Blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit
The July 9th issue of The Gospel Guardian carried the second article by Ralph D. Gentry with the above title. This is my second. The previous articles have appeared on the dates of April 9, June 11, and July 9.
In his second article Brother Gentry again tried to prove that it is possible for man to commit the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit today. He took the following from my first article: "Have you ever known an agnostic who admitted that Jesus worked miracles and then attributed the power by which He worked them to the Devil? If not, you have never known anyone who committed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit — even disrespecting the difference between FAITH and SIGHT." Then he said that this was an admission on my part that this sin could be committed today. But it was not an admission of such from me; for I said, "Even disrespecting the difference between FAITH and SIGHT." My first argument was that this sin could not be committed today because it is not possible for the same conditions to obtain today as did obtain then.
Brother Gentry, it was very noticeable that you did not answer the above question forthrightly. Why did you not come out and admit that you had never known such a person instead of saying, "If I had known such a person, I would know one guilty of this sin . . . He assumes I've never known such a person, which if I had not, would prove nothing." Have you known such a person? Do you believe that the person really lives who believes that Jesus worked genuine miracles and then attributes the power by which He worked them to the devil instead of the Holy Spirit? Frankly, I cannot conceive of such a person existing.
The last two questions of his second paragraph were: "If persons can be found who did it once, could it not be repeated? Has human nature changed so much?" We agree that people lived in the days of Jesus who did commit this sin. We agree that human nature has not changed enough to keep this from happening again. But I believe that conditions that obtain have changed enough that it is not possible for man to commit this sin today.
In his third paragraph he stated that I confused conditions with circumstances. This is true unless he has confused circumstances with conditions. The question then is, was seeing the miracles performed in an undeniable fashion a condition or just a circumstance? When we break down what constituted this sin on the part of the scribes, we will see that it was a condition. Brother Gentry's rule, "To illustrate: If in doubt as to the meaning of an accusation or condemnation of another, one needs only to examine the words or actions of the condemned party for an application and explanation," is against him here. The condemned party saw miracles demonstrated so forcefully that they could not deny that genuine miracles were being performed. And in order to convince people that Jesus was not the Son of God, they attributed the power by which He worked the miracles to the prince of devils instead of the Holy Spirit. Until a man today sees miracles so forcefully demonstrated that he cannot deny that genuine miracles are being performed, he cannot possibly commit the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Agnostics of today have not seen miracles demonstrated so forcefully that they cannot deny that genuine miracles are being worked; thus they do not admit that miracles were performed and then attribute the power by which they were performed to the prince of devils. They just deny that the miracles were ever performed.
The scribes of Jesus' day knew that the people knew that miracles were being performed. And they knew if they denied it, the people would not listen to them. So they just admitted the miracles, but said that they were from the devil. Agnostics of today would have a much harder time convincing people that the miracles were worked, but by the power of the devil than they do have in convincing people that the miracles were not worked at all. So because they do not believe the miracles were performed, and because it fits their purpose better, they deny that miracles were performed. I challenge you to find a man who believes that miracles were worked by Jesus, but who attributes the power by which they were performed to the devil instead of the Holy Spirit.
In Brother Gentry's fourth paragraph he wrote: "The apostle Peter seems to make no difference between the faith of those reviewing it by sight and testimony, "... to them that have obtained like precious faith with us," (2 Peter 1:1). Peter was here talking about faith in Jesus as the Son of God. I agree that there is no difference in their faith that Christ was the Son of God and in ours. But the point is, there is a difference in the way their faith and ours is produced. Theirs came by seeing the miracles performed, and ours comes by testimony.
There is nothing in Brother Gentry's fourth paragraph that I disagree with. Is not this paragraph against his position? As there are no people today who know "The miracles were actual but accredited same to an evil spirit," there is no people today who have or can commit the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
I appreciate Brother Gentry's fine spirit in these articles very much. It is my prayer the time will soon come when brethren can discuss any and every issue with such a fine spirit.