Evidence for God from Science

First of all, hello everyone! My name is Martyn and I really enjoyed the site so descided to join the forum. I hope am putting this in the right section, it seemed most appropriate.

My concern is that I have commited blasphemy of the holy spirit, by default.

Without boring everyone, breifly, I was raised a catholic, and, as I left high school (last year), I found myself leaving my christian faith. Over the last year, I have considered myself everything from, atheist, agnostic, deist, pantheist, and everything in between.

I came across a video, which was talking, funnily enough about the matrix movie. And discussing the fact it is, Gnostic. Essentially, the role of God, and the devil are reversed (or perhaps inverted).

As we know, God is the creator, and God is good. The devil is a liar, and seeks to lead you away from God. My understanding of gnosticsm, is that, God is still the creator, but, God has surpressed us in flesh. The devil, is trying to give us knowledge and free us. Therefor, God is the bad guy, the devil is the good guy in gnosticsm.

Now, as I said, during my, sort of tribulation I suppose, for a time, it did appear to me, that, if there was a God, the gnostic idea, ie god being the bad guy, somehow made more sense to me.

And here is my concern. As we know, christ said, when the pharasises accused him of doing his works through the devil, all sin including blasphemy of God, and the son of man will be forgiven, but blasphemy of the holy spirit will not.

This is my concern. Because I felt, that gnoticsm made more sense, doesnt that mean that, by, default, christ is doing his miracles through the devil, in the sense that in gnosticsm, God is the bad guy, so Christ is doing his miracles though him.

I have asked a few people, including preists and I seem to get a mix of answers. Ranging from, well, you can entertain an idea without accepting it in your heart, to, yes you have commited it....... I never thought to myself yes he did do it through the devil, my concern is that it's implied by default.

IF, that makes sense :\ Am still not so sure where I am in my faith, I believe in christ and that he died for our sins, but, it's kind of pointless for me to be a christian if I have commited this sin.

Perhaps my understanding of blasphemy of the holy spirit and gnosticsm is wrong, so if it is a correction would be much appreciated.

Thanks for your time and I appreciate thoughts on this greatly. It kind of keeps me awake at night worrying some times


Martyn

Hi GeneralID,
Welcome to the board.
The understanding I came across years ago is the word blasphemy in both Hebrew and Greek, means to speak evil of.

You might also want to read about Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:2-5

I really hope you haven't committed the unpardonable sin and from your post I don't think you have.

GeneralD wrote:First of all, hello everyone! My name is Martyn and I really enjoyed the site so descided to join the forum. I hope am putting this in the right section, it seemed most appropriate.

My concern is that I have commited blasphemy of the holy spirit, by default.

Without boring everyone, breifly, I was raised a catholic, and, as I left high school (last year), I found myself leaving my christian faith. Over the last year, I have considered myself everything from, atheist, agnostic, deist, pantheist, and everything in between.

I came across a video, which was talking, funnily enough about the matrix movie. And discussing the fact it is, Gnostic. Essentially, the role of God, and the devil are reversed (or perhaps inverted).

As we know, God is the creator, and God is good. The devil is a liar, and seeks to lead you away from God. My understanding of gnosticsm, is that, God is still the creator, but, God has surpressed us in flesh. The devil, is trying to give us knowledge and free us. Therefor, God is the bad guy, the devil is the good guy in gnosticsm.

Now, as I said, during my, sort of tribulation I suppose, for a time, it did appear to me, that, if there was a God, the gnostic idea, ie god being the bad guy, somehow made more sense to me.

And here is my concern. As we know, christ said, when the pharasises accused him of doing his works through the devil, all sin including blasphemy of God, and the son of man will be forgiven, but blasphemy of the holy spirit will not.

This is my concern. Because I felt, that gnoticsm made more sense, doesnt that mean that, by, default, christ is doing his miracles through the devil, in the sense that in gnosticsm, God is the bad guy, so Christ is doing his miracles though him.

I have asked a few people, including preists and I seem to get a mix of answers. Ranging from, well, you can entertain an idea without accepting it in your heart, to, yes you have commited it....... I never thought to myself yes he did do it through the devil, my concern is that it's implied by default.

