Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit by Foy E. Wallace
THE BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE
HOLY SPIRIT
By FOY E. WALLACE, JR.
OUTLINE
I. THE ANTECEDENT CONSIDERATIONS.
II. THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE KINGDOM.
III. THE DISPENSATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
IV. THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD.
V. THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT.
The phase of the theme of this lectureship assigned to me, "The Blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit," cannot be properly approached apart from the whole mission of the Holy Spirit, and his entire policy of operation. It is therefore necessary in the premises to make some important notations of the scope of questions relating to the conclusions that are implicated in this facet of the Holy Spirit's operations.
I. THE ANTECEDENT CONSIDERATIONS The system of religion commonly called Christianity differs from and exceeds all human systems in that it claims the presence of a divine spiritual entity which immediately in spired the prophets of God and the apostles of Jesus Christ, and through them inspired the Word of God; which also through the inspired Word converts alien sinners, animates believers and stirs within their hearts the spiritual motions that are essential to the Christian's life and conduct. This divine Being is incorporeal and invisible in essence, and is represented in Matthew 3:16 and John 1:15-26 as proceeding from the Father, and as possessing the attributes belonging to a person: such as mind, understanding, will and actions: and in Romans 8:1; Romans 8:14, the function of counsel and direction are ascribed to him. In the order of existence and subsistence this divine Being is the third member of the Godhead, into which threefold name gospel subjects are said in Matthew 28:19 to be baptized: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The name of the Holy Spirit is sometimes put for temper, for mind, for disposition and thus designates the qualities that proceed from of are imparted by him. This includes such passages as Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:9, and Php 2:5 which refer to implanted spiritual attitudes of heart and mind and which belong to the spirit of man, the inner man. The operations assigned to the Holy Spirit and the influences ascribed to him, are twofold: first, immediate or direct, without medium, as upon the minds of the apostles of Christ for the necessary inspiration in the revelation of the divine plan of redemption; second, the mediate, or indirect through medium operation and influence upon the minds of others than the in-spired men, as stated in Jno. 17:20, through the words of inspiration.
Time was when the divine scheme of redemption was concealed in the depth of the Omniscient Mind, unknown to men or angels. It was reserved for the Holy Spirit to reveal this great and grand, supremely magnanimous and superbly magnificent plan of the ages. This gracious revelation of God's plan to save man is the theme of the first and second chapters-of First Corinthians. After contrasting the weakness and imperfections of the Grecian philosophy with the perfection and infallibility of divine revelation, the apostle declared that the things of the Spirit were not within the means of natural knowledge to discover, but must be revealed. The apostle averred that it required the words of the Spirit to teach the things of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:7-13). The apostle then added,in verse 14, "but the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God . . . neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Theology has long taught that the natural man is the unregenerated man who cannot understand the things of the Spirit until a direct operation removes his depravity of mind he can then understand the things of God. But the passage says nothing about the unregenerated man, and makes no mention of inherent depravity, total or otherwise. Neither does the passage assert that the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God it declares that the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit, and cannot know them through the natural channels of knowledge. The passage simply affirms that the things of the Spirit do not belong to the realm of the philosophical and cannot be discovered by human wisdom they must be re-vealed. The natural man is the man of natural knowledge. We are all natural men, depending on natural means for knowledge and information, men of natural resources. The scientist is a natural man, but the things of the Spirit are not scientific subjects, and the scientist cannot explore them through scientific apparatus. The astronomer is a natural man, and he can peer into the heavens through his telescopic equipment and ascertain things astronomical and astrophysical, but he cannot receive the things of the Spirit through any instrument of astrophysics. The geologist is a natural man, and as he ex-amines the records of the rocks, and observes the strata laid upon strata, the things of geology may be ascertained, but not the "things of the Spirit" they belong to the realm of revela-tion. The chemist is a natural man, but he cannot ascertain the things that belong to direct divine revelation through his chemical experiments. The apostle declares the reason: "But God hath revealed them unto us (the apostles) by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. . . which things also we (apostles) speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teach-eth." That apostolic declaration is verbal inspiration with a vengeance! And it compares with the instructions of the Lord to his apostles: "Take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit" (Mark 13:11). The Holy Spirit re-vealed the things of inspiration to the apostles, and the Holy Spirit provided the words of inspiration to the apostles by which to express the things of revelation. Thus revelation Plus inspiration equals the Word of God.
One of the most glaring perversions of the socalled new versions of the Bible is the deliberate mistranslation exhibited in the paraphrase of this Corinthian passage. The new book, which bears the title of the Revised Standard Version, prints Cor. 2:14: "The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God . . . and he is not able to understand them." The other book, which bears the name The NewEnglish Bible, makes the passage read that "the unspiritualman . . . cannot grasp it." So these two new Bibles make the apostle Paul teach the doctrine that an unregenerate man can-not understand God's revelation to man and thus they insert the old cobwebs of false theology that an alien cannot understand the gospel without an operation to remove his un-spiritual nature. It is a premeditated mutilation of the doctrineof the Holy Spirit. The apostle's use of the phrase "the natural man" has no reference to an alien or unregenerated or unspiritual man it is the man of natural knowledge; and the passage does not assert that he cannot understand or cannotgrasp the things of God's revelation to man; it states that hecannot receive them through his natural channels, or know them from his natural resources. It is folly to make the word natural mean unspiritual or unregenerate, for a very spiritually minded man may be among men of scientific research, yet it would be as true of him as of any other that he could not discover the things of revelation through the mediums of natural knowledge. On the other hand if the alien unregenerate can-not understand or grasp divine revelation there could be no purpose in preaching the gospel to sinners, it would be use-less and wasted endeavor.
