The Unpardonable Sin

On another website, someone asked about the famous "unpardonable sin." Below is my response (starting with the full context of the passage).

Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and he healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, "This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?"

But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."

And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 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." [Matthew 12:22-32; NASB]

We find another miracle of Jesus, one wherein he casts out a demon that had rendered a poor man blind and mute (v. 22). This causes the people to wonder if he was the "Son of David" - in other words, the Messiah (v. 23). The Pharisees hear this, and, out of jealousy, come up with the excuse that Jesus is only doing this by the power of Beelzebul (another word for Satan) - in other words, he's casting out demons by using a demonic authority (v. 24). Interestingly enough, the rabbinical sources that speak on Jesus do talk of his miracles, and they too attribute his miracles to witchcraft and demonic power.

Knowing their thoughts, and obviously desiring to nip all this in the bud right away, Jesus addresses them and presents two reasons why their logic does not work:

1) They believed demons were pitted against demons (vv. 25-26) - While it is possible for exorcisms to be faked by demons (for we cannot assume that Muslim or Hindu exorcisms are legitimate, as demons fear no one but the true God), the Pharisees were not arguing that Jesus was in league with the demons to create ruses, but rather that Jesus was using a higher demonic authority to expel demons who were going about their job. By this logic, Satan's house was divided, and there was a demonic civil war going on. This is what Jesus means by "If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?" Later on, in verse 29, Christ will give a more accurate view of the situation: it is actually another, non-demonic power at work against the demonic powers.

2) They had disciples who exorcised demons too (v. 27) - Jesus was not the only one known to cast out demons, though he was certainly the only one to cast them out of his own authority and by his own command. In any case, the Pharisees did not attribute every single exorcism to demonic power, but were seeking to disprove Christ's Messianic status. When Christ says "they will be your judges," he does not necessarily mean that the other Jewish exorcists will stand up and judge them, but rather that the Pharisees' hypocrisy in holding up Jesus to one standard and the other exorcists to another standard will be used against them when they are judged. To explain this phraseology, imagine if someone says, "This video tape that recorded your crime will condemn you." This doesn't mean the video tape is going to bang a gavel and pronounce sentencing, it simply means the video tape will be a damning piece of evidence used in the court of law.

Having proven this logic does not work, Christ now presents the only conclusion: "If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (v. 28). In other words, Christ's exorcisms were part of the prophecies foretold about the Messiah, and what expelled the demons was not Satan, but God the Holy Spirit, working with God the Son in accordance with the Trinitarian work. Note that earlier (see vv. 17-21), Matthew had quoted Isaiah 42:1-4, which said that God's "Beloved" (the Messiah) had had the Spirit placed upon him, and he would do all the work he was meant to do. This story is one such example of Christ fulfilling that. The people in verse 23 were correct - Christ was the Son of David. And he was proving that by the work of the Spirit against the demons.

Here now, during Christ's response, we have the mention of the "unpardonable sin." Christ outlines that those who are not with him are against him (so much for inclusivism!) and  those who are not gathered with him scatter (v. 30). There is no neutrality. Christ is drawing a line in the sand at this point, for both the benefit of the people listening and the Pharisees. He takes it even further by saying that all sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven, but "blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven" (v. 31), going on to say that "whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him" - but those who speak "against the Holy Spirit" will not be forgiven either "in this age or in the age to come" (v. 32). For many who quote these few verses in isolation, they come to similar erroneous conclusions:

1) The Post-Death Judgment Error - Some believe that this means that God will forgive sins after a person dies. What they do is they take the "either in this age or in the age to come" and read it backwards into "it shall be forgiven him." The problem with this is two fold: a) Christ is not arguing that some sins can be forgiven after death, only that the blasphemy against the Spirit is very serious - he's emphasizing how gosh darn serious it is by adding "either in this age or in the age to come" to demonstrate it; b) the "ages" here refer more so to the pre-Messianic age and the Messianic age - that is, Jews of Christ's time had in mind that you would have the old covenant, then the coming of the Messiah, and then the new age under the Messiah's rule. This is how Christ's listeners would have understood it. 

