|
|
David Sliker Recommended
|
|
| Sliker on Blaspheming the Holy Spirit | | David Sliker responded to a question about blaspheming the Holy Spirit here:
http://www.ihop.org/Forums/Messages.aspx?ThreadID=1000000300#new
It's a short thread and I'd recommend reading it for clarity before responding here. For some reason I couldn't comment on it there so I'm reposting it here in hopes of resolving the question a little better. Here's the original question in it's entirety:
"I have grown up hearing about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but I have never fully understood it. I know that in Mathew 12:32 it says that blasphemy is the unforgiveable sin. Can anyone explain what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is, I would appreciate it greatly.
- Anna Sellers"
You said, as I read it David, that simply stating that one does not believe in the gifts is not enough for them to commit the "unpardonable sin" since it could just be out of "uncertainty." It would have to be someone who is dead set against these "workings of the holy spirit" such as miracles and "raising the dead." Am I reading that right? I want to be as careful as possible that I'm picking up what you're laying down.
I'll tell you right from the start that I think you're dead wrong in your repsonse. But I also want to qualify that by saying I still think you're a stand-up guy and I don't question your Christianity or your passion because of it. Hopefully this will be enough to hold off the flamethrowers I seem to attract when I post here. I'll try to get to the point.
I'm not looking for the "proof-texts" regarding the Charismatic debate. I've been thru it and know that each side is pretty deeply entrenched in their respective beliefs. It won't get us anywhere to start that debate here. My question is:
Where does that leave people who have indeed said that the miraculous gifts of the NT are definitely not for today?
To make this point a little more relevant, where would that leave someone like John MacArthur? I don't mean what about him as a person. Regardless of what you think of his book "Charismatic Chaos" where does that leave him in God's eyes? He's preached the gospel of Jesus for years and years. He's got a passion for God, for the Word and for the lost. I think that's pretty undeniable. But he does not believe in the gifts of the spirit today. Period. There's no "uncertainty" there, he even wrote the above-mentioned book attempting to refute the gifts today. So does that mean that he is guilty of the unpardonable sin? Is he anathema, or cursed of God?
I'm going to stop here for now so I don't get too far without making sure I'm reading you right. I didn't answer the original poster yet, but I do have a different perspective that I'd like to share if this thread is picked up again.
Blessings,
-drew@jonah
| | drew@ jonah 12/15/2006, 1:10 PM | |
| | David Sliker | 12/15/2006, 6:08 PM | | I think that you have chosen your words well in terms of aptly summarizing your question. I'd love your insight on how you define blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
The actual question: "Where does that leave people who have indeed said that the miraculous gifts of the NT are definitely not for today?" is pretty simple to answer, in my thinking at least. If it's too simple, than we have the beginnings of a great dialogue.
Referring back to my initial posts on the subject, I am not talking at all about the gifts of the Spirit and all of the issues that you are (wisely) looking to steer clear of. I AM, of course, speaking of "power encounters" with the Holy Spirit in which miraculous things happen - but in context I am speaking of a man's heart response to such a manifestation of the Spirit (through someone being healed or raised from the dead, for example) - not an intellectual or theological response.
In other words, there is more (obviously) going on than someone rejecting Charismatic cultural expressions that may or may not be conected to the activity of the Holy Spirit. Having read MacArthur's book some years ago, his main issue beyond the gifts themselves is Charismatic excess and an overvaluing of experience without sound biblical foundation.
In rejecting the gifts of the Spirit from the Word (as being for our day), MacArthur is neither rejecting the ministry of the Holy Spirit nor is he calling clear expressions of power "evil" (IOW, those that are "clearly from God"; again, referring to my earlier post). Subsequently, he is not calling that which is clearly evil "good". BOTH flowing from a seared conscience are evidence to me of someone who could potentially blaspheme the Holy Spirit - or say a clear "No!" to God as He expresses Himself in the natural realm in a clear supernatural manner.