I have spent much time in the perusal of the so-called new Bible, and there are hundreds, many hundreds of passages that have been so rephrased as to reverse the meaning of the inspired Word, and these committees of men who have re-written the Bible come under the condemnation of apostolic days: "who changed the truth of God into a lie." The further a textual examination of these new versions is pursued the more apparent is the perfidy of their perversions. They are not new translations at all they are no translations. . And there are young preachers by the scores peddling these new Bibles in their preaching and berating the Bible with which the battles for the truth against all donominational error has been fought through all generations of the church on this continent. These young preachers are hurting the churches and ruining themselves. This is the real modernism confronting the church today; and if the colleges to which our people in the church have entrusted their sons and daughters replace the Bible with these purported new versions, it portends two things: the schools will go the way of Bethany College, and the churches will succumb to modernism. It is, indeed, time to cry, "Watchman, what of the night?" and to call all preachers of the gospel and elders of the churches to arms who hold in regard the integrity of the Bible, "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (1 Thess. 1:13).
Reverting now from this preliminary excursion to another facet of the Holy Spirit's mission, as we approach slowly but surely the principles involved in the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit.
II. THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE KINGDOM The mission of the Son of God in the world was the establishment of the kingdom of heaven. His first announcement was in the words of Mark 1:15 : "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand." The people of Galilee and Judea were familiar with the word kingdom and knew what it meant. From the time of the Babylonians, the Persians, the Grecians and then the Romans, the people had lived under the rule of kings and kingdoms, and they knew the word. But here is One who announced a kingdom of heaven. It meant the reign of heaven in the hearts of men, a kingdom "not from hence"; it was to be here, but not from here, its character was heavenly. The spiritual nature if it was expressed in the words of Luke 17:20 : "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation," and of verse 21, "For, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." It would not be possible to measure its geographical boundaries with the transit of the surveyor, nor with the theodolite by which the astronomer measures celestial regions this kingdom would not be conspicuous by outward splendor, but would be "within" its subjects the reign of heaven in the hearts of men. The establishment of this king-dom was the sum total of the mission of Christ into the world. He came "to seek and to save the lost," but by the establish-ment of the reign of heaven in the hearts of men.
The inauguration of this kingdom was identified with the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, as stated by the Lord himself in Mark 9:1 : "There be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." In the preparation of his disciples for Pentecost, after his resurrection, recorded in Acts 1:8, Jesus said: "Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you"; and in Acts 2:1-4 the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them is narrated. These passages link the establishment of the kingdom with the coming of the Holy Spirit; and the text of Matthew 12:28-31 links the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit with the coming of the kingdom: "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you . . . Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men." It is evident that the Lord here anticipates the dispensation of the Holy Spirit and identifies the establishment of the kingdom with it, and associates with it the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit. At the time of the words spoken by Jesus in Matthew 12:24-32 and Mark 3:22-29 the Holy Spirit had not been offered to men to accept or reject. The exercise of the Spirit of God by the Lord in casting out devils was in evidence that the kingdom of God was about to be established; but the apostle John said in the gospel record of Jno. 7:39 that "the Holy Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." The gospel of Luke records in chapter 25:26 that Jesus was glorified after his sufferings, and Paul affirms in 1 Timothy 3:16 that he was "received up into glory." The actual sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit could not have been committed before the Holy Spirit was offered, and Matthew's record connects this sin with the Kingdom-Spirit dispensation in the words: "Then is the kingdom of God come unto you. . . wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men." The warning shall not be forgiven unto men" was made in anticipation of the rejection of the Holy Spirit's dispensation after the kingdom was established. In the record of Mark 3:29 it is referred to as an eternal sin: "But he that shall blaspheme the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal dam-nation." This is not the language of a thing that had been done, but of something concerning which they were in danger
"he that shall blaspheme," and "in danger of eternal dam-nation." It is hardly a thing to believe that an unpardonable sin was committed by a party of Pharisees before the death of Christ, of which men could not repent, and therefore a segment of humanity cut off from the human race for whom Jesus Christ could not have died. It is not compatible with the redemption declaration of Hebrews 2:9 "that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
The sayings of Christ all the way from the river of Jordan where he was baptized, to the hill of Calvary where he was crucified, were kingdom principles, gospel previews and Pente-cost pointers. After his baptism, having descended from the Mount Of Temptation, the record of Matthew 4:23 states that "Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom," He preached the good, glad news of the kingdom which was announced in Mark 1:15. The discourse with Nicodemus reported in the third chapter of John, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" and "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," pointed to Pentecost. The message of the twelve and of the seventy, during the Lord's personal ministry, "And as ye go, preach, saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand," was pointing to Pentecost. The Lord said in Luke 16:16 that "the law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." The phrase "until John" means until John's order ended. At the house of Cornelius, in Acts 10:37, Peter used the phrase.
"after the baptism which John preached." These statements mean after the cross, and "since that time" means since the cross, the kingdom of God was preached, and all men pressed into it under the Great Commission. These are all Pentecost pointers, and in the light of these comparisons it becomes more evident to me that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, connected as it was with another of the Lord's saying concerning the kingdom, is included also in the Pentecost pointers.
These are some of the previews of the gospel and principles of the kingdom which come within the range of this discussion, but before a further analysis of various passages bearing on what has been regarded as the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit, it is necessary to bring into perspective the mission of the Holy Spirit and the nature and scope of his operations.
III. THE DISPENSATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
There was, first of all, the Lord's promise to his apostles of the Comforter, which he would send after his departure from them and his return to the Father. This Comforter was the Paracletos for which term there is no English correspondent. Itmight have been anglicized, or "englishized" to read Paraclete, which still would have been the promise of something to the apostles alone, which would fill the place of Jesus with them. Because Jesus said, in the text of John 14:16-26, "I will not leave you comfortless," the noun "Comforter" was applied to this promise as the name for it. But we are not left to surmise what it designates: "I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter . . . even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive." The Comforter therefore was the measure of the Holy Spirit possessed by the apostles for the revelation of the truth "the Spirit of truth," or complete inspiration, and was promised only to the apostles of Christ.
