Podcasts about jacob arminius

In episode 465 of The Reformed Brotherhood, hosts Tony Arsenal and Jesse Schwamb explore Jesus's parable of the wheat and tares (weeds) from Matthew 13. This thought-provoking discussion examines Christ's startling teaching that good and evil will always coexist within the visible church until the end of time. The brothers carefully unpack the theological implications of Jesus's command not to separate wheat from weeds prematurely, challenging our natural tendency to judge others while offering wisdom about God's sovereign plan for final judgment. This episode wrestles with difficult questions about church purity, assurance of salvation, and how believers should approach the reality of false professors within Christ's church—providing biblical guidance for faithfully enduring in a mixed communion. Key Takeaways The Coexistence of True and False Believers: Jesus teaches that the visible church will always contain a mixture of genuine believers and false professors until the final judgment. The Danger of Premature Judgment: Christ explicitly warns against attempting to completely purify the church before the harvest (end of age) because doing so would damage the wheat (true believers). Proper Biblical Interpretation: Unlike some parables, Jesus provides a detailed allegorical explanation of this parable—the sower is Christ, the field is the world, the good seed represents believers, and the weeds are the sons of the evil one. The Challenge of Discernment: One of the most difficult theological pills to swallow is that it's often impossible to perfectly distinguish between true and false believers. Final Judgment as God's Prerogative: The separation of wheat from weeds is reserved for the angels at the end of the age, not for current church leaders or members. The Reality of False Assurance: Some professing Christians may have false assurance of salvation while genuinely believing they are saved. The Importance of Theological Integrity: Public theologians and pastors have a moral responsibility to be transparent about their theological convictions and changes in their beliefs. Deeper Explanations The Difficult Reality of a Mixed Church Jesus's teaching in the parable of the wheat and weeds directly challenges our natural desire for a perfectly pure church. By instructing the servants not to pull up the weeds lest they damage the wheat, Christ is establishing an important ecclesiological principle that will hold true until His return. This means that no matter how rigorously we apply church discipline or how carefully we examine profession of faith, we will never achieve a perfectly pure communion this side of eternity. The visible church—which can be understood as those who profess faith and are baptized—will always include both true and false believers. This reality should cultivate humility in how we approach church membership and discipline. Jesus isn't suggesting that all attempts at church purity are wrong (as other Scripture passages clearly call for church discipline), but rather that perfect purification is impossible and attempts at achieving it will inevitably damage true believers. This teaching directly refutes movements throughout church history (like Donatism) that have sought absolute purity in the visible church. The Problem of Discernment and Assurance One of the most challenging aspects of this parable is Christ's implicit teaching that true and false professors can appear nearly identical, especially in their early development. Like tares growing alongside wheat, false believers can profess orthodox doctrine, participate in church life, and exhibit what appears to be spiritual fruit. This creates profound implications for how we understand assurance of salvation. As Tony notes, while "assurance is the proper and rightful possession and inheritance of every Christian," there's also the sobering reality of false assurance. Some may sincerely believe they are saved when they are not, raising difficult questions about self-examination and spiritual discernment. This doesn't mean believers should live in perpetual doubt, but rather that we should approach assurance with both confidence in God's promises and healthy self-examination. True assurance must be grounded in the finished work of Christ rather than merely in our experiences or behaviors, while false assurance often lacks this proper foundation. The brothers wisely note that final judgment belongs to God alone, who perfectly knows who belongs to Him. Memorable Quotes "The visible church is set before us as a mixed body. Maybe everybody else's churches, but certainly not my church, like the one that I actually go to on the Lord's day. So it seems like there might be this shocking statement possibly that he has for us, whether you're Episcopalian or Presbyterian or independent or Baptist or Christian life assembly, whatever it is, that no matter what we do to purify the church, our churches, we're never gonna succeed in obtaining a perfectly pure communion." - Jesse Schwamb "I think that's what I find shocking. It is like a massive statement of reality that is at equal points totally sensible. And other times we would think, 'well, surely not in the church Lord, like of all the places, like aren't we talking about a kind of purity of your people?' ...and what I think he's striking at, which I do find a little bit wild, is that Jesus is essentially saying, at least to my ear, anything we try to do, even the purest preaching of the gospel, is not gonna prevent this in every age of the church." - Jesse Schwamb "I'm affirming that assurance is the proper and rightful possession and inheritance of every Christian." - Tony Arsenal Full Transcript Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 465 of The Reformed Brotherhood. I am Jesse. Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony. And this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey brother. Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother. Guess what? It looks like you and I are taking another trip back to the farm on this episode. Tony Arsenal: Yes. For a couple episodes. Jesse Schwamb: For a couple episodes. Yeah. [00:01:01] Exploring Jesus' Parables in Matthew 13 Jesse Schwamb: Because what, Jesus will not stop leading us there. We're looking at his teachings, specifically the parables, and we're gonna be looking in Matthew chapter 13, where it seems like, is it possible that Jesus, once again has something very shocking for us to hear? That is for all the ages. 'cause it seems like he might actually be saying, Tony, that good and evil will always be found together in the professing church until the end of the world. Like in other words, that the visible church is set before a mixed body. I mean. Maybe everybody else chose churches, but certainly not my church, like the one that I actually go to on the Lord's day. So it seems like there might be this shocking statement possibly that he has for us, whether you're Episcopalian or Presbyterian or independent or Baptist or Christian life assembly, whatever it is, that no matter what we do to purify the church, our churches, we're never gonna succeed in obtaining a perfectly pure communion. Could that possibly be what Jesus is saying to us? I don't know what we're gonna find out. Tony Arsenal: We are. We are gonna find out. Jesse Schwamb: It's gonna be definitive. And if now that makes sense. If you don't even know why we're looking at Jesus' teachings, you could do us a favor even before you go any further. And that is just head on over in your favor, interwebs browser to or reform brotherhood.com, and you can find out all of the other episodes, all 464 that are living out there. There's all kinds of good stuff, at least we think so, or at least entertaining stuff for you to listen to. And when you're done with all of that in a year or two, then we'll pick it up right back here where we're about to go with some affirmations or some denials. [00:02:39] Affirmations and Denials Jesse Schwamb: So Tony, before we figure out what Jesus has for us in Matthew 13, in the parable of the weeds, or the tears, or the tears in the weed, what gets all of that? Are you affirming with, are you denying against, Tony Arsenal: I am denying. First of all, I'm denying whatever this thing is that's going on with