Spiritual Warfare

Is it possible for one person to deceive another or hurt the other to such an extent that a man can ensure the condemnation of another? A rather dark question I know. That is can a person cause another to blaspheme the Holy Spirit?EDIT: After I posted this I have remembered the saying of "focus only on what's good, right, and holy." I am however interested at this moment in how much damage can be done during the last days and now; what does the church have to protect itself against currently? I'm trying to get an understanding of what the evil one and his can actually do.

There's a book by John Bevere called "The Bait Of Satan". I usually don't read comtempory writters but this book is an exception. It deals with Offenses. I highly recommend it, it deals with the last times. God Bless , Bro. Daryl

Is it possible for one person to deceive another or hurt the other to such an extent that a man can ensure the condemnation of another? A rather dark question I know. That is can a person cause another to blaspheme the Holy Spirit?Strange, but your interesting question brought to my mind the African American Christian. Because I am so sensitive to offense and insult it boggles my mind to think that many of the Africans taken captive during the 400 years of western slave trade became believers in the gospel. Not only did they accept what some might have derided as the "white man's religion" but I believe they showed America what a rapturous faith in Christ looks like compared to mere theology. I think the African American church is proof of the Holy Spirit being real. No mere man could find love in his heart for the god of the people who who wrongfully enslaves others. Clearly Jesus became real to those blessed saints in a way that their caucasion owners would never know.God has used the African American Church to repay America with kindness for her cruelty. In fact it was African American Christian friends who showed this "Irish American" how to witness door to door and on college campuses....and how to praise the Lord!I'm not wanting to bring a wildly different issue into your thread...I just thought that here is an excellent example of how the Holy Spirit is not always impeded by our meanness or carelessness. I hope no one hears me saying that we can be insensitive or jerky! I'm just offering hope for those we think we might have scared away from the gospel by our wrong attitudes. Even an insult as ugly as racism can still be defeated by the love of God.Blessings

I've added the book to my wishlist at Amazon. So when I find another book to add up to $40 (for free shipping) I will get it. Thank you for your suggestion.Compton: Thanks for your comment. I have also found that with the help of the Holy Spirit I can forgive pretty much anything. This, not by my own righteousness though but by the grace of the Holy Spirit. However, what if a person could get another to offend the Holy Spirit in such a way that the Spirit would no longer strive with that poor soul. Ie. I understand that with the help of God anything is possible, but what when got no longer hears us.. An interesting story of yours; it's quite amazing.To everyone else that is reading this post, please post your insight. I believe this a rather tough question to answer and would be interested in what you have to say about it.

dorcas wrote:wsbg, I would like some clarification of your questions such as which of the men being hurt is the Christian or are they both Christians?> The person being tempted to blaspheme the Holy Spirit is a non-christian while the tempter is an anti-Christian And, what do you mean by 'blaspheme the Holy Spirit'? > I mean to greatly verbally slander, state the want of separation from, and profane.Two scriptures come to mind. I think Mark spells it out most clearly, although once one has his definition, it is also elsewhere.Mark 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.> Now, would the tempted non-Christian be eternally condemned because he said "he hath an unclean spirit?"1 Cor 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Do these help to clarify anything for you?> Yes, they do. Am I to understand that a test to see whether a person has blasphemed the Holy Spirit is whether that person can hold Him to be his Lord?

First---you have to note who Jesus was talking to---the Jews, secondly note the context. They were attributing the works of Christ to belezabub(sp????). Secondly must scholars believe that sin to be resisting the conviction of sin and the offer of forgiveness for sin. But that is a very difficult passage to understand and comprehend---the Mark passage that is. I believe an unsaved individual sins as part of thier nature, but at what point does God give up on them??? I don't think he ever does, but my seniment isn't backed by scripture. Bro. Daryl