The clause "whom the world cannot receive" does not refer to the alien sinner not receiving a direct operation of the Holy Spirit. There are numerous passages by which to disprove that contention, without using a passage that does not refer to it. The term world here has reference to men in general as opposite to the apostles of Christ, and it means that this promise was special and not general; It was a promise to the apostles alone, and to no one else. The proof of this affirmation is seen in the functions ascribed to the Comforter in chapter 14:26, and 16:13. The Comforter would "bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" and "he will guide you into all truth." Here is stated the two-fold office of the Holy Spirit Comforter in the apostles: first, the reminding office of the Holy Spirit in them--"bring all things to yourremembrance"; and second, the revealing office of the Holy Spirit in them "he shall teach you all things" and "he will guide you into all truth." The Lord did not teach his apostles "all things" or "all truth" while he was with them this he said in chapter 16:12: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now" but when "the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you in all truth." It was therefore reserved for the Comforter, the Holy Spirit of inspiration, to reveal to the apostles the things that the Lord had not Himself told them, and thus complete the gospel plan of redemption. It is apparent, therefore, that the promise of the Comforter was made to the apostles alone.
It must here be further postulated that this Comforter was synonymous with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which also was a promise to the apostles only. Properly defined the Holy Spirit baptism was the clothing with power which came to the apostles on Pentecost. In the promise of Luke 24:49 the Lord said they should "be endued with power from on high," other-wise translated, "clothed with power"; and in Acts 2:4 on the day of Pentecost the waiting apostles "were all filled with the Holy Spirit." It was not the manner of the Holy Spirit's descent from heaven that constituted the baptism in the Spirit, but their being filled or overwhelmed, or endued and clothed
It was the result, not the manner of descent, that defines the Holy Spirit baptism, which the apostles only received. If any power of the Holy Spirit was lacking, it could not have been the overwhelming, or the baptism, and it is therefore a mistake to assume that others than the apostles, who received certain measures, or were subjects of certain manifestations of the Spirit, were thereby recipients of the Holy Spirit baptism.
It is sometimes insisted that 1 Corinthians 12:13, "For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body," makes the baptism of the Holy Spirit general. But the preposition by expresses the agency, not the element of the baptism of this verse. The agent of baptism cannot also be the element, and the Spirit that is, teaching of the Spirit was the agent of the baptism. The passage is this: By one Spirit (the teaching) are we all baptized (immersed in water) into one body (the church) . . .and have been all made to drink into (participate in the blessings of) one Spirit." There is no Holy Spirit baptism in this or any other passage referring to others than the apostles of Christ.
The bearing of the conversion of Cornelius on the subject of Holy Spirit baptism has been much discussed, with the generally prevailing idea that Cornelius was the recipient of Holy Spirit baptism. A study of what the Holy Spirit was, the purpose of it, and the power it imparted, will substantiate, I believe, my own conviction that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit at the house of Cornelius, as recorded in the tenth and eleventh chapters of Acts, was not Holy Spirit baptism. The statement of Peter, "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit," indicates only that this occurrence reminded Peter of what had occurred on Pentecost; and he continued to say, "Forasmuch as God gave unto them (the Gentiles) the like gift as he did unto us (apostles)." It was a like gift, not the same thing, and was like it only in the manner in which it had descended upon themas a manifestation of Gentile acceptance. Chapter 10:45, as well as 11:17, refers to this outpouring as a "gift" and not as the baptism, and it is nowhere directly called the baptism. When Peter declared that he remembered the word of the Lord, "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit," it was the promise made to the apostles which, according to Acts 1:5, was to have been fulfilled and completed on the day of Pentecost. The statement of Peter in Acts 11:15, "as upon us at the beginning" is indicative of manner and not of the measure of the reception the passage says as, a comparison; like it in the manner by which the incident occurred, descending directly from heaven, which reminded Peter he "remembered" the Pentecost occasion. Cornelius did not receive what the apostles had received; he did not know what the apostles knew; he could not do what the apostles could do; and he was therefore not endued nor clothed with the power which the Holy Spirit bestowed. He had no inspiration that the Holy Spirit baptism imparted; the gift that he received was an out-ward manifestation only, and did not continue with him, but was designed only to demonstrate to the Jews that the Gen-tiles were acceptable to God as gospel subjects. There was no reason why the Holy Spirit baptism should be employed for that end and purpose.
There can be no degrees in Holy Spirit baptism. Any two men baptized in the Holy Spirit would have equal measure of it. The apostles, including Paul, all had the Holy Spirit baptism, but they possessed equal measure of inspiration; one apostle did not have more of the baptism than another, and one was not less inspired than them all. On the point of receiving the apostolic powers and credentials, Paul declared in 2 Corinthians 11:5 that he was "not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." There was no such thing as measures of Holy Spirit baptism, or of a limited Spirit baptism. If Cornelius had been baptized in the Holy Spirit he would have possessed all powers imparted by it and belonging to it, and he would not have been inferior to the apostles of Christ in any respect; he would have known all that the apostles knew, and could have done all that the apostles could do, and it would not have been necessary for Peter to have told him anything.
In answering the claims of men now, who claim the Holy Spirit baptism, gospel preachers challenge them to do what the Spirit baptized apostles did, and demonstrate their claim. As goes the proposition, so must be the demonstration. In myown experience in debate with a leading proponent of the Holy Spirit baptism, he had difficulty finding and reading his scrip-ture passages, and became confused in his use of the notes prepared for his speeches. It was my pleasure to chide him about it: if he had what he claimed he could have discarded his notes, and he could have surely quoted his scripture passages. The men who had the Holy Spirit baptism wrote the Bible, and if men had the Spirit baptism today they could write it again.