IF, that makes sense :\ Am still not so sure where I am in my faith, I believe in christ and that he died for our sins, but, it's kind of pointless for me to be a christian if I have commited this sin.

Perhaps my understanding of blasphemy of the holy spirit and gnosticsm is wrong, so if it is a correction would be much appreciated.

Thanks for your time and I appreciate thoughts on this greatly. It kind of keeps me awake at night worrying some times


Martyn

Hi Martyn and welcome to the board.

As long as you live you still have the opportunity to repent and be forgiven ANY sin. Unforgiven sins are sealed at death, not before.

Byblos wrote:...As long as you live you still have the opportunity to repent and be forgiven ANY sin. Unforgiven sins are sealed at death, not before.

This is a true statement and please read John chapter 10 soon.
-
-
-

Absolutely, amen!! CHrist's grace is incredible!!

the bible is clear"blasphemy until death" your not dead so you can repent and be forgiven

The Apologetics Bible wrote: Mat 12:30-32Blasphemy against the spirit means conciously rejecting His incontrovertible testimony to the truth of the gospel (see Heb. 6:4-8. (To blaspheme or speak against the Son of Man seems to to reject the claims of Jesus. Paul blasphemed the Son of Man prior to the Damascus road experience; he would have blasphemed the Spirit had he rejected the Danascus road experience.)

This, then, is the only unforgivable sin, and this saying thus does not contradict such texts as 1 Jn1:9.

There is no biblical evidence that a genuine Christian can commit this sin. Fear that one has done so is probably a good sign that one hasn't, for full fledged apostasy is a defiant rejection of everything Christian and lacks the tender conscience that would be worried about such an action.

I hope this helps with your understanding Martyn.

Certainly does. Many many thanks to everyone

Martyn

Welcome, you will find hope in your faith,

Hi. I just thought I'd post this entry from Hard Sayings of the Bible regarding this topic. It is very interesting, and helpful, it seems to me.


Mark 3:28-29 An Unpardonable Sin? (pp 414-417)

. . . . In real life there are few more distressing conditions calling for treatment by physicians of the soul than that of people who believe they have committed this sin. When they are offered the gospel assurance of forgiveness for every sin, when they are reminded that “the blood of Jesus . . . purifies us from all sin” (1 Jn 1:7), they have a ready answer: there is one sin that is an exception to this rule, and they have committed that sin; for it, in distinction from all other kinds of sin, there is no forgiveness. Did not the Lord himself say so? And they tend to become impatient when it is pointed out to them (quite truly) that the very fact of their concern over having committed it proves that they have not committed it.

What then did Jesus mean when he spoke in this way? His saying has been preserved in two forms. Luke records it as one of a series of sayings dealing with the Son of Man or the Holy Spirit (Lk 12:10), but Mark gives it a narrative context. (The Markan and Lukan forms are combined in Mt 12:31-32).

According to Mark, scribes or experts in the Jewish law came from Jerusalem to Galilee to assess the work which, as they heard, Jesus was doing there, and especially his ministry of exorcism—expelling demons from the lives of those who suffered under their domination. (This language indicates a real and sad condition, even if it would commonly be described in different terms today.) The scribes came to a strange conclusion: “He is possessed by Beelzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons” (Mk 3:22 RSV). (Beelzebul had once been the name of a Canaanite divinity, “the lord of the high place,” but by this time it was used by Jews to denote the ruler of the Abyss, the abode of demons.) When Jesus knew of this, he exposed the absurdity of supposing that Satan's power could be overthrown by Satan's aid. Then he went on to charge those who had voiced this absurd conclusion with blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. Why? Because they deliberately ascribed the Holy Spirit's activity to demonic agency.

For every kind of sin, then, for every form of blasphemy of slander, it is implied that forgiveness is available—presumably when the sin is repented of. But what if one were to repent of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Is there no forgiveness for the person who repents of this sin?