To restate - it is blasphemy to call the work of the Holy Spirit the work of the devil, in context to Matt. 12:22-32. Cessationists are NOT committing blasphemy in having a firm, biblical conviction that the gifts were a unique expression of 1st century apostolic ministry. In calling the clear work of the Holy Spirit (in a manner that glorified the Son) a "demon", the Pharisees were revealing the true condition in regards to their hardened hearts and seared consciences.
Specifically, John shows us in Revelation the men who have the mark and worship his image (Rev. 16:2) who will blaspheme the name of God unrepentantly (Rev. 16:9, 11, & 21) because of the reprobate condition that I believe is what Paul was speaking of in Rom. 1:18-32 and 1 Tim. 4:2. Men become so twisted in their rejection of God that they cannot discern what is good and what is evil - the glory of God is seen as evil and the works of darkness are considered good - and thus they blaspheme God.
Obviously, John MacArthur is nowhere near this place. Few are. Paul speaks, chillingly, of those who are "filled" with ALL unrighteousness having a debased mind who "...not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them" (Rom. 1:32) or call evil "good." They are "seared" in their conscience (1 Tim. 4:2) and give heed to deceiving spirits who do not love the truth but "had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess. 2:12). These are the ones whom I believe are in danger of blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
Thanks for jumping in here!
David
| | | drew@ jonah | 12/16/2006, 1:35 PM | | Thanks David,
That does clear up the position a little bit. Here's where I think it lacks. I think it leaves the door open for folks like Benny Hinn and all who will use the argument that questioning their ministries is equal to calling their "works of God" the works of the devil. I think that people get too eager to warn against criticizing the "manifestations" and they ignore the majority of the New Testament that calls believers to be discerning and also Matt. 7:22.
Also, MacArthur has said that the manifestations of today CANNOT be of God. I'm just saying this for posterity's sake. I know his views are not popular among charismatics and I want to make sure that they are at least referenced. Is he still safe by your views? Let me also say that even if someone was raised from the dead in front of me (even tho and probably because there there is NO relieable, scientifically verifiable proof of this happening since the Apostolic era) I would be skeptical on the grounds of Matt. 24:24.
What I'm driving at is that the "ministry" of the Holy Spirit in a lot (not all) of Charismatic circles tends to focus on the gifts, the gifts, the gifts. What my fear is in this situation is that it glazes over or minimizes the primary role of the Holy Spirit. He initially comes to convict the world of sin and is active in illuminating the Scriptures to us. So blasphemy of the Spirit would be a cold-hearted response to that initial prompting. You don't have to be a Calvinist to see that God loved us first and that if it were not for the Spirit convicting our hearts, we could never come to him on our own. Maybe that's a little too "total depravity" for some readers, but even John Wesley has been jokingly referred to as a one-point Calvinist.
So I guess we are not too far apart in our views, it's just the emphasis of the Holy Spirit's primary role. For the record, I consider myself a "qualified cessationist." I believe that the gifts passed away with the Apostles. But I also believe that God is Sovereign and in being so, is capable of doing whatever he wants whenever he wants. I think that connecting blasphemy of the Spirit to the gifts is dangerous because it discourages discernment of "manifestations" by biblical standards. And I believe that true blasphemy of the Spirit is a matter of Salvation. Those who are convicted by the Spirit and do not respond are going to go to hell. They are anathema. They have denied the Holy Spirit's promptings and cannot be saved. That's my thoughts.
| | | Jonathan (Guest) | 12/16/2006, 1:48 PM | | It seems in opinion to be a completely different issue. Men like John McArthur do not deny the Holy Spirit nor do they deny His testimony that He gives that Jesus is the Son of God.
I have always understood the blasphmy of the Holy Spirit to be the denying of His witness valling it the work of demons, not the Spirit of God.
i know that i am probably out of my league and will get slmmed for this but in my understanding those who do not believe in the gifts for today - do not deny the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit in the life of the beliver, the preaching of the gospel and the conviction of the sinner. So in not believing in the gifts being for today they couldnt be blaspheming the spirit, rather they are just missing out on one aspect of His ministry... (and that is even debatable because they still believe for the most part that miracles and the gifts were at one time in operation).
