Blasphemy of the HS and the OT

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.
32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

I think the key to understanding this passage is that Jesus says that all sins and blasphemies will be forgiven except BHS. This means that there is only one unforgivable sin and that it is BHS.

If we could find another example in scripture of a sin that is considered unforgivable then it follows that it also is an example of BHS and it might shed light Jesus' reference to the unforgivable sin.

In Deuteronomy 29:20 we have such an example of an unforgivable sin.

20"The LORD shall never be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and His jealousy will burn against that man, and every curse which is written in this book will rest on him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven." - NASB

The braoder context of this verse (29:14-21) gives a full description of what kind of action is unforgivable. The man who stubbornly chooses his own way despite the covenant he has sworn to. He defies the authority of Moses as prophet and deliverer of the covenant. More importantly however, a rejection of the covenant is a rejection of God himself. This brings calamity not only on himself but he defiles the land as well. He spreads his sin throughout the land like a cankerous bitter root.

In Matthew 11 we have Jesus performing the work of a prophet. He is calling the people out of the generation they are in to receive the rest that the prophets promised.

The end of Matthew 12 where Jesus makes his statement about the BHS is sort of a mini-climax. Here he draws a line in the sand. They have seen the healings and they have heard his teachings. The one who is greater than Moses is with them and yet they resist him. He has made it clear that the Spirit of God is on him and those who are not with him are against him.

When the Pharisees attribute his works to Satan this is only a symptom of the bigger problem. It is just one more example of their continued resistance to the work of God by his Spirit through Jesus. Jesus gets to the root of the problem by reminding them about the unforgivable sin.

Jesus is the prophet foretold by Moses and the Pharisees are rejecting not only him but the mission and authority God has given him through the manifest presence of the HS. In doing this they are aligning themselves against the covenant and showing themselves to be the bitter roots that are condemned in Deut 29:18. They stubbornly refuse to submit themselves to the greatest prophet of the God they say they are in covenant with. This is the same sin that is deemed unforgivable in Deut 29:20.

BHS then is a stubborn and high handed rejection of the covenant relationship. The question of whether or not this sin can be committed in the present is a different question and is better saved for another posting.

*Note this post is not all my original work. The core of it is from what I can remember from lectures by my favorite Bible college professor Andrew Sargent.

***It is interesting to note that the root of bitterness in Hebrews is referring to Deut. 29:18 and is the person who commits the unforgivable sin.
18 "so that there will not be among you a man or woman, or family or tribe, whose heart turns away today from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of those nations; that there will not be among you a root bearing poisonous fruit and wormwood."
The root bearing poisonous fruit and wormwood is translated as the root of bitterness in the Septuagint. While not a direct quote, Hebrews 12:15 is clearly taken from this passage in the Septuagint.

Think Before You Vote

I have been a Patriots fan for as long as I can remember. In fact my first memory of a sporting event I actually was interested in was their defeat in Superbowl XX. It was a blowout, 46-10. I remember talking about it at school and commiserating with my friends.

But why was I a Patriots fan? Part of it was because I lived in New England and part of it was because my Dad was a fan. When picking a favorite sports team, geographical location and family opinions are valid reasons for choosing a team. Some people have a favorite player so they like the team he is on. Some people cheer for teams because they just don't want the other team to win. As a matter of fact almost any reason seems to be valid. (My Uncle Jim for instance is a Browns fan because when he was growing up in Maine they were really good. What a bad choice that was!)

The interesting thing is that sometimes people pick a political party for similar reasons. Maybe they have a favorite politician from the past like JFK and so they decide to be a democrat. Or maybe their parties past victories have gotten them pumped up so they sign on to the band wagon for life. Or maybe they are republican because that is how they were raised. Or maybe being a democrat is perceived as being cool.

The problem with any of these approaches is the lack of thought involved in the decision. We should choose our political affiliations by thinking clearly about the platforms, positions and philosophies of the parties.

As Christians we are admonished to submit to the government. In a dictatorship this may merely mean obedience to the government but in a republic, submission means participation. So it is expedient for Christians to take positions on issues and have reasonable answers to tough political questions.

Here are some links to a couple of articles and blogs that I think are very helpful in thinking about politics.

Was Jesus a Liberal?

Why am I a Conservative?

And remember to think before you vote...

On Gifts and Service

1 Peter 4:10-11

“10 Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms. 11 If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ.”

We should all know that every member in the body of Christ has some role to play. Ministry does not necessarily consist of an official position in the church such as pastor, deacon or elder. Instead every Christian should be serving others by “…administering God’s grace in its various forms.” This “administering of grace” is as varied as the members of the church. From teachers to artists, from mechanics to nurses, the body of Christ can be enriched by whatever gifting you have.

If you are wondering what your particular Christian ministry should be in the church there are two ways to find the answer.

1. If you know your gifting, use it to fill a need that you recognize in
your local body or community at large.
2. If you are not sure what your gift is then find a need within the body
and serve there. This can be as easy as volunteering for whatever comes
up. In volunteering your gifts will naturally be exercised and will be
recognized by others.

When you exercise your gift within the four walls of the church or when you bring your gift to your community as whole, your purpose is two-fold: to serve others and glorify God. In serving others you are using your gift to love people as you are loved by God. In glorifying God you are reaching toward your final end which is to glorify and enjoy him forever. It is in serving man and glorifying God that true happiness is found.

