nice to have 100% certainty concerning the meaning of singular passages translated from ancient languages which may or may not be the primary language of the speaker.

Well, if you look at when Jesus said it, it is quite obvious Jesus was saying, look, you can say I'm from the devil but don't you dare say the holy spirit is.

The only one who's it not obvious too is tje person who reads it out of context.

 

[Jim Langston]

So, let me get this straight. Are you saying that Jesus was a faith healer because He told some that their faith had made them whole? If so, then you are equating Him with modern so-called faith healers.

No matter what we call it, Jesus was healing. Why are you arguing over words? The bible speaks against that, you know.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Well, if you look at when Jesus said it, it is quite obvious Jesus was saying, look, you can say I'm from the devil but don't you dare say the holy spirit is.

Don't you find it a bit odd that so many people say "it's obvious" but then Christianity is in complete disagreement over what is "obvious"? Remember, you're reading a translation of a language that is no longer in use, and is routinely debated when word frequency is small, and may not even be the primary language of the speaker, all of this being filtered through your own necessary understanding of the words themselves, then conjecture an interpretation of the meaning of those words being used. I mean absolutely no offense, but to my mind, a person who thinks these things are "obvious" is only showing me they haven't really deeply studied the things they're talking about, or else they would know nothing is so cut-and-dried as it is routinely made out to be.

I understand we all lean strongly toward certain understandings, and that's fine, as long as we understand that our understanding isn't actually "obvious" and show truth in the truth that, we don't know any interpretive thing "obviously". The problem isn't Christians getting together and saying "I believe it means..." and "I don't agree..." and "What about this?" and such. The problem comes when people start saying "I speak interpretive certainty and everyone who disagrees is wrong"

The only one who's it not obvious too is tje person who reads it out of context.

Honestly, if I never hear the word "context" coming out of Christian's mouth ever again, it will be too soon. I'm not saying context doesn't have it's place, but the word is so utterly abused that it has lost all meaning to the general masses, and is just used now as a placeholder word for out-of-hand denial of anything that is being proposed that doesn't support the presumed interpretation of the one using the word.

 

[Jim Langston]

Don't you find it a bit odd that so many people say "it's obvious" but then Christianity is in complete disagreement over what is "obvious"? Remember, you're reading a translation of a language that is no longer in use, and is routinely debated when word frequency is small, and may not even be the primary language of the speaker, all of this being filtered through your own necessary understanding of the words themselves, then conjecture an interpretation of the meaning of those words being used. I mean absolutely no offense, but to my mind, a person who thinks these things are "obvious" is only showing me they haven't really deeply studied the things they're talking about, or else they would know nothing is so cut-and-dried as it is routinely made out to be.

I understand we all lean strongly toward certain understandings, and that's fine, as long as we understand that our understanding isn't actually "obvious" and show truth in the truth that, we don't know any interpretive thing "obviously". The problem isn't Christians getting together and saying "I believe it means..." and "I don't agree..." and "What about this?" and such. The problem comes when people start saying "I speak interpretive certainty and everyone who disagrees is wrong"



Honestly, if I never hear the word "context" coming out of Christian's mouth ever again, it will be too soon. I'm not saying context doesn't have it's place, but the word is so utterly abused that it has lost all meaning to the general masses, and is just used now as a placeholder word for out-of-hand denial of anything that is being proposed that doesn't support the presumed interpretation of the one using the word.

Actually, I find it a bit odd when Jesus said to follow the commandments and love your neighbor as yourself to be saved and "christians" say, no, you don't have to do that, he wasn't talking to me. I find it odd when Paul says we are not condemned if we live in the spirit and love our neighbors as ourselves, yet "christians" say, no, you don't have to do that, just say these magic words. I find it odd when Paul says if we start to willfully sin after we know the truth we fear the judgement day, yet "christians" say, no, once you're saved you're always saved.

I would much rather read the bible in context then what man comes up with because they don't want to believe what it says in black and white.

You can probably tell that I put 0 faith in the doctrine of men.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Actually, I find it a bit odd when Jesus said to follow the commandments and love your neighbor as yourself to be saved and "christians" say, no, you don't jave to do that, he wasn't talking to me. I find it odd when Paul says we are not condemned if we live in the spirit and love our neighbors as ourselves, yet "christians" say, no, you don't have to do thay, just say these magic words. I find it odd when Paul says if we start to willfully sin after we know the truth we fear the judgement day, yet "christians" say, no, once you're saved you're always saved.

I would much rather read the bible in context then what man comes up with because they don't want to believe what it says in bkack and white.

You can probably telk that I put 0 faith in the doctrine of men.

Okay.

 

[Fred Manalo]

it has nothing at all to do with teaching. It is calling the work of the Holy Spirit the work of satan. That involves actual activity i.e. miracles or healing.

Right. In the case of The miraculous works of Yeshua, he was healing all the sick, giving sight to the blind, raising the dead, etc, for them to believe, repent, and thereby enter the Kingdom of Heaven. All those who did not repent, blaspheming by saying that all his good works were the works of the devil in order to deceive them, were not forgiven and missed being baptized with the Holy Spirit and entering the Kingdom of Heaven. All who were baptized with the Spirit were empowered to do all the miracles Yeshua did and even greater works than he performed. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do...." John 24:12, KJV

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Agreed brother, if they are truly representing him. Remember Matthew 7:22-23.... those folks believed they were operating "in his name" and were doing great works and he "never knew them." The "in your name" part is the key because in Hebrew, the idea of "name" is more in line with the name bearer's character, reputation, and authority rather than what they are called. So to do something "in his name" means doing it because it is in his will, in his authority, in line with his character, or adds to his reputation. My point? I would think there are some who put on a show, maybe even take credit as a healer and so forth... they might be doing great works but he might also not know them. This takes great discernment, something I am still trying to learn. Blessings.

