[RECUSA]

If Jesus atoned for the sin of unbelief of ALL men, then by what sin are men still condemned. If you say Jesus didn't atone for unbelief, you create another dilemma. We were all unbelievers at some time, so we would all be going to hell in the same rowboat. The only other option is that man takes care of some sin on his own. Or substitutionary atonement is false. Why are men still condemned?

[smitty2622]

Blasphemy is the only sin Jesus didn’t atone for. Maybe a study on blasphemy would help to answer your question. Is there more than one way to blasphemy the Holy Spirit? Could final rejection be considered blasphemy?




Peace

[Miscellaneous]

Originally posted by smitty2622
Blasphemy is the only sin Jesus didn’t atone for. Maybe a study on blasphemy would help to answer your question. Is there more than one way to blasphemy the Holy Spirit? Could final rejection be considered blasphemy?




Peace

I really disagree with the whole different views of blasphemy thing. Jesus seemed to mean pretty specifically that speaking in a bad mannor (calling it unholy, satanic, or whatnot) is blaphemy. I don't really think rejection fits the bill.

[t.j]

Originally posted by RECUSA
If Jesus atoned for the sin of unbelief of ALL men, then by what sin are men still condemned. If you say Jesus didn't atone for unbelief, you create another dilemma. We were all unbelievers at some time, so we would all be going to hell in the same rowboat. The only other option is that man takes care of some sin on his own. Or substitutionary atonement is false. Why are men still condemned?

Unless Christ's atonement is applied conditionally on faith and faith is only given to the elect. If that's the case then Christ did indeed die for the sins of all men (He bought all men, even the false teachers of 2 Peter 3), but His payment is only applied to their account on condition of faith (which they did not have).

[smitty2622]

Author Dr. Henry Morris insightfully clarifies the true nature of Pharisees' sin:

"The unforgivable sin of speaking against the Holy Spirit has been interpreted in various ways, but the true meaning cannot contradict other Scripture. It is unequivocally clear that the one unforgivable sin is permanently rejecting Christ (John 3:18; 3:36). Thus, speaking against the Holy Spirit is equivalent to rejecting Christ with such finality that no future repentance is possible. 'My spirit shall not always strive with man,' God said long ago (Genesis 6:3). ...In the context of this particular passage (Matthew 12:22-32), Jesus had performed a great miracle of creation, involving both healing and casting out a demon, but the Pharisees rejected this clear witness of the Holy Spirit. Instead they attributed His powers to Satan, thus demonstrating an attitude permanently resistant to the Spirit, and to the deity and saving Gospel of Christ" [Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Study Bible (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible Publishers, 1995), emphasis added.].


What is the difference between the two types of blasphemy described in Matthew 12? Why is the sacrifice of Christ ineffective as an atonement for the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Respected Christian theologian Dr. F.F. Bruce writes,


"...Speaking against the Son of man might be due to a failure to recognize Him for what He is. So Paul recalls how in his pre-Christian days he thought it his duty to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. But if, having seen the light on the Damascus road, he had deliberately closed his eyes to it and kicked out against the goad which was directing him into the true path, that would have been the sin against the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit persuades and enables men to accept Christ and enjoy the saving benefits of the gospel [John 16:8; 1 Corinthians 2:12-14; Acts 7:51], but if anyone refuses to submit to the Spirit's gracious constraint, preferring to call good evil and evil good, how can the gospel avail for him? The deliberate refusal of the grace of God is the one sin which by its very nature is irremediable" [F.F. Bruce, Answers to Questions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 46-47.].


"Anyone who rejects the Holy Spirit's convicting influence and does not repent will not be forgiven, 'neither in this world, neither in the world to come' (Matthew 12:32)" [Ray Comfort, "The Unpardonable Sin," The Evidence Bible (Gainesville, Florida: Bridge-Logo Publishers, 2001).].


