Blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit
An article by Ralph D. Gentry with the above title appeared in the April 9, 1959 issue of the Gospel Guardian. With much of the article I am in agreement. But I now call attention to paragraph four of brother Gentry's article.
In paragraph four brother Gentry tried to prove that the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit could be committed today. He closed that paragraph with: "If not, why not?" I do not believe that this sin can be committed today and will try to answer his question: "Why not?"
It is true that this sin can be committed today if one can do the same thing they did then. But I deny that it is possible for one to do the same thing that they did then. For it is not possible for the same conditions to obtain today as did obtain then. At this place did not brother Gentry fail to rightly apply his 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."
When we "Examine the words and actions of the condemned party" we will find that they had seen Jesus perform miracles. Further, that they denied that He did these by the power of the Holy Spirit and asserted that He did them by the power of the Devil. This was the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (Mark. 3:22,29-30.) Is it possible for man today to do as they did? No. For it is not possible for the same conditions to obtain today as did obtain then.
Brother Gentry realizes this; for he wrote: "The only difference being that the scribes spoke of those miracles as they were visible and present while we may speak of the same miracles after being recorded." I maintain that this "Only difference" is enough to render it impossible for man to commit this sin today. When narrowed down this "Only difference" is the difference between SIGHT and FAITH. Jesus recognized a vast difference between SIGHT and FAITH. He said unto Thomas, "Because thou hast SEEN me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not SEEN, and yet have BELIEVED." (John 20:27.) Jesus here recognized that it was far worse to refuse what had been SEEN than it was to refuse that which had been received by TESTIMONY (faith). Paul stated that we "Walk by faith and not by sight." (2 Cor. 5:7).
When we examine the "Words or actions of the condemned party for an application" we find that it is utterly impossible for man today to do what the condemned party had done, i.e., witness by SIGHT miracles that were worked by the power of the Holy Spirit and attribute this power by which they were worked to the devil. Since it is impossible for man today to do what they did it is impossible for man today to commit this sin.
I know of people who once denied and rejected "The very basis of God's scheme of redemption and the very beginning of obedience, i.e., belief in the deity of Jesus." and who did not believe in His miracles. Some of these people have since had faith produced by testimony of the word and have obeyed the gospel. Brother Gentry, had these people committed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Actually there is a great difference between what people today do in refusing to believe and in what they of the text did in refusing to believe. They saw Jesus work miracles and then attributed the power by which he did these to the devil. People today who "Deny and reject the very basis of God's scheme of redemption" do not believe that he worked the miracles. I believe that all can see that there is a vast difference in the two sins.
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.