2) The Hyper-Charismatic Error - Some in the Hyper-Charismatic and Neo-Pentecostal camp have taken these verses to mean that any time you point to a supposed work of the Holy Spirit (a miracle healing, speaking in tongues, prophecy, etc.) and say "That's not the Holy Spirit," that automatically means you're blaspheming the Holy Spirit. This can't be the case, as scripture is quite clear that we should be on the lookout for demonic counterfeits of spiritual work: Pharaoh's magicians could mimic many of the miracles of God (Ex 7:11, 22; 8:7); the Law warned against those who would perform miracles and wonders and yet attempt to lead you astray from the orthodox path (De 13:1-4); Jesus warned against false christs and prophets who would perform miracles (Mt 24:24); the apostle Paul warned that the "lawless one" would perform signs and wonders (2 Th 2:9-10); the beast in Revelation is described as performing signs and wonders (Re 13:13-14). Declaring something to not be the work of the Spirit, especially when we have grounds to do so, is not in and of itself blasphemy against the Spirit, but just good discernment.

So, what is this verse talking about? Well, let's remember some of the preliminary information given us, and try to follow the flow of the narrative: Jesus, as Messiah, has the Spirit (v. 18); the people are wondering if Jesus is the Messiah, but the Pharisees are denying it (vv. 23-24); Christ states that his work is by the Spirit, which means the kingdom of God has come upon them (v. 28); he then states that blasphemy against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but not blasphemy against the Spirit (vv. 31-32). What then is Christ talking about in these two verses?

It is clear, from the context, that Christ is stating that, when all is fulfilled (that is, the Messianic age has come, and Christ is glorified after the resurrection), those who continue to deny his divine status and role as Messiah, just as they were then, will be condemned. Many "spoke a word" against Jesus as the Son of Man (such as Peter) but were later forgiven, especially at Pentecost and other events recorded in Acts. Most of the Pharisees, however, continued to work against him and denied not only his messianic status, but his divinity - first during his earthly ministry, and then against his church. This is even more clear in Mark's parallel account, where (after the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is spoken of) Mark adds that Jesus said all this "because they were saying, 'He has an unclean spirit'" (Mk 3:30). In denying that Christ's power and miracles were by the Spirit, and attributing it to demonic powers, the Pharisees were blaspheming the Spirit and working against the kingdom of God. It was a sign of their heart (hence Christ's stern warnings about the connection between the heart and words in vv. 33-37, following the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" verses) and that they were, in essence, marked off for condemnation. 

This has led many theologians and commentators to argue that, really, the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" is no longer relevant for this day. That is, it was only relevant to those who lived during Christ's time, during that tender moment between the two ages, when one could blaspheme the Son of Man but not blaspheme the Holy Spirit. If we were to apply it today somehow, it would, in a sense, be similar to those who, upon hearing of Christ's miracles, attempt to write them off as exaggerations, lies, sorcery, magic tricks, or the like. We should not, however, use these verses to write these people off as damned, and we should treat them with respect and love, and give them the same message of hope and reconciliation which God used to call us. There are many who denied Christ's miracles today who later repented and put their trust upon the Lamb.

Revelation Apart from the Word

The following is taken from RC Sproul's article "The Establishment of Scripture," from the 2009 edition of Ligonier Ministries' Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible.

The claims of private revelations are many. Pat Robertson has routinely received a "word of knowledge" on national television. He says God reveals specific illnesses of people who live in various parts of the nation as he prays. I have seen him say things like, "Someone in Topeka, Kansas, is being healed of a goiter right this moment." This is an astonishing thing. Here is a man hundreds of miles from the scene who is getting supernatural revelation of the healing of a specific disease in a specific city. But what puzzles me is the restricted specificity of these revelations. The disease and the city are named, but never the name and address of the person being healed. Consequently, the prophecy can be neither verified nor disproved.

Oral Roberts once told the nation that God had revealed to him that his life would be taken if he didn't raise a large amount of money in donations. Robert Tilton promised his constituents that he would mail them a special message from God if they sent in their donations. These, of course, are crude forms of modern claims to added revelation. How these claims can be entertained by the credulous is a matter of consternation for me.

