POPULARITY
22 episodes with jacob arminius
5 episodes with jacob arminius
3 episodes with jacob arminius
2 episodes with jacob arminius
2 episodes with jacob arminius
In this episode of GraceNotes from no. 87 "Arminianism and the Gospel of Grace," we dive into the theology of Arminianism and its views on the gospel of grace. Named after Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius, Arminianism challenges the strong determinism of Calvinism, particularly in its views on salvation, free will, and God's grace. We'll explore the historical roots of Arminianism, from Arminius' objections to John Calvin's doctrines to the formalization of Arminian theology in the early 17th century. Through this study, we'll unpack key points of disagreement between Arminianism and Calvinism, such as the nature of election, the concept of prevenient grace, and the question of whether salvation can be lost. While Arminianism emphasizes human free will and the ability to choose salvation, it also presents challenges to the gospel of grace, particularly when it comes to assurance of salvation and the idea of works in maintaining salvation. How do Arminians reconcile their belief that salvation can be lost with the Bible's teaching on God's unconditional grace? We'll also look at how Arminianism compares to biblical teachings on eternal security, examining the struggles many believers face with assurance of salvation when their security is tied to human effort rather than God's grace. This episode seeks to bring clarity to these complex theological systems and highlight the importance of understanding the full gospel of grace. Whether you're familiar with the terms TULIP, prevenient grace, or the history of Arminianism, this episode will equip you to better understand both Arminian and Calvinist views and how they relate to the truth of the gospel. Join us as we unpack the core of the gospel message—salvation by grace alone, through faith alone—and why it's essential for believers to rest in the assurance of eternal security.
A new MP3 sermon from Grace Chapel Reformed Baptist Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: What is Reformed Theology/Calvinism 14: Who is Jacob Arminius? His History & Theology Subtitle: Reformed Theology & Calvinism Speaker: Traever Guingrich Broadcaster: Grace Chapel Reformed Baptist Church Event: Midweek Service Date: 3/20/2024 Bible: Romans 7; Romans 9 Length: 60 min.
A new MP3 sermon from Grace Chapel Reformed Baptist Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: What is Reformed Theology/Calvinism 14: Who is Jacob Arminius? His History & Theology Subtitle: Reformed Theology & Calvinism Speaker: Traever Guingrich Broadcaster: Grace Chapel Reformed Baptist Church Event: Midweek Service Date: 3/20/2024 Bible: Romans 7; Romans 9 Length: 60 min.
A new MP3 sermon from Grace Chapel Reformed Baptist Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: What is Reformed Theology/Calvinism 14: Who is Jacob Arminius? His History & Theology Subtitle: Reformed Theology & Calvinism Speaker: Traever Guingrich Broadcaster: Grace Chapel Reformed Baptist Church Event: Midweek Service Date: 3/20/2024 Bible: Romans 7; Romans 9 Length: 60 min.
A new MP3 sermon from Grace Chapel Reformed Baptist Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: What is Reformed Theology/Calvinism 14: Who is Jacob Arminius? His History & Theology Subtitle: Reformed Theology & Calvinism Speaker: Traever Guingrich Broadcaster: Grace Chapel Reformed Baptist Church Event: Midweek Service Date: 3/20/2024 Bible: Romans 7; Romans 9 Length: 60 min.
On today's episode Bobby and Garrett discuss the Doctrine of Total Depravity. Jacob Arminius, Total Depravity and the Canons of Dort… OH MY! Scripture: Romans 7, Romans 9, Genesis 3, Ephesians 2:8, Romans 3: 9-18, Psalm 14, Ephesians 2:4-8 Additional References: The Second London Baptist Confession (1689): https://founders.org/library-book/1689-confession/ Baptist Faith and Message 2000: https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/ Social Media: Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/stayreformed Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/stayreformed/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/stayreformedpodcast/ Merch: https://stayreformed.square.site/
One of the hottest theological topics for modern day evangelicals is “are you an Arminian, or are you a Calvinist?” These are essentially two theological schools of thought loosely named after John Calvin and Jacob Arminius. In this episode we'll introduce the basic tenants of both theological schools of thought, primarily how each answers the question: How much freedom do humans have within their relationship with God? JOIN THE THEOLOGIAN HAUS HERE
Today we start a 6-week series on one of the most heated theological debates of the last 500 years: Calvinism vs. Arminianism. In this episode we'll talk about the nature of salvation and the interplay between God's sovereignty and human free will. We'll give some background on the key players in the debate: John Calvin, Jacob Arminius, and even St. Augustine. And we'll of course introduce TULIP - the acronym that will provide a framework for the rest of this series.--The PursueGOD Truth podcast is the “easy button” for making disciples – whether you're looking for resources to lead a family devotional, a small group at church, or a one-on-one mentoring relationship. Join us for new episodes every Tuesday and Friday. Find resources to talk about these episodes at pursueGOD.org.Help others go "full circle" as a follower of Jesus through our 12-week Pursuit series.Click here to learn more about how to use these resources at home, with a small group, or in a one-on-one discipleship relationship.Got questions or want to leave a note? Email us at podcast@pursueGOD.org.Donate Now --TULIP https://www.pursuegod.org/what-is-calvinism/ Total Depravity. Humans without Christ are completely lost in their sins to the point that they can do no good. Sin affects every part of humanity: our will, emotions, actions, and attitudes. Romans 3:10-12 (NLT) As the Scriptures say, “No one is righteous—not even one. No one is truly wise; no one is seeking God. All have turned away; all have become useless. No one does good, not a single one.”Unconditional Election. God chose Christians based on nothing about them. Election is not based on any foreseen faith in humans and it certainly isn't based on anything they do. It's simply based on God's will and choice. Romans 8:29-30 (NLT) For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And having chosen them, he called them to come to him. And having called them, he gave them right standing with himself. And having given them right standing, he gave them his glory. Ephesians 1:4-5 (NLT) Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. This is what he wanted to do, and it gave him great pleasure.Limited Atonement. Christ's death only paid for the sins of the elect. In other words, the death of Christ paid for the sins of God's true people who respond to Christ in faith and repentance, but not for the whole world. John 10:11 (NLT) “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd sacrifices his life for the sheep.Irresistible Grace. God effectively calls you because his call cannot be resisted, nor would you want to resist it. In the moment when God calls you he also regenerates you. This is the work of the Holy Spirit coming into your life and giving you a new heart. John 6:37 (NLT) However, those the Father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them.Perseverance of the Saints. If you are truly elected and regenerated by God then you will continue on in a life of faith until the end. You aren't going to be perfect, but you will continue to pursue God
This week, the fellowship luncheon continues in the "Chosen But Free" Series. This week's message is titled, "Are we awesome? Man's Free Choice." We will learn about our free will and how it is we choose to do the things we do. We will even look at our role in salvation according to Jacob Arminius. Is he right? Enjoy the message and share with a co-worker!
October 31st is Reformation Day. To celebrate, please enjoy this series of lectures by H. Ray Dunning on Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jacob Arminius. This was originally produced for the Minister's Tape Club and has been re-formatted for a podcast episode.
Today on the Christian History Almanac podcast, we remember a man whose name would give the church an “-ism”: Jacob Arminius. — Show Notes: 1517 Podcast Network Survey Support 1517 1517 Podcasts The 1517 Podcast Network on Apple Podcasts 1517 on Youtube What's New from 1517: 2023 HWSS Conference Livestream Signup Free 2023 Advent Resources 2024(May 3-4) NWA Tickets are Now Available! Join the 1517 Academy All Charges Dropped, Vol. 2 More from the host: · Dan van Voorhis SHOW TRANSCRIPTS are available: https://www.1517.org/podcasts/the-christian-history-almanac CONTACT: CHA@1517.org SUBSCRIBE: Apple Podcasts Spotify Stitcher Overcast Google Play FOLLOW US: Facebook Twitter Audio production by Christopher Gillespie (gillespie.media).
129. What doth the word “Amen” signify? “Amen” signifies it shall truly and certainly be, for my prayer is more assuredly heard of God than I feel in my heart that I desire these things of Him. Assurance of our faith. What is the Heidelberg Catechism, and why was it included in The Three Forms of Unity? How does the Heidelberg Catechism reflect the theological beliefs of the Reformed tradition, particularly with regard to the nature of salvation and the role of faith? What was the historical context in which the Heidelberg Catechism was written, and how did this context shape its contents? How does the Heidelberg Catechism differ from other Protestant catechisms, particularly those of the Lutheran tradition, in terms of its theological emphases? What is the significance of the Heidelberg Catechism for modern Reformed theology, and how does it continue to shape Reformed understanding of salvation and faith? The Canons of Dort (1619) What are the Canons of Dort, and why were they included in The Three Forms of Unity? A direct response to the Five Remonstrant Articles of 1610, set forth by the followers of Jacob Arminius. - Conditional election, universal atonement, a modified understanding of depravity, and the resistibility of grace, along with an article that questioned perseverance. How do the Canons of Dort reflect the theological beliefs of the Reformed tradition, particularly with regard to the doctrine of predestination and the nature of sin and grace? The Canons of Dordt responded by asserting total depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption (“limited atonement”), irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. “The Canons were thus not intended as anything approaching a comprehensive statement of Christian doctrine.” What was the historical context in which the Canons of Dort were written, and how did this context shape their contents? How do the Canons of Dort differ from other Protestant confessions, particularly those of the Lutheran tradition, in terms of their theological emphases? What is the significance of the Canons of Dort for modern Reformed theology, and how do they continue to shape Reformed understanding of predestination and grace? “Anybody who thinks that Protestant confessionalism is a hard, dry creed needs to read the Heidelberg Catechism. Only the willfully stupid or deluded could possibly dismiss such a document.” The Westminster Standards. The Westminster Standards is a collective name for the documents drawn up by the Westminster Assembly (1643–49). These include the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Westminster Shorter Catechism, the Westminster Larger Catechism, the Directory of Public Worship, and the Form of Church Government,[1] and represent the doctrine and church polity of 17th-century English and Scottish Presbyterianism. The Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechism have been adopted as doctrinal standards by a number of Reformed and Presbyterian Christian denominations, but not the Church of Scotland nor those derived directly from it. What are the Westminster Standards, and why were they written? The standards indicate that the authors were men of acute pastoral insight. How do the Westminster Standards reflect the theological beliefs of the Protestant Reformation, particularly those of the Presbyterian tradition? Westminster has a much stricter view of the fourth commandment when compared to the Heidelberg Catechism. In what ways do the Westminster Standards demonstrate the importance of theological precision and the use of creeds in the modern church? What is the structure of the Westminster Standards, and how does this structure contribute to their usefulness as a confessional document? The Westminster Confession of Faith: gard to the doctrine of God and the nature of salvation? --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/biblebulldog/message
In Session 8 of Church History we discuss Martin Luther and the Diet of Worms and how the term Protestant came to be. We further discuss how John Calvin went from being a lawyer to a primary theologian of the Protestant Reformation. We also looked at the Anabaptists and how the Council of Trent attempted to renew the Roman Catholic Church. Session 9 focused on Jacob Arminius and how the Synod of Dort summarized John Calvin's 5 points. This teaching is part of the educational training provided for the Kingdom Fellowship of Interdependent Ministries. If you'd like more information or to obtain a copy of these slides, please visit www.greaterworksdiscipleship.com
Jordan and Hunter talk with Tom McCall and Keith Stanglin about Arminius and soteriology. They cover topics like : What is Arminius's position with respect to the infamous 'facientibus quod in se est' statement? Is Arminius a 'syngergist'? (And, of course: What is 'synergism' anyway?) Given Arminius's statements, is he rightly considered a 'Semi-Pelagian'? Should we think of Arminius as Reformed? How similar is his soteriological system to what we think of as Reformed today? Resources:1) Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace, Tom McCall and Keith Stanglin2) After Arminius: A Historical Introduction to Arminian Theology, Tom McCall and Keith Stanglin3) Center for Christian Studies4) Trinity, Christology, and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture with Tom McCall5) Book Review: Arminius and the Reformed Tradition, Tom McCallSupport the show
Originally Released on October 31, 2016 Happy Reformation Day! In this episode we will be examining how the theologies of Jacob Arminius and John Wesley were aligned with the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation: Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria. To do this we will be examining both primary and secondary sources. You may be surprised to find out that both Arminius and Wesley were theological heirs of the Protestant Reformation and their theology and doctrine were faithful to all five of the solas. That is why all Wesleyan-Arminians should be excited about Reformation Day! Soli Deo Gloria.
This is the seventh full episode! We will be discussing the doctrine of Predestination as articulated by Jacob Arminius. First, we define Predestination. Then we look how Arminius defined Predestination. What becomes very clear is how Christocentric the Arminian doctrine of Predestination is! Then we look through the “Declaration of Sentiments” by Arminius and see what he had to say about the Divine Order of Decrees and compare the Arminian Order of Decrees to the Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian orders of decrees. We then look at what Thomas C. Oden had to say about the alignment between the Arminian understanding of Predestination and the Patristic understanding.
In this episode we continue the new series: TULIP: A series comparing Calvinism and Classical Arminianism. This episode wraps up our examination of Historical Points of Interest with an overview of the Reformation era surrounding Jacob Arminius and the Synod of Dort. Get the resources/further reading materials on the episode landing page: https://christisthecure.org/2023/03/02/tulip-4-reformation-era-pt-2-arminius-dort-and-summary-of-key-terms/ Christ is the Cure is subscriber supported: Join the support team at patreon.com/christisthecure or go to https://christisthecure.org/support-citc/
In this episode we ask the very important question, “What Does It Mean to Be Arminian?” Historically, there have been many different definitions of the term “Arminian” and it becomes very confusing. To add to the confusion the term “Arminian” means something else in different historical eras and even in different countries throughout history! In this episode we make a distinction between “Arminianism of the Heart” and “Arminianism of the Head.” Unfortunately, many of the later Remonstrants and the English Arminians in England and New England were liberal “Arminians of the Head.” It was really John Wesley who recovered true Arminian theology and restored a theological movement based on “Arminianism of the Heart.” Our hope is that through this episode people will begin to see that true Arminianism is “Arminianism of the Heart” taught by Jacob Arminius, John Wesley, and all their Protestant, Orthodox, Evangelical heirs.
This is our second full episode of Remonstrance podcast! On this episode we will be taking an in depth look at the theology of Jacob Arminius and John Wesley in regards to Divine Providence. We will start off by defining Providence and Meticulous Providence. Then we will be looking at what Arminius had to say, specifically in regards to preservation, divine governance, divine concurrence, and permission. We also look at the “greater good” theodicy in the thought of Jacob Arminius and how God directs evil and sinful actions toward a greater good. We then look at what John Wesley had to say and how he affirmed both meticulous providence and “greater good” theodicy as well.
Jacob Arminius rejected some of the ideas current in his day, particularly regarding Predestination. But what did he, and especially the Remonstants really say? This is part of an ongoing series during Crossway's Sunday School reviewing church history.
Jacob Arminius taught that while the Spirit's regenerating grace is sufficient to convert us, His grace is not able to overcome our resistance without the assent of our fallen will. Today, R.C. Sproul critiques this view of free will. Get R.C. Sproul's Teaching Series 'Willing to Believe' on DVD with the Digital Study Guide for Your Gift of Any Amount: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/2302/willing-to-believe Don't forget to make RenewingYourMind.org your home for daily in-depth Bible study and Christian resources.
Jacob Arminius was a Dutch theologian and reformer whose views became the basis of Arminianism. Although, much like John Calvin, his views themselves evolved after his death, Arminius is known today for his faithful ministry of renewal and his later impact on John Wesley and the Methodist movement. We welcome Dr. Keith Stanglin, Professor of Theology at Heritage Christian College and Executive Director for the Center of Christian Studies, to speak on Arminius on this week's episode of Voices of Renewal.
On this episode of Rightly Dividing, we will show you the basic tenants of both Calvinism, a system of theological interpretation devised by John Calvin, and Arminianism, an opposing system credited to Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius, both men lived during the 16th century. We will compare each of these systems to Holy Scripture, and let the chips fall where they may. We will also look at the character and nature of each man, as understanding the heart condition of a preacher oftentimes will allow you to see how and why the arrived at the conclusions they did. Just remember this. Once you go past the end of the book of Revelation, you have left the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit and arrived in the opinions of mere men. Neither Calvin or Arminius wrote anything directly given them by the Holy Spirit, and as such, either man is capable of being right or wrong in any given instance. Tonight we will enter into this 'great debate', and we will let the Book decided. That's what Bible believers do. Last Wednesday, we started a series we are calling the Doctrines of Grace, looking at highly controversial subject matter like salvation, grace, God's sovereignty, election and predestination. Conventional biblical scholarship would have you believe that there is only Calvinism or Arminianism, and all Christians are either one or the other. But is this true?
In this series we talk about God's glorious attributes. Today we discuss God's sovereignty and seek to answer the below questions. Listen in today and join the conversation. Define sovereignty. Why is it essential that God posses every piece of knowledge? How does God being free and self-sufficient connect sovereignty? Explain evil in light of the sovereignty of God. If God rules His universe by His sovereign degrees, how is it possible for man to exercise free choice? Summarize the opposing positions of John Calvin and Jacob Arminius? In a season of Covid and turmoil in the Middle East how is God being sovereign encouraging to the Christian? How might a fresh look at God's sovereignty impact your prayer life? Why pray if God is sovereign? What books would you recommend on this doctrine?
Arminius and his followers, the Remonstrants. The Five Points of Arminius. The Canons of Dort, the Heidelberg Catechism.
Transcript(the following transcript may contain errors)Episode IntroYou and I know what it's like to be a human being. We know that we can only ever be in one place at the one time. We know that one day we're born without us even having any say in it. And then another day we'll die.But what about God? What's he like?That's what we're thinking about in this episode of Thinking Theology.Last time we began looking at the doctrine of God. In this episode we're beginning to think about the nature of God. What are the attributes of God in his very being?Podcast IntroHi. My name is Karl Deenick. I'm a pastor, theologian, writer, and Bible college lecturer. Welcome to Thinking Theology, a podcast where we think about theology, the Bible and the Christian life, not just for the sake of it, but so we can love God more, with all our heart, soul, mind and strength.What Can We Say About the Nature of God?What can really say about the nature of God?Throughout the history of the church people have grappled with that very question. It's a problematic topic in some ways, because as Zophar says to Job,“Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? (Job 11:7 NIV)Zophar is, of course, right. By definition it's impossible for us as humans to probe the limits of who God is and what it's like to be God.As the theologian, Louis Berkhof writes,The Being of God is characterized by a depth, a fullness, a variety, and a glory far beyond our comprehension….[1]But to say that we can't understand God completely is not to say that we can't understand anything about God at all.As Paul says in Romans 1, even creation tells us something about God's eternal power and glory. But the place where we come to know accurately about God is in the Bible. In the Bible God has revealed to us insights into who he is and what he is like.[2]The knowledge that the Bible gives us is partial, but it is nevertheless true.So, too, as Luther pointed out, the knowledge that we have of God does not describe so much what he is, but it describes the qualities or the characteristics of God. That is, we can say something about what he is like but we can't really describe his essential being.[3] There are lots of attributes that people have used to describe God.One famous list comes from the 8th century theologian, John of Damascus.[4] Or Jono of Damascus as I like to call him. He described God as,uncreate[d], unbegotten, imperishable and immortal, everlasting, infinite, uncircumscribed, boundless, of infinite power, simple, uncompound, incorporeal, without flux, passionless, unchangeable, unalterable, unseen[5]So, too, theologians have often organised them in different ways.In this and the next few episodes we're going to consider them under the headings of the nature of God and the character of God. The nature of God refers to the “non-moral” attributes of God and relate more to the being of God. While the character of God refers to the “moral” attributes of God and describe more what he is like to relate to in personal terms.The attributes I describe here follow closely the list given by the theologian John Feinberg in his book on the doctrine of God, No One Like Him. That book would be a good place to go if you want to dig into these more deeply. Feinberg lists 11 non-moral attributes of God and 9 moral attributes of God. We'll look at the moral attributes of God this time and next time. And then we'll consider the character of God in a couple of episodes time.The 11 non-moral attributes of God that he lists are: aseity (or self-existence), infinity, immensity and omnipresence, eternity, immutability, omnipotence, sovereignty, omniscience, wisdom, unity and simplicity.Self-existenceFirst, is what theologians often call “aseity” but a more helpful term is self-existence. Self-existence refers to the idea that God depends on no one else for his existence.In the last episode we saw that God just is. As Jesus says in John 5, he has life in himself. He says,For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. (John 5:26 NIV)So too, Paul says in Acts 17,The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. (Acts 17:24–25 NIV) Everything is dependent on God. And God is dependent on nothing.EternityThe next attribute is eternity. God is eternal. He has always existed and will always exist. There was never a time when he didn't exist.There are lots of passages that speak about that.For example, Psalm 90 says,Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. (Psalm 90:2 NIV)Or Psalm 93,Your throne was established long ago; you are from all eternity. (Psalm 93:2 NIV)Or Psalm 102,In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end. (Psalm 102:25–27 NIV)Habakkuk 1:12 says,Lord, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, you will never die. (Habakkuk 1:12 NIV)In Revelation 1 we read,“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:8 NIV) In Hebrews 7 it describes Jesus saying,Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life…he remains a priest forever. (Hebrews 7:3 NIV)Or again in chapter 13,Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (Hebrews 13:8 NIV) So, too, God's characteristics are described as enduring forever. For example, Psalm 111:3 says,Glorious and majestic are his deeds, and his righteousness endures forever. (Psalm 111:3 NIV)Psalm 103,But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord's love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children's children… (Psalm 103:17 NIV) The eternity of God is also bound up with the name that he gives to Moses: “I am”. He always was and always will be. As Jesus says to the religious leaders,“Very truly I tell you…before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58 NIV)Jesus is not just saying that he existed before Abraham. He's saying that, as God, he has always been: he just is.In thinking about the eternity of God, one question that arises is whether God is eternal simply in the sense that he has always been and will always be, or whether he is eternal in the sense that he is outside time. That is, is his eternity temporal or atemporal eternity.In truth, the Bible doesn't really tell us. Some passages might seem to.So, for example, 2 Peter 3:8 says,But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (2 Peter 3:8 NIV) But as John Feinberg points out, all the verse is saying is that God perceives time differently to us. It does not explain why he perceives it differently to us.[6]Similarly, in Psalm 90:4 we're told,A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. (Psalm 90:4 NIV)Again, this verse only tells us how God perceives time, not how he relates to it. A thousand years might just seem like a day because it's next to nothing in the scale of eternity.That said, my cautious inclination is to think that God's eternity is temporal. But it's important to be clear what that means. It all depends on how you think about time. God clearly doesn't exist within time understood as the spinning of the earth on its access. Neither does God exist within time understood as in modern physics as the oscillations of the cesium-133 atom. But it could still make sense that within God himself is a notion of sequence. That is, it may be that time is not a limitation that is imposed on us because of our creatureliness, but that time (as we experience it, anyway) is actually a reflection of the character of God.That would certainly make sense of the fact that always within the Bible order matters and things taking place in time matters. That is, the nature of our relationship to God changed after the cross. The sins left unpunished were dealt with, the Holy Spirit was poured out. God's interaction with us is always historical and depends on certain events having taken place.Nevertheless, the Bible's lack of detail on the subject of how God relates to time suggests that we ought to be careful.I'm often surprised how many people seek to answer riddles in the theology by noting that God sits outside time. But not only does the Bible not speak clearly to that issue, the Bible also doesn't encourage us to seek to answer theological questions by observing that God is outside time. If that was a profitable way of reflecting on God's engagement with the world, the Bible could have set us that example, but it doesn't. And that ought to urge us to be cautious.OmnipresenceThe Bible also describes God as omnipresent, or present everywhere.So Psalm 139 it reflects on the fact that it is impossible to escape God or to end up somewhere where God can't reach us. It says,Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. (Psalm 139:7–12 NIV) An idea that is related to omnipresence is what is known as God's immensity. So in 1 Kings 8, at the commissioning of the temple, Solomon says,“But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! (1 Kings 8:27 NIV)It's not simply that God can reach everywhere, but his being is such that he cannot be contained by space.Moreover, those two ideas come together in Jeremiah 23, which says,“Am I only a God nearby,” declares the Lord, “and not a God far away? Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them?” declares the Lord. “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 23:23–24 NIV)The reason there's no place that we can go where God cannot find us is because God's is present in every place. He is omnipresent.And yet, the presence of God is also a more complicated idea than that too.There are clearly times and ways in which God is especially present. So God can say to Moses in Exodus 33,My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest. (Exodus 33:14 NIV)Or David can write,Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. (Psalm 51:11 NIV)So, too, Jesus says,Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. (John 14:23 NIV)Or,where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them. (Matthew 18:20 NIV)So, too, when Adam and Eve are forced out of the Garden on account of their sin, they are driven from the presence of God. And Cain, after murdering his brother, goes out from the Lord's presence and lives east of Eden, according to Genesis 4:16.There is a sense, then, in which God is present everywhere, but he is present in special ways in certain places and with certain people.John Feinberg distinguishes between God's ontological presence and God's relational presence. That is, God is present everywhere in his being, but his relationship to the creation and the people varies in respect of how we stand in relation to him through Jesus—whether we are his enemies on account of our sin, or his children on account of Jesus' death and resurrection in our place.For example, it's a mistake to say, as people sometimes do, that hell is a place where God is absent. Rather, hell is the place where God is present in judgement. Whereas the new creation is the place where God will be present with his people in love, grace and mercy.OmnipotenceGod is also omnipotent, or all-powerful.The biblical expression for that is “almighty”. In the New Testament, picking up on a word that is used in the Greek version of the Old Testament, God is called, pantokratōr, which literally means all-mighty.But whether using that word or other words, time and again in the Bible God is described as being all powerful.Paul says in Romans 1,For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen…. (Romans 1:20 NIV)Or Job says,“I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted. (Job 42:2 NIV) So too, Jesus says to his disciples in the Great Commission,All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Matthew 28:18 NIV)So too Jesus says to his disciples in Matthew 19,With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. (Matthew 19:26 NIV)Paul describes Jesus as,far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. (Ephesians 1:21 NIV)Isaiah 14 says,For the Lord Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back? (Isaiah 14:27 NIV)Or Isaiah 43,Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?” (Isaiah 43:13 NIV) So, too, in Hebrews we're told that Christ upholds all things (Heb 1:3), and in Colossians that “in him all things hold together” (Col 1:17).But in saying that God is almighty and all powerful, we also need to be careful to clarify exactly what we mean by that. Can God do absolutely anything? Can he, for example, sin? Can he die? Can he create another God?Importantly, the Bible also tells us that some things are impossible for God.God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged. (Hebrews 6:18 NIV) if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself. (2 Timothy 2:13 NIV) When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; (James 1:13 NIV)In other words, omnipotence does not refer to God's power to do anything at all, but God's power to do anything and everything that is consistent with his nature and character.[7] But far from being a limitation that is actually the perfection of his power.SovereigntyRelated to God's omnipotence is God's sovereignty. Sovereignty refers to God's control over everything. That is, not only is God all powerful, but everything that that takes place, takes place within his will and purpose.For example, theoretically, God could be all powerful, but choose at points, not to exercise that power. God could, perhaps, have created the world and then let it run and decided not to intervene. That view is referred to as deism. We came across that in the last episode. In deism, God is like a watchmaker who makes the watch and then lets it run. But that's not the view of God that the Bible presents.Another view is that while God is all powerful, perhaps, he limits the use of his power so as not to crush human free-will. That view is often described as Arminianism, referring to famous proponent of that view Jacob Arminius, who was around at the time of the Reformation.[8]But the Bible presents God as being in control of everything with his purpose and will standing, in some way, behind all that happens, even our decisions.Paul writes in Ephesians,In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will…. (Ephesians 1:11 NIV)Or Psalm 115 says,Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him. (Psalm 115:3 NIV)Or Psalm 135,I know that the Lord is great, that our Lord is greater than all gods. The Lord does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths. (Psalm 135:5–7 NIV)Or Job says of God,I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted. (Job 42:2 NIV)So, too, God's plan, purpose and power stand behind even our human acts and human decisions.Paul says in Acts 17,‘For in him we live and move and have our being.' (Acts 17:28 NIV)Proverbs 16:9 tells us that,In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps. (Proverbs 16:9 NIV) Salvation, too, is grounded in God's choice rather than human desire or effort. Paul says in Romans 9,For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy. (Romans 9:15–16 NIV) Finally, even evil is not outside God's control. Famously Joseph says to his brothers in Genesis 50, that while they intended their actions for evil, God intended their actions for good.How the sovereignty of God fits within human responsibility and also with evil is a complex subject that we'll return to in a few episodes time when we look at providence or God's control over the world.But for the moment it's helpful simply to note, that not only is God all powerful, but he is sovereign over all things, everything that happens flows in someway from his purpose and will. Moreover, whatever God chooses to do is unconstrained. No one compels him to do one thing or another. His decisions are his own and arise from his own plans and motivations.[9]ApplicationGod is self-existent, eternal, omnipresent, all powerful and sovereign.And while those attributes might seem at face value a little bit complicated at times or even a bit dry, they're really important for us to understand. That's because they each of them impacts the way we relate to and trust God.God's self-existence means he is utterly reliable. He depends on no one else. Therefore, we can always depend on him.God's eternity means that God never goes away. He is not like family and friends who one day will die. Unlike them, God will never leave us nor forsake us.God's omnipresence means, as we saw from Psalm 139, that we can never escape God and no one and nothing can ever take us somewhere that God isn't with us.God's omnipotence means that nothing we face is beyond God's power.And his Sovereignty means that whatever happens, God is working all things together for the good of those who love him.Far from being academic, understanding the nature of God is deeply, deeply practical.OutroThat's it for this episode of Thinking Theology.Join me next time as we think the rest of the non-moral attributes of God: omniscience, wisdom, immutability, infinity, unity and simplicity.Please join me then.[1] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1958), 42.[2] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 43.[3] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 41, 43. [4] See Gerald Lewis Bray, The Doctrine of God, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 81.[5] John Damascene, “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” in St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. S. D. F. Salmond, vol. 9b, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899), 6.[6] John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), 263.[7] Feinberg, No One Like Him, 288[8] Theses examples are taken from Feinberg, No One Like Him, 294.[9] Feinberg, No One Like Him, 294.
In this episode, we move back across the English Channel to see what happened after the death of Jacob Arminius and its effects which ripple into Wesley's time and even into our own.
This is the twelfth episode in a series where Dr. Vic Reasoner takes a journey through Church History. This episode continues to focus on the Reformation. Specifically on John Calvin and Jacob Arminius and the beginnings of Calvinism and Arminianism.
On today’s episode of Table Talk Radio we play Name That Buzzword and get into a discussion of Vocation, Family and Friendship
In this episode, we briefly look at the life and theology of Jacob Arminius in order to get a better sense about how Arminius influenced Wesley. The religious conflicts of Arminius's life also prefigure some of the intra-protestant conflict Wesley and Methodists are going to face in the 18th century.
After a two year hiatus, we are back with the History of Methodism podcast. I will post a full new episode sometime next week. It will be on Jacob Arminius and there will be a lot of Dutch words attempted. Here is the link to our new patreon https://patreon.com/historyofmethodism.
This week we welcome special guests Jacob Arminius and John Wesley (not really). We do, however, talk about the theological concept of predestination, particularly the way in which Wesleyans understand it and our differences from Christians in the Reformed tradition.