Now, apply these powers of Holy Spirit baptism to the case of Cornelius and see the argument for it vaporize. It has been a wonder to me that some denominational preachers have not replied to the challenge for a demonstration of their claim by applying this inconsistency to some of our preachers, and thereby put them "over the barrel" in the case of Cornelius, for of certainty he did not possess the powers of the Holy Spirit baptism, nor could he have demonstrated what our own preachers have challenged the denominationalists to do in proof of the claim. The fact that Cornelius was enabled to speak with tongues was not a demonstration, because the mere existence of tongues was not a sign of Spirit baptism, hut of a gift, such as prevailed among members of the churches during the time of spiritual endowments. There are numerous examples of the use of tongues for special purposes which had no connection at all with the Holy Spirit baptism. The Old Testament records that Balaam's ass employed the tongue of a man, but I dare say that no one would claim that the ass was baptized in the Holy Spirit In a final word on the point, the proof of the Holy Spirit baptism does not consist in the special endowments such as the spiritual gifts, or in the outward manifestation for special purposes as in the case of Cornelius; but it applies to the possession of the Comforter which the Lord Jesus Christ promised to his apostles, the plenary and verbal inspiration imparted to the apostles and to them alone. Any claim of Holy Spirit baptism by others than the apostles must be subject to demonstration, for as goes the proposition, so mustbe the demonstration.
The established fact that the baptism in the Holy Spirit was an endowment of inspiration, restricted to the apostles and confined to the apostolic age, does not imply that its benefits were thus limited; its effects include all who accept the teaching of the apostles, in that the blessings of the gospel which result from it are universal. There is, therefore, the relation of the Holy Spirit and the law of conversion to be considered in the conclusions to be reached regarding the sin against the Holy Spirit.
It has been difficult for people in general to make the proper discriminations between the special influences of the Holy Spirit by the special endowments of New Testament times, and the general working of the Holy Spirit through the word of God in the mind and heart. The effect of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles was its baptism. The direction of the Holy Spirit in the apostolic churches during he completion of the revealed word was called spiritual gifts. These provisional impartations were the tugboats of Christianity serving the purpose to guide the ship of the church out of the channel into the open sea, where it sails on its own strength with the revealed word. These miraculous powers were the scaffolding necessary to the building of the structure, but when the structure was completed the scaffolding was no longer needed and was removed. This was the argument of Paul in the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians, in which the apostle explained that "when that which is perfect" should come, that which was "in part" should be done away. The "perfect" was God's completely revealed word; That which was "in part" was revelation in its incomplete stage. The revelation of the word of God was not brought into its completion at once. No one apostle delivered the whole of divine revelation; it was delivered in part, fragmentary, not all at one time. When the parts were gathered, and brought together into one perfect whole, into the perfect revelation of the divine plan, then "that which is perfect" had come, no longer "in part" but in the whole. The provisional order then ceased.
The thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians is an inspired treatise on the end of the special gifts and immediate operations of the Spirit within the church and its members. The conclusion of the chapter in the last verse reads: "And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." This passage does not refer to heaven, and does not mean that "faith will be lost in sight, and hope will end in glad frustration." It refers to what would remain in the church when the order of special and provisional gifts had passed out. The exercise of special tongues, and direct knowledge, and inspired prophesying were all ready to end; but faith (the gospel system), and hope (in the promises of God), and love (the common bond) all these would remain as the permanent order when the temporary and provisional endowments had all come to an end and vanished away.
IV. THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD
The proposition that in the conversion of an alien the Holy Spirit operates only through the word has long withstood the crucial test of polemics. This was the effective phrase which was given such forceful emphasis by Alexander Campbell in the Campbell-Rice Debate on the operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion only through the word. The record of theLord's prayer in the seventeenth chapter of John included a petition for the apostles and them which should believe on him through their word. This mediate operation of the Spirit isnot a limitation of power it is not a question of power but of fact. It is not what God or the Spirit can do, but what God has ordained that the Holy Spirit does. The question involves the character of conversion, and the mental and moral change effected by faith in the word of God, and the rational nature of man. Aside from there being no necessity for such an extraordinary influence, the direct operation would be an infringement upon the freedom of the will and would, there-fore, destroy the nature of man. Such spiritual force would be divine coercion instead of voluntary obedience.
There are a multitude of points and passages which sustain only through the but only a few citations of some axiamatic scriptural postulations which are relavent to the deliberate rejection of the Holy Spirit's work may be used for the present purpose.
First:The declared mission of the Holy Spirit is proof that he operates only through the word. In the discourse with his disciples in the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of John, Jesus declared the mission of the Holy Spirit: He was the "Spirit of truth"; and his function would be to testify and teach and guide and convict with the instrument of the truth.In Ephesians 6:10 Paul referred to this instrument of truth as "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" that is, the word is the sword which the Holy Spirit forged as the weapon to be used in his work of conviction. It is not the Holy Spirit who uses the sword the word of God is the sword which the Spirit forged for us to use, the same as the truth which would teach and guide, and that is the policy of the Holy Spirit's mission.
Second:The cases of conversion recorded in the book of Acts, from Peter's sermon to the Jews of Jerusalem in Acts 2, to Paul's preaching to the Jews of Rome in Acts 28, prove that the Holy Spirit operates only through the word.
Third: The fact that every action or influence upon the mind or heart of man, which the Bible ascribes to the Holy Spirit, is also affirmed of the word of God, constitutes irrefutable proof that the Holy Spirit operates only through the word.