"Jesus thus regards blasphemy against the Spirit--permanently rejecting his identity (Matthew 12:18) as attested by the Spirit's works (12:28)--as the worst of sins" [Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p. 80.].\



So what do ya think???







Peace

[JMcMoss]

Originally posted by Brian Slusser
I really disagree with the whole different views of blasphemy thing. Jesus seemed to mean pretty specifically that speaking in a bad mannor (calling it unholy, satanic, or whatnot) is blasphemy. I don't really think rejection fits the bill.

Matthew 12:31
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

[RECUSA]

Cool smitty. I am going to murder my neighbor tomorrow, but it doesn't matter, huh?

SuperMan even said I could buy salvation afterwards.

[smitty2622]

Actually if you repent and believe yes will still be saved even after killing your neighbor. That’s the point there is no sin that God cannot pardon except the one he said he wouldn’t pardon. And that is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. All other sins have been atoned for.


And I get no idea where you come up with this buying of salvation except for your way of making an emotional plea fro your side. Much like you accuse us of.

Would you care to commit on the article I posted?




Peace

[Miscellaneous]

smitty i read you post and i pretty much disagree with it. Jesus seemed to use the statement that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven whenever the pharacees said that he had an evil spirit in him. (Hence they were calling the Spirit of Holiness evil). If blasphemy would be not believing, then what about those who believed yet refuse to obey?

JC i really don't know what point you were trying to get at so could you explain please?

[smitty2622]

In studying blasphemy it seemed to me that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was calling something obviously of the spirit evil. And this surly is blasphemy but is there more to it? Could it be rejection of the spirit? Hence calling God a liar by not believing his testimony? Many people think of blasphemy in different ways. Still looking into it but seems there is room for different ways of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit..



Peace

[Miscellaneous]

Originally posted by smitty2622
In studying blasphemy it seemed to me that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was calling something obviously of the spirit evil. And this surly is blasphemy but is there more to it? Could it be rejection of the spirit? Hence calling God a liar by not believing his testimony? Many people think of blasphemy in different ways. Still looking into it but seems there is room for different ways of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit..



Peace

You seem to have a good point here. I'll look into it more too.

[Miscellaneous]

Smitty i just though of something. Not trying to form a trick question or anythign but if blasphemy (rejecting the message) is what sends you to hell, what about those who have never heard the message to accept it. What about those who have never heard the name of Jesus, who live in muslim isolated countries who do not believe, but have also never heard? If so by your definition of blasphemy and its use (being the only reason people go to hell) would you assume that these people go to heaven? They have not called the spirit a liar nor really rejected it because they have never heard of it.
Just a thought had in my brain that i though i would throw out (the thought).

[RECUSA]

That's a problem, because the definition of blasphemy doesn't include rejection.

G988
βλασφημία
blasphēmia
blas-fay-me'-ah
From G989; vilification (especially against God): - blasphemy, evil speaking, railing.

Rejection isn't that. Nor does it say in the scriptures that this is why men are eternally punished.

The other dilemma is that one must assume prevenient grace is true to accept the entire smitty post. But it isn't.

[smitty2622]

RECUSA: Rejection isn't that. Nor does it say in the scriptures that this is why men are eternally punished.

Smitty: Blasphemy is more than speaking evil of God, that’s why the Pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy when he said he was the son of man. We know Jesus never credited evil to the Holy Spirit but he was still accused of blasphemy.

RECUSA: The other dilemma is that one must assume prevenient grace is true to accept the entire smitty post. But it isn't.

Smitty: How is that? I wasn’t trying to make a case for prevenient grace. As far as the person living in some remote place that hasn’t heard about the gospel, I believe that all creation testifies to the very existence of God. So that no man is without excuses. I’m not really sure how to show what would happen to that person just as we are not sure what happens to the infant who dies before being able to understand??

[smitty2622]

RECUSA: Rejection isn't that. Nor does it say in the scriptures that this is why men are eternally punished.

What is it that men are punished for then? Would it be unbelief? Not believing, that fits perfect with what I said.




Peace