In this episode we begin to discuss baptism and the views of Wesley and Arminius on baptism. We start off by discussing the two major perspectives on baptism within Christianity: Credobaptism and Paedobaptism. Then we discuss how each side supports their position as well as what our views on baptism are. We end the episode discussing the views of Jacob Arminius on baptism. Next episode we will discuss Wesley's views on baptism so stay tuned. Links: Biblical Training "The Theology of John Wesley" by Kenneth J. Collins on Audible "Born Again" by Sean McGever on Lexham Press and Amazon
Today's Bible reading for January 12 is Genesis 13, Nehemiah 2, Matthew 12 and Acts 12. Our focus passage will be Matthew 12, and we are asking a big Bible question today: What is the Blasphemy of the Spirit, the unforgivable sin? SHOUT OUT TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMMENTED AND LEFT REVIEWS!!! On Apple Podcasts: Monte O, Kerri P, Cortney and Angel. And also people who have commented on the blog that they were listening: Angie from Knoxville, Og from Salinas, Cortney J. from Birmingham and Ms. Judy Bloom from parts unknown. THANK YOU! So - let's read our first chapter, and then get into our discussion. What is the Unforgivable sin?? It's a terrifying reality: Jesus warned His disciples and the Pharisees that there was a sin that could be committed that was unpardonable – unforgivable for all eternity. People have speculated and worried about this teaching of Jesus for hundreds of years. What precisely is the unpardonable sin? How can we know whether or not we've done it? Let's dive in! The Didache First century – RIGHT after the NT: Now concerning the apostles and prophets, deal with them as follows in accordance with the rule of the gospel. (4) Let every apostle who comes to you be welcomed as if he were the Lord. (5) But he is not to stay for more than one day, unless there is need, in which case he may stay another. But if he stays three days, he is a false prophet. (6) And when the apostle leaves, he is to take nothing except bread until he finds his next night's lodging. But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet. (7) Also, do not test or evaluate any prophet who speaks in the spirit, for every sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven.35 Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Updated ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 263–265. ANDREAS Andreas of Caesarea (Greek: Ἀνδρέας Καισαρείας; 563 – 637) : It is the sin of heresy, or of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which leads to death. If one man sins against another, pray for him. But if he sins against God, who is there who can pray on his behalf? And if even after all this, our opponents are still unwilling to learn and still unable to understand, they should at least stop speaking evil. They should not divide the Trinity lest they be divided from life.82 They should not classify the Holy Spirit with the creatures, lest, like the Pharisees of old who ascribed the works of the Spirit to Beelzebul,83 they too, on account of equal audacity, incur along with them the punishment which is unpardonable both now and in the future. Athanasius Works on the Spirit: Athanasius's Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit, Grave-robbing, or the opening of graves, is divided into two kinds too, like theft, according to the present Canon, to wit, into pardonable and into unpardonable grave-robbing. For if the fellow opening the grave does not denude the dead person's body, thus refraining from dishonoring (for that is what is meant by the expression “sparing devoutness”) the dead, but only takes the stones found in the grave, in order to use them in the building of any other work that is preferable and more beneficial to the community, though this too is by no means anything to be praised, yet custom has made it pardonable.2 St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain – 1700s, Greek Orthodox church. Swearing is a dreadful and harmful thing; it is a destructive drug, a bane and a danger, a hidden wound, a sore unseen, an obscure ulcer spreading its poison in the soul; it is an arrow of Satan, a flaming javelin, a two-edged sword, a sharp-honed scimitar, an unpardonable sin, an indefensible transgression, a deep gulf, a precipitous crag, a strong trap, a taut-stretched net, a fetter that cannot be broken, a noose from which no one escapes. 19. Are these enough, and do you believe that swearing is a dreadful thing and the most harmful of all sins? Believe me, I beg you, believe me! But if someone does not believe me, I now offer proof. This sin has what no other sin possesses. If we do not violate the other commandments, we escape punishment; on the other hand, in the matter of oaths, we are punished just the same both when we guard against transgressing and when we transgress. St. John Chrysostom, 300s AD St. John Chrysostom: Baptismal Instructions, Hilary of Poitiers actually points us in a more biblical direction, in discussing the unpardonable sin: Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to men, but blasphemy of the Spirit will not be forgiven.67 With a very grave qualification, he condemns the view of the Pharisees and the perversion of those who also think like them. He promises pardon of all sins but refuses pardon for blasphemy of the Spirit. While other words and deeds are treated with a generous pardon, there is no mercy if it is denied that God is in Christ. 68 And in whatever way one sins without pardon, he is gracious to us and reminds us again that sins of every kind can be completely forgiven, though blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. For who is so completely beyond pardon as one who denies that Christ is of God, or repudiates that the substance of the Spirit of the Father resides in him Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, ed. Spurgeon – Nobody knows what that sin is. I believe that even God's Word does not tell us, and it is very proper that it does not. As I have often said, it is like the notice we sometimes see put up, “Man-traps and spring gun set here.” We do not know whereabouts the traps and guns are, but we have no business over the hedge at all. So, “there is a sin unto death;” we are not told what that sin is, but we have no business to go over the hedge into any transgression at all. That “sin unto death” may be different in different people; but, whoever commits it, from that very moment, loses all spiritual desires. He has no wish to be saved, no care to repent, no longing after Christ; so dreadful is the spiritual death that comes over the man who has committed it that he never craves eternal life. C. H. Spurgeon, Pictures from Pilgrim's Progress: A Commentary on Portions of John Bunyan's Immortal Allegory (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009), 73–74. Billy Graham: The sin of the religious leaders, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, was a refusal to accept the witness of the Holy Spirit to who Jesus was and what He had come to do, and then submit their lives to Him… Once again, the unpardonable sin is not some particularly grievous sin committed by a Christian before or after accepting Christ, nor is it thinking or saying something terrible about the Holy Spirit. Rather, it is deliberately resisting the Holy Spirit's witness and invitation to turn to Jesus until death ends all opportunity. Billy Graham is echoing the Augustinian (300s AD) view: Now the man who, not believing that sins are remitted in the Church, despises this great gift of God's mercy, and persists to the last day of his life in his obstinacy of heart, is guilty of the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, in whom Christ forgives sins. Augustine of Hippo, “The Enchiridion,” in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Augustine was reflecting the Origen view (early 300s): The Spirit dwells in those who live by faith. But those who once having been counted worthy to share in the Holy Spirit and then having finally and decisively turned their backs from grace are by this act said to have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit (ORIGEN Who, then, is not amazed at the exceeding majesty of the Holy Spirit when he hears that he who speaks a word against the Son of man may hope for forgiveness, but that he who is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness—either in the present world or in that which is to come. Origen What then is it? The unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an act of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws forever with his convicting power so that we are never able to repent and be forgiven. – John Piper. Lee ann penick MODERN: There is only one “unpardonable sin” that can separate us from God for eternity. It is the ongoing, willful refusal to accept Christ as Lord and Savior and the forgiveness He offers. Jacob Arminius defined it as “the rejection and refusing of Jesus Christ through determined malice and hatred against Christ”. Nancy Hardesty “Ultimately the refusal to allow women to fully use their gifts in the church and in the world is a form of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.” Pope John Paul II writes “‘blasphemy' does not properly consist in offending against the Holy Spirit in words; it consists rather in the refusal to accept the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working through the power of the Cross”, and “If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this “non-forgiveness” is linked, as to its cause, to “non-repentance,” in other words to the radical refusal to be converted. This means the refusal to come to the sources of Redemption, which nevertheless remain “always” open in the economy of salvation in which the mission of the Holy Spirit is accomplished. SO – What is The unforgivable sin?? – is it, as Origen, Augustine, Billy Graham, Pope John Paul 2 Lee Ann Penick suggest – the rejection of the Holy Spirit/not becoming a follower of Jesus?? Is it, as John Chrysostom claimed, swearing oaths? Is it the robbing of graves in a thieving manner? Is it not letting women use their spiritual gifts in the church? Is it Heresy? Is it, as Athanasius and many other church fathers declared, being wrong on the Trinity and calling the Holy Spirit a created being, rather than God Himself? Is it testing prophetic utterances of prophets?? (NO! – 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 Don't stifle the Spirit. 20 Don't despise prophecies, 21 but test all things. Hold on to what is good.) Confused? You should be!! People talk about this issue all of the time, but it doesn't appear that all of them get their views from the Bible, so let's begin there in seeking our answer. Matthew 12:24 24 When the Pharisees heard this, they said, “The man drives out demons only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.” 25 Knowing their thoughts, He told them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is headed for destruction, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, who is it your sons drive them out by? For this reason they will be your judges. 28 If I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you. 29 How can someone enter a strong man's house and steal his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house. 30 Anyone who is not with Me is against Me, and anyone who does not gather with Me scatters.31 Because of this, I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the one to come. Mark 3: 22 The scribes who had come down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebul in Him!” and, “He drives out demons by the ruler of the demons!” 23 So He summoned them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan rebels against himself and is divided, he cannot stand but is finished! 27 “On the other hand, no one can enter a strong man's house and rob his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he will rob his house. 28 I assure you: People will be forgiven for all sins and whatever blasphemies they may blaspheme. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” Luke 12: 8 “And I say to you, anyone who acknowledges Me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God, 9 but whoever denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.10 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven,but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. So, I see two major ways we need to answer this question. Contextually and grammatically. What does the CONTEXT of the usage of ‘unpardonable sin' tell us, and what does the grammar/word meanings tell us? We find a massively important clue in Mark 3:30, where Mark tells us precisely WHY Jesus warned the Pharisees and Scribes about this sin. “Because they were saying, He has an unclean spirit.” The exact same situation is described in Matthew 12:31 “31 Because of this, I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” The scribes and pharisees are accusing Jesus of doing miraculous things – specifically driving out demons – by the power of Beelzebul rather than by the power of God. Therefore, we know at least this: Ascribing something like an exorcism that is factually done by the power of God and His Holy Spirit to Demonic influence is AT BEST dangerously close to Blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and could, in fact, be blaspheming the Holy Spirit. (Jesus does not make it crystal clear that the scribes and pharisees were actually committing this sin, or merely getting close to committing it. It would seem like the latter is the best option.) Practically speaking, what does this mean?? It means we need to be extremely careful about stating confident opinions on spiritual matters that we don't have 100 percent clarity from Scripture on. Let me give a couple of examples: Pushed over at Brownsville. Charles Carrin praying for us at GVAG. Flamboyant preachers on tv wadding up their coats and throwing them on people, who pass out. Blowing on people, who pass out. Etc. Most of this is probably fraudulent, some of it horribly so. BUT – we should be incredibly careful about pronouncing opinions on what God's spirit would do, and wouldn't do. For instance, there was a revival going on in the 90s that became very well known and reached a lot of people. I heard about some of the things going on at that revival that were disturbing, and sounded – quite frankly – ridiculous. So, I assumed that the movement wasn't of God, but was just flaky people doing flaky things – at best. HOWEVER…a few years later, I met the leader of the movement, and spent some time with him. He struck me as a genuine follower of God – a man who loved Jesus, and who was humble. I still don't know what to think about that revival. God does, and I leave it to Him. It's outside of my realm of influence. According to Jesus – there is grave danger in ascribing the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan. You better be 100 percent sure you're right before doing such thing…and you'd better ask the question – HOW Do i Know FOR SURE that my opinion is right on this matter? If you can't answer that question with extreme clarity, then be careful saying what the Holy Spirit will or will not do, and be careful saying whether or not something is of Satan, or not. Contextually, that is at least a large part of what blaspheming the Holy Spirit is about. What is blasphemy, exactly? More on that in a moment…. Side question – is Beelzebul = Satan?? It's a great question, and I have a fairly lame answer…'maybe.' Beelzebub (“Lord of the flies”) and Beelzebul (“Lord of the skies/heavenly realms”) both refer to the same entity. In the Testament of Solomon, 1st century, non-Scripture, pseudoepigraphic text. Beelzebul (not Beelzebub) appears as prince of the demons and says (6.2) that he was formerly a leading heavenly angel who was (6.7) associated with the star Hesperus (which is the normal Greek name for the planet Venus (Αφροδíτη) as evening star). Seemingly, Beelzebul here is synonymous with Lucifer. the text describes how Solomon was enabled to build his temple by commanding demons by means of a magical ringthat was entrusted to him by the archangel Michael. The Bible reference comes from 2 Kings 1: 1 After the death of Ahab, Moab rebelled against Israel. 2 Ahaziah had fallen through the latticed window of his upper room in Samaria and was injured. So he sent messengers instructing them: “Go inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, if I will recover from this injury.” 3 But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, “Go and meet the messengers of the king of Samaria and ask them, ‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron?' 4 Therefore, this is what the Lord says: ‘You will not get up from your sickbed—you will certainly die.'” Then Elijah left.The name also appears in Luke 11, where we can see the clearest connection between Beelzebul and Satan: Luke 11:14 Now He was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon came out, the man who had been mute, spoke, and the crowds were amazed. 15 But some of them said, “He drives out demons by Beelzebul,the ruler of the demons!” 16 And others, as a test, were demanding of Him a sign from heaven. 17 Knowing their thoughts, He told them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is headed for destruction, and a house divided against itself falls.18 If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say I drive out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, who is it your sons drive them out by? For this reason they will be your judges. 20 If I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you. So, Jesus mentions Satan and Beelzebul in the same context, but not in a way that indicates that they are the same entities. My best guess is that Beelzebul is a separate entity from Satan, but I confess that I do not know, and my guess is based on the fact that the Bible never clearly identifies the two as the same entity. What exactly is Blasphemy? Luke 12:10 points us in the right direction – anyone who ‘speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven.' but the one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Matthew 12:32 makes it even more clear: 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the one to come. Similarly: Isaiah 37:23 Isaiah 37:23 Who is it you have mocked and blasphemed? Who have you raised your voice against and lifted your eyes in pride? Against the Holy One of Israel! The Word itself, Greek Blasphemos, is a combo of two words. Blaptō, which means, ‘to HURT' and Pheemay, which means fame, report, or something like ‘reputation.' So, etymologically, the word has a root meaning of injuring somebody's fame, or good name. The word can mean ‘defame' or ‘revile' and isn't always used of a deity. Paul speaks of being ‘defamed' or blasphemed by people for being an apostle. Paul commands the church in Titus 3:2 not to slander/Speak evil of (or BLASPHEME) any person, which is a command that Christians would do well to take far more seriously than we do. 2 Peter 2:10 and Jude vs 8 both warn against blaspheming angels, demons, and other spiritual beings. So- blasphemy is speaking evil of someone. Hurting them with your words, harming their reputation. Thus, blaspheming the Holy Spirit is speaking evil of Him, reviling Him, defaming Him, seeking to harm His reputation. The Pharisees and Scribes were doing that – or coming dangerously close – when they said that it was Satan/Beelzebul empowering Jesus, when it was factually the Spirit of God Himself. R.C. Sproul: Their statements were directed against Jesus. So, He said to them: “You can blaspheme Me and be forgiven, but when you question the work of the Spirit, you are coming perilously close to the unforgivable sin. You are right at the line. You are looking down into the abyss of hell. One more step and there will be no hope for you.” He was warning them to be very careful not to insult or mock the Spirit. Is it really unforgivable, and WHAT IF I HAVE COMMITTED IT?! AUGUSTINE: It is not that this was a blasphemy which under no circumstances could be forgiven, for even this shall be forgiven if right repentance follows it Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall, eds., Mark, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 48. I'm worried that I have committed the unforgivable sin?? Graham: Many Christians have heard that there is an unpardonable sin and live in dread that something grave they have done before or after conversion might be that sin. Their fears are unfounded. While there is an unforgivable sin, it is not one that a true believer in Jesus Christ can commit. Sproul: Humanly speaking, everyone who is a Christian is capable of committing the unforgivable sin. However, I believe that the Lord of glory who has saved us and sealed us in the Holy Spirit will never let us commit that sin. I do not believe that any Christians in the history of the church have blasphemed the Spirit. As for those who are not sure they are saved and are worried they may have committed the unpardonable sin, I would say that worrying about it is one of the clearest evidences that they have not committed this sin, for those who commit it are so hardened in their hearts they do not care that they commit it. Thanks be to God that the sin that is unpardonable is not a sin He allows His people to commit. I don't share Graham and Sproul's assurances, though I respect them both deeply. The Bible NEVER says a believer is unable to commit the unpardonable sin. Jesus NEVER indicates that, and I see no other passage that promises such…just a sober warning. I think Piper strikes a better balance when talking about it: Piper: The fact that there is an unforgivable sin — that there comes a point in a life of sin after which the Holy Spirit will no longer grant repentance — that fact should drive us from sin with fear and trembling. None of us knows when our toying with sin will pass over into irrevocable hardness of heart. Very few people feel how serious sin is. Very few people are on the same wavelength with Jesus when he said in Mark 9:43, “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.” Instead, many professing Christians today have such a sentimental view of God's justice that they never feel terror and horror at the thought of being utterly forsaken by God because of their persistence in sin. They have the naïve notion that God's patience has no end and that they can always return from any length and depth of sin, forgetting that there is a point of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws forever with his convicting power, leaving them never able to repent and be forgiven. They are like the buzzard who spots a carcass on a piece of ice floating in the river. He lands and begins to eat. He knows it is dangerous because the falls are just ahead. But he looks at his wings and says to himself, “I can fly to safety in an instant.” And he goes on eating. Just before the ice goes over the falls he spreads his wings to fly but his claws are frozen in the ice and there is no escape — neither in this age nor the age to come. The Spirit of holiness has forsaken the arrogant sinner forever. Another of the devil's fiery darts is this, “You have committed the unpardonable sin.” Ah! this arrow has rankled in many a heart, and it is very difficult to deal with such cases. The only way in which I argue with a person thus assailed is to say, “I am quite certain that, if you desire salvation, you have not committed the unpardonable sin, and I am absolutely sure that, if you will now come and trust Christ, you have not committed that sin, for every soul that trusts Christ is forgiven, according to God's Word, and therefore you cannot have committed that sin.” C. H. Spurgeon, Pictures from Pilgrim's Progress: My close – God the Holy Spirit is all powerful. Tremble: I don't want to blunt the warnings of Jesus with false assurance. It is likely that – if you are worried you've committed the unpardonable sin, that you haven't because only the Spirit's work in your life would make you fear the Lord. But the way that Jesus addressed this is with the highest level of seriousness…so must we. This passage RIGHTLY inspires fear in us, and that's ok, it should. It is obviously recorded in the Scripture for that purpose. Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and discipline. Proverbs 2:5 you will understand the fear of the Lord and discover the knowledge of God. Proverbs 10:27 The fear of the Lord prolongs life, but the years of the wicked are cut short. Rev 14:6 6 Then I saw another angel flying high overhead,(I) having the eternal gospel to announce to the inhabitants of the earth—to every nation, tribe, language, and people.(J)7 He spoke with a loud voice: “Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come. Worship the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.” The word for fear there has the same meaning as our word fear. It means FEAR. Luke 12: In the same breath that Jesus speaks about the unpardonable sin, He says this: 4 “And I say to you, My friends, don't fear those who kill the body, and after that can do nothing more. 5 But I will show you the One to fear: Fear Him who has authority to throw people into hell after death. Yes, I say to you, this is the One to fear! 6 Aren't five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God's sight. 7 Indeed, the hairs of your head are all counted. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows! Treat the Holy Spirit with great – remarkable sobriety – fear and wisdom. Fear the Lord, as Jesus said, and don't be afraid to trust Him – He who knows all of the sparrows and numbers our hairs, counts us as of great worth and Loves the World enough to send His son to rescue it. Here's the good news: GREEAR: False gods mutilate us; the true God mutilated himself for us. The prophets of Ba'al begin by dancing around their altar. They end by slashing at themselves until their blood runs (1 Kings 18:28). False gods always push us toward destruction: “Work harder. Do better. Obtain more. You still aren't getting my attention. Slash yourself!” So we slash at our bodies by going through crash diets to attain that perfect figure. We slash at our families by overworking to make extra money. We slash at our souls by compromising our integrity to get someone's affection. False gods push us to mutilate ourselves, because we desperately want to win their approval. But only one God was ever mutilated for us—Jesus Christ. This story ends with a magnificent fire coming from heaven, but as Jesus himself points out to his first disciples, the fire was not intended for sinful humanity (Luke 9:51–56). It was ultimately intended for him: of all the characters in this story, Jesus is not Elijah, calling down fire; he is the sacrifice who receives the fire of judgment. At the cross, Jesus took into his body the fire of God's justice so that we could take into our lives the fire of God's love. Other gods demand dancing, slashing, mutilation. But Jesus Christ is the only God who was slashed and mutilated for us. As Tim Keller has said, “Every other god will make your blood run; only the true God bleeds for you.”