my throat. Sorry for the rest of the episode, everyone. Um, I'm denying something that I, I think it is. How do I want to phrase this? Um, maybe I'll call it theological integrity, and maybe that's too strong of a word, but maybe not. So the listener who's been with us for a little while will remember that a while back. Um, you know, we've, we've talked about Matthew Barrett and he was a Baptist, uh, who's heavily involved in sort of the theology, proper controversies. He wrote Simply Trinity, which is just a fantastic book. He was a teacher or a professor at Midwestern, um, Baptist Theological Seminary. And he recently, um, uh, converted is not the right word. I hate calling it a conversion when you go from one faithful Bible tradition to another. But he recently, um, changed his perspective and joined the Anglican Church. And at the time I kind of, you know, I kind of talked about it as like, it's a little bit disappointing, like the reasons he cited. [00:03:57] Theological Integrity and Public Disclosure Tony Arsenal: Where I'm bringing this into a matter of sort of theological integrity. And it's not, it's not just Matthew Barrett. Um, there's other elements of things going on that I'll, I'll point to too is it's often the case when someone who is in some form of professional theological work or professional vocational ministry, that as they start to change perspectives, um, there comes to be like an inflection point where they should notify whoever it is that they are accountable to in that job or vocation, uh, uh, and then do the right thing and step down. Right? And so with Matthew Barrett, um. He continued to teach systematic theology at a Baptist Theological Seminary, which has a faith statement which he was obligated to affirm and hold in good faith. He continued to teach there for quite some time, if, you know, when he, when he published the timeline and he's the one that put all the timelines out there. So it's not like people had to go digging for this. Um, he continued to teach under contract and under that, that faith statement, um, for quite some time after his positions changed. I remember in college, um, sim very similar situation, one of my professors, um, and I went to a Baptist college. It was a General Baptist college. Um, one of my professors became Roman Catholic and for quite some time he continued to teach without telling anyone that he had converted to Roman Catholicism. Um. And I think that there's a, there's a, a level of integrity that public theologians need to have. Um, and it, it really makes it difficult when something like this happens to be able to say that this is not a moral failing or some sort of failure. Um, you know, James White has jumped on the bandwagon very quickly to say, of course we told you that this was the way it was gonna lead. That if you affirm the great tradition, you know, he was very quick to say like, this is the road to Rome. And I think in his mind, um, Canterbury is just sort of one, one stop on that trip. Um, it becomes very hard after the fact to not have this color and tarnish all of your work before. 'cause it starts to be questions like, well, when, when did you start to hold these views? Were you writing, were you, were you publicizing Baptist theology when you no longer believed it to be the truth? Were you teaching theology students that this is what the Bible teaches when you no longer thought that to be true? Um. Were you secretly attending Anglican services and even teaching and, and helping deliver the service when you were, you know, still outwardly affirming a Baptist faith statement. And the reason I, I'll point out one other thing, 'cause I don't want this to be entirely about Matthew Barrett, but there's a big, uh, hub glue going on in the PCA right now. Um, a guy named Michael Foster, who some of our audience will probably be familiar with, um, he and I have had our desktops in the past, but I think he and I have come to a little bit of a, of a uneasy truce on certain things. He, uh, went to work compiling a, a list and there's some problems with the data, like it's, it's not clean data, so take it for what it's worth. But he compiled a list of. Every publicly available church website in the PCA. So something like 1800 websites or something like that. Huge numbers. And he went and looked at all of the staff and leadership directories, and he cataloged all the churches that had some sort of office or some sort of position that appeared to have a, a woman leading in a way that the Bible restricts. And that more importantly, and starting to say it this way, but more importantly, that the PCA itself restricts. So we're not talking about him going to random church websites and making assessments of their polity. We're talking about a, a denomination that has stated standards for who can bear office and it's not women. Um. So he compiled this and people in the PCA are coming out of the woodwork to basically defend the practice of having shepherdess and deacons. There was one that he cataloged where, um, the website actually said, uh, that was the pastor's wife and the title was Pastor of Women. Um, and then as soon as it became public that this was the case, they very quickly went in and changed the title to Shepherd of Women or Shepherdess of Women or something like that. So it's, it's really the same phenomena, not commenting, you know, I think we've been clear where we stand on the ordination of female officers and things like that, but not that all that withstanding, um, when you are going to be a part of a body that has a stated perspective on something and then just decide not to follow it, the right thing to do the, the upstanding morally. Uh, in full of integrity move would be to simply go to another denomination where your views align more closely. PCA churches, it's not super easy, but it's not impossible to leave the PCA as an entire congregation and then go somewhere like the EPC, which is the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, which still on the spectrum of things is still relatively conservative, but is in general is in favor of, uh, female officers, elders, and diegans. So I, I think, you know, and you see this with podcasters, there was the big, there was a big fu and Les became a Presbyterian, and then when Tanner became a Presbyterian on the pub, I think it is, um, incumbent on people who do any form of public theology and that that would include me and Jesse when our views change. There comes a point where we need to disclose that, be honest about it, um, and not try to pretend that we continue to hold a view that we don't be just because it's convenient or because it might be super inconvenient to make a change. I don't even want to pretend to imagine the pressures, uh, that someone like Matthew Barrett would face. I mean, you're talking about losing your entire livelihood. I, I understand that from an intellectual perspective, how difficult that must be, but in some ways, like that kind of comes with the territory. Same thing with a pastor. You have a Baptist pastor or a Presbyterian pastor. It can go both ways, I think. I'm more familiar with Baptist becoming Presbyterians. I don't, I don't see as many going the other direction. But you have a, a Baptist pastor who comes to pay to Baptist convictions and then continues to minister in their church for, I've, I've seen cases where they continue to minister for years, um, because they don't, they don't have the ability to now just go get a job in a Presbyterian context because there's all sorts of, um, training and certification and ordination process that needs to happen. Um, so they just continue ministering where they are, even though they no longer believe the church's state of, you know, state of faith statement. So that's a lot to say. Like, let your yes be yes and your no be no, and when we really all boil it down. So I think that's enough of that. It, it just sort of got in my craw this week and I couldn't really stop thinking about it. 