A friend wrote me recently requesting prayer for his recurring fears of having committed the unpardonable sin mentioned in Matthew 12:31 - "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven."
Here is my response, in which I took a slightly different angle to the issue:
Hey buddy,
I'd be happy to pray that the Lord would send you His comforting peace, the "peace that surpasses all understanding".
I hope you'll permit me to share a few things from the Word of God with you on this topic. My very favorite verse in the Bible is Romans 8:28, and Romans 8 is my very favorite chapter! "God works all things out for the good of those who love Him and who are called according to His purpose." He has called you out for His purposes, many of which are unseen but are (because they are unseen) more permanent than the things which are seen (2 Corinthians 4:18).
Now, follow along to the very next verses, v 29-30.
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
He has foreknown who you are and who you will be and your deliverance in Christ. And look how He takes the whole thing to completion - those who are justified are also glorified. It doesn't say that "most of those whom He justified He also glorified" or "some of those whom He justified". It's "those whom He justified".
Take a look at John 6:
37 - "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."
John 10:
27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
Notice that - they will never perish. But what about those who commit the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Well, they'll perish, but those who are His sheep will never perish. Thus, none of Christ's sheep will ever commit that blasphemy. You might as well say that they are incapable of doing so, incapable of breaking God's powerful protection over their lives in such a way.
1 Peter says just that:
1 Peter 1: 3 - In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, 5who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.
He is protecting you. It's not up to you, and it never was. Do you have faith in Christ and Him alone to save you? Trust Him to bring you thru! If you do not, take this moment, right now, to tell Him, as Psalm 119:94 says, "I am Yours, save me."
Can we know that He is our Lord? Certainly we can.
1 John 5:13 - I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
You may KNOW it. Do you believe in the name of the Son of God?
Galatians 4:6 - Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
More Romans 8:15 - For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God...
Do you call God your Father, your Daddy (that's what "Abba" means)? Notice that, while there is a subjective element to all this, yet also it is a fact that the Spirit testifies to our adoption by God.
Finally, note 1 Corinthians 12:3 - Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
Do you say "Jesus is Lord" and mean it? This is not possible for the lost, unredeemed man. Take heart in that, my friend. Salvation is God's work and arena, not yours. And thank God for that - the stuff we do is why we need forgiveness, salvation, and redemption in the first place! God is our rescuer.
Here's a useful article to start thinking about this sin biblically.
I'll be praying for you. May the Lord bless you with His peace.
I have nothing much to say here except to observe that fearing the creator of the universe is upset with you is equally solipsistic--indeed, betrays equal arrogance--as enjoying peace from the belief that the creator of the universe is pleased with you; the insincere raiment of meekness and humility with which Christian thought cloaks itself is a poor substitute for being genuinely humbled by the insignificance of not just each of us but, indeed, of our entire race.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure you really understand biblical theology and thought, then. There's nothing insincere about how I esteem myself - I *am* a worm, disgusting in my sin and loathsome in my kicking against the redemption and purification that Jesus has provided for me.
ReplyDeleteGod is not pleased with me in myself. He is pleased with me b/c "it pleased God to crush (Jesus)" on my behalf. I don't expect you to accept that for yourself, but it's not very decent nor humble of you to act like you can read my mind and thus prove me a liar.
My comment was not particularly about you, nor was it an attempt to prove you a liar or accuse you, specifically, of insincerity. What is insincere is the pretended meekness and humility of Christian thought itself. You might say and, indeed, believe that god is not pleased with you in yourself. Nevertheless, though, at the heart of Christian thought is the fantastic leap of solipsism that the creator the universe is personally aware of the individual, concerned for the individual, interested in the individual and in possession of love for the individual. The knitter of the fabric of space-time...he who confected Alpha Centauri...he who twiddles the knobs on the physical constants... is concerned with YOU (as the individual). Again, in whatever fashion Christian theology might force you to declare yourself a disgusting sinner who is shameful before god’s eyes, this remains a staggeringly arrogant stance to take, in my view.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it a fantastic leap, given Christian presuppositions?
ReplyDeleteWhat's so hard to see about a God Who is all-powerful and omniscient and Who concerns Himself with little things AND big things? After all, "big" to an infinite God means the expenditure of simply a larger numerator over an infinite denominator. It's nothing.
What we have here is just further expression of your stubborn unbelief. Fine. But it's nothing more.
What's far more arrogant is for you, mere man, to call evil what God has called good.
Any moral opinions I articulate, including those in which I deem something (the actions of your god not excepted) evil, are mere expressions of my deepest nature. I am constituted as I am, and I can neither help nor change what might fundamentally strike me as grave evil.