Today's Bible reading for January 12 is Genesis 13, Nehemiah 2, Matthew 12 and Acts 12. Our focus passage will be Matthew 12, and we are asking a big Bible question today: What is the Blasphemy of the Spirit, the unforgivable sin? SHOUT OUT TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMMENTED AND LEFT REVIEWS!!! On Apple Podcasts: Monte O, Kerri P, Cortney and Angel. And also people who have commented on the blog that they were listening: Angie from Knoxville, Og from Salinas, Cortney J. from Birmingham and Ms. Judy Bloom from parts unknown. THANK YOU! So - let's read our first chapter, and then get into our discussion. What is the Unforgivable sin?? It's a terrifying reality: Jesus warned His disciples and the Pharisees that there was a sin that could be committed that was unpardonable – unforgivable for all eternity. People have speculated and worried about this teaching of Jesus for hundreds of years. What precisely is the unpardonable sin? How can we know whether or not we've done it? Let's dive in! The Didache First century – RIGHT after the NT: Now concerning the apostles and prophets, deal with them as follows in accordance with the rule of the gospel. (4) Let every apostle who comes to you be welcomed as if he were the Lord. (5) But he is not to stay for more than one day, unless there is need, in which case he may stay another. But if he stays three days, he is a false prophet. (6) And when the apostle leaves, he is to take nothing except bread until he finds his next night's lodging. But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet. (7) Also, do not test or evaluate any prophet who speaks in the spirit, for every sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven.35 Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Updated ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 263–265. ANDREAS Andreas of Caesarea (Greek: Ἀνδρέας Καισαρείας; 563 – 637) : It is the sin of heresy, or of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which leads to death. If one man sins against another, pray for him. But if he sins against God, who is there who can pray on his behalf? And if even after all this, our opponents are still unwilling to learn and still unable to understand, they should at least stop speaking evil. They should not divide the Trinity lest they be divided from life.82 They should not classify the Holy Spirit with the creatures, lest, like the Pharisees of old who ascribed the works of the Spirit to Beelzebul,83 they too, on account of equal audacity, incur along with them the punishment which is unpardonable both now and in the future. Athanasius Works on the Spirit: Athanasius's Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit, Grave-robbing, or the opening of graves, is divided into two kinds too, like theft, according to the present Canon, to wit, into pardonable and into unpardonable grave-robbing. For if the fellow opening the grave does not denude the dead person's body, thus refraining from dishonoring (for that is what is meant by the expression “sparing devoutness”) the dead, but only takes the stones found in the grave, in order to use them in the building of any other work that is preferable and more beneficial to the community, though this too is by no means anything to be praised, yet custom has made it pardonable.2 St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain – 1700s, Greek Orthodox church. Swearing is a dreadful and harmful thing; it is a destructive drug, a bane and a danger, a hidden wound, a sore unseen, an obscure ulcer spreading its poison in the soul; it is an arrow of Satan, a flaming javelin, a two-edged sword, a sharp-honed scimitar, an unpardonable sin, an indefensible transgression, a deep gulf, a precipitous crag, a strong trap, a taut-stretched net, a fetter that cannot be broken, a noose from which no one escapes. 19. Are these enough, and do you believe that swearing is a dreadful thing and the most harmful of all sins? Believe me, I beg you, believe me! But if someone does not believe me, I now offer proof. This sin has what no other sin possesses. If we do not violate the other commandments, we escape punishment; on the other hand, in the matter of oaths, we are punished just the same both when we guard against transgressing and when we transgress. St. John Chrysostom, 300s AD St. John Chrysostom: Baptismal Instructions, Hilary of Poitiers actually points us in a more biblical direction, in discussing the unpardonable sin: Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to men, but blasphemy of the Spirit will not be forgiven.67 With a very grave qualification, he condemns the view of the Pharisees and the perversion of those who also think like them. He promises pardon of all sins but refuses pardon for blasphemy of the Spirit. While other words and deeds are treated with a generous pardon, there is no mercy if it is denied that God is in Christ. 68 And in whatever way one sins without pardon, he is gracious to us and reminds us again that sins of every kind can be completely forgiven, though blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. For who is so completely beyond pardon as one who denies that Christ is of God, or repudiates that the substance of the Spirit of the Father resides in him Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, ed. Spurgeon – Nobody knows what that sin is. I believe that even God's Word does not tell us, and it is very proper that it does not. As I have often said, it is like the notice we sometimes see put up, “Man-traps and spring gun set here.” We do not know whereabouts the traps and guns are, but we have no business over the hedge at all. So, “there is a sin unto death;” we are not told what that sin is, but we have no business to go over the hedge into any transgression at all. That “sin unto death” may be different in different people; but, whoever commits it, from that very moment, loses all spiritual desires. He has no wish to be saved, no care to repent, no longing after Christ; so dreadful is the spiritual death that comes over the man who has committed it that he never craves eternal life. C. H. Spurgeon, Pictures from Pilgrim's Progress: A Commentary on Portions of John Bunyan's Immortal Allegory (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009), 73–74. Billy Graham: The sin of the religious leaders, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, was a refusal to accept the witness of the Holy Spirit to who Jesus was and what He had come to do, and then submit their lives to Him… Once again, the unpardonable sin is not some particularly grievous sin committed by a Christian before or after accepting Christ, nor is it thinking or saying something terrible about the Holy Spirit. Rather, it is deliberately resisting the Holy Spirit's witness and invitation to turn to Jesus until death ends all opportunity. Billy Graham is echoing the Augustinian (300s AD) view: Now the man who, not believing that sins are remitted in the Church, despises this great gift of God's mercy, and persists to the last day of his life in his obstinacy of heart, is guilty of the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, in whom Christ forgives sins. Augustine of Hippo, “The Enchiridion,” in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Augustine was reflecting the Origen view (early 300s): The Spirit dwells in those who live by faith. But those who once having been counted worthy to share in the Holy Spirit and then having finally and decisively turned their backs from grace are by this act said to have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit (ORIGEN Who, then, is not amazed at the exceeding majesty of the Holy Spirit when he hears that he who speaks a word against the Son of man may hope for forgiveness, but that he who is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness—either in the present world or in that which is to come. Origen What then is it? The unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an act of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws forever with his convicting power so that we are never able to repent and be forgiven. – John Piper. Lee ann penick MODERN: There is only one “unpardonable sin” that can separate us from God for eternity. It is the ongoing, willful refusal to accept Christ as Lord and Savior and the forgiveness He offers. Jacob Arminius defined it as “the rejection and refusing of Jesus Christ through determined malice and hatred against Christ”. Nancy Hardesty “Ultimately the refusal to allow women to fully use their gifts in the church and in the world is a form of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.” Pope John Paul II writes “‘blasphemy' does not properly consist in offending against the Holy Spirit in words; it consists rather in the refusal to accept the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working through the power of the Cross”, and “If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this “non-forgiveness” is linked, as to its cause, to “non-repentance,” in other words to the radical refusal to be converted. This means the refusal to come to the sources of Redemption, which nevertheless remain “always” open in the economy of salvation in which the mission of the Holy Spirit is accomplished. SO – What is The unforgivable sin?? – is it, as Origen, Augustine, Billy Graham, Pope John Paul 2 Lee Ann Penick suggest – the rejection of the Holy Spirit/not becoming a follower of Jesus?? Is it, as John Chrysostom claimed, swearing oaths? Is it the robbing of graves in a thieving manner? Is it not letting women use their spiritual gifts in the church? Is it Heresy? Is it, as Athanasius and many other church fathers declared, being wrong on the Trinity and calling the Holy Spirit a created being, rather than God Himself? Is it testing prophetic utterances of prophets?? (NO! – 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 Don't stifle the Spirit. 20 Don't despise prophecies, 21 but test all things. Hold on to what is good.) Confused? You should be!! People talk about this issue all of the time, but it doesn't appear that all of them get their views from the Bible, so let's begin there in seeking our answer. Matthew 12:24 24 When the Pharisees heard this, they said, “The man drives out demons only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.” 25 Knowing their thoughts, He told them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is headed for destruction, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, who is it your sons drive them out by? For this reason they will be your judges. 28 If I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you. 29 How can someone enter a strong man's house and steal his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house. 30 Anyone who is not with Me is against Me, and anyone who does not gather with Me scatters.31 Because of this, I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the one to come. Mark 3: 22 The scribes who had come down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebul in Him!” and, “He drives out demons by the ruler of the demons!” 23 So He summoned them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan rebels against himself and is divided, he cannot stand but is finished! 27 “On the other hand, no one can enter a strong man's house and rob his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he will rob his house. 28 I assure you: People will be forgiven for all sins and whatever blasphemies they may blaspheme. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” Luke 12: 8 “And I say to you, anyone who acknowledges Me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God, 9 but whoever denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.10 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven,but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. So, I see two major ways we need to answer this question. Contextually and grammatically. What does the CONTEXT of the usage of ‘unpardonable sin' tell us, and what does the grammar/word meanings tell us? We find a massively important clue in Mark 3:30, where Mark tells us precisely WHY Jesus warned the Pharisees and Scribes about this sin. “Because they were saying, He has an unclean spirit.” The exact same situation is described in Matthew 12:31 “31 Because of this, I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” The scribes and pharisees are accusing Jesus of doing miraculous things – specifically driving out demons – by the power of Beelzebul rather than by the power of God. Therefore, we know at least this: Ascribing something like an exorcism that is factually done by the power of God and His Holy Spirit to Demonic influence is AT BEST dangerously close to Blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and could, in fact, be blaspheming the Holy Spirit. (Jesus does not make it crystal clear that the scribes and pharisees were actually committing this sin, or merely getting close to committing it. It would seem like the latter is the best option.) Practically speaking, what does this mean?? It means we need to be extremely careful about stating confident opinions on spiritual matters that we don't have 100 percent clarity from Scripture on. Let me give a couple of examples: Pushed over at Brownsville. Charles Carrin praying for us at GVAG. Flamboyant preachers on tv wadding up their coats and throwing them on people, who pass out. Blowing on people, who pass out. Etc. Most of this is probably fraudulent, some of it horribly so. BUT – we should be incredibly careful about pronouncing opinions on what God's spirit would do, and wouldn't do. For instance, there was a revival going on in the 90s that became very well known and reached a lot of people. I heard about some of the things going on at that revival that were disturbing, and sounded – quite frankly – ridiculous. So, I assumed that the movement wasn't of God, but was just flaky people doing flaky things – at best. HOWEVER…a few years later, I met the leader of the movement, and spent some time with him. He struck me as a genuine follower of God – a man who loved Jesus, and who was humble. I still don't know what to think about that revival. God does, and I leave it to Him. It's outside of my realm of influence. According to Jesus – there is grave danger in ascribing the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan. You better be 100 percent sure you're right before doing such thing…and you'd better ask the question – HOW Do i Know FOR SURE that my opinion is right on this matter? If you can't answer that question with extreme clarity, then be careful saying what the Holy Spirit will or will not do, and be careful saying whether or not something is of Satan, or not. Contextually, that is at least a large part of what blaspheming the Holy Spirit is about. What is blasphemy, exactly? More on that in a moment…. Side question – is Beelzebul = Satan?? It's a great question, and I have a fairly lame answer…'maybe.' Beelzebub (“Lord of the flies”) and Beelzebul (“Lord of the skies/heavenly realms”) both refer to the same entity. In the Testament of Solomon, 1st century, non-Scripture, pseudoepigraphic text. Beelzebul (not Beelzebub) appears as prince of the demons and says (6.2) that he was formerly a leading heavenly angel who was (6.7) associated with the star Hesperus (which is the normal Greek name for the planet Venus (Αφροδíτη) as evening star). Seemingly, Beelzebul here is synonymous with Lucifer. the text describes how Solomon was enabled to build his temple by commanding demons by means of a magical ringthat was entrusted to him by the archangel Michael. The Bible reference comes from 2 Kings 1: 1 After the death of Ahab, Moab rebelled against Israel. 2 Ahaziah had fallen through the latticed window of his upper room in Samaria and was injured. So he sent messengers instructing them: “Go inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, if I will recover from this injury.” 3 But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, “Go and meet the messengers of the king of Samaria and ask them, ‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron?' 4 Therefore, this is what the Lord says: ‘You will not get up from your sickbed—you will certainly die.'” Then Elijah left.The name also appears in Luke 11, where we can see the clearest connection between Beelzebul and Satan: Luke 11:14 Now He was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon came out, the man who had been mute, spoke, and the crowds were amazed. 15 But some of them said, “He drives out demons by Beelzebul,the ruler of the demons!” 16 And others, as a test, were demanding of Him a sign from heaven. 17 Knowing their thoughts, He told them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is headed for destruction, and a house divided against itself falls.18 If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say I drive out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, who is it your sons drive them out by? For this reason they will be your judges. 20 If I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you. So, Jesus mentions Satan and Beelzebul in the same context, but not in a way that indicates that they are the same entities. My best guess is that Beelzebul is a separate entity from Satan, but I confess that I do not know, and my guess is based on the fact that the Bible never clearly identifies the two as the same entity. What exactly is Blasphemy? Luke 12:10 points us in the right direction – anyone who ‘speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven.' but the one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Matthew 12:32 makes it even more clear: 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the one to come. Similarly: Isaiah 37:23 Isaiah 37:23 Who is it you have mocked and blasphemed? Who have you raised your voice against and lifted your eyes in pride? Against the Holy One of Israel! The Word itself, Greek Blasphemos, is a combo of two words. Blaptō, which means, ‘to HURT' and Pheemay, which means fame, report, or something like ‘reputation.' So, etymologically, the word has a root meaning of injuring somebody's fame, or good name. The word can mean ‘defame' or ‘revile' and isn't always used of a deity. Paul speaks of being ‘defamed' or blasphemed by people for being an apostle. Paul commands the church in Titus 3:2 not to slander/Speak evil of (or BLASPHEME) any person, which is a command that Christians would do well to take far more seriously than we do. 2 Peter 2:10 and Jude vs 8 both warn against blaspheming angels, demons, and other spiritual beings. So- blasphemy is speaking evil of someone. Hurting them with your words, harming their reputation. Thus, blaspheming the Holy Spirit is speaking evil of Him, reviling Him, defaming Him, seeking to harm His reputation. The Pharisees and Scribes were doing that – or coming dangerously close – when they said that it was Satan/Beelzebul empowering Jesus, when it was factually the Spirit of God Himself. R.C. Sproul: Their statements were directed against Jesus. So, He said to them: “You can blaspheme Me and be forgiven, but when you question the work of the Spirit, you are coming perilously close to the unforgivable sin. You are right at the line. You are looking down into the abyss of hell. One more step and there will be no hope for you.” He was warning them to be very careful not to insult or mock the Spirit. Is it really unforgivable, and WHAT IF I HAVE COMMITTED IT?! AUGUSTINE: It is not that this was a blasphemy which under no circumstances could be forgiven, for even this shall be forgiven if right repentance follows it Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall, eds., Mark, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 48. I'm worried that I have committed the unforgivable sin?? Graham: Many Christians have heard that there is an unpardonable sin and live in dread that something grave they have done before or after conversion might be that sin. Their fears are unfounded. While there is an unforgivable sin, it is not one that a true believer in Jesus Christ can commit. Sproul: Humanly speaking, everyone who is a Christian is capable of committing the unforgivable sin. However, I believe that the Lord of glory who has saved us and sealed us in the Holy Spirit will never let us commit that sin. I do not believe that any Christians in the history of the church have blasphemed the Spirit. As for those who are not sure they are saved and are worried they may have committed the unpardonable sin, I would say that worrying about it is one of the clearest evidences that they have not committed this sin, for those who commit it are so hardened in their hearts they do not care that they commit it. Thanks be to God that the sin that is unpardonable is not a sin He allows His people to commit. I don't share Graham and Sproul's assurances, though I respect them both deeply. The Bible NEVER says a believer is unable to commit the unpardonable sin. Jesus NEVER indicates that, and I see no other passage that promises such…just a sober warning. I think Piper strikes a better balance when talking about it: Piper: The fact that there is an unforgivable sin — that there comes a point in a life of sin after which the Holy Spirit will no longer grant repentance — that fact should drive us from sin with fear and trembling. None of us knows when our toying with sin will pass over into irrevocable hardness of heart. Very few people feel how serious sin is. Very few people are on the same wavelength with Jesus when he said in Mark 9:43, “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.” Instead, many professing Christians today have such a sentimental view of God's justice that they never feel terror and horror at the thought of being utterly forsaken by God because of their persistence in sin. They have the naïve notion that God's patience has no end and that they can always return from any length and depth of sin, forgetting that there is a point of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws forever with his convicting power, leaving them never able to repent and be forgiven. They are like the buzzard who spots a carcass on a piece of ice floating in the river. He lands and begins to eat. He knows it is dangerous because the falls are just ahead. But he looks at his wings and says to himself, “I can fly to safety in an instant.” And he goes on eating. Just before the ice goes over the falls he spreads his wings to fly but his claws are frozen in the ice and there is no escape — neither in this age nor the age to come. The Spirit of holiness has forsaken the arrogant sinner forever. Another of the devil's fiery darts is this, “You have committed the unpardonable sin.” Ah! this arrow has rankled in many a heart, and it is very difficult to deal with such cases. The only way in which I argue with a person thus assailed is to say, “I am quite certain that, if you desire salvation, you have not committed the unpardonable sin, and I am absolutely sure that, if you will now come and trust Christ, you have not committed that sin, for every soul that trusts Christ is forgiven, according to God's Word, and therefore you cannot have committed that sin.” C. H. Spurgeon, Pictures from Pilgrim's Progress: My close – God the Holy Spirit is all powerful. Tremble: I don't want to blunt the warnings of Jesus with false assurance. It is likely that – if you are worried you've committed the unpardonable sin, that you haven't because only the Spirit's work in your life would make you fear the Lord. But the way that Jesus addressed this is with the highest level of seriousness…so must we. This passage RIGHTLY inspires fear in us, and that's ok, it should. It is obviously recorded in the Scripture for that purpose. Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and discipline. Proverbs 2:5 you will understand the fear of the Lord and discover the knowledge of God. Proverbs 10:27 The fear of the Lord prolongs life, but the years of the wicked are cut short. Rev 14:6 6 Then I saw another angel flying high overhead,(I) having the eternal gospel to announce to the inhabitants of the earth—to every nation, tribe, language, and people.(J)7 He spoke with a loud voice: “Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come. Worship the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.” The word for fear there has the same meaning as our word fear. It means FEAR. Luke 12: In the same breath that Jesus speaks about the unpardonable sin, He says this: 4 “And I say to you, My friends, don't fear those who kill the body, and after that can do nothing more. 5 But I will show you the One to fear: Fear Him who has authority to throw people into hell after death. Yes, I say to you, this is the One to fear! 6 Aren't five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God's sight. 7 Indeed, the hairs of your head are all counted. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows! Treat the Holy Spirit with great – remarkable sobriety – fear and wisdom. Fear the Lord, as Jesus said, and don't be afraid to trust Him – He who knows all of the sparrows and numbers our hairs, counts us as of great worth and Loves the World enough to send His son to rescue it. Here's the good news: GREEAR: False gods mutilate us; the true God mutilated himself for us. The prophets of Ba'al begin by dancing around their altar. They end by slashing at themselves until their blood runs (1 Kings 18:28). False gods always push us toward destruction: “Work harder. Do better. Obtain more. You still aren't getting my attention. Slash yourself!” So we slash at our bodies by going through crash diets to attain that perfect figure. We slash at our families by overworking to make extra money. We slash at our souls by compromising our integrity to get someone's affection. False gods push us to mutilate ourselves, because we desperately want to win their approval. But only one God was ever mutilated for us—Jesus Christ. This story ends with a magnificent fire coming from heaven, but as Jesus himself points out to his first disciples, the fire was not intended for sinful humanity (Luke 9:51–56). It was ultimately intended for him: of all the characters in this story, Jesus is not Elijah, calling down fire; he is the sacrifice who receives the fire of judgment. At the cross, Jesus took into his body the fire of God's justice so that we could take into our lives the fire of God's love. Other gods demand dancing, slashing, mutilation. But Jesus Christ is the only God who was slashed and mutilated for us. As Tim Keller has said, “Every other god will make your blood run; only the true God bleeds for you.”
