Blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit
In the June 11th issue of THE GUARDIAN objections from the pen of Jesse G. Jenkins were given regarding an article by me under the above title. Since questions were directed to me, I feel obligated to answer them while appreciating the fine spirit in which they were asked.
The last paragraph of his review reads, '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." Thanks for illustrating my point. His implication is: If I had known such a person, I would know of one guilty of this sin. Hence, an admission of its possibility today in such a case. He assumes I've never known such a person, which if I had not, would prove nothing. If persons can be found who did it once, could it not be repeated? Has human nature changed so much?
Brother Jenkins confuses conditions and circumstances. The two are quite different as illustrated in the examples of conversions in the book of Acts. He asserts that seeing Jesus perform the miracles is necessary, hence makes of it a condition. If so, then it becomes a necessary part of the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as he thinks. However, brother Jenkins admits the sin was in believing the miracles to have been performed but accrediting same to the power of the Devil. Now can we believe the miracles were performed? If so, the same conditions of the sin "obtain today". Or is it true that only seeing is believing?
Brother Jenkins quotes John 20:27 and asserts from it that, "Jesus here recognizes that it was far worse to refuse what had been SEEN than it was to refuse that which had been received by testimony (faith)." I fail to appreciate his interpretation. I see no such implication from that verse. But rant that there is a great difference between sight and testimony, even this verse teaches that one may believe without sight which is all I've contended for in regard to the sin of blasphemy. The apostle Peter seems to make no difference between the faith of those receiving it by sight and testimony," . . . to them that have obtained like precious faith with us", (2 Peter 1:1).
Brother Jenkins says, "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." I am then asked, "Had these people committed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?" My answer is, no! But, all who blaspheme the Holy Spirit do what he says these have done, vis., disbelieved in the deity of Jesus. The difference being: One refuses the reality of said miracles and the other by recognition of the wrong power by which done. The former can not be saved in his present condition. The difference in the nature or manner of their sin accounts for the difference in the possibility of their salvation. Remember, Jesus spoke these words prior to the coming of "another Comforter", before the Holy Spirit descended and inspired the apostles to proclaim the conditions of salvation and what some have referred to as "the Holy Spirit Age". Those who disbelieved in the reality of Jesus' miracles could re-examine the evidence and be convinced that Jesus was the Christ, (Jno. 20:30,31). Whereas, those who acknowledged the miracles were actual but accredited same to an evil spirit could not be convinced or led to believe in Jesus as the Christ as a result of miraculous powers. This is why there would be no forgiveness for them. I believe herein is seen the difference between "speaking against the Son of man" (denied miracles and such like) and "speaking against the Holy Spirit" (denied the power of said miracles), Matt. 12:31,32. I thought this was made clear in the first article of April 9, 1959. May I respectfully request you re-read that article in the light of additional explanations presented here.