The category of these things is inclusive of all that the Spirit and the Word are said to do for us: to give faith; to bebegotten; to be born again; to be quickened; to be cleansed; to be purified; to be saved; to be filled, and to dwell in us; to be led; to have witness; to grow; to have the working within; to walk; to be strengthened, built up and established; to be comforted; to be raised up at the last day; and to resist, grieve and quench. All of these things the Holy Spirit is said to do and to be done by him, yet there is chapter and verse forevery single one that the word of God accomplishes it. These actions are not a dual process; it means that the work of the Holy Spirt is a mediate and not an immediate operation.
Fourth:The consequences of the theory of the direct influence and operation of the Holy Spirit are the proofs that it is a false doctrine.
In every case of New Testament conversion the preacher of the word was present. If the Spirit operates independent of the word, there would he no necessity for the presence of either the word of God or the preacher; nevertheless all the denominational preachers who teach the direct operation still want to do their own preaching. It is a matter of fact that there are no believers in Christ where evangelists with Bibles have not gone.
If the Holy Spirit operates independent of the word, all men should be converted. Men can resist arguments, and exhortations, but they cannot resist the application of naked omnipotence, and since God is no respecter of persons, the direct opera-tion theory would consistently require universal salvation.
The New Testament repeatedly represents the Holy Spirit as saying and speaking and revealing, showing that words arethe medium of influence, a rational influence addressed to the mind, the intelligence of the hearers. God does not circumvent the faculties of his creatures. Nothing is produced without seed. If the Spirit works independent of the word of God, what seed does it plant? If the Spirit plants a seed different from the gospel, then the gospel is cancelled; but if the Spirit plants the same seed, then the direct operation is cancelled.
If the Spirit operates without the word, then man cannot act until the Holy Spirit operates; but the New Testament teaches that all men are to be judged by the word. This kind of theory sets up one plan for salvation and another plan for judgment, and if any man is not saved and ready for the judgment the Holy Spirit would be responsible. These fundamental facts have a conclusive application to the actions that are involved in the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit, the sin which Mark declares will result in "eternal damnation."
Fifth:The apostolic references to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the one body, the church, and its members, afford proof that the Spirit's influence within us is a mediate result, not an immediate work, and that it is only through the word.
It has been established that everything the Bible says that the Spirit of God does for us or in us it also says the Word ofGod does. The New Testament in numerous passages affirmsthat the Spirit dwells in us, and we all believe it; but it is necessary to distinguish between the statement of what the Spirit does and the how it is done. The fact is indisputable but the how has been subjected to discussion. It is my con-viction that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within the Christian's heart is a mediate influence and not an immediate possession. A direct operation of the Holy Spirit on an alien would of necessity be miraculous; but the direct indwelling of the Spirit in a Christian would be no less miraculous, as it would be without medium in both cases. The two actions would involve direct operations, the only difference being in the persons acted upon. We cannot accept any direct, immediate action of the Holy Spirit, to do so is a doctrinal error. It is not consistent with arguments made against denominational claims of direct spiritual workings, and we cannot maintain the argument against such in one case and admit it in another. And consistency requires the same demonstration. The denominationalist is challenged, to the point of bantering, to show any effect of a direct operation that the word of God will not produce, and a demonstration is demanded. It applies with equal force to the claim of direct indwelling as goesthe proposition, so must be the demonstration. There is nothing that the Holy Spirit is said to do as an influence upon or in us that the inspired word is not also said to do.
But it is urged with much animation that it plainly says the Spirit dwells in us. Truly so, and it just as plainly say that God and Christ dwell in us. In terms just as plain 2 Corinthians 6:16 and Revelation 21:3say that God dwells in us, and there are many Old Testament passages that so state. And with statements no less plain such passages as John 6:56, Ephesians 3:17, 1 John 3:24, 2 John 1:9, and Revelation 3:20 all say that Christ dwells in us. When these statements are made concerning the indwelling of God and Christ, it is understood by all to mean not a personal entrance of God and Christ into one's heart, but a representative indwelling. God was said to dwell in and walk in the Corinthians on the condition of their obedience to the command of separation in life from idolatry. Christ was said to dwell in the hearts of the Ephesians by faith a representative indwelling, a mediate, not an immediate indwelling. The same principle is true in reference to the Holy Spirit. There is no reason in applying this principle to the former and denying it of the latter.
An example of the mediate indwelling of the Spirit is seen in the parallel passages of Ephesians 5:18-19 and Colossians 3:16. The apostle exhorted the Ephesians to be filled with the Spirit in their singing of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. But he admonished the Colossians to let the word of Christ dwellin them richly in their singing of psalms and hymns andspiritual songs. The apostle did not exhort the Ephesian church to possess one thing and the Colossian church another it was merely two ways of stating the same thing: that is, the rich indwelling of the word, is the indwelling of the Spirit. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the infusion of the word and infusion of the Spirit but the word of God is the fuse. It means that the teaching of the Holy Spirit possesses the heart and controls its actions.
There is no policy in the New Testament for any direct action of the Holy Spirit upon the heart of man. The Creator made man a rational being, and he influences him only through rational processes. God does not circumvent the faculties of man, either in the conversion of the sinner, or the subsequent experiences of the Christian. If an inquiry is made as to the difference between the influence of the Holy Spirit on an alien and a Christian, the answer is that the action of the Holy Spirit is mediate in both, the difference is in the effect. In the operation of the Holy Spirit through the word upon the heart of an alien, the effect is belief and conviction; the working of the Spirit in the heart of the Christian is the rich indwelling of the word to form within him the mind and disposition of Christ, the temper that should control every Christian, and the growth "in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," as stated in 2 Peter 3:18. If anyone thinks otherwise, let him name any effect of the Holy Spirit in the Christian's heart that the word of Christ in Colossians 3:16 does not engender. The one who attempts to name it will restore to an inner consciousness of feelings in that sort of "something better felt than told" of all denominational imagination and falsehood. That is why the claims of the direct possession and indwelling of the Holy Spirit after conversion is a doctrinal error.