The answer seems to be that the nature of this sin is such that one does not repent of it, because those who commit it and persist in it do not know that they are sinning. Mark tells his readers why Jesus charged those scribes with blaspheming against the Holy Spirit: it was because “they were saying, 'He has an evil spirit'” (Mk 3:30). Jesus was proclaiming the kingly rule of God, and his bringing relief to soul-sick, demon-possessed mortals was a token that the kingly rule of God was present and active in his ministry. “But if I drive out demons by the finger of God,” he said, “then the kingdom of God has come to you” (Lk 11:20; in Mat 12:28, where these words also appear, “finger of God” is replaced by “Spirit of God”). If some people looked at the relief which he was bringing to the bodies and minds of men and women and maintained that he was doing so with the help of their great spiritual oppressor, the prince of the demons, then their eyes were so tightly closed to the light that for them light had become darkness and good had become evil. The light is there for those who will accept it, but if some refuse the light, where else can they hope to receive illumination?

Was Paul sinning against the Holy Spirit in the days when he persecuted Christians and even (according to Acts 26:11 RSV) “tried to make them blaspheme”? Evidently not, because (as it is put in 1 Tim 1:13 RSV) he “acted ignorantly in unbelief” and therefore received mercy. But if, when he had seen the light on the Damascus road and heard the call of the risen Lord, he had closed his eyes and ears and persevered on his persecuting course, that would have been the “eternal sin.” But he would not have recognized it as a sin, and so would not have thought of seeking forgiveness for it; he would have gone on thinking that he was doing the work of God, and his conscience would have remained as unperturbed as ever.

Luke, as has been said, gives his form of the saying a different context. He does record the charge that Jesus cast out demons with Beelzebul's aid, but does so in the preceding chapter (Lk 11:14-26) and says nothing there about the sin against the Spirit. His report on Jesus' words about this sin comes in Luke 12:10, immediately after the statement “I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God” (Lk 12:8-9). (The second half of this statement is paralleled in Mk 8:38, where it is located in the aftermath to Peter's confession near Caesarea Philippi.) Then, after the words about the sin against the Spirit, Luke quotes the injunction “When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say” (Lk 12:11-12). This injunction has a parallel in Mark in his version of the Olivet discourse (Mk 13:11); the parallel is taken over in Luke's version of the discourse, where, however, it is not the Spirit but Jesus who will give his disciples “words and wisdom” to reply to their inquisitors (Lk 21:15). Matthew has a parallel in his account of the sending out of the twelve apostles: “At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you” (Mt 10:19-20).

Luke, then, places the saying about blaspheming the Holy Spirit between a saying about the defense of those who confess the Son of Man (that is, Jesus) and a saying about the Spirit's enabling confessors of Jesus before an earthly tribunal to say the right word at the right time. In this context a different emphasis is given to the matter of blasphemy against the Spirit from that given to it by Mark. It is suggested by Luke that the blaspheming of the Spirit involves a refusal of his powerful help when it is available to save the disciples of Jesus from denying him and so committing apostasy. If so, blasphemy against the Spirit in this context is tantamount to apostasy, the deliberate and decisive repudiation of Jesus as Lord. This is not the only New Testament passage which warns against the irremediable evil of apostasy: another well-known example is Hebrews 6:4-6, where it is said to be impossible to renew apostates to repentance, since they have repudiated the only way of salvation.

But Luke couples with the warning against the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Spirit the affirmation of Jesus that there is forgiveness for everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man. On this there are two things to be said.

First, in Jesus' language (Aramaic), the phrase “the son of man” normally meant “the man”; only the context could indicate when he intended the phrase to have the special sense which is conveyed by the fuller translation “the Son of Man.” Moreover, in the phrase “the man” the definite article could, on occasion, have generic force, referring not to a particular human being but to man in general (in English this generic force is best conveyed by using the noun without any article, as in “Man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward”). So Jesus may have meant, “To speak against (a) man is pardonable, but to speak against the Spirit is not.”

