Posted on 08/04/2002 10:32:32 PM PDT by JMJ333
Often, these liberal arguments to "prove I'm right" come with elaborate, rational-sounding reasons. When push comes to shove, however, these folks cover their ears and begin calling names... (intolerant, bigot, religious fanatic, etc.)
One loss will be big layoffs in the prison industry which is the major employer in many areas. Also deficit in many police departments which got addicted to the revenue from forfeitures
I would not legalise pot completely. I would make the purchase sort of difficult through limiting amount and time when it can be bought and only in licenced places. Non licenced sale would be a minor crime or misdemeanor punished by fines.
Most importantly we need to get a handle on the culture of death and promiscuity. In my opinion, we will not be able to do so if we pretend that desensetizing ourselves is normal. Bt, as I mentioned earlier, I continue to pray that we realize the road we are sliding down.
And this very helpful short article What is Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?
I will add the other references in a few minutes.
1 Tim 4:1-3 seared conscience
If you would like any more information, I would be happy to provide it. I am at work at the moment, and these were a couple that I could find quickly.
retired Army Chaplain best wishes.
When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?" And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matt. 19:25-26)
Trust in God. Not that it will be easy -- "take up your cross and follow me" is more than a nifty turn of phrase.
And yours -- "It amounts to no more than a fear of popular opinion" -- are right on the mark. How many of those long-dead people shouting "Crucify him!" were motivated by the same thing?
Excellent point. I'd never thought of it that way -- it shows up the intellectual and moral poverty of the atheist "rational rights" crowd.
God will indeed hear us, and he has already redeemed us, the question is whether he will restore our civilization through his grace. One thing is certain, America and the West have not earned this restoration through our works.
Also sending you a FReepmail shortly.
You and I brother, you and I.
I said (#10): Scripture talked about this phenomenon long before psychiatrists and psychologists came along. Christ referred to it as "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit;" i.e., one gets so deeply into one's immorality that he can no longer hear the call to normalcy.
You responded (#24): I would like to respectfully disagree with your contention that this is "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." That blasphemy was the attribution of the works of God to Satan...contending that Satan had performed certain works of power when in reality it had been the work of Jesus Christ.
I believe the more correct reference you are looking for is the "hardening of the heart" or the "searing of the conscience" - reaching a state where the conscience is no longer a guide to righteousness.
Then you were gracious enough to provide some links supporting your position, from which I will offer the last sub-heading from your first link:
Can a Believer Commit the Unforgivable Sin? No. A believer cannot commit the unforgivable sin. How can someone who has been born again (John 3:7), made a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), and received eternal life (John 10:27-28) actually commit the unforgivable sin? He cannot. Jesus Himself said that we have eternal life, not conditional life: "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand." Besides, it says in 2 Cor. 5:17 that the Christian is a new creation in Christ. We are different, no longer slaves to the old nature (Romans 6:14). We are regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
There is no biblical support for a believer committing this sin. It just hasnt happened. Also, if you are worried that you may have committed the sin and cant be forgiven, then dont be concerned. If you are worrying about it, then you havent committed it. If you are worried about it, then that is a sign that you have not committed it. If you had, you wouldnt be concerned.
That's where we were when I "went away" to do some research on my own. Here is what I found:
The entry on "blasphemy" in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, written by S. J. DeVries, discusses "slander, reproach, reviling, and cursing" God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. In the final paragraph, however, it says this:
"The 'unforgivable sin,' blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-30; Luke 12:10), must be understood as the deliberate and perverse repudiation of God's saving work, whereby one consciously hardens himself against repentance and the possibility of forgiveness (cf. I Tim. 1:20)."
From "The Gospel According to St. Matthew," The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 7. Sherman E. Johnson & George A. Buttrick:
"Perhaps Matthew deliberately linked these verses with the controversy about Beelzebub. The paragraphing in RSV implies that connection. The term 'Holy Spirit' is not here linked with the (later in date) doctrine of the Trinity. Its general meaning is perhaps the light that comes from God. Jesus says that some sins are due to ignorance or to failure under sudden temptation. Thus men can deny his claims and question his teaching, and still find pardon. But there is another kind of sin - willful blindness. ... Modern propaganda may approach this iniquity. It sometimes hints that truth is a lie, and offers a lie as the truth. ... The Spirit convinces 'the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment' (John 16:8), but what hope for a man who not only denies this axiomatic light but calls it midnight? ... At long last there is no pardon, because there is no desire for pardon - or even recognition of it."
From "The Gospel According to St. Mark," The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 7, Frederick C. Grant & Halford E. Luccock:
"The sin for which there was no forgiveness was just what the scribes were doing when Jesus spoke the words - calling good evil. ... One reason why is was unforgivable was not theological but psychological. It was evidence of a moral obtuseness and perverseness so deep-rooted that there was no hope of its ever being changed. ... When in our own time people oppose, and denounce as evil, efforts to extend justice and mercy to unprivileged and defrauded groups - that is the sin against the Holy Ghost. ... For the worst sin is not murder or arson, but a distortion of the whole spiritual being, by which we are blinded to good and call it evil, and thus cut ourselves off from God and God's cause."
From "The Gospel According to St. Luke, "The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, MacLean Gilmour & John Knox:
"A much more probable understanding is expressed in the Exeg.: He who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit is he who is disloyal to the divine truth which he has received and to which he has given inner acceptance. ... But if blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the deliberate turning of one's back to God's truth as it is known to us, the deliberate closing of one's eyes upon the 'inward vision,' then we ought to be afraid of that, too - most of all afraid because through such deliberate blindness repentance may become impossible to us and even God's mercy be unable to reach us."
I could offer a few more references in like manner, but there's no need to swat the proverbial gnat with the proverbial sledgehammer. As I said earlier, I think we're both right: you, that ascribing the works of God to Satan, or calling good evil, and me, that living so deeply in sin that one can no longer see un-sin, if you will, are both examples of the "unforgivable sin," and are blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (I must admit that at first I wasn't sure we were talking about the same thing because where I said "blasphemy against" you said "blasphemy for" - and those two ways of describing the phenomenon don't necessarily mean quite the same thing.)
I would go so far as to submit that calling evil good - and good evil - is a sub-set of the blasphemy of "hardening one's heart," if only because the first could not occur without the condition of the second being already in place.
However, and this is most important, I agree with your first reference; i.e., no believer has committed this sin, nor does anyone who worries about committing this sin have anything to worry about. After all, if one is concerned about sinning, he or she is certainly paying attention to the Holy Spirit.
This was an interesting exercise. Thanks.
Anytime you try to bring up the "slippery slope" to the atheist "rational rights" crowd they claim there is no such thing. If I mention that homosexuality was once considered horrific and nobody ever thought that would be legalized they shrug and refuse to accept the connection. Or they say that pedophilia will never be accepted because it does not involve mutual consent. i.e., it's not a matter of immorality so much as a matter of force.
But that is only a rationalization of why we have decided to draw the line where we have decided to draw it. Adults coerce children all the time. Yesterday I coerced mine to wash their dishes. All parents coerce their children to go to school. It's someplace they don't want to be, but we make them go "for their own good." Who is to say that one day parents won't coerce their children to have sex with someone "for their own good?"
Well, G-d will say that, but will we listen? Our record on sodomy isn't so good.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.