The New Testament passages brought into use to teach the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit fall short of the ap-plications made of these scriptures. There is a failure to distinguish between the does and the how of the indwelling. The same statements are made concerning God and Christ dwelling within us, but no one has ever applied these passages to the personal indwelling of God and Christ in us. But the same principles apply to the Spirit that apply to God and Christ.
In Luke 11:13 Jesus said that the heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him; but the parallel passage in Matthew 7:11 the Lord puts good things in the place of Holy Spirit, and this is the Lord's own commentary on thepassages, that the gift of the Holy Spirit meant the good things of the Spirit. This is also the meaning of Acts 5:32, that God had given the Holy Spirit to them that obey him. The Spirit is here put for the blessings proceeding from him. The parallel between Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19 will show that "the gift of the Holy Spirit" referred to all the blessings of the Spirit's dispensation, the gospel age, as further indicated in Ephesians 1:3 in the expression "all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ."
The case of the twelve at Ephesus, in Acts 19:1-6, does not apply to the present time. Paul inquired: "Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?" The statement of verse 6 shows that it was a reference to the bestowal of the SpiritualGifts by the hands of the apostles: "And when Paul had laidhis hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them." The apostle's question was intended to ascertain if the special endowments of the Spiritual Gifts had been imparted to them since they believed, that is, subsequent to the time of their baptism, as stated in verse 3. But as they knew only the baptism of John, they had no knowledge of the Holy Spirit's dispensation they had "not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit" that is, whether the Holy Spirit had come, or had been given. After instructing them in the gospel dispensation, Paul baptized them "in (eis into) the name of the Lord Jesus," and when he "had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them." This passage, therefore, cannot be pressed into use for the present reception or indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as it provides neither precept nor example for the influence of the Spirit in this day and time, either direct or indirect, ordinary or extraordinary. The passage clearly referred to the impartation of the Spiritual Gifts by the laying on apostolic hands, belongs to that classification, and is not applicable to any reception or influence of the Holy Spirit since the era of inspiration.
The references to the indwelling Spirit in Romans the eighth chapter have two applications: First, the spirit, mind and disposition of Christ; and second, the spirit of adoption and sonship in contrast with the spirit of the slave or servant.
In the statement of verse 9 the expressions "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of Christ" are interchangeable, and the clause "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" is followed by the phrase, in verse 10, "and if Christ be in you." This is Paul's own commentary that the indwelling of the Spirit means the same thing as "Christ in you" and the one can be no more personal than the other. The verses that refer to the witness of the Spirit apply to rendering service to God as sons of God, and not as slaves; and the spirit of sonship in which we serve God, agrees with the witness or testimony of the Holy Spirit regarding our sonship. In verses 26 and 27 the apostle refers to the intercession of the Spirit on our behalf "with groanings which cannot be uttered," and it has been urged that this is something the Holy Spirit does which is not ascribed to the Word. But the exception is not valid, for the reference here would describe the Spirit's in-fluence upon God in heaven, not upon us. It was suggested to me some years ago by R. L. Whiteside, the ablest teacher of the Bible known to me, that the Spirit in Romans 8:26-27 could refer to the human spirit and not to the Holy Spirit, and the meaning of the text, therefore, would be: that our own spirit groans or yearns in intercession to God for that which cannot be uttered, or put into words. Whether that is the meaning of the verses or not, it is provocative of thought but the passage does not refer to any action of the Holy Spirit upon or in us and, therefore, does not offer an exception to the proposition that every influence upon us that the Bible ascribes to the Holy Spirit, it also affirms of the Word of God. This does not minimize the Holy Spirit, it magnifies the Word of God.
The apostle in Ephesians 1:13-14 refers to being sealed with the Holy Spirit, as an earnest of our inheritance, and it is claimed that this assurance teaches an influence of the Spirit separate from the Word. That is a complete misconception of the passage. The seal of the state on a legal document places the authority of the government on the warranty deed. The apostle had made reference to "the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation." The seal of the Holy Spirit's authority was on the word of truth, and was the warranty and earnest of the promises of the inheritance offered in the gospel of our salvation. There is no greater earnest of our title to the inheritancepromised in the gospel than the authority of the Holy Spirit which it contains. In reference to these same things the other apostle said in 1 Peter 1:12 : "Which are now reported unto you by them which have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven." Thus the Holy Spirit's seal and earnest are stamped upon the Word of God.
It is urged that when Paul said to the Galatians, in Galatians 4:6, that "because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba Father," it means the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The "Spirit" of this passage is the spirit of sonship whereby we are entitled to say "abba Father," that is "Father, Father." As the son has the spirit, the disposition of his father, the child of God has the spirit of sonship; he is a son, not a servant or slave. The seventh verse makes this point clear; "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." Because God is our Father this spirit of sonship, in contrast with slavery, is sent into our hearts. We, therefore, serve God with the spirit of an heir, the disposition of a son, and not of a slave. This is not a direct indwelling but is received in the same way that we become sons, or children of God. However, if it is to be insisted that the passage means the Holy Spirit in the heart, it would still remain that the sending of the Spirit into the heart is one thing, and how it issent is another, and the passage still would afford no proof for the direct personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Finally here, it is claimed that "the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you," mentioned in 1 John 2:27, is an indwelling of the Spirit which is not produced by the Word. The anointing of this passage in other translations is called an "unction," and has evident reference to the spiritual gifts that still remained in the church when the first epistle of John was written. In the same verse it states the result of this unction or anointing: "And ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth." This unction is described as an impartation, a special endowment belonging to the Spiritual Gifts era, so that those possessing it need not be taught that is, on the particular things that pertained to the unction. It appears to have bearing on discerning false teaching and judging the deceivers, and as thus guided they could reject the deceivers who were described as antichrist. This anointing did not continue, but passed out with all other spiritual gifts of the apostolic age. It appears altogether infeasible to apply this passage to the indwelling of the Spirit now, in the light of the statement that the one possessing it had no need of teaching, but were taught by the anointing.