But it gets more subtle. We hear respected Christian leaders claiming that God has "spoken to them" and given specific guidance and instructions they are duty-bound to obey. They are careful to note that this divine speech was not in audible form and there is a disclaimer that this is not new "revelation." Yet the message that is "laid on the heart" is so clear and powerful that to disobey it is to disobey the voice of God. I am not speaking here of the work of the Holy Spirit, by which He illumines the text of Scripture in such a sharp manner as to bring us under conviction or direct our paths; in such times, the Spirit works in the Word and through the Word. I am speaking of the voice of the Spirit that men claim is working apart from the Word and in addition to the Word.

Though such claims are more often than not attended by the disclaimer that they are not revelation, the way they function is as revelation, so that the distinction between them and bona fide revelation is, in actuality, a distinction without a difference. [pg. 56]

Does God give new revelation?

Special H/T to Apprising Ministries for this tidbit from Charles Spurgeon.

Now there are some persons who make a great mistake about the influence of the Holy Spirit. A foolish man, who had fancy to preach in a certain pulpit, though in truth he was quite incapable of the duty, called upon the minister, and assured him solemnly that it had been revealed to him by the Holy Ghost, that he was to preach in his pulpit.

“Very well,” said the minister, “I suppose I must not doubt your assertion, but as it has not been revealed to me that I am to let you preach, you must go your way until it is.” I have heard many fanatical persons say the Holy Spirit revealed this and that to them. Now that is very generally revealed nonsense.

The Holy Ghost does not reveal anything fresh now. He brings old things to our remembrance. “He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have told you.” The canon of revelation is closed; there is no more to be added.

God does not give a fresh revelation, but he rivets the old one. When it has been forgotten, and laid in the dusty chamber of our memory, he fetches it out and cleans the picture, but does not paint a new one.

There are no new doctrines, but the old ones are often revived. It is not, I say, by any new revelation that the Spirit comforts. He does so by telling us old things over again; he brings a fresh lamp to manifest the treasures hidden in Scripture; he unlocks the strong chests in which the truth had long lain, and he points to secret chambers filled with untold riches; but he comes no more, for enough is done.

Believer! there is enough in the Bible for thee to live upon for ever. If thou shouldst outnumber the years of Methusaleh, there would be no need for a fresh revelation; if thou shouldst live till Christ should come upon the earth, there would be no necessity for the addition of a single word.

If thou shouldst go down as deep as Jonah, or even descend as David said he did, into the belly of hell, still there would be enough in the Bible to comfort thee without a supplementary sentence.

But Christ says, “He shall take of mine and shall show it unto you.”

An Interview with a Former IHOP-KC Member

During my Prayer and Prophetic Conference tweets, I entered conversation with one of my twitter followers, a gentleman named Ryan. He admitted that he had used to belong to the International House of Prayer, and so I asked if he would be willing to share his experiences by answering some questions.

Below are the questions I asked him, followed by his answers.

1) When did you first encounter or hear about the International House of Prayer?

At the bible college I attended in Dallas called "Christ for the Nations Institute" they had a prayer room that was an extension of IHOP and many of the IHOP leaders came to speak at the school to the students frequently and every year they would have a prayer conference with IHOP leaders.

2) What inspired you to pursue it?

I wanted to have a dynamic relationship with Christ. I wanted to hear his voice and have the kind of relationship that they described where you can see Christ face to face and hear his actual voice. I wanted to experience Christ. I wanted to feel the spirit. I wanted a living faith that I could touch and feel.

3) What were your initial experiences there?

I found it very frustrating as they were promising me that if i pressed in to prayer, then these gift would be given to me. I found that prayer was a work, and these gifts seemed like a wage from that work. If only I prayed longer, harder, more sincere, with more faith always more more more...and yet I still felt none of the gifts they promised.

4) What were your experiences as time progressed? How were you involved?

I began to lead worship in the prayer room and since I worked overnight security, on my nights off I would be in the prayer room all night to lead worship and to "keep the candle burning of prayer" for the prayer room. All night I would be there and pray and lead worship, still, I never felt any of the gifts that were promised.