ReplyDeleteThe man-centered pride of your statement is striking. One day, your knee will bow. You who have explicitly chosen to put your blind faith in "evidence" and its power to tell you the truth, ignoring the many problems with your view and the many factors that your worldview doesn't account for, would call the teaching of Jesus "evil"...you're in for a very unpleasant end. May the Lord have mercy on you and not give you the judgment you so richly deserve.
ReplyDeleteRho says:
ReplyDeleteWhy is it a fantastic leap, given Christian presuppositions?
What's so hard to see about a God Who is all-powerful and omniscient and Who concerns Himself with little things AND big things? After all, "big" to an infinite God means the expenditure of simply a larger numerator over an infinite denominator. It's nothing.
I just had to delurk briefly to document this: I agree with Rho again, the second time this year! Sorry, JN, but given Rho's presuppositions, this is a perfectly reasonable stance, and I don't find it arrogant at all.
Of course, Rho's presuppositions have no evidence going for them, so it's a moot point.
How does one seek evidence for presuppositions?
ReplyDeleteRetrace your steps: when did you last see your evidence, where did you go after that?
ReplyDeleteRho asks:
ReplyDeleteHow does one seek evidence for presuppositions?
The same way one seeks evidence for anything: go look for it. If a Christian presupposition is that God exists, you might see if there's any sign of God's existence around.
Seth asks:
Retrace your steps: when did you last see your evidence, where did you go after that?
Er, which evidence of mine are you talking about? That's a rather open-ended question, and I do have a day job. If you mean (a wild guess) my evidence that God does not exist, I don't have any. He could be behind the sofa and not visible to me. Nor do I have evidence that Lord Voldemort does not exist.
But I don't have any evidence that either of them do exist, and I have lots of evidence that people are prone to make up stuff like gods and other powerful beings all the time, for whatever reasons. There are lots of divine entities out there clamoring for attention, and I don't really have time to read all the stories- when was the last time you read Gilgamesh?. No, I'll stick with what the real world tells me- it's simpler and it works.
Thus, until such time as I see evidence for the existence of gods (or Lord Voldemort), I will continue to (provisionally) not believe in them, to save fuss and muss. I hope that answered your question.
I'll stick with what the real world tells me
ReplyDeleteIn other words, he has faith that his senses reliably tell his brain things, that his cognitive faculties reliably and accurately process the info, and that he is reliably correctly interpreting the data. And that data can reliably be evidence for truthful thoughts.
zilch and the JN are very, very faith-full people. It's so ironic that they consider US the fundies.
That's a rather open-ended question, and I do have a day job.
ReplyDelete'Twas a joke ("where'd you leave your keys?"). By all means, please get back to your duties at Hogwart.
Seth: gotcha. Sorry, I'm a bit slow on the uptake this evening...
ReplyDeleteRho: you say
In other words, he has faith that his senses reliably tell his brain things, that his cognitive faculties reliably and accurately process the info, and that he is reliably correctly interpreting the data. And that data can reliably be evidence for truthful thoughts.
So do you, don't you? I'm sure you mean "reliable" with the usual qualifications. It seems the most parsimonious viewpoint, and it works pretty well so far.
zilch and the JN are very, very faith-full people. It's so ironic that they consider US the fundies.
As I said, you have faith in our ability to perceive and reason just as I do. In addition to all these things we both have faith in, you have faith in an unimaginably complex being, who is undetectable by any physical means. Who has more "faith" here? And unless I'm mistaken, the title "fundamentalist" has more to do with believing in the inerrancy of some religious text than in quantity of faith.
yours faithfully, zilch
good preachin
ReplyDeletezilch,
ReplyDeleteWe each have faith. Mine is self-justifying, yours isn't. Plus, you (or at least, y'all atheists) like to trumpet how you believe only that for which there's evidence; my claims can be consistent while that kind of thing is ludicrous.
Anyway, I was using "fundamentalist" in the wider sense, more like "blind faith and militant". I should probably stop saying that, since I decry the sloppy and imprecise usage of the word elsewhere...
Rho say:
ReplyDeleteWe each have faith. Mine is self-justifying, yours isn't.
I agree, if, by "self-justifying" you mean something like "my faith is true because it's true". The question is, is it better to have a self-justifying faith, or just admit you don't know it all?
Plus, you (or at least, y'all atheists) like to trumpet how you believe only that for which there's evidence; my claims can be consistent while that kind of thing is ludicrous.
I don't know about trumpeting. I aim for a more sotto voce effect. My apologies if it occasionally gets out of hand. Your claims can be consistent, if you ignore large portions of the real world and parsimony. Of course, that's your privilege. And I'm not sure what "that kind of thing" you mean that's ludicrous. In any case, it's good to be ludicrous now and again, as long as you don't lose sight of the aludicrous.
Anyway, I was using "fundamentalist" in the wider sense, more like "blind faith and militant". I should probably stop saying that, since I decry the sloppy and imprecise usage of the word elsewhere...
Another place of common ground.
cheers from fally Vienna.