The unparadonable sin is looking at every kind of the spirits witness and willfully choosing not to accept it.
maybe? maybe not?
| | | David Sliker | 12/16/2006, 5:51 PM | | Drew,
I agree with your assessment. I think it is a sound point that some could use Matt. 12 as a "proof-text" to insulate their ministries from correction. It is totally true that I need to work on my language to communicate the idea for clarity's sake.
Again, I do not feel like MacArthur comes anywhere near fitting my definition of what I understand the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to involve related to the internal searing of the conscience that approves of the practice of all unrighteousness (Rom. 1:32) while also speaking against the Holy Spirit as He glorifies the Son (Matt. 12:32). They were speaking against the work of the Holy Spirit, not just rejecting internal promptings (though clearly one must happen for the other to occur). "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Matt. 12:34) - the blasphemous words (and corresponding zeal) of the Pharisees were the external evidence of hearts that were abundant in wickedness, in which they were in a precarious position in regards to Jesus' warning to them.
While a ministry might erroneously apply that passage as a defense against criticism (where they would be better served to take the Lk. 6:22 road of meekness) I do not want to water down the definition and remove the context (or content) of Jesus' words. Not that you are doing this - my point is that I don't want to avoid the context in order to solve a different problem (removing a textual reason for ministries to defend themselves from criticism). I would want to address the issue of ministries that feel the need to defend themselves from criticism rather than choosing lowliness and humility. OR, addressing your concerns, remind believers to love truth not a teacher's version or interpretation of it. We continually chalenge students of the word to challenge everything. This frees me to address the passage as Jesus said it rather than looking to remove a bogus argument.
My concern with a clear theology of Matt. 12:22-32 is a pastoral one. As I am not a Calvinist, I want to preach and teach in such a manner that honors truth and prepares believers for the intensity of the coming hour and the manner in which many will forsake the faith (2 Thess. 2:3) and take the journey of Rom. 2:3-10 unto judgement on sin and unrighteousness. The fear of the Lord is partially knit to understanding our propensity in sin and the condition of our deceitful hearts related to the mystery of iniquity (2 Thess. 2:7).
I liked your points that you added in regards to how you see the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit - it is a salvation issue. Where I would think that your definition falls short, however, is that you have somewhat limited the application by which the only people who have committed the unpardonable sin are either non-elect or dead. I would gather that you see it as a theological impossibility for one to commit the B of the HS on any other terms. Since I have different convictions, particularly related to the end of the age (and Rev. 9 and 16), I want to fight for precision and lay hold of the application of what Jesus was saying for every one of us.
I appreciate the irony that this passage is a preface to Matt. 12:39. :)
This is a really helpful dialogue - thanks much for your input.
David
| | | David Sliker | 12/16/2006, 9:34 PM | | p.s. Since there is no scripture in the Bible that attributes the power of life to demons or Satan, nor is there one biblically recorded instance of a counterfeit resurrection, I bet you would respond more favorably than you think to a true resurrection from the dead.
Yes there will be false signs and wonders in the coming days. Using the exodus as a prototype, however, there was nothing that Pharoah's sorcerers could do that could truly match in scope and power what Moses was able to do through the power of God. The only ones in the bible who could raise the dead were those empowered by the Holy Spirit to do so.
In Rev. 13:3, the only possible place where one might attribute to demons the ability to raise the dead, the passage does not actually SAY that the Antichrist dies from his head wound - that is a pre-trib assumption. The passage says that he is healed from a mortal head wound. That will be remarkable, but it isn't knit to the power to breathe life into a dead man.
In terms of an emphasis on the "gifts", any emphasis on the gifts that is wholly divorced from the message of the gospel of the kingdom is not helpful - I would wholeheartedly agree. The power of God manifest in the natural realm by the Holy Spirit is for the purpose of glorifying the Son (not men) and bringing the hearts of men into deep agreement and loyalty in love to Jesus.