Episode 4: What is the Unforgivable sin?? It's a terrifying reality: Jesus warned His disciples and the Pharisees that there was a sin that could be committed that was unpardonable - unforgivable for all eternity. People have speculated and worried about this teaching of Jesus for hundreds of years. What precisely is the unpardonable sin? How can we know whether or not we've done it? Let's dive in! The Didache First century - RIGHT after the NT: Now concerning the apostles and prophets, deal with them as follows in accordance with the rule of the gospel. (4) Let every apostle who comes to you be welcomed as if he were the Lord. (5) But he is not to stay for more than one day, unless there is need, in which case he may stay another. But if he stays three days, he is a false prophet. (6) And when the apostle leaves, he is to take nothing except bread until he finds his next night's lodging. But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet. (7) Also, do not test or evaluate any prophet who speaks in the spirit, for every sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven.35 Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Updated ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 263–265. ANDREAS Andreas of Caesarea (Greek: Ἀνδρέας Καισαρείας; 563 – 637) : It is the sin of heresy, or of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which leads to death. If one man sins against another, pray for him. But if he sins against God, who is there who can pray on his behalf? And if even after all this, our opponents are still unwilling to learn and still unable to understand, they should at least stop speaking evil. They should not divide the Trinity lest they be divided from life.82 They should not classify the Holy Spirit with the creatures, lest, like the Pharisees of old who ascribed the works of the Spirit to Beelzebul,83 they too, on account of equal audacity, incur along with them the punishment which is unpardonable both now and in the future. Athanasius Works on the Spirit: Athanasius's Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit, Grave-robbing, or the opening of graves, is divided into two kinds too, like theft, according to the present Canon, to wit, into pardonable and into unpardonable grave-robbing. For if the fellow opening the grave does not denude the dead person's body, thus refraining from dishonoring (for that is what is meant by the expression “sparing devoutness”) the dead, but only takes the stones found in the grave, in order to use them in the building of any other work that is preferable and more beneficial to the community, though this too is by no means anything to be praised, yet custom has made it pardonable.2 St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain - 1700s, Greek Orthodox church. Swearing is a dreadful and harmful thing; it is a destructive drug, a bane and a danger, a hidden wound, a sore unseen, an obscure ulcer spreading its poison in the soul; it is an arrow of Satan, a flaming javelin, a two-edged sword, a sharp-honed scimitar, an unpardonable sin, an indefensible transgression, a deep gulf, a precipitous crag, a strong trap, a taut-stretched net, a fetter that cannot be broken, a noose from which no one escapes. 19. Are these enough, and do you believe that swearing is a dreadful thing and the most harmful of all sins? Believe me, I beg you, believe me! But if someone does not believe me, I now offer proof. This sin has what no other sin possesses. If we do not violate the other commandments, we escape punishment; on the other hand, in the matter of oaths, we are punished just the same both when we guard against transgressing and when we transgress. St. John Chrysostom, 300s AD St. John Chrysostom: Baptismal Instructions, Hilary of Poitiers actually points us in a more biblical direction, in discussing the unpardonable sin: Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to men, but blasphemy of the Spirit will not be forgiven.67 With a very grave qualification, he condemns the view of the Pharisees and the perversion of those who also think like them. He promises pardon of all sins but refuses pardon for blasphemy of the Spirit. While other words and deeds are treated with a generous pardon, there is no mercy if it is denied that God is in Christ. 68 And in whatever way one sins without pardon, he is gracious to us and reminds us again that sins of every kind can be completely forgiven, though blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. For who is so completely beyond pardon as one who denies that Christ is of God, or repudiates that the substance of the Spirit of the Father resides in him Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, ed. Spurgeon - Nobody knows what that sin is. I believe that even God's Word does not tell us, and it is very proper that it does not. As I have often said, it is like the notice we sometimes see put up, “Man-traps and spring gun set here.” We do not know whereabouts the traps and guns are, but we have no business over the hedge at all. So, “there is a sin unto death;” we are not told what that sin is, but we have no business to go over the hedge into any transgression at all. That “sin unto death” may be different in different people; but, whoever commits it, from that very moment, loses all spiritual desires. He has no wish to be saved, no care to repent, no longing after Christ; so dreadful is the spiritual death that comes over the man who has committed it that he never craves eternal life. C. H. Spurgeon, Pictures from Pilgrim's Progress: A Commentary on Portions of John Bunyan's Immortal Allegory (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009), 73–74. Billy Graham: The sin of the religious leaders, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, was a refusal to accept the witness of the Holy Spirit to who Jesus was and what He had come to do, and then submit their lives to Him… Once again, the unpardonable sin is not some particularly grievous sin committed by a Christian before or after accepting Christ, nor is it thinking or saying something terrible about the Holy Spirit. Rather, it is deliberately resisting the Holy Spirit's witness and invitation to turn to Jesus until death ends all opportunity. Billy Graham is echoing the Augustinian (300s AD) view: Now the man who, not believing that sins are remitted in the Church, despises this great gift of God's mercy, and persists to the last day of his life in his obstinacy of heart, is guilty of the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, in whom Christ forgives sins. Augustine of Hippo, “The Enchiridion,” in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Augustine was reflecting the Origen view (early 300s): The Spirit dwells in those who live by faith. But those who once having been counted worthy to share in the Holy Spirit and then having finally and decisively turned their backs from grace are by this act said to have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit (ORIGEN Who, then, is not amazed at the exceeding majesty of the Holy Spirit when he hears that he who speaks a word against the Son of man may hope for forgiveness, but that he who is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness—either in the present world or in that which is to come. Origen What then is it? The unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an act of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws forever with his convicting power so that we are never able to repent and be forgiven. - John Piper. Lee ann penick MODERN: There is only one “unpardonable sin” that can separate us from God for eternity. It is the ongoing, willful refusal to accept Christ as Lord and Savior and the forgiveness He offers. Jacob Arminius defined it as "the rejection and refusing of Jesus Christ through determined malice and hatred against Christ". Nancy Hardesty “Ultimately the refusal to allow women to fully use their gifts in the church and in the world is a form of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.” Pope John Paul II writes "'blasphemy' does not properly consist in offending against the Holy Spirit in words; it consists rather in the refusal to accept the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working through the power of the Cross", and "If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this "non-forgiveness" is linked, as to its cause, to "non-repentance," in other words to the radical refusal to be converted. This means the refusal to come to the sources of Redemption, which nevertheless remain "always" open in the economy of salvation in which the mission of the Holy Spirit is accomplished. SO - What is The unforgivable sin?? - is it, as Origen, Augustine, Billy Graham, Pope John Paul 2 Lee Ann Penick suggest - the rejection of the Holy Spirit/not becoming a follower of Jesus?? Is it, as John Chrysostom claimed, swearing oaths? Is it the robbing of graves in a thieving manner? Is it not letting women use their spiritual gifts in the church? Is it Heresy? Is it, as Athanasius and many other church fathers declared, being wrong on the Trinity and calling the Holy Spirit a created being, rather than God Himself? Is it testing prophetic utterances of prophets?? (NO! - 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 Don't stifle the Spirit. 20 Don't despise prophecies, 21 but test all things. Hold on to what is good.) Confused? You should be!! People talk about this issue all of the time, but it doesn't appear that all of them get their views from the Bible, so let's begin there in seeking our answer. Matthew 12:24 24 When the Pharisees heard this, they said, “The man drives out demons only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.” 25 Knowing their thoughts, He told them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is headed for destruction, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, who is it your sons drive them out by? For this reason they will be your judges. 28 If I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you. 29 How can someone enter a strong man's house and steal his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house. 30 Anyone who is not with Me is against Me, and anyone who does not gather with Me scatters.31 Because of this, I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the one to come. Mark 3: 22 The scribes who had come down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebul in Him!” and, “He drives out demons by the ruler of the demons!” 23 So He summoned them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan rebels against himself and is divided, he cannot stand but is finished! 27 “On the other hand, no one can enter a strong man's house and rob his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he will rob his house. 28 I assure you: People will be forgiven for all sins and whatever blasphemies they may blaspheme. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” Luke 12: 8 “And I say to you, anyone who acknowledges Me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God, 9 but whoever denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.10 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven,but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. So, I see two major ways we need to answer this question. Contextually and grammatically. What does the CONTEXT of the usage of ‘unpardonable sin' tell us, and what does the grammar/word meanings tell us? We find a massively important clue in Mark 3:30, where Mark tells us precisely WHY Jesus warned the Pharisees and Scribes about this sin. “Because they were saying, He has an unclean spirit.” The exact same situation is described in Matthew 12:31 “31 Because of this, I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” The scribes and pharisees are accusing Jesus of doing miraculous things - specifically driving out demons - by the power of Beelzebul rather than by the power of God. Therefore, we know at least this: Ascribing something like an exorcism that is factually done by the power of God and His Holy Spirit to Demonic influence is AT BEST dangerously close to Blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and could, in fact, be blaspheming the Holy Spirit. (Jesus does not make it crystal clear that the scribes and pharisees were actually committing this sin, or merely getting close to committing it. It would seem like the latter is the best option.) Practically speaking, what does this mean?? It means we need to be extremely careful about stating confident opinions on spiritual matters that we don't have 100 percent clarity from Scripture on. Let me give a couple of examples: Pushed over at Brownsville. Charles Carrin praying for us at GVAG. Flamboyant preachers on tv wadding up their coats and throwing them on people, who pass out. Blowing on people, who pass out. Etc. Most of this is probably fraudulent, some of it horribly so. BUT - we should be incredibly careful about pronouncing opinions on what God's spirit would do, and wouldn't do. For instance, there was a revival going on in the 90s that became very well known and reached a lot of people. I heard about some of the things going on at that revival that were disturbing, and sounded - quite frankly - ridiculous. So, I assumed that the movement wasn't of God, but was just flaky people doing flaky things - at best. HOWEVER...a few years later, I met the leader of the movement, and spent some time with him. He struck me as a genuine follower of God - a man who loved Jesus, and who was humble. I still don't know what to think about that revival. God does, and I leave it to Him. It's outside of my realm of influence. According to Jesus - there is grave danger in ascribing the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan. You better be 100 percent sure you're right before doing such thing...and you'd better ask the question - HOW Do i Know FOR SURE that my opinion is right on this matter? If you can't answer that question with extreme clarity, then be careful saying what the Holy Spirit will or will not do, and be careful saying whether or not something is of Satan, or not. Contextually, that is at least a large part of what blaspheming the Holy Spirit is about. What is blasphemy, exactly? More on that in a moment…. Side question - is Beelzebul = Satan?? It's a great question, and I have a fairly lame answer…'maybe.' Beelzebub (“Lord of the flies”) and Beelzebul (“Lord of the skies/heavenly realms”) both refer to the same entity. In the Testament of Solomon, 1st century, non-Scripture, pseudoepigraphic text. Beelzebul (not Beelzebub) appears as prince of the demons and says (6.2) that he was formerly a leading heavenly angel who was (6.7) associated with the star Hesperus (which is the normal Greek name for the planet Venus (Αφροδíτη) as evening star). Seemingly, Beelzebul here is synonymous with Lucifer. the text describes how Solomon was enabled to build his temple by commanding demons by means of a magical ring that was entrusted to him by the archangel Michael. The Bible reference comes from 2 Kings 1: 1 After the death of Ahab, Moab rebelled against Israel. 2 Ahaziah had fallen through the latticed window of his upper room in Samaria and was injured. So he sent messengers instructing them: “Go inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, if I will recover from this injury.” 3 But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, “Go and meet the messengers of the king of Samaria and ask them, ‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron?' 4 Therefore, this is what the Lord says: ‘You will not get up from your sickbed—you will certainly die.'” Then Elijah left. The name also appears in Luke 11, where we can see the clearest connection between Beelzebul and Satan: Luke 11:14 Now He was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon came out, the man who had been mute, spoke, and the crowds were amazed. 15 But some of them said, “He drives out demons by Beelzebul,the ruler of the demons!” 16 And others, as a test, were demanding of Him a sign from heaven. 17 Knowing their thoughts, He told them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is headed for destruction, and a house divided against itself falls.18 If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say I drive out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, who is it your sons drive them out by? For this reason they will be your judges. 20 If I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you. So, Jesus mentions Satan and Beelzebul in the same context, but not in a way that indicates that they are the same entities. My best guess is that Beelzebul is a separate entity from Satan, but I confess that I do not know, and my guess is based on the fact that the Bible never clearly identifies the two as the same entity. What exactly is Blasphemy? Luke 12:10 points us in the right direction - anyone who ‘speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven.' but the one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Matthew 12:32 makes it even more clear: 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the one to come. Similarly: Isaiah 37:23 Isaiah 37:23 Who is it you have mocked and blasphemed? Who have you raised your voice against and lifted your eyes in pride? Against the Holy One of Israel! The Word itself, Greek Blasphemos, is a combo of two words. Blaptō, which means, ‘to HURT' and Pheemay, which means fame, report, or something like ‘reputation.' So, etymologically, the word has a root meaning of injuring somebody's fame, or good name. The word can mean ‘defame' or ‘revile' and isn't always used of a deity. Paul speaks of being ‘defamed' or blasphemed by people for being an apostle. Paul commands the church in Titus 3:2 not to slander/Speak evil of (or BLASPHEME) any person, which is a command that Christians would do well to take far more seriously than we do. 2 Peter 2:10 and Jude vs 8 both warn against blaspheming angels, demons, and other spiritual beings. So- blasphemy is speaking evil of someone. Hurting them with your words, harming their reputation. Thus, blaspheming the Holy Spirit is speaking evil of Him, reviling Him, defaming Him, seeking to harm His reputation. The Pharisees and Scribes were doing that - or coming dangerously close - when they said that it was Satan/Beelzebul empowering Jesus, when it was factually the Spirit of God Himself. R.C. Sproul: Their statements were directed against Jesus. So, He said to them: “You can blaspheme Me and be forgiven, but when you question the work of the Spirit, you are coming perilously close to the unforgivable sin. You are right at the line. You are looking down into the abyss of hell. One more step and there will be no hope for you.” He was warning them to be very careful not to insult or mock the Spirit. Is it really unforgivable, and WHAT IF I HAVE COMMITTED IT?! AUGUSTINE: It is not that this was a blasphemy which under no circumstances could be forgiven, for even this shall be forgiven if right repentance follows it Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall, eds., Mark, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 48. I'm worried that I have committed the unforgivable sin?? Graham: Many Christians have heard that there is an unpardonable sin and live in dread that something grave they have done before or after conversion might be that sin. Their fears are unfounded. While there is an unforgivable sin, it is not one that a true believer in Jesus Christ can commit. Sproul: Humanly speaking, everyone who is a Christian is capable of committing the unforgivable sin. However, I believe that the Lord of glory who has saved us and sealed us in the Holy Spirit will never let us commit that sin. I do not believe that any Christians in the history of the church have blasphemed the Spirit. As for those who are not sure they are saved and are worried they may have committed the unpardonable sin, I would say that worrying about it is one of the clearest evidences that they have not committed this sin, for those who commit it are so hardened in their hearts they do not care that they commit it. Thanks be to God that the sin that is unpardonable is not a sin He allows His people to commit. I don't share Graham and Sproul's assurances, though I respect them both deeply. The Bible NEVER says a believer is unable to commit the unpardonable sin. Jesus NEVER indicates that, and I see no other passage that promises such...just a sober warning. I think Piper strikes a better balance when talking about it: Piper: The fact that there is an unforgivable sin — that there comes a point in a life of sin after which the Holy Spirit will no longer grant repentance — that fact should drive us from sin with fear and trembling. None of us knows when our toying with sin will pass over into irrevocable hardness of heart. Very few people feel how serious sin is. Very few people are on the same wavelength with Jesus when he said in Mark 9:43, “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.” Instead, many professing Christians today have such a sentimental view of God's justice that they never feel terror and horror at the thought of being utterly forsaken by God because of their persistence in sin. They have the naïve notion that God's patience has no end and that they can always return from any length and depth of sin, forgetting that there is a point of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws forever with his convicting power, leaving them never able to repent and be forgiven. They are like the buzzard who spots a carcass on a piece of ice floating in the river. He lands and begins to eat. He knows it is dangerous because the falls are just ahead. But he looks at his wings and says to himself, “I can fly to safety in an instant.” And he goes on eating. Just before the ice goes over the falls he spreads his wings to fly but his claws are frozen in the ice and there is no escape — neither in this age nor the age to come. The Spirit of holiness has forsaken the arrogant sinner forever. Another of the devil's fiery darts is this, “You have committed the unpardonable sin.” Ah! this arrow has rankled in many a heart, and it is very difficult to deal with such cases. The only way in which I argue with a person thus assailed is to say, “I am quite certain that, if you desire salvation, you have not committed the unpardonable sin, and I am absolutely sure that, if you will now come and trust Christ, you have not committed that sin, for every soul that trusts Christ is forgiven, according to God's Word, and therefore you cannot have committed that sin.” C. H. Spurgeon, Pictures from Pilgrim's Progress: My close - God the Holy Spirit is all powerful. Tremble: I don't want to blunt the warnings of Jesus with false assurance. It is likely that - if you are worried you've committed the unpardonable sin, that you haven't because only the Spirit's work in your life would make you fear the Lord. But the way that Jesus addressed this is with the highest level of seriousness...so must we. This passage RIGHTLY inspires fear in us, and that's ok, it should. It is obviously recorded in the Scripture for that purpose. Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and discipline. Proverbs 2:5 you will understand the fear of the Lord and discover the knowledge of God. Proverbs 10:27 The fear of the Lord prolongs life, but the years of the wicked are cut short. Rev 14:6 6 Then I saw another angel flying high overhead,(I) having the eternal gospel to announce to the inhabitants of the earth—to every nation, tribe, language, and people.(J) 7 He spoke with a loud voice: “Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come. Worship the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.” The word for fear there has the same meaning as our word fear. It means FEAR. Luke 12: In the same breath that Jesus speaks about the unpardonable sin, He says this: 4 “And I say to you, My friends, don't fear those who kill the body, and after that can do nothing more. 5 But I will show you the One to fear: Fear Him who has authority to throw people into hell after death. Yes, I say to you, this is the One to fear! 6 Aren't five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God's sight. 7 Indeed, the hairs of your head are all counted. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows! Treat the Holy Spirit with great - remarkable sobriety - fear and wisdom. Fear the Lord, as Jesus said, and don't be afraid to trust Him - He who knows all of the sparrows and numbers our hairs, counts us as of great worth and Loves the World enough to send His son to rescue it. Here's the good news: GREEAR: False gods mutilate us; the true God mutilated himself for us. The prophets of Ba'al begin by dancing around their altar. They end by slashing at themselves until their blood runs (1 Kings 18:28). False gods always push us toward destruction: “Work harder. Do better. Obtain more. You still aren't getting my attention. Slash yourself!” So we slash at our bodies by going through crash diets to attain that perfect figure. We slash at our families by overworking to make extra money. We slash at our souls by compromising our integrity to get someone's affection. False gods push us to mutilate ourselves, because we desperately want to win their approval. But only one God was ever mutilated for us—Jesus Christ. This story ends with a magnificent fire coming from heaven, but as Jesus himself points out to his first disciples, the fire was not intended for sinful humanity (Luke 9:51–56). It was ultimately intended for him: of all the characters in this story, Jesus is not Elijah, calling down fire; he is the sacrifice who receives the fire of judgment. At the cross, Jesus took into his body the fire of God's justice so that we could take into our lives the fire of God's love. Other gods demand dancing, slashing, mutilation. But Jesus Christ is the only God who was slashed and mutilated for us. As Tim Keller has said, “Every other god will make your blood run; only the true God bleeds for you.”