During the apostolic age the specially endowed teachers were necessary to the teaching and edifying of the church, but these indwellings did not continue, and to apply this and other passages to a personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Christian today is a complete misfire. MacKnight's commentary renders this passage in this paraphrase: "Although I know that the gift of discerning spirits, which ye have received from the Holy Ghost, remaineth in you, and that ye have no need that any one should teach you how to judge of these deceivers and their doctrines, unless to exhort you to judge of them, as the same gift teacheth you concerning all things . . . wherefore, as it hath taught you that these teachers are antichrists, reject their doctrine, and abide in the truth concerning him." That is the exact meaning of 1 John 2:27, and it has no reference to the influence of the Holy Spirit upon or in us.
As in the case of the claim of Holy Spirit baptism, the claim for the personal indwelling of the Spirit calls for proof in the form of demonstration: Let them name an effect or an at-tribute of a personal indwelling which is not produced by the word of God within the hearts and lives of all true Christians.
V. THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT
There are two citations in the gospel records that deal with blaspheming the Holy Spirit: Matthew and Mark. The Matthew text covers connecting verses from the twenty-fourth to the thirty-second, and the shorter passage in Mark includes verses twenty-two to twenty-nine. The power to deliver a victim from demon possession was considered by the Jews the ultimate proof of divinity, but the scribes and the Pharisees had ascribed this power of Christ to the head of the demon world, Beelzebub. Jesus answered this charge by convicting them of inconsistency in having "Satan cast out Satan" or, as stated in Mark, having "Satan rise against himself, and be divided," and thus bring an end to himself. Then Mark sounded this note of warning to the Jews: "He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit bath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." Matthew puts it in the statement: "But the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men." These words sound a note of the future from the then present, pointing to a time when the Holy Spirit would be offered to men to accept or reject. It is my considered opinion and conviction that these words of Christ take their place among the Pentecost pointers so predominant in his teaching from Jordan to Calvary.
Before further elucidation of this concept, it is in order to examine some passages that have been misused to teach an, unpardonable sin. Many people entertain apprehensions that they may have committed such a sin and despair of obedience to the gospel for salvation, but such fears are the best proof that they are still open to repentance and pardon.
A frequently misconstrued passage is Hebrews 6:4-6 : "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened . . . if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance." The entire context of the Hebrew epistle is the argument of Paul against a mass apostasy from the new covenant to the Mosaic law, a reversion from Christianity to Judaism. The first verses of chapter six enumerate a category of ordinances that once had their place in the elder dispensation, but_ which had been nullified at the cross and had no part in the new covenant. The mention of the first principles in verse 1, referred to the rudiments or elements of Judaism as in Galatians 4:1-4, which were fundamental or rudimentary to the new covenant, in the same way that Paul in Galatians 3:24-25 affirmed that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." The Hebrews were exhorted to leave these first principles of the Mosaic law, or Judaism, and "go on unto perfection" in the new coven-ant. Identifying the obsolete ordinances the apostle named repentance from dead works the sacrificial system; and faith toward God before Christ came; and the doctrine of the plural washings of the Mosaic law; and laying on of hands the priestly ceremonies of the tabernacle services; and of resurrection of the dead reviving the dead ordinances of Judaism; and of eternal judgment the annual renewing of sins without remission. The existing threat was the defection from the new covenant to the abrogated law of Moses, which appeared to have endangered even some of the spiritually endowed among them. But if they should thus fall away from the new covenant and return to the old order, it would be impossible for them to obtain the renewing again unto repentance from the relegated altars. The Mosaic altars were no longer efficacious, and there was nothing to which they could return. The impossibility of being renewed unto repentance of this passage refers to the obsolete altars of Judaism and not to an unpardonable sin that someone may mysteriously commit.
The same application must be made of the warning in Hebrews 10:26 : "For if we sin willfully after that we have received a knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." Under the threat of persecution described in verses 31 to 39, some of the Hebrew Christians had forsaken theassembly, which meant the abandonment of the new covenant.The Lord's Supper is the new covenant in his blood, Jesus declared in Matthew 26:28. To forsake a thing means to renounce it and abandon it. The urgent need of a "more and more" exhortation was based upon "the day approaching," which undoubtedly refers to an eminent day, the day of their persecutions, as "the present distress" of the Corinthian passage. To say that Paul meant for them to exhort each other more on Saturday than on Monday before is too trite for this context. The reference to the assembly means the first day of the week, and the day approaching referred to the impending persecutions as verses 32 to 39 clearly show. The knowledge of the truth in verse 26 means the new covenant; and the sinning willfully referred to abandoning the knowledge of the new covenant and returning to Judaism; and the consequence was: "There remaineth no more sacrifice for sin" that is, the whole sacrificial system was obsolete and the altars of Judaism no longer provided atonement for sin. Reverting to the same persecution in chapter 13:10, the apostle said: "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle." Our altar is Jesus Christ, and those who return to the Mosaic system, represented by the tabernacle, were cut off from the new covenant altar. Verses 26 to 29 of chapter 10 give a clear visual description of the fearful consequences of renouncing the new covenant. But what is commonly called the unpardonable sin is not implied in these verses.