David
| | | drew@ jonah | 12/17/2006, 12:32 AM | | David thank you for the response. Irony duly noted you clever, clever man. Your refrain from flamethrowing has been an example to anyone who disagrees with a brother over doctrinal issues. I do mean "brother" in the truest sense. I think that we are on the same page on the issue at hand for the most part. I agree that it is time to gently put to rest the idea that reacting against the "gifts" is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That idea is tired and has created a greater rift btw the cessationists and the charismatics.
I'd be interested to read your book on the end times. I myself tend to hold the subject (of the end of the age) as loosely as I hold the "L" since we're talking Calvinism. I've read that there is some debate as to whether or not Calvin himself held to limited atonement, but since I have a more compatiblist leaning, I would say that the "L" is the weakest argument for Calvinism. 4-point Compatiblist would probably be the closest to my theological position on the subject. Warren Wiersbe was convicted after preaching a sermon on the end times early in his career by a member of the congregation. The congregant said, "I didn't know you were on the the planning committee for the second coming. I'm on the welcoming committee." I don't want to sound trite but there are some things that we as Christians need to be absolutely certain of and things that are not as big of an issue. Examples would be the Atonement, the Trinity, and a host of others... I see the subject on the End Times as one that can be held loosely. I might be wrong but isn't Sam Storms an amil Calvinist who happens to believe in the gifts? Just curious.
Sorry, back on track. Two things. First, I may have gone too far with the "raising the dead" illustration. I was trying to trampoline off of what you said and it didn't work. I quite frankly don't think that it happens at all today (although God can do whatever pleases him and it would defn be consistent with my own view of providence) and you are right that there is no record of this happening in the bible apart from God. But my argument still would describe my skepticism toward the "gifts" today.
Second, if you look at the current condition of the church today with liberalism, open-theism, homosexuals being ordained in the Episcopalian church, rampant universalism (postured by ppl like Billy Graham, NT Wright and George Bush) and the whole emergent movement, would it be safe to say that there already is a great falling away? On my blog it's difficult to get people to even see the bible as objective truth. I think that's pretty severe. It's not just post-moderns that think this. "Prophet" Scott Hicks commented on one of my posts and in his own words described the bible as "full of errors." Another commenter who really didn't like what I was saying actually went so far as to use the argument that Mormons might be right. Now they're not even Christian by their own definition. I think the falling away is happening as we speak and has happened for a long time. The Apostles seemed to talk like the End was eminent. What if the antinomians were "the man who practiced lawlessness?" We can see the promises of Jesus fulfilled in the OT prophets, but you have to admit that hindsight is 20/20 whereas foresight is a little trickier.
Anyway, I know there are a ton of bunny trails and as per your invitation, I'll be back because I think that it is profitable for two sides who disagree to engage in a civil manner. You've proved yourself a gentleman and I hope I've done my part on the matter as well. God bless over the holidays.
| | | Brent Steeno | 12/17/2006, 10:14 AM | | Wow this is a great thread! I dont really have anything to add excpet a thank you to Sliker and Drew. My understanding of the subject is getting clearer by reading this thread.
Its great to see you back on the forums Drew! We need someone to disagree and challenge what we believe every once in a while!
| | | Danny Hibberd | 12/18/2006, 10:23 AM | | If I may, I shall echo Brent's sentiments and thank all participants for a highly informative and insightful conversation. Master Drew, each of your 'bunny trails' seem to contain indelibly useful and intriguing subjects for discussion in and of themselves. It seems that every sentence you write that ends in a question mark has me exclaiming "Good POINT! Now what about that?" before you plough on with your reasoning. Marvelous work, old boy!
Permit me to offer one brief comment on one of your later ponderings, your 'second' of 'two things', and your exploration of the great falling away (I hesitate to take us away from your original entry, but I would dearly love to add to this). You suggest that we may be amidst the said falling away already? You wonder, "would it be safe to say that there already is a great falling away?" I think that the way in which you ask this question leads us immediately to a resounding 'no' - and permit me to explain:
To begin with, we must be sure that the great falling away is given by Paul to the Thessalonians only to reassure them that they had not by any means (excuse my irony) been 'left behind' and missed the return of Jesus. He cautions them that two instantly-recognisable signs to guage the times would be the rebellion (ESV), the falling away, and also the man of lawlessness. I should think that as long as we can ask "has this happened?" or "is HE the man of lawlessness?" then it should be quite clear that neither have arrived. They should be instantly recognisable even to those who are not believers.