Episode 4: What is the Unforgivable sin?? It's a terrifying reality: Jesus warned His disciples and the Pharisees that there was a sin that could be committed that was unpardonable - unforgivable for all eternity. People have speculated and worried about this teaching of Jesus for hundreds of years. What precisely is the unpardonable sin? How can we know whether or not we've done it? Let's dive in! The Didache First century - RIGHT after the NT: Now concerning the apostles and prophets, deal with them as follows in accordance with the rule of the gospel. (4) Let every apostle who comes to you be welcomed as if he were the Lord. (5) But he is not to stay for more than one day, unless there is need, in which case he may stay another. But if he stays three days, he is a false prophet. (6) And when the apostle leaves, he is to take nothing except bread until he finds his next night's lodging. But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet. (7) Also, do not test or evaluate any prophet who speaks in the spirit, for every sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven.35 Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Updated ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 263–265. ANDREAS Andreas of Caesarea (Greek: Ἀνδρέας Καισαρείας; 563 – 637) : It is the sin of heresy, or of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which leads to death. If one man sins against another, pray for him. But if he sins against God, who is there who can pray on his behalf? And if even after all this, our opponents are still unwilling to learn and still unable to understand, they should at least stop speaking evil. They should not divide the Trinity lest they be divided from life.82 They should not classify the Holy Spirit with the creatures, lest, like the Pharisees of old who ascribed the works of the Spirit to Beelzebul,83 they too, on account of equal audacity, incur along with them the punishment which is unpardonable both now and in the future. Athanasius Works on the Spirit: Athanasius's Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit, Grave-robbing, or the opening of graves, is divided into two kinds too, like theft, according to the present Canon, to wit, into pardonable and into unpardonable grave-robbing. For if the fellow opening the grave does not denude the dead person's body, thus refraining from dishonoring (for that is what is meant by the expression “sparing devoutness”) the dead, but only takes the stones found in the grave, in order to use them in the building of any other work that is preferable and more beneficial to the community, though this too is by no means anything to be praised, yet custom has made it pardonable.2 St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain - 1700s, Greek Orthodox church. Swearing is a dreadful and harmful thing; it is a destructive drug, a bane and a danger, a hidden wound, a sore unseen, an obscure ulcer spreading its poison in the soul; it is an arrow of Satan, a flaming javelin, a two-edged sword, a sharp-honed scimitar, an unpardonable sin, an indefensible transgression, a deep gulf, a precipitous crag, a strong trap, a taut-stretched net, a fetter that cannot be broken, a noose from which no one escapes. 19. Are these enough, and do you believe that swearing is a dreadful thing and the most harmful of all sins? Believe me, I beg you, believe me! But if someone does not believe me, I now offer proof. This sin has what no other sin possesses. If we do not violate the other commandments, we escape punishment; on the other hand, in the matter of oaths, we are punished just the same both when we guard against transgressing and when we transgress. St. John Chrysostom, 300s AD St. John Chrysostom: Baptismal Instructions, Hilary of Poitiers actually points us in a more biblical direction, in discussing the unpardonable sin: Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to men, but blasphemy of the Spirit will not be forgiven.67 With a very grave qualification, he condemns the view of the Pharisees and the perversion of those who also think like them. He promises pardon of all sins but refuses pardon for blasphemy of the Spirit. While other words and deeds are treated with a generous pardon, there is no mercy if it is denied that God is in Christ. 68 And in whatever way one sins without pardon, he is gracious to us and reminds us again that sins of every kind can be completely forgiven, though blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. For who is so completely beyond pardon as one who denies that Christ is of God, or repudiates that the substance of the Spirit of the Father resides in him Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, ed. Spurgeon - Nobody knows what that sin is. I believe that even God's Word does not tell us, and it is very proper that it does not. As I have often said, it is like the notice we sometimes see put up, “Man-traps and spring gun set here.” We do not know whereabouts the traps and guns are, but we have no business over the hedge at all. So, “there is a sin unto death;” we are not told what that sin is, but we have no business to go over the hedge into any transgression at all. That “sin unto death” may be different in different people; but, whoever commits it, from that very moment, loses all spiritual desires. He has no wish to be saved, no care to repent, no longing after Christ; so dreadful is the spiritual death that comes over the man who has committed it that he never craves eternal life. C. H. Spurgeon, Pictures from Pilgrim's Progress: A Commentary on Portions of John Bunyan's Immortal Allegory (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009), 73–74. Billy Graham: The sin of the religious leaders, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, was a refusal to accept the witness of the Holy Spirit to who Jesus was and what He had come to do, and then submit their lives to Him… Once again, the unpardonable sin is not some particularly grievous sin committed by a Christian before or after accepting Christ, nor is it thinking or saying something terrible about the Holy Spirit. Rather, it is deliberately resisting the Holy Spirit's witness and invitation to turn to Jesus until death ends all opportunity. Billy Graham is echoing the Augustinian (300s AD) view: Now the man who, not believing that sins are remitted in the Church, despises this great gift of God's mercy, and persists to the last day of his life in his obstinacy of heart, is guilty of the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, in whom Christ forgives sins. Augustine of Hippo, “The Enchiridion,” in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Augustine was reflecting the Origen view (early 300s): The Spirit dwells in those who live by faith. But those who once having been counted worthy to share in the Holy Spirit and then having finally and decisively turned their backs from grace are by this act said to have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit (ORIGEN Who, then, is not amazed at the exceeding majesty of the Holy Spirit when he hears that he who speaks a word against the Son of man may hope for forgiveness, but that he who is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness—either in the present world or in that which is to come. Origen What then is it? The unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an act of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws forever with his convicting power so that we are never able to repent and be forgiven. - John Piper. Lee ann penick MODERN: There is only one “unpardonable sin” that can separate us from God for eternity. It is the ongoing, willful refusal to accept Christ as Lord and Savior and the forgiveness He offers. Jacob Arminius defined it as "the rejection and refusing of Jesus Christ through determined malice and hatred against Christ". Nancy Hardesty “Ultimately the refusal to allow women to fully use their gifts in the church and in the world is a form of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.” Pope John Paul II writes "'blasphemy' does not properly consist in offending against the Holy Spirit in words; it consists rather in the refusal to accept the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working through the power of the Cross", and "If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this "non-forgiveness" is linked, as to its cause, to "non-repentance," in other words to the radical refusal to be converted. This means the refusal to come to the sources of Redemption, which nevertheless remain "always" open in the economy of salvation in which the mission of the Holy Spirit is accomplished. SO - What is The unforgivable sin?? - is it, as Origen, Augustine, Billy Graham, Pope John Paul 2 Lee Ann Penick suggest - the rejection of the Holy Spirit/not becoming a follower of Jesus?? Is it, as John Chrysostom claimed, swearing oaths? Is it the robbing of graves in a thieving manner? Is it not letting women use their spiritual gifts in the church? Is it Heresy? Is it, as Athanasius and many other church fathers declared, being wrong on the Trinity and calling the Holy Spirit a created being, rather than God Himself? Is it testing prophetic utterances of prophets?? (NO! - 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 Don't stifle the Spirit. 20 Don't despise prophecies, 21 but test all things. Hold on to what is good.) Confused? You should be!! People talk about this issue all of the time, but it doesn't appear that all of them get their views from the Bible, so let's begin there in seeking our answer. Matthew 12:24 24 When the Pharisees heard this, they said, “The man drives out demons only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.” 25 Knowing their thoughts, He told them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is headed for destruction, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, who is it your sons drive them out by? For this reason they will be your judges. 28 If I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you. 29 How can someone enter a strong man's house and steal his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house. 30 Anyone who is not with Me is against Me, and anyone who does not gather with Me scatters.31 Because of this, I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the one to come. Mark 3: 22 The scribes who had come down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebul in Him!” and, “He drives out demons by the ruler of the demons!” 23 So He summoned them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan rebels against himself and is divided, he cannot stand but is finished! 27 “On the other hand, no one can enter a strong man's house and rob his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he will rob his house. 28 I assure you: People will be forgiven for all sins and whatever blasphemies they may blaspheme. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” Luke 12: 8 “And I say to you, anyone who acknowledges Me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God, 9 but whoever denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.10 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven,but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. So, I see two major ways we need to answer this question. Contextually and grammatically. What does the CONTEXT of the usage of ‘unpardonable sin' tell us, and what does the grammar/word meanings tell us? We find a massively important clue in Mark 3:30, where Mark tells us precisely WHY Jesus warned the Pharisees and Scribes about this sin. “Because they were saying, He has an unclean spirit.” The exact same situation is described in Matthew 12:31 “31 Because of this, I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” The scribes and pharisees are accusing Jesus of doing miraculous things - specifically driving out demons - by the power of Beelzebul rather than by the power of God. Therefore, we know at least this: Ascribing something like an exorcism that is factually done by the power of God and His Holy Spirit to Demonic influence is AT BEST dangerously close to Blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and could, in fact, be blaspheming the Holy Spirit. (Jesus does not make it crystal clear that the scribes and pharisees were actually committing this sin, or merely getting close to committing it. It would seem like the latter is the best option.) Practically speaking, what does this mean?? It means we need to be extremely careful about stating confident opinions on spiritual matters that we don't have 100 percent clarity from Scripture on. Let me give a couple of examples: Pushed over at Brownsville. Charles Carrin praying for us at GVAG. Flamboyant preachers on tv wadding up their coats and throwing them on people, who pass out. Blowing on people, who pass out. Etc. Most of this is probably fraudulent, some of it horribly so. BUT - we should be incredibly careful about pronouncing opinions on what God's spirit would do, and wouldn't do. For instance, there was a revival going on in the 90s that became very well known and reached a lot of people. I heard about some of the things going on at that revival that were disturbing, and sounded - quite frankly - ridiculous. So, I assumed that the movement wasn't of God, but was just flaky people doing flaky things - at best. HOWEVER...a few years later, I met the leader of the movement, and spent some time with him. He struck me as a genuine follower of God - a man who loved Jesus, and who was humble. I still don't know what to think about that revival. God does, and I leave it to Him. It's outside of my realm of influence. According to Jesus - there is grave danger in ascribing the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan. You better be 100 percent sure you're right before doing such thing...and you'd better ask the question - HOW Do i Know FOR SURE that my opinion is right on this matter? If you can't answer that question with extreme clarity, then be careful saying what the Holy Spirit will or will not do, and be careful saying whether or not something is of Satan, or not. Contextually, that is at least a large part of what blaspheming the Holy Spirit is about. What is blasphemy, exactly? More on that in a moment…. Side question - is Beelzebul = Satan?? It's a great question, and I have a fairly lame answer…'maybe.' Beelzebub (“Lord of the flies”) and Beelzebul (“Lord of the skies/heavenly realms”) both refer to the same entity. In the Testament of Solomon, 1st century, non-Scripture, pseudoepigraphic text. Beelzebul (not Beelzebub) appears as prince of the demons and says (6.2) that he was formerly a leading heavenly angel who was (6.7) associated with the star Hesperus (which is the normal Greek name for the planet Venus (Αφροδíτη) as evening star). Seemingly, Beelzebul here is synonymous with Lucifer. the text describes how Solomon was enabled to build his temple by commanding demons by means of a magical ring that was entrusted to him by the archangel Michael. The Bible reference comes from 2 Kings 1: 1 After the death of Ahab, Moab rebelled against Israel. 2 Ahaziah had fallen through the latticed window of his upper room in Samaria and was injured. So he sent messengers instructing them: “Go inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, if I will recover from this injury.” 3 But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, “Go and meet the messengers of the king of Samaria and ask them, ‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron?' 4 Therefore, this is what the Lord says: ‘You will not get up from your sickbed—you will certainly die.'” Then Elijah left. The name also appears in Luke 11, where we can see the clearest connection between Beelzebul and Satan: Luke 11:14 Now He was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon came out, the man who had been mute, spoke, and the crowds were amazed. 15 But some of them said, “He drives out demons by Beelzebul,the ruler of the demons!” 16 And others, as a test, were demanding of Him a sign from heaven. 17 Knowing their thoughts, He told them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is headed for destruction, and a house divided against itself falls.18 If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say I drive out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, who is it your sons drive them out by? For this reason they will be your judges. 20 If I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you. So, Jesus mentions Satan and Beelzebul in the same context, but not in a way that indicates that they are the same entities. My best guess is that Beelzebul is a separate entity from Satan, but I confess that I do not know, and my guess is based on the fact that the Bible never clearly identifies the two as the same entity. What exactly is Blasphemy? Luke 12:10 points us in the right direction - anyone who ‘speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven.' but the one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Matthew 12:32 makes it even more clear: 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the one to come. Similarly: Isaiah 37:23 Isaiah 37:23 Who is it you have mocked and blasphemed? Who have you raised your voice against and lifted your eyes in pride? Against the Holy One of Israel! The Word itself, Greek Blasphemos, is a combo of two words. Blaptō, which means, ‘to HURT' and Pheemay, which means fame, report, or something like ‘reputation.' So, etymologically, the word has a root meaning of injuring somebody's fame, or good name. The word can mean ‘defame' or ‘revile' and isn't always used of a deity. Paul speaks of being ‘defamed' or blasphemed by people for being an apostle. Paul commands the church in Titus 3:2 not to slander/Speak evil of (or BLASPHEME) any person, which is a command that Christians would do well to take far more seriously than we do. 2 Peter 2:10 and Jude vs 8 both warn against blaspheming angels, demons, and other spiritual beings. So- blasphemy is speaking evil of someone. Hurting them with your words, harming their reputation. Thus, blaspheming the Holy Spirit is speaking evil of Him, reviling Him, defaming Him, seeking to harm His reputation. The Pharisees and Scribes were doing that - or coming dangerously close - when they said that it was Satan/Beelzebul empowering Jesus, when it was factually the Spirit of God Himself. R.C. Sproul: Their statements were directed against Jesus. So, He said to them: “You can blaspheme Me and be forgiven, but when you question the work of the Spirit, you are coming perilously close to the unforgivable sin. You are right at the line. You are looking down into the abyss of hell. One more step and there will be no hope for you.” He was warning them to be very careful not to insult or mock the Spirit. Is it really unforgivable, and WHAT IF I HAVE COMMITTED IT?! AUGUSTINE: It is not that this was a blasphemy which under no circumstances could be forgiven, for even this shall be forgiven if right repentance follows it Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall, eds., Mark, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 48. I'm worried that I have committed the unforgivable sin?? Graham: Many Christians have heard that there is an unpardonable sin and live in dread that something grave they have done before or after conversion might be that sin. Their fears are unfounded. While there is an unforgivable sin, it is not one that a true believer in Jesus Christ can commit. Sproul: Humanly speaking, everyone who is a Christian is capable of committing the unforgivable sin. However, I believe that the Lord of glory who has saved us and sealed us in the Holy Spirit will never let us commit that sin. I do not believe that any Christians in the history of the church have blasphemed the Spirit. As for those who are not sure they are saved and are worried they may have committed the unpardonable sin, I would say that worrying about it is one of the clearest evidences that they have not committed this sin, for those who commit it are so hardened in their hearts they do not care that they commit it. Thanks be to God that the sin that is unpardonable is not a sin He allows His people to commit. I don't share Graham and Sproul's assurances, though I respect them both deeply. The Bible NEVER says a believer is unable to commit the unpardonable sin. Jesus NEVER indicates that, and I see no other passage that promises such...just a sober warning. I think Piper strikes a better balance when talking about it: Piper: The fact that there is an unforgivable sin — that there comes a point in a life of sin after which the Holy Spirit will no longer grant repentance — that fact should drive us from sin with fear and trembling. None of us knows when our toying with sin will pass over into irrevocable hardness of heart. Very few people feel how serious sin is. Very few people are on the same wavelength with Jesus when he said in Mark 9:43, “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.” Instead, many professing Christians today have such a sentimental view of God's justice that they never feel terror and horror at the thought of being utterly forsaken by God because of their persistence in sin. They have the naïve notion that God's patience has no end and that they can always return from any length and depth of sin, forgetting that there is a point of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws forever with his convicting power, leaving them never able to repent and be forgiven. They are like the buzzard who spots a carcass on a piece of ice floating in the river. He lands and begins to eat. He knows it is dangerous because the falls are just ahead. But he looks at his wings and says to himself, “I can fly to safety in an instant.” And he goes on eating. Just before the ice goes over the falls he spreads his wings to fly but his claws are frozen in the ice and there is no escape — neither in this age nor the age to come. The Spirit of holiness has forsaken the arrogant sinner forever. Another of the devil's fiery darts is this, “You have committed the unpardonable sin.” Ah! this arrow has rankled in many a heart, and it is very difficult to deal with such cases. The only way in which I argue with a person thus assailed is to say, “I am quite certain that, if you desire salvation, you have not committed the unpardonable sin, and I am absolutely sure that, if you will now come and trust Christ, you have not committed that sin, for every soul that trusts Christ is forgiven, according to God's Word, and therefore you cannot have committed that sin.” C. H. Spurgeon, Pictures from Pilgrim's Progress: My close - God the Holy Spirit is all powerful. Tremble: I don't want to blunt the warnings of Jesus with false assurance. It is likely that - if you are worried you've committed the unpardonable sin, that you haven't because only the Spirit's work in your life would make you fear the Lord. But the way that Jesus addressed this is with the highest level of seriousness...so must we. This passage RIGHTLY inspires fear in us, and that's ok, it should. It is obviously recorded in the Scripture for that purpose. Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and discipline. Proverbs 2:5 you will understand the fear of the Lord and discover the knowledge of God. Proverbs 10:27 The fear of the Lord prolongs life, but the years of the wicked are cut short. Rev 14:6 6 Then I saw another angel flying high overhead,(I) having the eternal gospel to announce to the inhabitants of the earth—to every nation, tribe, language, and people.(J) 7 He spoke with a loud voice: “Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come. Worship the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.” The word for fear there has the same meaning as our word fear. It means FEAR. Luke 12: In the same breath that Jesus speaks about the unpardonable sin, He says this: 4 “And I say to you, My friends, don't fear those who kill the body, and after that can do nothing more. 5 But I will show you the One to fear: Fear Him who has authority to throw people into hell after death. Yes, I say to you, this is the One to fear! 6 Aren't five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God's sight. 7 Indeed, the hairs of your head are all counted. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows! Treat the Holy Spirit with great - remarkable sobriety - fear and wisdom. Fear the Lord, as Jesus said, and don't be afraid to trust Him - He who knows all of the sparrows and numbers our hairs, counts us as of great worth and Loves the World enough to send His son to rescue it. Here's the good news: GREEAR: False gods mutilate us; the true God mutilated himself for us. The prophets of Ba'al begin by dancing around their altar. They end by slashing at themselves until their blood runs (1 Kings 18:28). False gods always push us toward destruction: “Work harder. Do better. Obtain more. You still aren't getting my attention. Slash yourself!” So we slash at our bodies by going through crash diets to attain that perfect figure. We slash at our families by overworking to make extra money. We slash at our souls by compromising our integrity to get someone's affection. False gods push us to mutilate ourselves, because we desperately want to win their approval. But only one God was ever mutilated for us—Jesus Christ. This story ends with a magnificent fire coming from heaven, but as Jesus himself points out to his first disciples, the fire was not intended for sinful humanity (Luke 9:51–56). It was ultimately intended for him: of all the characters in this story, Jesus is not Elijah, calling down fire; he is the sacrifice who receives the fire of judgment. At the cross, Jesus took into his body the fire of God's justice so that we could take into our lives the fire of God's love. Other gods demand dancing, slashing, mutilation. But Jesus Christ is the only God who was slashed and mutilated for us. As Tim Keller has said, “Every other god will make your blood run; only the true God bleeds for you.”
This year is the 400th anniversary of the Synod of Dort. Reformed Dutch Protestants gathered to oppose the teaching of a Reformed minister and professor named Jacob Arminius and his followers. The Result produced The Canons of Dort. What happened? What was it all about? Pastor and Author, Daniel Hyde, joins BRIDGE Radio again to talk all about it and his book "Grace Worth Fighting For: Recapturing the Vision of God's Grace in the Canons of Dort."
Cette année nous célébrons le 400e anniversaire des Canons de Dordrecht. Dans cette présentation nous rappellerons le contexte historique à l'origine de ces canons. Nous survolerons la vie de Jacob Arminius, l'impact de sa pensée et la réponse calviniste à la théologie arminienne.
Cette année nous célébrons le 400e anniversaire des Canons de Dordrecht. Dans cette présentation nous rappellerons le contexte historique à l'origine de ces canons. Nous survolerons la vie de Jacob Arminius, l'impact de sa pensée et la réponse calviniste à la théologie arminienne.
It is time to talk about the end of the world! In this episode we will jump into the topic of Eschatology or the study of the "end times." We will start off by discussing the four major Eschatological positions: Historic Premillennialism, Dispensational Premillennialism, Amillennialism, and Postmillennialism. We will then discuss the eschatological positions of Jacob Arminius and John Wesley. Don't miss next episode when we go more in depth in regards to Wesley's eschatological position.
How significant are the differences between Calvinism and the theology of John Wesley? Wesley claimed it was only "a hair's breadth." Yet many modern day "Wesleyans" are trying to run as fast and far away from Calvinism as they can. In this episode we discuss how Wesley actually called doing this "foolish and sinful." Unfortunately running away from Calvinism has led many to question Inerrancy and deny important doctrine such as Penal Substitution and Meticulous Providence. In this episode we discuss the significant difference between Wesley and liberalized "Anglican Arminianism" and how he was much closer to the Evangelical Calvinists in his work for the Gospel. "John Wesley, A Faithful Representative of Jacob Arminius" by W. Stephen Gunter https://oimts.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/2002-2-gunter.pdf
John 6:22-40 1. The capacity to believe is a gift from God, v. 37 A) Calvinism- an attempt to summarize the doctrines emphasized by John Calvin T- total depravity of man U- unconditional election L- limited atonement I- irresistible grace P- perseverance of the saints B) Arminianism- an attempt to summarize the doctrines emphasized by Jacob Arminius 1) Partial Depravity- humanity is depraved but still able to seek God. 2) Conditional election- God only chooses those whom He knows will choose to believe. 3) Unlimited Atonement- Jesus died for everyone, even those who will not believe 4) Resistible Grace- God's call to be saved can be resisted or rejected 5) Conditional Salvation- Christian can lose their salvation if they actively reject the Holy Spirit’s influence in their life C) Biblicist- a willingness to simply believe everything the Bible teaches even when it disagrees with my preferences. ** Notice the balance of v. 37... “All that the Father gives to me will come to me”- affects how I pray! “whoever comes to me I will never cast out”- whosoever will 2. For the Christian there is great assurance, v. 39 “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” -Philippians 1:6 “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” -Ephesians 4:30 3. The work of the son is central to the gift of the Father, v. 40 ”How are you righteous before God?” Only by true faith in Jesus Christ. In spite of the fact that my conscience accuses me that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have not kept any one of them, and that I am still ever prone to all that is evil, nevertheless, God, without any merit of my own, out of pure grace, grants me the benefits of the perfect sacrifice of Christ, imputing to me his righteousness and holiness as if I had never committed a single sin or had ever been sinful, having fulfilled myself all the obedience which Christ has carried out for me, if only I accept such favor with a trusting heart.
In this episode, we will be discussing the inerrancy of Scripture and what Arminius and Wesley wrote about this question. There is a lot of debate in Wesleyan circles today regarding this question. In an attempt to shed some light on the issue we are going to see what Jacob Arminius and John Wesley thought about inerrancy. It may not be a surprise to you but both Arminius and Wesley held to a view of Scripture that today would be described as "inerrancy." We will be relying on primary sources from Wesley and Arminius to prove our point. Stay tuned for next episode when we will continue this conversation.
Merry Christmas! In this episode of Remonstrance we will continue our discussion of Middle Knowledge. The specific question we will be investigating is if Jacob Arminius and John Wesley affirmed Middle Knowledge or not and if it fits in their overall theology. To do this we will be getting some help from Keith Stanglin, Thomas McCall, and Randy Maddox. Also, check out the article below by Barry E. Bryant. Links Link to where you can buy a Remonstrance t-shirt for Christmas: https://www.freewebstore.org/remonstrance-podcast-apparel Article by Barry E. Bryant: http://evangelicalarminians.org/molina-arminus-plaifere-goad-and-wesley-on-human-free-will-divine-omniscience-and-middle-knowledge/
In this episode we will be revisiting the topic of Open Theism and specifically focus on how Open Theism differs from Wesleyan-Arminian Theology in regards to the doctrine of foreknowledge. To do this we will be reading through a large number of quotes by Open Theists to see what they have to say in regards to foreknowledge. Then we will jump into what Jacob Arminius and John Wesley had to say about foreknowledge. Hopefully, by the end of the episode, you will see a clear contrast between Open Theists and Wesleyan-Arminian theology in regards to foreknowledge...God already knows that you will.
Jacob Arminius taught views and ideas that crossed the different Protestant/Reformed views we've discussed so far. We also look at some parts of the Arminian Confession of 1621 that pertain to our current series.
This minisode launches a three podcast series where we will examine the doctrine of regeneration in the thought of Jacob Arminius and John Wesley. In this minisode we will specifically focus on what Arminius had to write about regeneration in his works. To do this we will be reading through a selection from his commentary on Romans 7 where he deals with the doctrine of regeneration, specifically the differences between the regenerate person and the unregenerate person. We will also be reading through Article 20 of his "Certain Articles to be Diligently Weighed and Examined" as well where he explores the topic of regeneration further. Along the way we will explore his understanding of where regeneration takes place in the order of salvation and the high view of regeneration that he held to.
In this episode we will discuss the doctrine of saving faith in the thought of Jacob Arminius and John Wesley. The episode will focus on how both men taught that faith was a gift of God. We will also discuss how both Arminius and Wesley had a very theocentric understanding of salvation and were not man centered at all. We will also discuss how the theology of Arminius and Wesley was different from the theology of other theologians such as Charles Finney on this point. For help on this episode we will be referencing works by Stanglin, McCall, Collins, Olson, and Rodes. All of their books can be found on the Remonstrance website theologians tab. We also read through sections of an article by Chris Bounds and Keith Drury. Links: https://remonstrancepodcast.com/2017/02/09/john-wesley-contemporary-wesleyanism-and-the-reformed-tradition/
This minisode will launch a three podcast series that will explore the theme of the gift of faith in the thought of Jacob Arminius and John Wesley. This episode will focus on the views of Arminius by reading through three short selections from his works. After listening to this episode it will be clear that Arminius understood that faith is a gift of God that does not originate in man. Faith is a gift of Divine Grace according to the thought of Arminius. These selections from his work will also clarify how Arminius defined faith and what role (if any) man plays in receiving faith as a gift. Disputation 44: On Faith In God And Christ Link: http://wesley.nnu.edu/?id=4829
Happy New Year! We will start off this episode discussing the most significant loss of 2016: Methodist Theologian Thomas C. Oden. We will briefly discuss his life and our favorite works by him. Then we will move on and talk about the views of Jacob Arminius on the doctrine of Total Depravity. There is SO MUCH false information floating around about what Arminius taught on Total Depravity. Hopefully this episode will clear up some misconceptions. We then finish the episode discussing the VERY non-Arminian theology of Philip Limborch and mourning that his theology is confused with the theology of Arminius. As usual, we receive help from Keith D. Stanglin, Thomas H. McCall, and Roger E. Olson. Obituaries for Thomas Oden: http://evangelicalarminians.org/a-roundup-of-obituaries-for-distinguished-wesleyan-arminian-theologian-thomas-oden/
This minisode will launch a three podcast series examining the doctrine of depravity as taught by Jacob Arminius. In this minisode we will be reading through a portion of Arminius's public Disputation 11: "On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers." Here Arminius contrasts the state of man before and after the fall. He also discusses the impact of sin on mankind after the fall and the benefits of grace given through Christ. There is literally no way that someone could claim Arminius denied total depravity after listening to this episode. Please share this episode to help clarify the position of Arminius in regards to depravity. The link to the full disputation is below. Link: http://wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/the-works-of-james-arminius/volume-1/public-disputations/disputation-11-on-the-free-will-of-man-and-its-powers/
Happy Reformation Day! In this episode we will be examining how the theologies of Jacob Arminius and John Wesley were aligned with the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation: Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria. To do this we will be examining both primary and secondary sources. You may be surprised to find out that both Arminius and Wesley were theological heirs of the Protestant Reformation and their theology and doctrine were faithful to all five of the solas. That is why all Wesleyan-Arminians should be excited about Reformation Day! Soli Deo Gloria. Links: Two Luther Documentaries: "A Man named Martin Luther: The Moment" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANNwv-j_4_0 "A Man Named Martin Luther" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAbjgTHSkJI Wesley Sermons: http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-1-salvation-by-faith/ http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-5-justification-by-faith/ http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-6-the-righteousness-of-faith/ http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-20-the-lord-our-righteousness/ "John Wesley as a Theologian of Grace" by Robert V. Rakestraw: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/27/27-2/27-2-pp193-203_JETS.pdf
This is the seventh full episode! We will be discussing the doctrine of Predestination as articulated by Jacob Arminius. First, we define Predestination. Then we look how Arminius defined Predestination. What becomes very clear is how Christocentric the Arminian doctrine of Predestination is! Then we look through the "Declaration of Sentiments" by Arminius and see what he had to say about the Divine Order of Decrees and compare the Arminian Order of Decrees to the Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian orders of decrees. We then look at what Thomas C. Oden had to say about the alignment between the Arminian understanding of Predestination and the Patristic understanding. Links: http://www.solusarminius.com http://store.seedbed.com/collections/seedbed-seedlings https://www.amazon.com/Arminius-His-Declaration-Sentiments-Introduction/dp/1602585679
This minisode is the second in a three podcast series where we will be asking the question, "what is the will of God?" from a Wesleyan-Arminian perspective. In this episode we read a selection from Public Disputation IV by Jacob Arminius. We will only focus on Section 2, "On the Will of God." We will read a brief excerpt from the Disputation and then have some brief theological commentary on it. This is not an easy Disputation, but it is really good! Maybe listen through this more than once. Here is a link to the full Disputation IV if you are interested: http://wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/the-works-of-james-arminius/volume-1/public-disputations/disputation-4-on-the-nature-of-god/ Scroll down to the Second Section: ON THE WILL OF GOD
This minisode is the first in a three podcast series where we will be asking the question, "what is the will of God?" from a Wesleyan-Arminian perspective. In this episode we will read two private disputations of Jacob Arminius. The first is Private Disputation 18, "On The Will of God." The second is Private Disputation 19, "On the Various Distinctions of the Will of God." Each reading will be followed by a brief theological commentary. These disputations are tough so get ready for some serious scholastic theology! For your reference here are links to both Disputations. It might be good to read along: http://wesley.nnu.edu/?id=4787 http://wesley.nnu.edu/?id=4786
In this episode we ask the very important question, "What Does It Mean to Be Arminian?" Historically, there have been many different definitions of the term "Arminian" and it becomes very confusing. To add to the confusion the term "Arminian" means something else in different historical eras and even in different countries throughout history! In this episode we make a distinction between "Arminianism of the Heart" and "Arminianism of the Head." Unfortunately, many of the later Remonstrants and the English Arminians in England and New England were liberal "Arminians of the Head." It was really John Wesley who recovered true Arminian theology and restored a theological movement based on "Arminianism of the Heart." Our hope is that through this episode people will begin to see that true Arminianism is "Arminianism of the Heart" taught by Jacob Arminius, John Wesley, and all their Protestant, Orthodox, Evangelical heirs. Links: "A New Perspective on Arminius" featuring Keith Stanglin (podcast) http://reformedforum.org/ctc446/ "The Loss of Arminius to the Remonstrants" by William Birch http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-loss-of-arminius-to-the-remonstrants/ "John Wesley, A Faithful Representative of Jacobus Arminius" by W. Stephen Gunter https://oimts.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/2002-2-gunter.pdf
This is our third full episode of Remonstrance Podcast. In this episode we will discuss the Wesleyan-Arminian Doctrine of the Atonement. First, we will explain the various major views on the Atonement. They are the Governmental, the Satisfaction, and the Penal-Substitution views. After that we will look at Hugo Grotius and the history of the Governmental View of the Atonement. Then we will look at what Arminius and Wesley taught in regards to the Atonement (spoiler alert: they did not hold to the Governmental Theory). Then we will focus on the views of the Atonement held by the major early Methodist Theologians: Watson, Pope, and Summers. Then we will discuss John Miley and how the Governmental Theory of the Atonement was introduced to Methodism. We will finish with some clarification from Thomas Oden. In this episode we reference works by Roger Olson, Kenneth J. Collins, and Thomas Oden. We highly recommend the works of all three of these theologians. Here is the link to the J. Matthew Pinson Article on the Atonement: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/53/53-4/JETS_53-4_773-785_Pinson.pdf It is titled, "The Nature of Atonement in the Theology of Jacob Arminius." If you want to learn what Arminius taught on the Atonement then READ THIS ARTICLE! Also download Remonstrance Podcast Minisode 7.