It can be a scary scripture for those who are really concerned about remaining in the truth and not wanting to fall into error and finally being rejected by the Lord. But if we analyse what is being said by those who are rejected, then we can get some important clues:

The main thing is that they are telling the Lord what they did for Him. "Didn't we cast out demons in Your Name? Didn't we do might things in Your Name?" Notice where the emphasis is. Notice they didn't say, "Why are you rejecting us when we know that our only way to acceptance was that Jesus died for us on the cross?"

This is because we don't rely on our works, no matter how great they are, to make us acceptable to God. We cast out demons, heal the sick, and preach the gospel out of obedience to His Word, not to gain a great reputation for ourselves so we can hold that up to the Lord and expect Him to accept us for it. We follow the example of Jesus who made Himself of no reputation, and became a servant to all. So, if we truly represent Jesus, then we will have the same attitude. God is no respecter of persons or reputations. Sometimes, as we have seen, God will destroy a big-name preacher's reputation, so that the man will be saved at the end, and not have to go through the rejection that the verse of scripture tells us about. For this reason, we have seen some big name ministries fall heavily from grace over the last ten years. This is because they became too much "up themselves" because of their successes, so God had to bring them down to keep them saved. William Branham was taken prematurely out of this world to save him and the body of Christ from serious harm through his wayward doctrines.

I think that we stand before God one day, the best thing that we can do is to just tell the Lord that we are thankful to Him that Jesus died on the cross for us. This will be the only reason He will know and accept us on that Day.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No matter what we call it, Jesus was healing. Why are you arguing over words? The bible speaks against that, you know.

It was because you called the healing ministry "faith healing" which it is not. It would be more accurate to say "command healing" because to heal the sick is a command of Jesus, and we issue the healing command in obedience and Jesus does the actual healing. We could also call it "obedience healing" because healing ministry is done through obedience to the Lord's command. Faith does not heal a person, Jesus does. Those people came to Jesus for healing, and He celebrated their faith in coming to Him.

A New Age person can say "I have faith for my healing" but his faith is not in Christ so if he is healed it must come from a source other than Christ.

So, I am just correcting your inaccurate statement about healing ministries being "faith healers". That is an expression that unbelievers use because they don't know any better. But if a professing believer uses that expression it must mean that he knows no more about the healing ministry than an unbeliever would.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well that will always be the case to some degree, and just as much on forum. The chapter of the Bible prayerfully studied is best for gaining insight.

The issue usually is worry about some thought or other, many christians have struggled here, notably i think John Bunyan, and in Pilgrims progress, he shows his character struggling with thoughts during part of the journey which have been insinuated by the devil into Pilgrim's mind. Poor pilgrim struggles for a time till he becomes wise to the devil's schemes.

There are also other sins, against the Holy Spirit, which it is important not to confuse with an outright blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Yet any sin against the Holy Spirit is serious. But pastorally one does not want to exascerbate someone distress.

So while what I am saying is taken from theology, that theology has scripture and some good pastoral wisdom behind it in my opinion.

So, Jim doesn't listen to his pastor's messages in church then? What's the difference between a pastor's message from the pulpit and reading a good Christian teaching book?

Joseph Smith, Russell, and Ellen White got their theories straight from Scripture while not accepting the teaching from orthodox preachers and theological books. From those three came the Mormons, JWs and Seventh Day Adventists. I think all of the cults stemming right from the Gnostics of the First Century AD decided to get their doctrines straight from Scripture instead of the orthodox teachers of their time. So we need to be careful that we test our interpretations with not only the Scripture but also with sound orthodox teaching and commentaries from men through the centuries who have retained sound doctrine.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well, if you look at when Jesus said it, it is quite obvious Jesus was saying, look, you can say I'm from the devil but don't you dare say the holy spirit is.

The only one who's it not obvious too is tje person who reads it out of context.

Come on! They weren't saying that the Holy Spirit was from the devil. They were saying that He was casting out demons with the power of the devil. That is why Jesus told them that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. No one can cast out demons through the power of the devil. It has to be through the power of the Holy Spirit. He made it quite clear that to accuse anyone of casting out demons through the power of devil is blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

I think it applies to any genuine ministry who is trusting the Holy Spirit to do healing or other miracles. If these things happen through faith in the Name of Jesus, then it is through the Holy Spirit. Those who say the miracles and healings were through the power of devil are also blaspheming the Holy Spirit. They are insulting the Holy Spirit by calling Him the devil by implication.

That's why people should give Pentecostals and Charismatics (and they are the ones who are being accused this way) the benefit of the doubt, so that people stay on the safe side of being caught blaspheming the Holy Spirit and thereby grieving Him in their own lives and ministries. Actually it is only deadbeat churches that openly accuse Pentecostals and Charismatics that tongues, healing, and prophecies are of the devil, and those churches are not worth worrying about anyway.