'cause it's been very frustrating. And now there are stories coming out of. Doctoral students that, um, that Barrett was teaching who have now also become Anglican. Um, so, you know, there starts to be questions of like, was he actively pros? I mean, this is like Jacob Arminius did this stuff and, and like the reform tradition would look down on it, where he was in secret in like sort of small group private settings. He was teaching convictions very different than the uni. I'm talking about Arminius now. Not necessarily Barrett. He was teaching convictions very different than the, the stated theology of the university he taught for, and then in public he was sort of towing the line. You have to ask the question and it is just a question. There's been no confirmation that I'm aware of, but you have to ask the question if that was what was going on with Barrett, was he teaching Baptist theology publicly and then meeting with, with PhD students privately and, and sort of convincing them of Anglican theology. I don't know. I'm not speculating on that, but I think it, the situation definitely right, brings that question to mind. It forces us to ask it. Um, and had he. Been transparent about his theological shifts sooner than that may not be a, a question we have to ask. Um, the situation may not be all that different, but we wouldn't have to ask the question. Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that's totally fair. I mean, disclosure is important in lots of places in life and we shouldn't think that theological dis disclosure, especially like you're saying among our teachers, among our pastors, it is a critical thing. It's helpful for people to know when perspectives have changed, especially when they're looking to their leaders who are exhibiting trust and care over their discipleship or their education to express that difference. If there's been a mark, change it. It's worth it. Disclose, I'm guessing you don't have to over disclose, but that we're talking about a critical, we're talking about like subversive anglicanism, allegedly. Yeah. Then. It would be more than helpful to know that that is now shaping not just perspective, but of course like major doctrine, major understanding. Yeah. And then of course by necessary conviction and extension, everything that's being promulgated or proclamation in the public sphere from that person is likely now been permeated by that. And we'd expect so. Right. If convictions change, and especially like you're talking about, we're just talking about moving from, especially among like Bible believing traditions, just raise the hand and say loved ones, uh, this is my firm conviction now. Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. I think if someone walks up to you and says, do you think that we should baptize babies? And you're like, yeah, I think so. Then you probably shouldn't be teaching at a Baptist seminary anymore. Like, seems like a reasonable standard. And that seems to be what happened, at least for some period of time. Um, you know, and, and it, that's not to say like, I think, I think there are instances where the church, a given church or um, or a university or seminary or, or whatever the situation might be, can be gracious and recognize like, yeah, people's perspectives change and maybe we can find a way for you to continue to finish out the semester or, you know, we can bridge you for a little while until you can find a new, a new job. Um, you know, we'll, we'll only have you teach certain courses or we'll have a guest lecturer come in when you have to cover this subject that is at variance and like, we'll make sure we're all clear about it, but it doesn't seem like any of that happened. And that's, um, that's no bueno. So anyway, Jesse. What are you affirming and or denying Tonight? [00:13:43] Music Recommendations Jesse Schwamb: I'm just gonna go with something brief. I suppose this is an affirmation of me. I'm saying that like somewhat tongue in cheek, but maybe it's, wait, I'll rephrase. It's because this will be more humble. I'm affirming getting it right, even more than I thought. So I'm just gonna come back to the well and dip it into something that I mentioned on the last episode. So the keen listener, the up-to-date listener might remember. And if you're not up to date, uh, just let this be fresh for you. It'll, and I, it's gonna be correct because now I have posts, you know, I'm on the other side of it. I've clear hindsight. I am affirming with the album Keep It Quiet by Gray Haven, which I affirmed last week, but it came out on the same day that the episode released. And since you and I don't really like record in real time and release it like exactly as it's happening, I only did that with some, a little bit of reservation because I only heard they only released three songs in the album. And I thought I was overwhelmed that they were, they were so good that I was ready to jump in and loved ones. Oh, it, it turns out. I was so correct and it was, it's even better than I thought. So go check it out. It's Grey, GRE, YH, and they are, this is the warning, just because I have to give it out there and then I'll balance it with something else for something for everybody here today. So, gr Haven is music that's post hardcore and metal core. You're getting two cores for the price of one, if that is your jam. It has strong maleic sensibilities. It's very emotional, it's very experimental. But this new album, which is called, um, again, keep It Quiet, is like just a work of arts. It real like the guitar work is intricate haunting, lovely, and it's bold, like very intentional in its structure and very el loose in its construction. It's got hook driven melodies and it's got both heart and soft. It really is truly a work of art. So if you're trying to, to put it in your minds, like what other bands are like this? I would compare them to bands like, every Time I Die, Norma Jean, let Live Hail the Sun. If you just heard those as combinations of words that don't mean anything to you, that's also okay. No worries. But if you're looking for something different, if you're looking for something that's maybe gonna challenge your ear a little bit, but is like orchestral and has all of these metal core post hardcore, melodic, textured movements, there's no wasted notes in this album. It's really tremendous. If that's not your thing. I get, that's not everybody's thing. Here's something else I think would be equally challenging to the ear in a different way. And that is, I'm going back to one other album to balance things out here, and that's an album that was released in 2019 by Mark Barlow, who I think is like just. So underrated. For some reason, like people have slept on Mike Barlow. I have no idea why he put together an album with Isla Vista Worship called Soul Hymns, and it's like a distinct soul and r and b album of praise with like these really lovely like falsetto, harmonies. It's got these minimalistic instrumentation, warm keys, groove oriented percussion, like again, like these false soul driven melodies. It's contemplative. It's got a groove to it. This is also equally a beautiful album for a totally different reason. So I think I've given two very book-ended, very different affirmations, but I think there's something for everybody. So my challenge to your loved ones is you gotta pick one or the other. Actually, you could do both, but either go to Gray Havens, keep it quiet, or go to Mike Bellow's Soul hymns. I do not think you will be disappointed. There's something for everybody on this one. Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I, it was funny because as you were saying the names of those bands, I literally was thinking like Jesse could be speaking Swahili and I wouldn't know the difference. And then you, you, you know me well, yeah. Uh, I haven't listened to Gray Haven. Uh, I probably will give it a couple minutes 'cause that's how it usually goes with songs that meet that description. Uh, I can always tell that the music that Jesse recommends is good from a technical perspective, but I never really, I never really vibe with it. So that's okay. But I mean, lots of people who listen to our show do so check that out. If, if you ever. Want a good recommendation for music. Jesse is the pers so much so that he can recommend amazing music before it's even available and be a hundred percent correct, apparently. That's right. So Jesse Schwamb: affirm with me everybody, because turns out I was right. Uh, it was easy to be correct when of course I had all of that fair sightedness by being able to listen to those. Yeah, those couple of songs, it, this is a kind of album. Both of these, both of these albums. When I heard them, I reacted audibly out loud. There are parts of both of 'em where I actually said, oh wow. Or yeah, like there's just good stuff in there. And the older you get, if you're a music fan, even if you're not, if you don't listen to a lot of music, you know when that hook gets you. You know when that turn of melody or phrase really like hits you just, right. Everybody has that. Where the beat drops in a way. You're just like, yes, gimme, you make a face like you get into it. I definitely had that experience with both of these albums and because. I've listened to a lot of music because I love listening to music. It's increasingly rare where I get surprised where, you know, like sometimes stuff is just like popular music is popular for a reason and it's good because it's popular and it follows generally some kind of like well established roots. But with these albums, it's always so nice when somebody does something that is totally unexpected. And in these, I heard things that I did not expect at all. And it's so good to be surprised in a way that's like, why have I never heard that before? That is amazing. And both of these bands did it for me, so I know I'm like really hyping them up, but they're worth it. They're, they're totally worth it. Good music is always worth it. Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. I, uh, I think that is a good recommendation. I will check those out because, you know, you're a good brother. I usually do, and I trust your judgment even though it, you'll like the second one. Yes. Hopefully. Yeah. Yeah. Jesse Schwamb: You'll like the second one. Second one is like, just filled with praise and worship. And like, if, if you're trying to think, like say, here's how I'd couch the proper atmosphere for Mark Barlow's soul hymns you're having, you know, it's, it's a cold and chilly. A tal evening, the wind is blowing outside. You can hear the crisp leaves moving around on the pavement and the sun has gone down. The kids are in bed, the dinner dishes are piled up in the sink. But you think to yourselves, not tonight. I don't think so, and you just want that toneage to put on. You want that music as you dim the lights and you sit there to just hang out with each other and take a breath. You don't just want some kind of nice r and b moving music. You don't want just relaxing vibes. You want worshipful spirit filled vibes that propel your conversation and your intimacy, not just into the marital realm, but into worship and harmony with the triune God. If you're looking for that album, because that situation is before you, then sol hymns is the music you're looking for. Tony Arsenal: See, I'm gonna get the, I'm gonna get the recommendations backwards and I'm gonna sit down with my wife with a nice like evening cup of decaf tea and I'm gonna turn the music on. Yes, it's gonna be like, yes. That was me screaming into the microphone. That was not good for my voice. Well, the good news is it's gonna, it's gonna wake the kids up. That's, I'm gonna sleep on the couch. That's, it's gonna be bad. That's, Jesse Schwamb: honestly, that's also a good evening. It's just a different kind of evening. It's true. So it's just keep it separated again, uh, by way of your denial slash affirmation. Tony disclosure, I'm just giving you proper disclosure. Everybody know your music KYM, so that way when you have the setting that you want, you can match it with the music that you need. So it's true. Speaking of things that are always worth it. [00:21:30] Parable of the Weeds Jesse Schwamb: I think the Bible's gotta be one of those things. Tony Arsenal: It's true. Jesse Schwamb: And this is like the loosest of all segues because it's like the Sunday school segue into any topic that involves the scriptures. We're gonna be in Matthew 13, and how about we do this? So this is one of these parables and in my lovely ESV translation of the scriptures, the, we're just gonna go with the heading, which says the parable of the weeds. You may have something different and I wanna speak to that just briefly, but how do we do this, Tony? I'll hit us up with the parable and then it just so happens that this is one of the parables in the scripture that comes with an interpretation from our savior. It's true. How about you hit us up with the interpretation, which is in the same chapter if you're tracking with us, it's just a couple verses way. Does that sound good? Tony Arsenal: Let's do it. Jesse Schwamb: Okay. Here is the parable of the weeds. Jesus puts another parable before them saying The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sewed good seed in his field. But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sewed weeds among the weeds and went away. So when the plants came up and bork rain, then the weeds also appeared, and the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds? He said to them, an enemy has done this. So the servant said to him, then, do you want us to go and gather them? Then he said, no. Lest in gathering the weeds, you root up the wheat along with them, but let them grow together until the harvest and at harvest time, I will tell the reapers, gather the weeds first, and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn. Tony Arsenal: Alright, so then jumping down. To verse 36. We're still in Matthew 13, he says, then he left the crowds and went into the house and his disciples came to him saying, explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field. He answered, the one who sows the good seed is the son of man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angel. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age, the son of man will send his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom, all that, all causes of sin in all lawbreakers and throw them into the fiery furnace. It is that in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their father. He who has ears let him hear. Jesse Schwamb: So let me start with just like a little bit of language here, which I've always loved in this passage because where else in like the contemporary context, do you get the word tear? Yeah. Aside if you're like using a scale, and that's a totally different definition. I like this. I like the word tear. It force, it forces to understand that what's common to our ear, why that's being used, it often is translated weed. Here's just like my, my little like linguistic addition to the front end of our discussion and is the reason I like it is because here does have a specific definition. If like you were to look this up in almost any dictionary, what you're gonna find is it's like a particular type of weed. It's actually like an injurious weed that is indistinguishable in its infant form from the outgrowing of green. So I like that because of course that is exactly why. Then there's all this explanation of why then to not touch anything in the beginning because one, it causes damage to it looks like everybody else. I just thought I'd put that out there as we begin our discussion. Tony Arsenal: Yeah, yeah. You know, I, um, I am a homeowner and I don't own the land that I'm on, but I'm responsible for the land that I'm on. And we have this really gnarly weed problem. There's this, uh, sort of floor growing, uh, carpeting weed called, uh, I think it's called like a carpeting knob, head weed or something like that. Some really descriptive thing. And I went out there the other day and there's really nothing you can do about this other than to rip it up. But I went out there the other day to start to pull some of it up and it totally wrecks the yard. Like it totally pulls up the grass, it destroys the sod. And when you're done, this is why it's kind of nice that I don't have, I'm not responsible for the land as I'm not gonna have to pay to resod the land. But when you're done pulling up this weed, you have to resod the whole place. You have to regrow all the grass because it, first, it takes over for the grass, and then when you rip it up, it rips the roots of the grass up as well. And so this parable, um, on one level is immediately obvious, like what the problem is, right? The situation is such. That the good, uh, the good sower, right? He's a good sower. He knows what he's doing. He understands that simply ripping up the weeds. Even if you could distinguish them right, there's this element that like at an early stage, they would be very difficult, if not impossible to distinguish from, uh, from wheat. Even if you could distinguish them, you still wouldn't be able to pull up the weeds and not do damage to the grain. And so we, we have this sort of like, um, conflict if you wanna follow like literary standards, right? We have this conflict and as we come to sort of the climax of this, of this plot is when all of a sudden we see that, that the problem needs a resolution and there is a resolution, but it's not necessarily what we would think it would be. Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, I think that's what I find shocking. It is like a massive statement of reality that is that like equal points or equal times totally sensible. And other times we would think, well why surely not in the church Lord, like of all the places, like aren't we talking about a kind of purity of your people, the very people that you're assembling together, the chief of which is Christ and the apostles being the building stones and Christ of course being the cornerstone. And I, I think that's what I find and I wonder the people hearing this, if they thought like, well, surely Lord, that not be the case like you are bringing in and ushering in this new kingdom. Isn't this new kingdom gonna be one of absolute purity? And, and what I think he's striking at, which I do find a little bit wild, is that Jesus essentially saying, at least to my ear, anything we try to do, even like the purest preaching of the gospel, is not gonna prevent this in every age of the church. The same state of the things that's existed in that is in the time of the early fathers. In the first century, and the church as it stands right now in the land and the time of the reformers, and of course with the best ministers at this hour right now and on your next Lord's day, and everyone after that, there is always and ever will be a visible church or a religious assembly in which the members are not all wheat. Yeah. And then I like what you're saying. It's this idea that. There's a great harm that's gonna come about if you try to lift them up because you cannot tell. So, and this is what's hard, I think this does influence like how we interact with people online. Certainly how we interact with people in our own congregations, but we are going to have no clear convicted proofs. We might only have like probable symptoms if we're really trying to judge and weigh out to discern the weeds from the weeds, which at most can only give us some kind of conjectural knowledge of another state. And that is gonna sometimes preemptively judge cause us to judge others in a way that basically there's a warning against here. It, it's, it's not the right time. And ba I think mainly from the outside where I find like this parable coming together, if there's like maybe a weird Venn diagram of the way Christians read this and the way unbelievers hear this, the overlap between them is for me, often this idea of like hypocrisy and you know. When people tell me that the church is full of hypocrites, either like Christian or non-Christian, but typically that's a, a, you know, statement that comes from the non-Christian tongue. When people say that the church is full of hypocrites, I do with a little bit of snark, say it's definitely not full of hypocrites. There are always room for more in the church and, and there's like a distinction of course between the fact that there is hypocrisy in the Christian or whether the Christian is in fact or that person is a hypocrite. So like when I look through the scriptures, we see like Pharaoh confessing, we see Herod practicing, we see Judas preaching Christ Alexander venturing his life for Paul. Yeah, we see David condemning in another, what he himself practiced and like hezeki glorifying and riches Peter. Doing all kinds of peter stuff that he does, and even all the disciples forsaken Christ, an hour of trouble and danger. So all that to say, it goes back to this like lack of clear, convicted proofs that I think Jesus is bringing forward here, but only probable symptoms. And I'm still processing, of course, like the practicality of what you're saying, Tony, that in some ways it seems like abundantly clear and sensible that you should, you're, you're gonna have a problem distinguishing. But our human nature wants to go toward distinguishing and then toward uprooting sometimes. And the warning here is do not uproot at the improper time. And in fact, it's not even yours to uproot because God will send in the laborers to do that at the time of, of harvest. And so there will be weeds found among the wheat. It's just like full stop statement. And at the same time it's warning, do not go after them now. Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I, I'm sure this, um, I, I'm sure this will spill over into a second conversation, but we, I think we have to talk a little bit about the interpretation here before we, before we even like talk more about the parable itself, because if you're not careful, um, and, and. I need to do a little bit more study on this, but it, it's interesting because Matthew almost seems to want you to sort of blend these parables together a little bit. Jesse Schwamb: Yes. Tony Arsenal: Right. These, these, there's three, um, there's three, maybe four if you count the parable of the treasure in the field. But there's three agricultural parables that have to do with sowing seed of one, of, one way or another. And in each one the seed is something different. And I, it almost seems to me. And then on top of that, the parables are like interwoven within each other. So like right smack in the middle of this, we have the parable. Uh, is given. Then the next parable of the mustard seed, which we're gonna talk about in a future episode, is given, and then the explanation of this parable of the tears is given. Um, and so we have to talk a little bit about it and sort of establish what the seed is, because we just spent three weeks talking about the seed in the par of the sower. Um, or the parable of the, of the soils. And in that parable, the seed was the word of God in this parable. And this is where I think sometimes, um, and again, this is like the doctrine of election in parable form, right? Yes. I think sometimes we read this and we, we misstep because the seed is not, uh, is not the word of God in this. The seed is the believers. Jesse Schwamb: Yes. Tony Arsenal: Right. So the good seed is sewn into, uh, into the field, which, you know, I think maybe there'll be some, we, we can save this for, for next week. But a little sneak peek is, it's not always clear exactly what the field is. Right. And I think we often, we often talk about the field as though it's the church that doesn't necessarily align a hundred percent with how Christ explains the parable. So we'll have to, we'll have to talk through that a little bit. I affirm that it is the church in, in a, a broad sense. Um, but, but the, the way that Christ explains it slightly different, but the, the seed is sewn into the world. The sons of the kingdom of heaven are sowed into the, into the world. And then the seed of the enemy, the bad seed, is the sons of the devil that's also sewn into the world. And so these two seeds grow up next to each other. If we think about the seed here as though it's the word of God, rather than the, the actual believers and unbelievers that elect in the ate, we're gonna make some missteps on how we understand this because we're not talking about, um, the, the seed being, you know, doctrine being sewn into the world. And some of it grows up good and some of it grows up bad or good doctrine and bad doctrine. We're talking about the believers themselves. Sorry, Jesse is mocking my rapid attempt to mute before I cough, which I, I did. That was pretty good. Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that was, that was pretty good. Listen, this is real. Podcasting is how it goes. Yeah, I'm with you. Thank you for pulling out that distinction. 