Second, if that is what Jesus meant, he included himself as a man, if not indeed as the representative man. Luke understands him to refer to himself in particular; otherwise he would have said “everyone who speaks a word against man” and not (as he does) “every one who speaks a word against the Son of Man.” Why would it be so much more serious to slander the Holy Spirit that to slander the Son of Man? Perhaps because the identity of the Son of Man was veiled in his humility; people might easily fail to recognize him for who he was. There was nothing in the designation “the Son of Man” in itself to express a claim to authority. The Son of Man, at present operating in lowliness and liable to be rejected and ill-treated, might indeed be despised. But if those who had begun to follow him were afraid that, under stress, they might deny him, they were assured that the Spirit's aid was available. If, however, they resisted the Spirit and rejected his aid, then indeed their case would be desperate.

Peter, through fear, denied the Son of man, but he found forgiveness and restoration; his lips had momentarily turned traitor but his heart did not apostatize. His repentance left him wide open to the Spirit's healing grace, and when he was restored, he was able to strengthen others (Lk 22:31-32). Why then, it might be asked, did he not strengthen Ananias and Sapphira when they came to him with part of the proceeds of the sale of their property, pretending that it was the whole amount? Presumably because, as he said, they had consented to the satanic suggestion that they “[lie] to the Holy Spirit” and had “agree[d] to test the Spirit of the Lord” (Acts 5:3, 9). Thus, in Peter's reckoning, they had sinned beyond the point of no return. How Jesus would have regarded their offense is another question.

In Mark's context, then, the sin against the Holy Spirit involves deliberately shutting one's eyes to the light and consequently calling good evil; in Luke (that is, ultimately, in the sayings collection commonly labeled Q) it is irretrievable apostasy. Probably these are not really two conditions but one--not unlike the condition which Plato described as having the lie in the soul [Republic 2.382a-b].


Near the end here, the author questions why Peter, after being forgiven for denying Christ, did not forgive Ananias and Sapphira. It does seem harsh. But, Peter had denied Christ before he had the Holy Spirit to help him. Ananias and Sapphira supposedly had the Spirit. They are an example of going against the Holy Spirit, that all believers now have, and its possible consequences (spiritual death or separation).

You're fine. If you had done such a thing you wouldn't have anymore desire to be saved and have a meaningful personal relationship with God. That's the spirit drawing you toward him. I've met people that thought they had done the unforgivable and became on fire godly spirit filled Christians. Like CSLewis lover said, the devil was trying to deceive them. People forget the devil knows the Word too. He tried it on Jesus in the desert tempting him remember. A better verse to dwell on friend is "For if our heart condemneth us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things" including how to draw you closer to Him which is what it sounds like to me is happening in your life.

I know it is a little late in the game, but I have often wondered about this. If you had commited the unforgivable sin, wouldn't you die? I mean you pretty much have no reason to live anymore, I mean life (to me anyway) is a test to either choose God or go aginst Him (the latter is not suggested). If one can no longer choose God, because of commiting the unforgivable sin, then wouldn't one die? I believe I read that in the Bible some where that two people actually did it and they were killed by God. Not too sure, but that is the way it sounded to me. Anything on this would be helpful, I don't have the best understanding here. No I do not fear I have commited it, God is moving in my life everyday now and He is with me, I can feel His prescese, but still just curious. Thanks and God bless!

If you had done such a thing you wouldn't have anymore desire to be saved and have a meaningful personal relationship with God.

how do you know he has this desire?

Martyn, Your concern is, did I backslide out of the faith. Did you undo something you didn't have the power to do in the first place. For you are saved by grace alone. it is a gift. You can't earn it. I think a more appropiate question is, did you fall forward in the first place? Did you ever have a saving faith to begin with? Why would I ask such a question?

Over the last year, I have considered myself everything from, atheist, agnostic, deist, pantheist, and everything in between.

That is NOT the testimony of one who knows they were purchased at a price. The bible says to, "examine yourself to see if you are IN the faith."

Sure, you might accept that there is "a god". You have a belief. And you may have grown up with a form of religion. But we are warned in the scriptures that even the devil "believes." The question is have you trusted in the work of Christ? is the work of Christ on the cross a living reality to you?


Free video that might help shed some light.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 315335400#