This is our second full episode of Remonstrance podcast! On this episode we will be taking an in depth look at the theology of Jacob Arminius and John Wesley in regards to Divine Providence. We will start off by defining Providence and Meticulous Providence. Then we will be looking at what Arminius had to say, specifically in regards to preservation, divine governance, divine concurrence, and permission. We also look at the "greater good" theodicy in the thought of Jacob Arminius and how God directs evil and sinful actions toward a greater good. We then look at what John Wesley had to say and how he affirmed both meticulous providence and "greater good" theodicy as well. In this episode we made many references to "Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace" by Keith Stanglin and Thomas McCall. You can buy the book here: http://www.amazon.com/Jacob-Arminius-Theologian-Keith-Stanglin/dp/0199755671 The Society of Evangelical Arminians Site: http://evangelicalarminians.org Also, we made reference to a great article from William Birch from the Society of Evangelical Arminians. You can find his article here: http://www.williambirch.net/2016/03/jacob-arminius-and-open-theism.html
In this minisode we will start looking at the views of Jacob Arminius on the Doctrine of Divine Providence. To help begin this investigation we read "Disputation 28: On the Providence of God" from the complete works of Jacob Arminius. After reading through the disputation there is a brief analysis of the disputation with help from Roger Olson, Keith Stanglin, and Thomas McCall. This minisode will be followed up by our next full episode that will be all about the doctrine of Divine Providence that will be released in early May. Please subscribe! Also check out the "Theologians" page on our website to find links where you could find the books referenced in this minisode by following this link: https://remonstrancepodcast.com/theologians/
In this minisode we will be looking at the life of the Arminian pastor, statesman, and theologian: Johannes (Jan) Wtenbogaert. We will follow his life from his birth in Utrecht, his close friendship with Jacob Arminius, his studies at Geneva under Beza, his involvement in the Arminian controversy, his authorship of the Remonstrance of 1610, his exile to Belgium and France, and his death in the Hague at the age of eighty-seven. All the while we will be looking at background information on the Dutch Revolt, Arminian Controversy, and the Dutch Reformation. Sit back and join us for the adventures of Wtenbogaert. Please subscribe! Link to painting by Rembrandt of Wtenbogaert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Wtenbogaert#/media/File:Johannes_Wtenbogaert_by_Rembrandt_van_Rijn.jpg
On this second minisode we will discuss what Jacob Arminius believed about the doctrine of Justification by Faith. We do this by reading his own words from one of his disputations on faith and one of his disputations on Justification. Please subscribe! You can find the link to our website here: http://remonstrancepodcast.com Check out our theologians page: http://remonstrancepodcast.com/theologians/
On this first minisode we will discuss what Wesleyan-Arminian theology is and how the theologies of Jacob Arminius and John Wesley became associated with each other. We also talk about the purpose of Remonstrance podcast in anticipation for the release of our first full length episode in April. Please subscribe! You can find the link to our website here: http://remonstrancepodcast.com Check out our theologians page: http://remonstrancepodcast.com/theologians/ Here is a link to the page for the book "Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology" http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Wesleyan-Arminian-Theology-Mildred-Wynkoop/dp/0834102544
The history of the Church is filled with men and women who have impacted the church in their generation. Many were considered heretics and were martyred. In honor of No Shave November we'll look at some of those influential men and the impact of their legacy on the Church today in our series Dead Dudes with Beards.
One of the critical functions of a church leader is to teach "sound doctrine." What is sound doctrine and is one view "sounder" than another? How does a leader discern what is true from what is error? On today's show we talk about how a leader can discern true doctrine from false in a discussion that will definitely NOT be what you expect! On Today's podcast, I mentioned our free eBook on Why Social Media is Vital To Sharing The Good News. Transcript of Today's Show As church leaders, we have been commissioned by Christ to equip our congregations to do the work of ministry according to Ephesians 4: 11-16. This word equip incorporates teaching, mentoring, training, supplying – whatever it takes to bring those in our care to a place of spiritual maturity and effectiveness. A big part of that is feeding them sound doctrine. Jesus charged Peter to feed the sheep of God. (John 21:15-17) Peter called upon all leaders to feed the flock and be examples to the congregation in I Peter 5:1,2. Paul charged his protégé Timothy to give his attention to doctrine and teaching in I Timothy 4:12-17. He warned leaders wolves that would come into congregations bringing false doctrine that would lead many astray. So this is serious stuff. As ministers, one of our critical functions to make certain that our teaching squares with Christ’s mission and purpose. In essence, we need to know we are feeding people what is biblically sound from both the pulpit and through the example we demonstrate. So, what does sound doctrine look like? If you look at the general landscape of Christianity throughout the world, you have the catholic church, eastern orthodox, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Brethren, Congregational, Amish, Mennonite, Baptist, southern Baptist, church of God, assembly of God, Pentecostal, charismatic, independent, non-denominational…and the list goes on. All of these denominations typically divide up as either Calvinistic or Arminian. Calvinists tend to be cessationist and Arminians tend to favor charismatic behaviors, generally speaking. Which is correct doctrine? Here’s the thing: You can have perfect doctrine and yet be wrong before God. Much of what the Pharisees and scribes taught was biblically sound, yet Jesus reserved his most stinging rebukes - for them. He even went so far as to say in Matthew 23:2,3: The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses. So practice and obey whatever they tell you. So, is it possible to get your doctrine right, but miss God altogether? And what does false doctrine actually look like? Is it merely the lack of biblical orthodoxy? I mean, the scribes and the Pharisees appear to have gotten the good housekeeping seal of approval from Jesus on what they taught, but in the next sentence he warned his disciples to stay clear of them. In Luke 12:1, Jesus told his followers: Notice what he said: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. In other words, in determining false doctrine, it is not merely dotting I’s and crossing t’s. You need to go deeper and look at the fruit of what is being taught. The Pharisees and scribes produced disciples which is clear from Mark 2:18, but their disciples were legalistic and arrogant. Their doctrine produced followers who looked and acted like them. This legalistic arrogance would eventually crucify Christ. So, their doctrine wasn’t just wrong, it was straight-out evil. I think we would all have to agree that any doctrine, any preaching, any expounding of scripture that leads to the denigration or devaluing of Jesus is false by its very nature. But there is more to identifying false doctrine than hunting down textual error. I’d like to pause here and consider the people that Jesus chose to become his disciples. In Luke 6:12,13 we are told that Christ selected his disciples after an all-night prayer meeting. This is not a responsibility He took lightly. Among them, were there any scholars? Perhaps, Nathaniel. John’s gospel seems to indicate he liked to sit under trees and think. He might have been a philosopher or scholar, we’re not sure. Here is what we do know. Four fisherman, one tax collector and at least one political zealot. Peter certainly was not known for his use of big words or deep thoughts, yet Jesus selected him to feed his sheep in John 21:16,17. He also ordained him to use spiritual keys to open doors in Matthew 16:17,18. Peter would become instrumental to open the door to the church age in Acts 2 and then again to the Gentiles in Acts 10. These two doors are the most significant changes in history and the responsibility to open them was given to a fisherman. Keeping this in mind, Jesus instructed his non-scholarly followers about how to detect true and false doctrine. In Matthew 7:16,and again in verse 20, he tells his followers to identify true and false doctrine by inspecting the fruit. What does that mean? Look at the followers; look at the results. Do the results look like, smell like and act like Jesus? In other words, as people inculcate the teaching into their own lives, are they transformed? Do the angry become kind? Do the depressed become joyful? Do liars start telling the truth? Do narcissists start giving generously of their time? This is what fruit is. Your teaching produces fruit. I really like elements of reformed theology. There is something powerful about honoring the sovereignty of God which is at the heart of reformed theology. There are truths in reformed theology that I hold to, embrace and benefit from. Reformed theology has a great deal to offer. Reformed theology is not necessarily biblical doctrine. I do not preach reformed theology, nor do I recommend anyone should. Wait a minute. Isn’t that a contradiction? A little bit, but if you study reformed theology, you’re used to contradictions and we don’t have time to discuss it in depth. I look at the fruit of doctrine. I have noticed that the deeper any minister gets in reformed theology, the more arrogant and dismissive of everyone else they become! In essence, their knowledge puffs them up and they become unteachable except by others who share their views. Granted, that is my experience, but you will find it reasonably accurate. The fruit of dogma is arrogance. Arrogance is the precise opposite of Christ’s doctrine, no matter how you slice it. Doctrine that produces prideful, dismissive arrogance is dangerous and more closely linked to the Pharisees than Christ. You may quickly and wrongly conclude that I feel this way because I am a member of the dreaded Arminian camp founded by Jacob Arminius. In that conclusion, not only would you be proving my point, but you also would be inaccurate. In the Arminian camp are leaders who are just as arrogant, cocky and dismissive as their reformed counterparts. Whole wars have been fought arguing the merits of both theological perspectives; and for what? Bragging rights! One of the amazing historical facts concerns the Great Awakening of the 1740’s. Principally through Jonathan Edwards and his band of clergy friends, God moved so demonstratively in cities and towns throughout New England that it is estimated up to 50K came to faith. In fact, I live only a few miles from where this amazing revival broke out. When you factor in that the population of the U.S. was significantly smaller in those days, this revival was extraordinary. Jonathan Edwards has been called, perhaps rightly so, the greatest theologian our country ever produced. He was a true Calvinist, and in most instances a very humble and godly man. Much could be said about him, but I leave that to your study. On the other side of the Atlantic, another revival was occurring simultaneously under the leadership of John and Charles Wesley. As a result of their preaching, drinking establishments closed and whole regions were gloriously converted to Christ. Here is the amazing part: Wesley was Arminian in his theology. What is interesting is that God couldn’t seem to make up his mind as to which theology to support! He ignored the tension between the two theologies and invaded both parts of the world by His Spirit. Does God like to have the last laugh or what? Truthfully, if you examine both theologies, you will find flaws and things that don’t add up. Ministers spend years of their lives studying and writing books to defend themselves or prove the other camp wrong. What an incredibly stupid waste of time. People are perishing every day, and leaders are arguing over who is right. All the while, the devil is quite amused by our foolishness. Consider this: Not a single apostle or disciple was from the Reformed or Arminian camp. As you study the scriptures objectively, you will discover that neither theological perspective is able to solve the contradictions place in scripture. Both camps have to prove their validity by minimizing the truths of the other camp. Like I said, a waste of time. Here’s the deal: God put tension in scripture. You will never adequately answer those contradictions; perhaps because God never intended we should, or these things are yet to be revealed. Paul became the only true scholar among the early disciples, but hear how he viewed his own training and knowledge: Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ. This is from Philippians 3:8. I am quoting from the King James, because most translators elect to say garbage instead of dung. The Greek word skubalon does mean garbage and waste and junk, but it also means human excrement. We miss something if we don’t get the full strength of what Paul is saying here. He wants his readers to know that all the knowledge gained under Gamaliel, one of the most famous rabbi’s of history was useless, disgusting excrement. That is a strong statement. Was he saying that knowledge was useless? As he points out in I Corinthians 13, knowledge by itself inflates peoples egos, yet knowledge when used as intended can help people enormously. Some think that he was just referencing the knowledge he’d gained as a Jew, but listen to Paul describe his ministry to the Corinthians: “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Let that sink in for moment. The greatest New Testament scholar in history, said that he left all his knowledge, all his thinking, all his wisdom in the back seat of his chariot and focused on one thing: Christ and him crucified. Pure doctrine always exalts, always magnifies, and always points the attention to Christ and his efficacious work at the cross. Efficacious means effective and capable. The cross was effective at delivering people from their sins and the power of Satan. Allow me to draw you attention back to Peter. He describes for us what true doctrine really is. In I Peter 2:2 he says, “Like newborn infants, desire the pure spiritual milk, so that you may grow by it for your salvation, since you have tasted that the Lord is good.” Interesting passage here. It harkens to a woman breastfeeding her infant. Babies don’t get fed without an intimate connection to their mother. We don’t learn true doctrine apart from intimacy with God. Studying the bible to find truths that refute others is by nature the wrong approach to doctrine. Our preaching, teaching and ministry ought to be focused towards helping our fellow man taste and see that the Lord is good. It is not your job to preach sermons against Joel Osteen, John MacArthur or the Pope. People need the Lord. I love the small brass sign fixed to the pulpit of a popular church. It quotes John 12:21: We would see Jesus. If our disciples are filled with judgments against other churches and preachers; if our congregants are always arguing the merits of one point of view over another, perhaps they are just following the preachers example. Our disciples need to look, smell and acts like Christ. They ought to have his nature. What was that nature: the fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, faith and the rest. We as ministers are called to be examples of what we teach because more is caught than taught. On a practical level, how do we as ministers of this good news, make certain our doctrine as right as possible. Truthfully, you can never be 100% sure because you’re human and that element is subject to flaws, either in what you say or how you deliver it. 2 Timothy 2:15 states: Work hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly explains the word of truth. Truthfully, the best interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself. Do your best to make sure that whatever you preach squares with the rest of the Bible. If it is not taught in the Bible, tell people. Most of the giants of faith who have been instrumental in great moves of God have been flawed men, but God still used them powerfully. The great evangelist D.L Moody butchered the English language. When asked, he responded. “I do the best with what I’ve got. Do you do the best with what you’ve got?” As a servant to your people, give yourself to prayer and reading the word. In the weeks and months ahead, as God wills I am going to put together some practical teaching tools for you to consider. Jesus always said profound things. Here is one of my favorites from John 6:63: “It is the Spirit that gives life. The flesh is of no help. The words I speak to you are spirit and life. I don’t care how good a preacher you are, you’ll never fully expound what Christ says here and that is both our dilemma and our joy. As usual, I like to end each show with a quote from Martin Luther. “To preach Christ is to feed the soul, to justify it, to set it free, and to save it, if it believes the preaching.” Ministers are called by God to be societal change agents. When peoples’ hearts change, then their actions change. Revivals never follow political elections. Good government follows genuine revival because the focus switches to honoring and pleasing God. To leave us an honest review at ITunes: ministerstoolbox.com/review
Most Protestants have found themselves entrenched in debates surrounding the theological systems of John Calvin and Jacob Arminius. But did you know that there are more systems than just these? In fact, Thomas Aquinas and Luis de Molina offer systems that may hold better promise in reconciling divine sovereignty and human freedom than Calvin and Arminius' systems do. In this episode, we will examine the beliefs of Thomas Aquinas and Luis de Molina concerning sovereignty and human freedom. Finally, it will be shown why Pastor Brian has gravitated to a Thomist/Molinist concept known as "congruism."
A new MP3 sermon from Still Waters Revival Books is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: Jacob Arminius, Karl Barth, G.K. Chesterton, T.S. Elliott, Ignatius of Loyola, Christian History Magazine (Wild Boar News #17) Subtitle: Wild Boar News Speaker: Matthew McMahon Broadcaster: Still Waters Revival Books Event: Radio Broadcast Date: 12/7/2002 Bible: Ephesians 1:4 Length: 6 min.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