'cause it is critical. We, we have some overlap of course, with Jesus being really ascribed as the farmer, the son of man, right. He's sowing this good seed, but not the word. It's believers or the sons of the kingdom. And it is into his field, which is the world. Part of that world of course, is necessarily the church, right? But while everybody's sleeping, this enemy, the devil, he comes, he sows weeds or unbelievers, the sons of the evil one among this weed, they grow, go up together. And of course, like if I were servants in this household, I'd ask the same thing, which was like, should we get the gloves out? Yeah. Just pull those bad boys out. Like and, and so again, that's why I find it very so somewhat shocking that. It's not just, you could see like Jesus saying something like, don't worry about it now because listen, at the end of all time when the harvest comes, uh, I'm gonna take care of it. Like it's just not worth it to go out now. Right. That's not entirely The reason he gives, the reason is lest they uproot the wheat by mistake. So this is showing that the servants who are coming before Jesus in the parable, in this teaching here to really volitionally and with great fidelity and good obedience to him to want to please him to do his will. He there, he's basically saying, you are not qualified to undertake this kind of horticulture because you're just not either skilled enough or discerning enough to be able to do it right. Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. And you know, I think, um. Maybe just a word of meth methodology too. Um, this parable also flies in the face of all of the, like, parables are not allegories, kind of kind of people. Um, and this is, we talked about this in our introductory episode. You have to take each parable for what it's worth, this parable very much is explained like a traditional allegory, right? Right. [00:35:39] Understanding the Parable's Symbols Tony Arsenal: It's got, it's got several different elements and Christ goes through and the first thing he does is tell you what each element represents, right? The sower is the son of man, the field is the word. The good seed is the sons of the kingdom of the weed. It's like, he's like clicking down all of the symbols and then he explains how all of it works together and like a good, all like a good allegory. Once you understand what each element and each symbol is, the rest of it actually is very self-explanatory, right? When you understand who's what in the parable. The outcome and the sort of the punchline writes itself as it were. And I think this is one of those parables that we would do. [00:36:18] Challenging Our Sensibilities Tony Arsenal: I think we would do well to sort of let marinate a little bit because it does challenge a lot of our sensibilities of what, um, what is real in the world, what is real in terms of our interaction with the world, right? What's real in terms of the role of unbelievers in the life of a Christian, um, whether we can identify who is or isn't an unbeliever. Um, I think we, you know, I, I'm not one of those people that's like, we should assume everyone's a Christian. And I'm certainly not one of those people who's like, we should assume nobody is a Christian. But I think there are a lot of times where we have figures either in public or people in our lives. Like personal acquaintances that have some sort of outward appearance. And, and that's like the key here that that distinction between weeds is a, is not a great translation as you said. Right. Because right. That distinction between wheat and weeds, to go to my analogy, like it's very clear what is grass and what is this like carpeting, knob weed. Like there's no, there's no doubt in my mind, which is the weed and which is the grass. Um, that's not what we're talking about here. And so it does, it does say here, I mean, it implies here that it's not going to be easy to distinguish the difference between exactly. The, a son of the kingdom and a son of the evil one. And I think that's a, that's a. A theological pill that is very difficult to swallow. Yes. [00:37:43] Personal Reflections on Identifying Christians Tony Arsenal: Because a lot of us, um, and this goes back to like what I, what we were saying in the last, the last parable, A lot of us were reared in our Christian faith on sort of this idea that like, you can check your fruit or you can check other people's fruits and you can determine, you can easily identify who's a Christian and who's not. I remember when I was in high school, you know, I got, I was converted when, when I was 15 and, um, I got to high school and it felt very easy to me to be able to identify the people who were play acting Christianity and the people who were real Christians. That felt like the most natural thing in the world to me. Um, it, it's an interesting story, but one of the people that I was absolutely sure was not a Christian. That he was just doing kinda civic Christianity. He was in confirmation 'cause his parents wanted him to. Um, and I had good reason to believe that at the time he was very worldly. He, he, um, did not seem to be serious about his faith at all. There was good reason to make the assessment that I did. And then I ran into him on Facebook like 15 years later and he's a pastor at the Lutheran Church and he's, you know, he loves the Lord Jesus Christ. And he would not explain it as though he had a later conversion story. It's not as though he would say like, well yeah, in high school I pretended to be a Christian. And then, you know, I got through college and uh, I really became like I got converted. He would, would grow this, or he would explain this as slow, steady growth from an immature state that knew the facts of the gospel and in a certain sense trusted that Jesus was his savior and didn't fully understand the ramifications of that. I mean, who did at 15 years old? Mm-hmm. Um. And, and that it was a slow, steady growth to the place that he's in now. [00:39:21] The Difficulty of Distinguishing Believers Tony Arsenal: So I, I think we should take seriously, and maybe this is the takeaway for this week at least, and we can, we can talk about it more, is we should take seriously the fact that the Sons of the Kingdom and the Sons of the evil one in this parable are not only inseparable without doing damage, but in many ways they are not easily distinguishable. Jesse Schwamb: Right. On. Tony Arsenal: Um, and that, that's a baked into the parable. And I think we do spend a fair amount of time and I, I'll. I'll throw myself on on this. You know, this, we, I'm not just saying we, um, we as a genuine statement, like I have participated in this. I'm sure that I still do participate in this sometimes intentionally. Other times, uh, subconsciously we spend a fair amount of time probably in our Christian lives trying to figure out who is a Christian who's not. And it's not as though that is entirely illegitimate, right? The, the, as much as we kind of poke at the, the, um, workers in this who sort of are kind of chumps, right? They're sort of like the idiots in this. They, they don't seem to know how this happened. They propose a course of action that then the master's like, no, no, that's not, that's not gonna work. They can tell the difference, right? They can see that some are weeds and some are are weeds, and they're asking, well, what do we do about it? But at the same time he is saying like, you're not really competent to tell the difference, Jesse Schwamb: right? On Tony Arsenal: a good, uh, a good. Competent farmer could probably go out and take all the weeds out. Just like a really good, I dunno, landscape technician, I'm not sure what you would call it. I'm sure someone could come into my yard and if I paid them enough money they could probably fix this knobby grass, weed, whatever it is. Um, infestation. They could probably fix it without damaging the lawn. Like there are probably people that could do it. I am not that competent person and the workers in this are not that competent person. And I would say by and large in our Christian life, we are not that competent person to be able to identify who is and who isn't, um, a Christian who is or isn't a son of the kingdom versus a son of the devil. Jesse Schwamb: And there's sometimes like we just get history reprised, or it's like, again, the same thing microwaved over and served to you three or four times as leftovers. So it's also gonna remember like any as extension that like any attempt to like purify