A final passage, misunderstood and misapplied, is 1 John 5:16 : "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." It is evident that the use of the pronoun "he" all through this passage refers to the man who prays for the sinning brother. The statement "he shall give him life" indicates the exercise of spiritual gifts and connects this passage with the "effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man" of James 5:14-16 in the exercise of the category of spiritual gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12. The passage presents two classes of men and a classification of sins. It is not a single sin not unto death, and is therefore not a single sin that is unto death. The man who sins not unto death is a brotherwho is not a habitual sinner, and he maintains a life of general rectitude and of repentance when he sins. The man who sins unto death, sins with no restraint and without feelings that lead to repentance. The first man comes under the rule of Galatians 6:1 where the "spiritual" that is, the ones who possessed the spiritual gifts, were to use their offices to "restore such an one." So here, the spiritual man prays for the brother sinning in some way against "the brotherhood" mentioned by John, but with the disposition to repent, and as stated in James 5:15, "the Lord shall raise him up" and his sins "shall be forgiven him." The prayer of faith is evidently a reference to the spiritual gift mentioned in the twelfth and thirteenth chapters of First Corinthians in reference to the exercise of spiritual gifts. But praying for the one who has no sense of guilt or penitence was not within the endowments of the spiritually gifted men to perform, and his sins would inevitably end in his spiritual death. Jesus Christ expressed the same principle in addressing the Jews: "I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in, your sins: whither I go ye cannot come." The sinning man, who does not turn away from the habits of sin, cannot effectually pray, or be prayed for, but "abideth in death," and he lives in the possibility of incurring its final doom. But there is not in any of these passages the connotations of an unpardonable sin.
The Lord said in Matthew's statement on blaspheming the Holy Spirit that it would not be forgiven "neither in this world, neither in the world to come." The whole context in-dictates that the phrase "this world" had reference to the Holy Spirit's age which the language was anticipating. It could have no application to the Jewish age or the period of the Lord's ministry, for neither was the dispensation of the Holy Spirit. In Ephesians 2:21 the same expression occurs, and there this world referred to the gospel age, and the world to come referred to eternity. That is the significance of these phrases in Matthew 12:32. The language anticipated the dispensation of the Holy Spirit beginning on the day of Pentecost. The subject was the Holy Spirit, and the reference to this world in that connection meant the Holy Spirit's age or dispensation, and to blaspheme the work of the Holy Spirit, after his testimony was offered to men in the completion of God's redemptive plan, would constitute a final rejection of all divine overtures, and would have no mitigation in this last dispensation of time, and there would be no clemency in eternity.
With emphasis on the finality of this blasphemy, Jesus said: "Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him. There could be no reason why speaking against the Christ should be less fatal than speaking against the Holy Spirit, or that speaking against the Holy Spirit should be more mortal than speaking against Jesus Christ, except for one thing: the element of time, of dispensation, of the gospel age, and of he Holy Spirit's testimony. The rejection of Christ during his earthly and personal minis-try was not final. But the repudiation of the Holy Spirit in the dispensation of his testimony to reprove the world of sin, of righteousness, and judgment" (Jno. 16:8), would be the final act of rejection. Jesus was speaking of the present with reference to himself, and of the future as it applied to the Holy Spirit. There could be no difference now in the rejection of the Holy Spirit and the rejection of Jesus Christ, and here are numerous passages to sustain this assertion. The record of Mark says, "he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit bath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation."
It is the language of the future in danger of eternal damnation. The parallel with Mark's record of the Great Commission is compelling: He that believeth not shall be damned and he that blasphemes the Holy Spirit by a repudiation of his testimony shall be in danger of damnation. It reverts to the connection in Matthew's record between the establishment of the kingdom and the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit the sin of repudiating the Spirit's testimony in the gospel age. There are numerous passages that use this word blaspheme in that very sense. The apostle mentioned blaspheming the word of God in Titus 2:5. There could be no valid distinction be-tween blaspheming the Spirit and blaspheming the word of the Spirit.
In the scope of these premises there is but one logical conclusion: the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit must of necessity have started from Pentecost. The connection with the kingdom in the Lord's own statements, the coming of the kingdom with the power and the Spirit on the day of Pentecost these were all Pentecost pointers; and upon that occasion, in fulfillment of all that the prophets had foretold and that the teaching of Christ had anticipated, the Holy Spirit's testimony was offered to all mankind to accept or reject. In the acceptance of it the word of God was glorified, and in the repudiation of it the Holy Spirit was blasphemed.
But the deliberate repudiation of the Holy Spirit's testimony is not the only way that men sin against the Spirit. There is an apathy toward the Holy Spirit's appeals which if continued will result in the same eternal damnation. The law of atrophy decrees that a member of the body unused, nature removes. The eyes may be punched out, and that would be an unpardonable sin against the sight; but the eyes may be closed with a bandage impervious to light, and in time the optic nerve will have become an insensate thread, never to see again the slower method, but the same result. The arm may be amputated, but it may also be bound to the side without use for a certain length of time and the withering process would destroy it be-yond restoration again, the slower method, but the same result. It is so spiritually. The apostle mentioned some who were "past feeling," and others who had "their conscience seared with a hot iron." This was not so with them always, it was the progressive state resulting from continued rejection of the word of God. The same apostle exhorted certain men to "grieve not the Holy Spirit of God" and that is done by withstanding the inspired testimony of the Spirit. Stephen accused the Jews of resisting the Holy Spirit by disobedience to the Holy Spirit's teaching. Paul exhorted the Thessalonians to "quench not the Spirit" by extinguishing from within the word of God.
The Holy Spirit's earnest appeal to prompt action says: "Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts." To the Corinthians the apostle said that the gospel of Christ to one is "the savour of death unto death; and to the other a savour of life unto life" to all who reject the gospel it is the deadly smell that leads to the death of the soul; to all who accept its promises it is the spiritual fragrance that perfumes the soul and leads to endless life. The same process that hardens wax will soften clay, and the same gospel that saves the believer will damn the unbeliever. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
These passages are the perpetual persuasions to all men not to sin against the Holy Spirit.