Now, in saying this I certainly do not want to belittle your own absolutely valid concerns regarding the state of the (particularly western) church. It is interesting to speculate that the heightened deviation from sound doctrine to which you have referred and cited examples of could even be the seething undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the law of God which will explode into full-blown apostasy and the great falling away when the right catalyst emerges. These are useful speculations, but to use them to assume that Martin Luther's theological detractors were the "man of lawlessness" (men of lawlessness?) or that the great falling away has come and gone is to unfairly spiritualise a very literal passage and place us in danger of spiritualising away the Second Coming itself!
Drew, I very much like your style and manner of discussion, and I laud your impeccable civility as well as your evident intent to discover the Truth. I do hope sincerely to be able to converse with you in the future. It most certainly is great to see you back here.
| | | Brent Steeno | 12/18/2006, 10:49 AM | | I would agree with what Danny said. The great falling away according to 2 Thessalonians 2 is in context with the 2nd Coming of Christ and the Great Tribulation.
I think right now there is a "delusion" happen to some in the body of Christ, exactly what you mentioned Drew. But I see the Great Falling Away or the "Strong Delusion" mentioned in 2 These 2:11 as something that will be far more widespread and evident through out the world at the end of the age.
I see the strong delusions as Romans 1:28 where God gives them over to a debases mind. He lets them go completely after their sin. I think that the Church will be completely shaken by the events of Revelation 17:6 in which God will give those who do not have a "genuine" faith over to the wickedness of their hearts.
Well, those are my incomplete thoughts! Probably will be torn apart in the hours to come but I need clarity on this as well!
| | | drew@ jonah | 12/18/2006, 11:55 AM | | Brent I hope you don't consider this "tearing apart" your comments, or even an attempt to do so. But like I said, I see a lot of popular views on the End to be speculative at best. So I'm not going to argue pre, post, a-mil, or even apostolic pre-mil. I quite frankly don't know and don't think the details are spelled out as "crystal clear" as most people with a strong take on the subject tend to think.
What I do believe with all certainty is that the bible gives us all we need to know. I also believe in accordance with scripture, that the "End Times" began when Jesus ascended. The Apostles, like I said, seemed to treat Christ's return with a sense of expectancy, like it could happen at any time. I think it would be wise to do the same.
"The man of lawlessness" seems to me an ambiguous term. We are given a brief description of him. He's described as someone who sets himself up above all other gods as God. Now I hope you can see that this sin of setting yourself above God is the ONLY sin in the bible. David said "Against you alone have I sinned." When Eve was deceived, it was her desire to be like God that caused it. All other sin springs from this. When you choose your own will apart from God, you are saying that your own will is better than God's. You are essentially saying that you are God. Afterall, only a sovereign can make the right choice. Bruce Ware calls this the de-godding of God. All this to prove that our own will supplanted over God's is an act of "lawlessness."
So where does that leave us in the discussion of blasphemy of the Spirit? Well, that was an admitted bunny trail. But I do want to mention something DS said. Read it in context, but this is what I want to address.
"...This frees me to address the passage as Jesus said it rather than looking to remove a bogus argument."
Question everything? Absolutely. Learn the truth? Of course. But we cannot simply glaze over or ignore the "bogus" arguments, otherwise we are doomed to repeat them. I know you're not saying otherwise explicitly, but I want to clarify. True understanding comes hand in hand with a rejection of the false. I wonder how many wikipedia hits there were on "Arius" and "Pelagius" after my mention of them on the other thread? In an insulated, perfect world, we'd be free to address only the text. But we have to know how the truth is being challenged because it forces us deeper into the truth for the sake of rejecting the false.
|
(page
1
2
3
4)
|
|
|
start of topic
|
|
|
Only members of the **OLD** onething group can post in this forum.
|
|