the church perfectly, and this has happened like donatism in the fourth century I think, or even like now, certain sectarian movements are completely misguided. Yeah. And Jesus already puts that out ahead of us here. It's almost like, do not worry what God is doing because God again is, is doing all the verbs. So here's a question I think we should discuss as we, we move toward like the top of the hour. And I think this is interesting. I don't know if you'll think it's interesting. I, I kind of have an answer, but I, I'll post it here first. [00:42:01] Visible vs. Invisible Church Jesse Schwamb: So the setup like you've just given us is two things. One, we got the visible church, we talk about the visible church. I think a lot across our conversations. Yeah. And we might summarize it, saying it's like the community of all who profess faith, maybe even the community of all who are baptized. Right. Possibly. Yeah. And it's going to include then necessarily as Jesus describes it here, true and false believers. So that's one group. Then we've got this invisible church, which as you said is the elect. Those who are known perfectly to God. So the good seed is those elect true believers. The weeds, then the weeds to me, or the tears, even better, they sound a lot like that. Second and third soils that we talked about previously to some, to some degree. I'm not, I'm not gonna lump them all in because we talked about receiving the word and it taking root, all that stuff, but to some degree, and also probably like a soil one. But here's, here's the way I would define them up and against or in contradistinction to the elector believers. They're the reprobate. They're false professors or they're children of the evil one. Now here's the question, Doni, Alex, I, I think this is very interesting. I'm trying to build this up for like more dramatic effect. 'cause now I'm worried it's not that good. The question is, I'm going to presume that this good seed, the elect, true to believers, the confidence of perseverance of the saints, the justification in sanctification of God's children is in fact though we at some points have our own doubts, it is made fully aware and known to the good seed. That is, we should have, as you and I have talked about before, the confidence that God has in fact saved his elect. So the question that on the other side is for the ta, do the tears always know that they are the tears? Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I mean, you know, I think, um, I've said this before and I, I mean it, and I think it takes probably more. More discussion than we have time for tonight. And and that's fine because we can do as many episodes on this as we want to. 'cause this is our show and you can't stop us actually. Jesse Schwamb: Correct. [00:43:56] Assurance of Faith and False Assurance Tony Arsenal: Um, I've said before that assurance is the proper and rightful possession and inheritance of every Christian. Jesse Schwamb: Amen. Tony Arsenal: Right. So I, I am not one to say that the technical terminology is that assurance is not of the essence of faith. Um, I think we have to be really careful when we say that it's not, but we have to be equally careful when we say that it is. Because if we say that assurance is of the essence of faith, then what that means is someone who doesn't have assurance, doesn't have faith. Um, the reason I say that we can say that is because there's a sense that that's true, right? If you don't believe you're saved, then you don't believe you're saved and you don't trust that you're saved. But that doesn't mean that you always have full awareness of that confidence. And, you know, I think, um, I think. I think you're, you're right that, um, it may not always be, let me put it this way. I, I think that we have to consider the entire life of a Christian when we're, when we're making that analysis. And in a certain sense, like, I'm not even sure we should be making that analysis. That's kind of the point of the, the, um, the parable here, or at least one of the points. But, um, when that analysis is made, we'll, we'll channel a little bit of RC sprawl. It's not as funny when he's actually, uh, gone. I don't really mean channel RC sprawl. We will, uh, speak in the tradition of RC sprawl, um, in the final analysis, whatever that means. Whenever that is. You have to consider the whole life of a Christian, the whole life of a believer. And so there may be times in the life of a believer where they don't possess that full assurance of faith or that that full assurance is weak or that it seems to be absent. But when we look at the entire life of a believer, um, is it a life that overall is marked by a confident trust, that they are in fact children of God? Um, that a confident, uh, a confident embracing of what the spirit testifies to their spirit, to, to borrow language from Romans, I think in, in the life of a true elect Christian, um, that with the perseverance of the saints, uh, with the persistence of the saints and the preservation of the saints, um, I think that yes, those who are finally saved, those who are saved unto salvation, if you wanna phrase it that way. They finish the race, they claim the prize. Um, that assurance will be their possession in their life as a Christian. Jesse Schwamb: Right on. Tony Arsenal: All of that to say, I think there are, are, there's a good case to be made for the fact that there is also people who have false assurance, right? And this is where it takes a lot more, you know, finagling and jockeying and theological explanation of how can we know we have true assurance versus false assurance. You know, it's kinda like that question, like, does an insane person know they're insane? Well, does a false, does someone with false assurance know that their assurance is false? I don't think, I don't think so. Otherwise, it wouldn't be false assurance. Um, if they knew it wasn't real assurance, then they wouldn't have any kind of assurance. So I, I think I agree with you at least where, where I think you're going is that we do have to, we do have to make some judgements. We have to look at our own life, right? Um, there is an element of fruitfulness in this parable, right? We'll talk about that. I, I think we'll get into that next week. But it's not as though this is entirely disconnected from the parable of the soils. Both of them have a very similar kind of. End point. [00:47:20] Final Judgment and Eschatology Tony Arsenal: At the end of all things, at the end of the harvest, when the end of the age comes, and the reapers, the angels are sent, what they're gathering up are fruitful Christians, right in the parable, he sends out the, it's funny be, I love my dispensational brothers and sisters, but in this parable, like the rapture is the rapture of the unbelievers, right? The angels go out and reap the unbelievers first. The, the weeds are bundled up and thrown into the fire, and then the, the fruitful wheat is gathered into the barns. Um, there is this delineation between the fruitless weeds and the fruitful wheat or the, the grain that has borne, you know, borne fruit. That is part of what the, the outward. Elements of this parable are, so we should talk about that more, of what is this trying to get at in terms of not just the difference between weeds and wheat and how that maps up to those who are in Christ versus those who are not in Christ, but also like what is this telling us about the, the end of the age eschatology. All of that's baked in here and we haven't even scratched the surface of that Jesse Schwamb: yet. Yeah, we, we, I, and we just can't, even on this episode, probably, you're right, we're gonna have to go to two so that, I guess it's like a teaser for the next one. I'm told they're with you. It's interesting. I've been thinking about that, that question a lot. And I do like what you're saying. You know, at the end here, it's almost as if Christ is saying at the time of harvest, things become more plain, more evident In the beginning. The chutes are gonna look really, really similar, and you're gonna go in and you're gonna think you're guessing properly or using your best judgment, and you're gonna get it wrong in the end when he sends out those who are harvesting. I liken this passage here in the explanation as you read to us starting in