5) What did they teach you while you were there? Anything out of the ordinary, compared to other churches?

they taught me that by faith I could literally ascend into heaven and we had this teaching from Bob Sorge that I will never forget where he was trying to teach us that by faith we could slide into the godhead and cuddle between God the Father and the Son, like a child getting between two parents. We could stop natural disasters, wars, heal anyone in the world at any time, provided we had enough faith. We could have rapturious visions and trances. We practiced cataphatic prayer, centering prayer, breath prayer, Lectio Divina any and all aspects of Roman Catholic Monastic Mysticism. We were the super Christians, the "revealed Sons of God" that all creation had been groaning for. God was waiting for us to rise up.

6) Did you ever feel any kind of "pressure" regarding your time there?

Yes, if you were not praying enough, then something was wrong with you. Guilt was a major motivating factor in my experience. There were all these wonderful things promised to you, and God cannot lie, so if they don't happen, then it is your fault. You didn't pray long enough, press in enough, believe enough, have enough faith so forth and so on. Much of my time was spent in tears as none of these things promised were happening to me. I felt that Jesus just didn't love me enough to bless me in the way he promised. I guess the leaders have never had that experience of crying and crying out to God what is wrong with me that you don't love me like you love others? Why do you not want me Jesus? Why do you not love me? I want to hear you yet you are not speaking to me.but again and again, if only i pressed in more and longer and harder etc. I would have these things...and hour after hour nothing. If it was not for grace, this could have destroyed my faith as I very easily and at times thought this whole christian thing was a lie. However, the grace of christ kept me in the fact that christ has risen and we have the only historically verifiable faith in the world. I could not leave.

7) When was the first time you began to feel things were not right?

The more I read the scriptures, the more I studied hermeneutics and learned how to study my scriptures, the more I applied the rules of hermeneutics to the scriptures, the more they taught me that what I was learning from them was wrong. I began to see how out of context these verses were and that they simply could not mean what they were telling me they meant. When I tried to show them using proper hermeneutics either I was told I was "quenching the spirit" or that I did not have a "revelation" on these verses like they did. or I needed to understand the special spiritual meaning of the verse.

8) What convinced you to abandon the International House of Prayer and its movement?

I realized that what they were doing was anti-scriptural. As I began to study church history I realized the pool that they were fishing from was Roman Catholic Monastic Mysticism, not biblical protestant (never mind reformed) Christianity. I realized that what they were teaching was closer to the New Age Movement than Biblical Christianity.I realized that Christ had already blessed me with every spiritual blessing and that I was complete in Christ. did not have to work to earn his love or to be closer in him. he died for me when I was a dead man. I can't by my works earn a greater closeness, he loved me and gave me himself, the holy spirit and every spiritual gift while I was still a sinner. He wanted me to rest in him, not work to earn more of him. I had Christ, and I finally realized it. So I left.

9) What did you experience leaving the International House of Prayer?

Besides always being referred to as "a spirit quencher" I was seen as a less than. However, I felt a burden lifted off of me. I had Christ and it didn't matter how I felt, I had Christ by faith and all his benefits by union with him. I no longer felt like I had to work to earn his love or his closeness. I truly had rest in him. Prayer was now a joy for me, not a work.

10) Do you have anything to say to those currently involved with IHOP-KC or its related movements and ministries?

I love you and so does Christ, however, you are in a movement that is not just in error, but dangerously so. the well where this water comes from is stained with false prophets, heretics, mystics and schismatics. If you have faith in Christ, you have everything in him. I know you have experienced things i cannot understand. I also know that Satan comes as an angel of light. Please do not let your experience be your guide to scripture, let the scriptures be your guide to your experience. Please study your scriptures they way they were designed to be studied with proper hermeneutics with a proper guide in Church history and leave this movement. prayer is vital and important yes, piety is vital and important yes, holiness is vital and important yes, but they do not teach true prayer, true piety or true holiness. test what I say apart from your experience and test it by the word. I know that you will find these words true.

Modern Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, by MacArthur

The following is from Grace to You's website, featuring a sermon by John MacArthur. It touches on many such blasphemies in this day and age, especially from Hyper-Charismatic or Neo-Pentecostal circles.

The Modern Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit