Podcast appearances and mentions of Thomas C Oden

This is part 3 of the Read the Bible For Yourself. Today is the first of two episodes on how to understand and apply the Bible. One of the greatest problems facing Bible readers today is the lifted verse. It's so common to see a verse or even half a verse posted on social media or on a sign somewhere. When most people read a random verse, they impose their own modern context and background information on it. As a result, it's easy to accidentally give a scripture new meaning that the original author never intended. How can we overcome this problem? Context. Today you'll learn about the 5 major contexts that are important to keep in mind when reading the Bible. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2UQeDoPKHA —— Links —— See other episodes in Read the Bible For Yourself Other classes are available here, including How We Got the Bible, which explores the manuscript transmission and translation of the Bibe Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— Exegesis: a careful explanation of a text synonyms: explanation, exposition, elucidation to exegete a text is to understand it correctly so that you can explain it Hunger for Scripture Ask God to give you a desire to read the Bible Two Questions What did it mean to the original audience then? What does it mean to you today? Context, Context, Context Immediate context Canonical context Historical context Geographical context Cultural context Immediate Context Philippians 4:13  I can do all things through him who strengthens me. Putting this verse in context:Philippians 4:10-1410   I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. 11 Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 12 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. 13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me. 14 Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. Canonical Context Leviticus 11:4, 74 But among those that chew the cud or have divided hoofs, you shall not eat the following: the camel, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. …7 The pig, for even though it has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed, it does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. To whom were these statements originally made? Leviticus 11:1-21 The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 2 “Speak to the Israelites: “From among all the land animals, these are the creatures that you may eat. Historical Context Jeremiah 29:11For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the LORD, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope. What were the historical circumstances in which this statement was originally made? Jeremiah 29:1These are the words of the letter that the prophet Jeremiah sent from Jerusalem to the remaining elders among the exiles and to the priests, the prophets, and all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon. Geographical Context John 2:13The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Does this mean Jesus was south of Jerusalem? Actually, here “up” refers to elevation, since Jerusalem is on a hill. People go up to Jerusalem regardless of the direction from which they approach. Cultural Context Abraham and Sarah (nomadic) Solomon (palace life in the United Kingdom of Israel) Daniel (palace life in Babylon) Jesus (Galilee and Judea under Roman occupation) Paul (major Greco-Roman cities) Chronological Snobbery Originally coined by C. S. Lewis, this refers to the judgmental attitude that looks at people in ancient history as unsophisticated, primitive, and inferior. Ancient people were not dumb. They were no smarter or dumber than we are. Some of their technology was rather sophisticated. Literal vs. Figurative Didymus the Blind (ad 313-398): “Abraham entered then into Egypt allegorically by adapting himself as one of the perfect to the imperfect in order to do good to them instead of holding on to virtue as a privilege, as has been said above, but in showing her to all as his sister, in humility, so that by contemplating her they might come to love her. But observe how it is said that the officials saw her. There are in fact in the ranks of the allegorically viewed Egyptians some men who are purer, who have a great capacity for perceiving virtue. And they not only perceived her, but they introduced her to their superior, that is, to the reason that governs them, and they praised her” (On Genesis 228).[1] Sadly, Didymus overlayed the historical narrative of scripture with lessons about treasuring wisdom that were obviously not present in the text. Figurative sections of scripture like Isaiah 55:12 and Revelation 12:4 are fairly obvious. Generally, it's good to interpret the historical, legal, and epistolary portions as literal unless there's a good reason not to. Review: “Exegesis” is the process by which one studies, understands, and explains what a text means. The two questions you must ask when studying the Bible are: (1) "What did this mean to the original audience?" and (2) "What does this mean to me today?" Most errors in exegesis are the result of failing to read the immediate context. Getting a grip on the context of the original writing greatly improves exegesis, including immediate context, canonical context, historical context, geographical context, cultural context, and technological context. While reading historical narratives, law, biographies, and epistles, you should privilege literal interpretation over figurative, recognizing that exceptions can happen. If you don't understand something, just keep going. Figuring out the big picture can help immensely to understand the minutiae. [1]Sheridan, Mark and Thomas C. Oden, eds., Genesis 12–50 Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 2. ICCS/Accordance electronic edition, version 2.8. InterVarsity Press: 2002, Downers Grove.

Notes Download Exegesis Hunger for Scripture Two Questions What did it mean to the original audience then? What does it mean to you today? Context, Context, Context immediate context canonical context historical context geographical context cultural context Immediate Context Philippians 4.13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me. Putting this verse in context: Philippians 4.10-14 10   I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. 11 Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 12 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. 13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me. 14 Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. Canonical Context Leviticus 11.4, 7 4 But among those that chew the cud or have divided hoofs, you shall not eat the following: the camel, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. …7 The pig, for even though it has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed, it does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. To whom were these statements originally made? Leviticus 11.1-2 1 The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 2 “Speak to the Israelites: “From among all the land animals, these are the creatures that you may eat. Historical Context Jeremiah 29.11 For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the LORD, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope. What were the historical circumstances in which this statement was originally made? Jeremiah 29.1 These are the words of the letter that the prophet Jeremiah sent from Jerusalem to the remaining elders among the exiles and to the priests, the prophets, and all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon. Geographical Context John 2.13 The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Does this mean Jesus was south of Jerusalem? Actually, here “up” refers to elevation, since Jerusalem is on a hill. People go up to Jerusalem regardless of the direction from which they approach. Cultural Context Abraham and Sarah (nomadic) Solomon (palace life in the united kingdom of Israel) Daniel (palace life in Babylon) Jesus (Galilee and Judea under Roman occupation) Paul (major Greco-Roman cities) Chronological Snobbery Originally coined by C. S. Lewis, this refers to the judgmental attitude that looks at people in ancient history as unsophisticated, primitive, and inferior. Ancient people were not dumb. They were no smarter or dumber than we are. Some of their technology was rather sophisticated. Literal vs. Figurative Didymus the Blind (ad 313-398): “Abraham entered then into Egypt allegorically by adapting himself as one of the perfect to the imperfect in order to do good to them instead of holding on to virtue as a privilege, as has been said above, but in showing her to all as his sister, in humility, so that by contemplating her they might come to love her. But observe how it is said that the officials saw her. There are in fact in the ranks of the allegorically viewed Egyptians some men who are purer, who have a great capacity for perceiving virtue. And they not only perceived her, but they introduced her to their superior, that is, to the reason that governs them, and they praised her” (On Genesis 228).1 Sadly, Didymus overlayed the historical narrative of scripture with lessons about treasuring wisdom that were obviously not present in the text Figurative sections of scripture like Isaiah 55.12 and Revelation 12.4 are fairly obvious. Generally it's good to interpret the historical, legal, and epistolary portions as literal unless there's a good reason not to Review: Exegesis is the process by which one studies, understands, and explains what a texts means. The two questions you must ask when studying the bible are (1) “What did this mean to the original audience?” and (2) “What does this mean to me today?” Most errors in exegesis are the result of failing to read the immediate context. Getting a grip on the context of the original writing greatly improves exegesis, including immediate context, canonical context, historical context, geographical context, cultural context, and technological context. While reading historical narratives, law, biographies, and epistles you should privilege literal interpretation over figurative, recognizing that exceptions can happen. If you don’t understand something, just keep going. Figuring out the big picture can help immensely to understand the minutiae. Sheridan, Mark and Thomas C. Oden, eds., Genesis 12–50 Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 2. ICCS/Accordance electronic edition, version 2.8. InterVarsity Press: 2002, Downers Grove.The post 3: How to Read the Bible in Context first appeared on Living Hope.

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.

This episode of Remonstrance is entirely devoted to the question, “What is the will of God?” We first discuss the Calvinist understanding of the will of God to provide context for the Arminian understanding. We also look at Calvin's distinction between the decretive and prescriptive will of God. We then discuss the philosophical differences between Voluntarism and Intellectualism. It is more important than you might think. We then look at the distinction between the Antecedent and Consequent will of God that Arminius emphasized in his theological writings. We then look at the question of divine determinism and look at how Thomas C. Oden explains how God governs the world according to His will. We hope you are blessed by this episode!

In this episode, the group discusses whether Jesus Christ actually had to die to fulfill the atonement for our sins and the significance of His sacrifice on the cross. References: Tim Keller, author John Stott - "The Cross of Christ" Fleming Rutledge - "The Crucifixion" Thomas C. Oden - "Classic Christianity"  Email - wherewebegin@lightengroup.org Website - https://lightengroup.org/ (https://lightengroup.org) Give -  https://lightengroup.org/give/ (https://lightengroup.org/give/)

Andrew and Abi share their thoughts on the church as we start 2022: ⏵What trends do we see locally and beyond? ⏵What new challenges do we see on the horizon? ⏵How are we trying to meet those challenges? ⏵Are we optimistic or pessimistic about the church in 2022? Our listener question for today's show is: "What are some best ways to stay encouraged and focused on disciple-making?" We end with book recommendations for your new year. Subscribe to Andrew's new Disciple Notes blog: https://jandrewstroud.substack.com/ Books mentioned on today's show: ⏵The African Memory of Mark by Thomas C. Oden – https://amzn.to/3GA0TIw ⏵The Subversion of Christianity by Jacques Ellul – https://amzn.to/3fi7V8T ⏵The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark – https://amzn.to/3tsyvER ⏵The God Who is There by Francis Schaeffer – https://amzn.to/3I1ekBE Chapters (0:00) Intro (3:00) What are some best ways to stay encouraged and focused on disciple-making? (11:03) Conversation on the State of the Church As We Start 2022 (31:56) Books we're reading to start the new year Original Release Date: 1/13/2022 Want to suggest a question for us to cover on the show?

Thomas C. Oden, Classical Pastoral Care: Volume Three - Pastoral Counsel. Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI. (1987) 2000.

The year was 1884. We remember Prince Owusu-Ansa of Asante. The reading is from Thomas C. Oden's "How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind: Rediscovering the African Seedbed of Western Christianity." — FULL TRANSCRIPTS available: https://www.1517.org/podcasts/the-christian-history-almanac GIVE BACK: Support the work of 1517 today CONTACT: CHA@1517.org SUBSCRIBE: Apple Podcasts Spotify Stitcher Overcast Google Play FOLLOW US: Facebook Twitter Audio production by Christopher Gillespie (gillespie.media).

In this episode, Captain Dr. Jon Gainey explains the process of conversion as it relates to the order of salvation in Wesleyan-Arminian soteriology. Bibliography: Thomas C. Oden, Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology

In this episode, Captain Dr. Jon Gainey teaches about the Christian Atonement and goes through 7 atonement theories offered throughout Church history. Bibliography: Salvation Story: Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine John Wesley's Teachings: Volume 2, Christ And Salvation, Thomas C. Oden N.T. Wright: “Do You Believe in Penal Substitution” Online, August 9, 2020 @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkXI3... Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology, Thomas C. Oden

We consider the year 1766, and preacher Jonathan Mayhew. The reading is from Thomas C. Oden's, "Classic Christianity." — FULL TRANSCRIPTS available: https://www.1517.org/podcasts/the-christian-history-almanac GIVE BACK: Support the work of 1517 today CONTACT: CHA@1517.org SUBSCRIBE: Apple Podcasts Spotify Stitcher Overcast Google Play FOLLOW US: Facebook Twitter Audio production by Christopher Gillespie (gillespie.media)

The crew receives a visit from Fr. Thomas Weinandy. He is a Franciscan Capuchin priest, systematic theologian, long-time professor, and author of many books. In his latest--Jesus Becoming Jesus: A Theological Interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels--Thomas focuses on the doctrine and theology of the synoptic gospels, zooming in closely on the acts of Jesus in his earthly life, and the mysteries of the faith as the Lord becomes Yahweh Saves. The conversation emphasizes the importance of connecting the saving acts of God in the person of Jesus Christ, and the orthodox doctrines of immutability and impassibility. Hear what Fr. Weinandy says about holding both together in preaching, and what is truly essential for our salvation. Show Notes About Thomas Weinandy Does God Suffer? Thomas C. Oden Theologian John Webster

In this episode of the 5 Leadership Questions podcast, Todd Adkins and Chandler Vannoy are joined by Justin Murff, director of The MENA Collective. They discuss responding to current COVID-19 circumstances as churches move to digital platforms and focusing on family during challenging ministry times. BEST QUOTES "Are we the kind of church that is making a difference in the life of our community and our city, or are we just occupying space and having a good social gathering on a Sunday morning?""Use the tools that you have at your disposal. Facebook Live is a great tool. Zoom is a great tool.""Your congregation needs to see you. They need to hear you. They don't just need to get an email.""We are facing, for the first time in our country's history, we most likely will not be able to gather as a church to celebrate Easter. That is profound.""When we think about digital church it is going to expand some of our boundaries, particularly when we talk about our ordinances or sacraments." "Use what you have, think through it, and use your tradition to best of your ability. We may see God do something completely new.""Take you Sunday School classes into Facebook Groups. Use those opportunities and those technologies that are there.""This is a great opportunity to onboard and recruit that army of digital natives that are in your church that have been there honestly thinking, 'Do I even belong here? Where is my place to serve?'" RECOMMENDED RESOURCES LifeWay Leadership Podcast Network LifeWay.com/CoronaVirus The MENA Collective The African Memory of Mark by Thomas C. Oden Blue Ocean Strategy by W. Chan Kim and Reneee Mauborgne This episode's sponsor: For more than 25 years, Portable Church® has helped thousands of churches launch strong and thrive in a mobile setting. They design custom solutions that fit each budget, vision, and venue. Everything you need to launch a mobile church — an inviting worship space, kids ministry areas, welcome spaces, storage cases, etc — all in a system refined to make it fast, easy & fun for the weekly volunteer teams.

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.”

In this episode we will continue discussing the very important (and controversial) topic of falling away or Christian apostasy. This time we will briefly discuss the views of John Wesley primarily using Thomas C. Oden's book "John Wesley's Teaching Volume 2: Christ and Salvation." We then talk about the similarities between the views of Wesley and Arminius. Next we discuss how both "once saved always saved" and "once saved barely saved" are dangerous extremes and neither are biblical. We will then briefly discuss some of the small differences between Arminius and Wesley which primarily have to do with language and emphasis. Finally, we wanted to let you all know about some great Wesleyan-Arminian theology books available through the Fundamental Wesleyan Society. If you are interested follow the link below.  FWP Bookstore John Wesley's Teachings by Thomas C. Oden

  Today's episode is a beginning. It does not YET represent rigorous research, but only a skimming. My opinion at the beginning of this journey is a middle opinion. Call me a Shroud agnostic, at least for now. There are Shroud atheists out there that quickly and completely dismiss the Shroud. They may be right, but I'm not sure they've thoroughly researched their conclusions. Likewise, many faithful Shroud believers seemingly assume its real and don't really interact with some legitimate reasons for debunking. The fact is that there is pretty solid evidence on both sides, which probably explains why The Shroud still has its believers and detractors. This is not a religious issue for me - I am firmly convinced that Jesus rose from the dead with or without The Shroud, and even wrote a book about the resurrection of Jesus. (Easter: Fact or Fiction.) Why should I - a Baptist preacher who doesn't believe at all in the Roman Catholic concept of relics or icons,  do a long series on the Shroud of Turin? Protestants have taken two positions on the Shroud over the years. I can neatly frame those two positions by quoting from two of my heroes, Charles Spurgeon and C.S. Lewis: On the negative, anti-Shroud side, we have Charles Spurgeon:  Spurgeon on the Shroud: Do you not think, too, that some seekers miss comfort because they forget that Jesus Christ is alive? The Christ of the Church of Rome is always seen in one of two positions—either as a babe in his mother's arms, or else as dead. That is Rome's Christ, but our Christ is alive. Jesus who rose has “left the dead no more to die.” I was requested in Turin to join with others in asking to see the shroud in which the Saviour was buried. I must confess that I had not faith enough to believe in the shroud, nor had I curiosity enough to wish to look at the fictitious linen. I would not care a penny for the article, even if I knew it to be genuine. Our Lord has left his shroud and sepulchre, and lives in heaven. To-night he so lives that a sigh of yours will reach him, a tear will find him, a desire in your heart will bring him to you. Only seek him as a loving, living Saviour, and put your trust in him as risen from the dead no more to die, and comfort will, I trust, come into your spirit. C. H. Spurgeon, “A Gospel Sermon to Outsiders,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 23 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1877), 701–702. On the more open side and curious side, we have C.S. Lewis:  Dear Sister Penelope I am ashamed of having grumbled. And your act was not that of a brute—in operation it was more like that of an angel, for (as I said) you started me on a quite new realisation of what is meant by being ‘in Christ', and immediately after that ‘the power which erring men call chance' put into my hands Mascall's two books in the Signpost series which continued the process.102 So I lived for a week end (at Aberystwyth) in one of those delightful vernal periods when doctrines that have hitherto been only buried seeds begin actually to come up—like snowdrops or crocuses. I won't deny they've met a touch of frost since (if only things would last, or rather if only we would!) but I'm still very much, and gladly, in your debt. The only real evil of having read your scripts when I was tired is that it was hardly fair to them and not v. useful to you. I enclose the MS. of Screwtape. If it is not a trouble I shd. like you to keep it safe until the book is printed (in case the one the publisher has got blitzed)—after that it can be made into spills or used to stuff dolls or anything. Thank you very much for the photo of the Shroud. It raises a whole question on which I shall have to straighten out my thought one of these days. yours sincerely Clive Lewis C. S. Lewis, The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed. Walter Hooper, vol. 2 (New York: HarperCollins e-books; HarperSanFrancisco, 2004–2007), 493–494. I note here that Lewis had the picture of the head of the Shroud of Turin framed, and it hung on the wall of his bedroom for the rest of his life. On this particular issue, count me with C.S. Lewis - at least for now. While I believe Spurgeon is correct in condemning Shroudish idolatry, or the worship of The Shroud, I think he was too hasty in his conclusion that The Shroud was an absolute fake. It certainly may be, but it would appear that Spurgeon's theological prejudice against the Roman Catholic church led him to dismiss the Shroud's genuineness as a possibility, rather than some scientific, theological or historical reason. Top Ten Facts about the Shroud of Turin:  1 Coins in eyes.  Perhaps the most compelling ‘fact' about The Shroud is not a fact in everybody's eyes. I've erased and retyped that sentence now twice, because it was a legit, “no pun intended.” line. Be that as it may, researchers have apparently discovered what may be coins in the place of the eye-sockets on the image of the man in The Shroud. (Because the image is so small, there is heavy debate about this ‘discovery.')  We are going to possibly spend an entire episode on this one issue, so I'm not going to go too deeply into it now, but the supposed coins at least appear to be first century coins - and there is some evidence - scant, but some - that Jewish people of the first two centuries were buried with coins in their eyes.   2. You've probably heard that The Shroud was carbon 14 dated and found conclusively to be a medieval hoax. That conclusion was highly debated in the 1980s, and has been ever since. More recently, data has surfaced that has cast more doubt on the original conclusion. Researcher Tristan Casabianca and his team were able to gain access to the raw data of the original 1989 dating, and found some significant issues. In a recent interview with the French “New Man” magazine, Casabianca says: “In 1989, the results of the shroud dating were published in the prestigious journal Nature: between 1260 and 1390 with 95% certainty. But for thirty years, researchers have asked the laboratories for raw data. These have always refused to provide them. In 2017, I submitted a legal request to the British Museum, which supervised the laboratories. Thus, I had access to hundreds of unpublished pages, which include these raw data. With my team, we conducted their analysis. Our statistical analysis shows that the 1988 carbon 14 dating was unreliable: the tested samples are obviously heterogeneous, [showing many different dates], and there is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the sheet, are representative of the whole fabric. It is therefore impossible to conclude that the shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages.”  As I mentioned at the beginning - I'm a Shroud agnostic at this point. I've heard various reasons to debunk the 1989 dating of the Shroud for years, and I've heard people confidently quote that dating as if that completely and utterly convinced them. I remain unpersuaded either way...at this point. 3.. The blood stains on The Shroud appear to be human blood. From Historycollection.co: Many skeptics regarding the Shroud of Turin's authenticity have long claimed that the image seen on the linen cloth is nothing more than a figure that an artist painted. In 1978, scholar John Jackson got permission from the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist to carry out tests to determine what kind of paint may have been used. What he found when he tested pieces of the cloth is that no binding or mixing agents were used in the color, meaning that it did not correspond with the known painting practices of the fourteenth century. In fact, what was used to create the image on the shroud wasn't paint at all. It was blood. Jackson's truly astounding find, though, was that it was human blood on the shroud. The blood type has been identified as type AB. Furthermore, there are two distinctive types of blood found on the cover: pre-mortem blood, the kind before a person dies, and post-mortem, which has undergone changes following death.  4.  The Shroud has withstood the rigors of time, and multiple disasters. This, of course, doesn't guarantee its authenticity, but it is curious. In 1503, the Shroud was displayed at Bourg-en-Bresse for Archduke Philip the Handsome, who was the grandmaster of Flanders. A contemporary account by a courtier that was present named Antoine de Lalaing writes about the 1503 display of the Shroud: "The day of the great and holy Friday, the Passion was preached in Monsignor's chapel by his confessor, the duke and duchess attending. Then they went with great devotion to the market halls of the town, where a great number of people heard the Passion preached by a Cordeilier. After that three bishops showed to the public the Holy Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and after the service it was shown in Monsignor's chapel." Of more interest to us here, Lalaing also mentions that the authenticity of The Shroud is seemingly proved  by its having been tried by fire, boiled in oil, laundered many times 'but it was not possible to efface or remove the imprint and image.' 29 years after Lalaing wrote this, the entire chapel that held The Shroud burned, and its protective case melted. The Shroud itself suffered little damage beyond some scorching and one small hole that was brought about by melted silver dripping through. 5. Whether you believe the Shroud is the true burial cloth of Jesus or not, all agree that the Shroud is very old and very fragile. Most cloth from hundreds of years ago has long since disintegrated, so to protect the Shroud from damage, it is kept inside a hermetically sealed box that is filled with 99.5 percent argon and .5 percent oxygen. Why argon? Well, if you remember your high school chemistry, then you might remember that Argon is a noble gas, and noble gases are largely inert, meaning that they don't react with many other elements. This means that decay and breakdown are much less likely6. The burial cloth of Jesus is indeed mentioned in the Bible.  Luke 23: 50 There was a good and righteous man named Joseph, a member of the Sanhedrin, 51 who had not agreed with their plan and action. He was from Arimathea, a Judean town, and was looking forward to the kingdom of God. 52 He approached Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 53 Taking it down, he wrapped it in fine linen and placed it in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever been placed. Luke 24: 9 Returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven and to all the rest. 10 Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them were telling the apostles these things. 11 But these words seemed like nonsense to them, and they did not believe the women. 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. When he stooped to look in, he saw only the linen cloths. So he went home, amazed at what had happened. John 19: 40 Then they took Jesus' body and wrapped it in linen cloths with the aromatic spices, according to the burial custom of the Jews. 41 There was a garden in the place where He was crucified. A new tomb was in the garden; no one had yet been placed in it. 42 They placed Jesus there because of the Jewish preparation and since the tomb was nearby. John 20: 3 At that, Peter and the other disciple went out, heading for the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and got to the tomb first. 5 Stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, yet he did not go in. 6 Then, following him, Simon Peter came also. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. 7 The wrapping that had been on His head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself. It is quite significant that both Luke AND John mention the burial cloth of Jesus. Luke is part of what is called the synoptic gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke. They are considered highly related and all three contain very similar wording and material in places, which have caused some to speculate that there was an earlier oral (or written) source that all three accounts drew from, sometimes that source is called ‘Q,' which stands for the French word Quelle (which means ‘what' in French, but can also mean ‘source.' John, however, is not usually considered to be derived from the Q source, so it is an additional layer of attestation that Jesus was buried in a linen cloth. 7. It is also mentioned multiple times by Early Church Fathers. For instance: ORIGEN (184-253 AD): “He wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and put it in a new tomb” where no one was buried, thus preserving the body of Jesus for its glorious resurrection. But I think that this shroud was much cleaner from the time it was used to cover Christ's body than it ever had been before. For the body of Jesus retained its own integrity, even in death, so that it cleansed everything it touched and renewed even the new tomb which had been cut from rock.  Manlio Simonetti, ed., Matthew 14-28, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 300. HILARY OF POITIERS (310-367): Joseph of Arimathea, having asked Pilate to return Jesus' body, wrapped it in a shroud, placed it in a new tomb carved out from a rock and rolled a stone in front of the entrance to the tomb. Although this may indeed be the order of events and although it was necessary to bury him who would rise from the dead, these deeds are nevertheless recounted individually because each of them is not without some importance. Joseph is called a disciple of the Lord because he was an image of the apostles, even though he was not numbered among the twelve apostles. It was he who wrapped the Lord's body in a clean linen shroud; in this same linen we find all kinds of animals descending to Peter from heaven.7 It is perhaps not too extravagant to understand from this parallel that the church is buried with Christ under the name of the linen shroud.8 Just as in the linen, so also in the confession of the church are gathered the full diversity of living beings, both pure and impure. The body of the Lord, therefore, through the teaching of the apostles, is laid to rest in the empty tomb newly cut from a rock. In other words, their teaching introduced Christ into the hardness of the Gentile heart, which was uncut, empty and previously impervious to the fear of God. And because he is the only one who should penetrate our hearts, a stone was rolled over the entrance to the tomb, so that just as no one previous to him had been introduced as the author of divine knowledge, neither would anyone be brought in after him. From Hilary's commentary on Matthew.  Manlio Simonetti, ed., Matthew 14-28, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 300. BEDE: The vanity of the rich, who even in their graves cannot do without their riches, receives its condemnation from the simple and unassuming interment of the Lord. Hence indeed the custom of the church was derived, that the sacrifice of the altar should not be commemorated by wrapping the elements in silk, or any colored cloth, but in linen; as the body of the Lord was buried in clean fine linen Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall, eds., Mark (Revised), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 227. 8. Sadly, devotion to the Shroud (which might be idolatry...more on this later) has actually led to deaths. For example, in May of 1647 at a public showing of the Shroud, some members of the large crowd die of suffocation. What a terrifying way to go!  9. In September of 1939 at the dawn of World War 2, the Shroud is secretly taken to the Benedictine Abbey of Montevergine approximately 588 miles away. During the journey, the Shroud passes through Naples and Rome. The Shroud was returned to Turin in 1946, post war. In explaining the decision to move the Shroud, Father Andrea Cardin (the library curator at Montevergine) wrote, “"The Holy Shroud was moved in secret to the sanctuary in the Campania region on the precise orders of the House of Savoy and the Vatican. "Officially this was to protect it from possible bombing (in Turin). In reality, it was moved to hide it from Hitler who was apparently obsessed by it. When he visited Italy in 1938, top-ranking Nazi aides asked unusual and insistent questions about the Shroud." It should be remembered here that Italy was allied with Germany during WW2, but the Italians still sought to protect their most precious artifact from Hitler.  Interestingly, Father Cardin notes that the Nazis almost located The Shroud, "In 1943 when German troops searched the Montevergine church, the monks there pretended to be in deep prayer before the altar, inside which the relic was hidden. This was the only reason it wasn't discovered." 10. In 1898, Secondo Pia, an Italian photographer, takes the first ever photograph of The Shroud.  Just four years afterwards, in 1902, an agnostic professor of anatomy named Yves Delage wrote and presented a scientific paper (to the Academy of Sciences in Paris) that made a strong case for the Shroud not being a forgery, but a genuine medical artifact. Dr. Delage concluded that the image therein was likely the body of Christ. With that, I'll close this episode with a word from Shroud critic, and personal hero Charles Spurgeon:  Next to this, our faith most earnestly and intensely fixes itself upon the Christ of God. We trust in Jesus; we believe all that inspired history saith of him; not making a myth of him, or his life, but taking it as a matter of fact that God dwelt in very deed among men in human flesh, and that an atonement was really and truly offered by the incarnate God upon the cross of Calvary. Yet the Lord Jesus Christ to us is not alone a Saviour of the past. We believe that he has “ascended up on high, leading captivity captive,” and that he “ever liveth to make intercession for us.” I saw in the cathedral at Turin a very remarkable sight, namely, the pretended graveclothes of the Lord Jesus Christ, which are devoutly worshipped by crowds of Romanists. I could not help observing as I gazed upon these relics, that the ensigns of the death of Christ were all of him that the Romish church possessed. They may well show the true cross, for they crucify him afresh; they may well pray in his sepulchre, for he is not there, or in their church: and they may well claim his graveclothes, for they know only a dead Christ. But, beloved brethren, our Christ is not dead, neither has he fallen asleep, he still walks among the golden candlesticks, and holds the stars in his right hand.  AMEN.  C. H. Spurgeon, The Sword and Trowel: 1872 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1872), 150.

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.”

Recently, Ligonier Ministries released its 2018 'State of Theology' survey, which it conducted in partnership with Lifeway Research (an initial survey was conducted in 2016). To describe the results of the survey as a disheartening reflection of the condition of the evangelical church in America today would be a gross understatement. So disheartening, in fact, that Darrell and 'Omaha' (Virgil Walker) have decided to dedicate the next several episode of the Just Thinking broadcast to a discussion of the responses contained in the survey. Listen in as the brothers share their initial thoughts on what the survey says many Americans believe about the deity and nature of Jesus Christ. The State of Theology - Ligonier Ministries Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief - John Frame Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine - Wayne Grudem Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth - John MacArthur Systematic Theology - Louis Berkhof (on Kindle) Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology - Thomas C. Oden Help make this podcast possible by support us on Patreon. Click here to partner with us.       Go get your favorite podcast gear! www.thebargear.com     The B.A.R. Podcast Network: The B.A.R. Podcast www.thebarpodcast.com The B.A.R. Facebook: The Bar Podcast The B.A.R. Twitter: @thebar_podcast Just Thinking Podcast: Just Thinking Podcast Just Thinking Podcast Twitter: @podcast_just Just Thinking for Myself blog: www.justthinking.me Kaleoscope blog/podcast: Kaleoscope Kaleoscope Facebook:www.facebook.com/kaleoscope.org The Pastor Discussions Podcast: Website The Pastor Discussions Facebook: www.facebook.com/pastordiscussions

My friend, LaToria Wilson, joins me today for episode #154 for of The Happy Hour. Let me tell you - her amazing hair and big personality aren't all she has to offer. LaToria has an energy that's all her own and brings an eclectic feel to the hip hop music she makes. Through her music, LaToria aims to offer hope, light, and truth while providing an unforgettable experience. She was nominated for Christian Female Hip Hop minister of the year in 2016. Her latest single Pushin Light is now available, and she's set to release her next project, volume 2 of her The Long Walk series, later this year. In our chat today, we talk about how she started pursuing the music industry. We chat about strong female influences and what it was like for her to grow up without her father present. I teetered on the line of talking politics on The Happy Hour as we discussed what this year has been like for her - living in America as a woman of color. And she gives me some great advice, that I think any parent could benefit from, for raising a strong daughter.  This interview was recorded several months ago, and the timing couldn't be better in light of this weekend's events in Virginia. I hope you're able to listen and soak in LaToria's story, her experiences and her perspectives.  {You can listen to the showHERE. And of course, I would love if you would share with your friends. Just use the FB & Twitter links at the end of this post!} Links from the Show LaToria Music Sparrow Conference The Red Couch Podcast Be The Bridge How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind by Thomas C. Oden + Steadfast Love by Lauren Chandler + Oneness Embraced by Tony Evans + The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas + Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson + Warmth of Other Suns by Isabel Wilkerson The Happy Hour #44: Tasha Morrison The Happy Half Hour #29: Tasha Morrison What LaToria is loving: Truth's Table Podcast, head wraps and King Spa Happy Hour Summer Book Club Connect with LaToria Facebook // Twitter // Instagram Connect with Jamie Facebook // Twitter // Instagram Sponsors ZipRecruiter // HelloFresh

This episode of Remonstrance is devoted to the Doctrine of Regeneration. One major question we will be looking into is whether or not regeneration precedes faith (the Calvinist view) or if faith precedes regeneration (the Wesleyan-Arminian view). We will be reading through sections of articles by the Society of Evangelical Arminians (SEA) and discussing them. Then we will move on and look at what Arminius specifically had to say about regeneration and what Wesley specifically had to say about it as well. One interesting point that Arminius brings up is that Calvin actually taught that faith precedes regeneration as well. We make references to a lot of different articles in this episode so make sure you investigate the links below. Also, join become a member of the SEA and buy Thomas C. Oden's "Classic Christianity." Trust us, you need this systematic theology. Links: "Does Regeneration Precede Faith?" http://evangelicalarminians.org/does-regeneration-precede-faith/ "Arminius on Regeneration" http://evangelicalarminians.org/arminius-on-regeneration/ "Calvin on Faith Preceding Regeneration" http://evangelicalarminians.org/calvin-on-faith-preceding-regeneration/ "John Wesley on Regeneration" http://evangelicalarminians.org/john-wesley-on-regeneration/ "Sermon 45: The New Birth" http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-45-The-New-Birth    

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 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 episode of Remonstrance is entirely devoted to the question, "What is the will of God?" We first discuss the Calvinist understanding of the will of God to provide context for the Arminian understanding. We also look at Calvin's distinction between the decretive and prescriptive will of God. We then discuss the philosophical differences between Voluntarism and Intellectualism. It is more important than you might think. We then look at the distinction between the Antecedent and Consequent will of God that Arminius emphasized in his theological writings. We then look at the question of divine determinism and look at how Thomas C. Oden explains how God governs the world according to His will. We hope you are blessed by this episode! Here are some links to articles we discuss: "God's Will In Calvinism and Arminianism" by Roger E. Olson   http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/08/gods-will-in-calvinism-and-arminianism/ "A Much Neglected Basic Choice in Theology" by Roger E. Olson http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/12/a-much-neglected-basic-choice-in-theology/  

This episode is a call to study Wesleyan Theology in a systematic way. As Fred Sanders points out, the Wesleyan-Arminian Tradition is not known for its systematic theologians...but they are out there. In fact, NOW is the best time in history to begin studying Wesleyan theology in a "systematic" way because of the resources that are available!  In this episode we will briefly look at why there was a lack of systematic theologians at the beginning of the Wesleyan Movement. We will then look at the early Wesleyan-Arminian Systematic Theologians: Watson, Summers, and Pope. Then we will talk about Thomas C. Oden's "Classic Christianity." After that we will focus on why NOW is the best time to study Wesleyan Theology in a Systematic way because of the work that Kenneth J. Collins and Thomas C. Oden have done to systematize Wesley's theology for the first time in history!  You should really look into buying "The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace" by Kenneth J. Collins and the four volume set "John Wesley's Teachings" by Thomas C. Oden.  You can find hyperlinks to their books by following this link:  https://wordpress.com/stats/insights/remonstrancepodcast.com  

Umschau http://dailydoseofgreek.com http://dailydoseofhebrew.com Interview mit Thomas C. Oden Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament Literatur Yaroslav Trofimov, Siege of Mecca David A. Croteau: Urban Legends of the New Testament: 40 Common Misconceptions Thomas C. Oden: Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology Alvin Plantinga: Gewährleisteter christlicher Glaube Alvin Plantinga: Knowledge and Christian Belief Thema: „Christ […]