verse 36, how there's this comparison of heat and light. And so there is the heat and light of the fiery furnace into which, as you said, all of those who are the children of the enemy will be gathered up and burned. And then there's that contrast with in verse 43, then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their father. So there is like a reward that comes from the bearing of the fruit and that made evidence by a different type of heat and light. So I do struggle with this question because. It's easy to answer in some ways if we're defining the weeds in pirate or the tears in pirates as false professors typically. Let's say false professors of a nefarious kind, then it seems pretty plain that somebody, right, that the enemy has implanted certain people to stir up trouble with the intention to stir up trouble that is in fact their jam. Or they know that even if they're putting on heirs, that they're in fact play acting that the hypocrisy is purposeful and that it is part of like the missional efforts that they're doing to disrupt what God is doing in the world. So I might think of somebody like when we go, when we're looking in, um, Exodus, and we find that at least to some degree, all of Pharaoh's magicians can replicate everything that Moses is doing. Moses doing that by the power of God. But the magicians are so good and whatever means they're using, but they know, I presume they know they're not, they're not using Yahweh, they're not drawing their power or their influence from Yahweh. Tony Arsenal: Right? Jesse Schwamb: But it's so convincing to the people that Pharaoh is like, eh. Obviously I've seen that before because we just, we just did that here. Come back with your next trick until God flexes his mighty muscles in a really profound way, which cannot be replicated. And at some point there's a harvest that happens there. There's a separation between the two, those who are truly professing, the power that comes from God, the one true God, and those that are just replicating the cheap copy, the one that's just pure trickery and smoke and mirrors. So. That's an easy category. I'm with you. And I'm not saying that this is an invitation to bring the kind of judgment here that we've just spoken against. I'm not condoning this. What I do find interesting though is if the enemy is crafty, is it possible that they're always going to be forms of terror in the world that do feel that they have very strong conviction and belief about biblical things? Maybe there's, there's strong hobby horses or there are misguided directions here that pull us apart, that become distractions. Or maybe it's just even attitudes, uh, things that can be divisive, disruptive, derogatory that again, pull us away. For making the plain things, the main things and the main things, the plain things, which in some ways draws us back to like the whole purpose of you and I talking every week, which is we wanna get back to what the scripture teaches. We wanna follow the our Lord Jesus Christ very, very closely. I'm gonna clinging to the hymn of his rob as we walk through life so that we do not fall to those kind of false convictions. So I'm not, please hear me, loved ones. I'm not trying to call into question your faith as Tony just said. I am saying that there, this is kind of scary, just like we talked about. There are elements of the parables of the, of the soil that were equally scary. And so it's just in some ways to say, we gotta keep our heads not theological, swivel. We, we gotta be about the Lord's business, and we gotta be about understanding through prayer and study and communion with him, what it is that he wants to teach us in the purest way, knowing that the church itself and the world, of course, is never going to be entirely pure. At the same time, it is our responsibility to, as you already said, test for ourselves to understand what is that true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Because some tears are going to be maybe easy to identify and with without, you know, throwing too much shade or. I was gonna say spilling the TI don't think that works here, but I'm not young anymore, so I'm trying to use or or put on blast. Yeah. I'm looking at you Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses. Like it's, it's easier there to be like, yeah, right, this is wrong. It is a false profession, but we've just gotta be careful even in our own hobby, horses not deviates into ground. I think that doesn't preclude us from being children of the light and children of the kingdom, but can still be disruptive or uh, you know, just distracting. But either way, yeah. I think what's scary to me about this is exactly what you said, Tony, is, is could it be that there are people that are very sincere about the Christian faith, but are sincerely wrong? Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Jesse Schwamb: And what does that mean for God's elected purpose? What does that mean for our understanding of how to interact in our churches in the world? Does that make sense? Tony Arsenal: It does. And I'm not sure whether you were trying to set up the, what might be the first genuine reformed brotherhood cliffhanger, but you did. Because we're on minute 54 of a 60 minute podcast, and, uh, there's no way we're gonna get into that and not go for another 60 minutes. So, Jesse, I, I'm, I'm glad that we are taking our time. Um, I know that sometimes it's easy when you put out a schedule or you put out a sort of projected content calendar to feel like you have to stick to it. But I wanna give these parables, the time they deserve and the effort and the, uh, the, uh, study and the discussion that they deserve. And I think the questions you're posing here at the end of this episode are really, really important. And they are questions that this parable forces us to ask. Right, right. It's not as though we're just using this as a launching pad. Um. If the workers can't tell the difference between the, the seed and the, or the, the weeds and the weeds, it's reasonable to think that the weeds themselves may not be able to tell the difference. Right? The sons of the evil one, um, are probably not in this parable, are probably not the people like in the back, like doing fake devil horns, right? And like, you know, like there's, there's probably more going on that we need to unpack and, and we'll do that next week. Jesse Schwamb: I love it. So we've got some good stuff coming then, because we've gotta, this is like, do you ever remember when you were in, uh, you know, doing your undergraduate postgraduate work, you'd get like a topic or an assignment or a paper and you'd be super stoked about it and you start reaching it, be like, okay, researching it. And you'd be like, all right, I've got some good topics here. And then you get into it, you're like, oh, but I'm gonna have to talk about this. And Oh, like before I could talk, I'm gonna have to explain this. Sometimes when we get into these, as you and I have been talking, that's what it feels li

What is the classical Arminian view of human freedom and divine grace? Today, R.C. Sproul examines the teaching of Jacob Arminius and his followers to identify how these views differ from Reformed theology. Request Ligonier's special 500th-anniversary of The Bondage of the Will book by Martin Luther with your donation of any amount. We'll include lifetime digital access to R.C. Sproul's teaching series Willing to Believe and the companion study guide: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/4167/donate   Live outside the U.S. and Canada? With your donation, get the ebook edition of The Bondage of the Will and lifetime digital access to the Willing to Believe teaching series and study guide: https://www.renewingyourmind.org/global   Meet Today's Teacher:   R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was founder of Ligonier Ministries, first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew's Chapel, first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine.   Meet the Host:   Nathan W. Bingham is vice president of ministry engagement for Ligonier Ministries, executive producer and host of Renewing Your Mind, and host of the Ask Ligonier podcast. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts

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.