Intellectual Angst and Free Will

Intellectual angst is perhaps the greatest motivating factor for me to study a difficult subject and nothing generates intellectual angst like realizing you know so little about any important subject in philosophy. For me, the best way to reveal my own ignorance on a topic is to try to teach what I am trying to learn.

Well, I attempted to teach the basics of the free will debate to my Sunday School class and while I think I was able to articulate a small part of the discussion well, I realize how little about the topic I understood. So I am going to start outlining the introductory book Four Views on Free Will by John Martin Fischer, Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom, and Manuel Vargas. Please enjoy...

Brief Introduction to Some Terms and Concepts

Free Will

• Usually distinguished from religious and political freedom and terms associated with human agency such as autonomy and authenticity.
• Serious disagreements about what constitutes an adequate theory of free will
• Some different views of free will.
• Much of tradition has taken “free will” to be a kind of power or ability to make decisions of the sort for which one can be morally responsible.
• Some philosophers have thought that it is required for a multitude of other things, including moral value, originality, and self-governance.
• Two hotly disputed claims are that
• free will requires alternative possibilities or the power to do otherwise
• free will requires that we are the “ultimate sources” of our free actions or the ultimate sources of our wills to perform free action.

Moral Responsibility

• In the context of free will discussions, moral responsibility is often understood as kind of status connected to judgments and/or practices of moral praise or blame.

Determinism

• For present purposes, we can treat determinism as the thesis that at any time (at least up to the very end) the universe has exactly one physically possible future.
• This raises the question whether or not free will is compatible with determinism

Philosophical Options on the Free Will Problem

The Compatibility Issue

• Incompatibilism
• Free will is incompatible with determinism
• We may or may not have free will
• Compatibilism
• Free will is compatible with determinism
• We have free will
• Some important views
• Emphasize a particular understanding of “can”
• Others emphasize a kind of identification with one’s motives or values
• Others emphasize the role of responsiveness to reasons
• Semicompatibilism
• Responsibility is compatible with determinism
• Agnosticism about whether or not whether free will understood in some particular way might not be compatible with determinism
• John Martin Fischer

• Libertarianism
• Free will is not compatible with determinism
• We have free will
• Hard Incompatibilism
• Incompatibilism is true
• We lack free will
• Determinism may or may not be true
• Revisionism
• The common sense understanding of free will and moral responsibility needs to be revised.

* Interesting side note - This far into it, it seems that Aquinas' view of free will would fall under the revisionism category and not under the compatabilist category. I don't think that the contemporary common sense understandings of free will coincides with Aquinas' view of free will.

Thomistic Principles of Historical Orientation

In the first chapter of James Collins' History of Modern European Philosophy he identifies what he calls the "Thomistic principles of historical orientation."(p.7) It is a simple list but something that I think the Thomists and realists would benefit from when assessing and discussing various philosophical view points. I am including the principles in this blog along with some personal observations and thoughts on each one.

1. “The study of philosophy is directed not to a knowledge of what men think but to how the truth of things stands…. The ultimate purpose of historical investigations is to facilitate one's access to integral truth.”

As we study the historical context of a thinker it is beneficial to keep in mind the end to which a historical study is aimed. A historical study of philosophy seeks to locate the trans-temporal truth of any given period and track the progress of ideas. The philosophy of past and present thinkers is accessible and rich with ideas and truths. We do not occupy a privileged place in the history and progress of human knowledge, but neither are we epistemological beggars marooned on the island of our own historical setting. Guided by truth, we seek to integrate the truths that have been discovered by some of the greatest minds in history.

2. “In seeking to determine the truth adequately we should not take a hostile attitude toward those whose statements are being weighed but should resemble judges and investigators of both sides.”

The works of philosophers who may disagree with us are not kryptonite and the authors are not arch-villains. If truth is our goal then we should train ourselves to be as objective as possible when it comes to evaluating them. Exercising the principle of charity and putting aside personal hostility should be minimum requirements when evaluating a philosopher and his thought.

3. “The opinions of past thinkers must be weighed on the important issues in philosophy, both in order to gain help for ourselves from their good points and to learn to avoid their errors.”

The variety of philosophical thinkers, their methods and their doctrines, does not preclude the presence of truth within any one of these. Collins quotes Joseph Marechal who says that “it is impossible that everything in a philosophical system be falsehood.” If we know that all systems have at least some truth in them then we will always be enriched no matter what philosophical thinker or time period we are studying because we will always come upon some truth. This truth can then be integrated into “the living body of perennial truths.” Even falsehoods that we come upon are useful for testing our own understanding of realism and these errors are often indicative of the reoccurring problems confronting philosophers of all periods.

4. “…the discovery of truth is a co-operative task of the human race.”

Contributions to the overall body of truth made by any given thinker can be integrated readily into a realistic philosophy. Because the goal of a realistic philosophy is a continued accrual of truth about the ultimate questions, any contribution by any thinker enriches this process and brings realistic philosophy one step closer to its goal. As human beings we are all participants in this process. It is now only a matter of how much we choose to contribute to this process.

I really appreciate Collins’ articulation of these principles. He implicitly affirms and goes beyond principles such as the principle of charity and the smartness principle. He makes clear not only what good practice should be but also shows why it should be this way. As a newbie to realistic philosophy, his summary of these principles is indispensable.