>Is it possible for one person to deceive another or hurt the other to such an extent that a man can ensure the condemnation of another? >>In principle, no, unless they know what they are doing and still go ahead and do it.Then, lets say I'm a punk teenage kid who's got issues with God. Can I simply say to my friends: "Guess what? I heard that if you blaspheme God's Holy Spirit you will never be forgiven and you'll go to hell for certain. It sounds kinda' fun doesn't it & I'm sure this would upset your parents to hear! You wanna try! I'll go first." Then they all take turns calling God's Holy Spirit unclean. Are they then all condemned?>>If I understand you correctly, you have not understood this Corinthian text. It implies that unless a person has received the Holy Spirit themselves, they are capable of calling Jesus accursed, but, those who speak by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost 'can say Jesus is the Lord'. I understand this; it is clear. But if we know that without the Holy Spirit we can blaspheme Christ, and with the Holy Spirit we can not blaspheme Christ isn't it logical to conclude that if one 'can say Jesus is the Lord' they have proven in themselves that the Holy Spirit is upon them, thus that the Holy Spirit has not forsaken them, and that they have not blasphemed Him.>>Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, is when a person calls the Holy Spirit 'unclean'. There is no promise of forgiveness for this.So then, if someone can get another to say the simple words of "The Holy Spirit is unclean" they have ensured that that person will not be forgiven? This is what I'm trying to figure out.>>If I seem to have been rambling here, if you would, please clarify where you are in your hypothesis?My hypothesis is this: That the "abomination that causes desolation" will be something that will get people to call the Holy Spirit unclean. Further, that anyone who can get another to call the Holy Spirit unclean has the power to damn them for eternity by their lack of forgiveness with God. :-(

First question: Your illistration of the "punk kids", We are all only held accountable to the light---ie , understanding we have of God and His word. Let me give you an example. I know what electricity is, what it does and how it's used. I really don't understand electricity outside of intellectual knowledge until I have a good jolt of it go through my body, that experience will not only clarify for me some of the priniciples on electricity I only knew before that experience but it will convey to me an understanding of electricity. In the same way many people know God ---or should I say know about God--- but few possess an understanding of God. Many people have knowledge of God's Word but lack understanding of God's Word.I don't know if that helps? basically the kids probably really didn't know the full ramifications of thier actions so they would not be held accountable for anything other than sin. Secondly: Calling Jesus Lord is easy to do. But You have to rember the writers of the epistles were jews and as such when they speak they mean different things than we would if we were to write this. Example: word , to us a word is just a thing written or spoken, to the jew word was the embodiment of essence, it has creative or destructive force and could be used to bless or curse. John called Jesus the Word. Basically Jesus was the embodiment of the written Word of God in life on earth. It's the same way with Lord. It shows that in every area of life Jesus has supreme control and calls the shots. Lastly: The abomination that causes desolation is basically removing God from the center of worship and ,in the case of the anti-christ, he sets himself up as god to be worshiped. In the same way that lucifer tried to set himself up to be worshiped over God in heaven by the angels. Does that help???

Hi wsbg,Seems some backtracking is needed here.Your original question:Is it possible for one person to deceive another or hurt the other to such an extent that a man can ensure the condemnation of another? A rather dark question I know. That is can a person cause another to blaspheme the Holy Spirit?Flatly, no.'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink'.Two words that you used, "ensure" and "cause". Ultimately the responsibility for all that we do lays out our own two feet. There will be no other counsel at the judgement seat unless you have an advocate with the Father, Jesus. Other than that you are on your own. No one to blame, no other witness's either for or against you.Certainly 'cause' comes into play in a limited fashion. Remember, "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones"?But the basis for your preposition here is really off, as was mentioned, this is not about the speaking forth of mere words, but intents and motives of the heart, that which the Lord came to reaveal.A bit short here time wise, but really a proper understanding of what is meant by the blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is needed before you can even begin to address anything else. Hopefully there are some others than can give this more due dilgence.On a side note, being that you did bring in the 'desolation of abomination' and also just as a overall reflection in general...Found this very informative:The Future History of the Church

Thank you for all of your insights. This topic fascinates me and your understanding of the matter is taken together and added to my former understandings to get more of a correct view. I appreciate your input. I find that the deeper I study topics and the more opinions I get concerning an issue the better understanding I have of it."There is security in the counsel of many"

NOTE: Please consider this a bible study in search of finding orthodoxy in regard to sin and its temptations.I'm curious... why do you think that what I proposed is so off? I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it is off. But what were your reasons for rejecting the idea of verbal blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? To put it another way, are you certain that it is not possible to verbally blaspheme the Holy Spirit that would lead to death -- if so why? If not why not?Thanks for your time. Also, in response to some feedback:>>First question: Your illistration of the "punk kids", We are all only held accountable to the light---ie , understanding we have of God and His word.The controller of the conversation in this case would have tried their best to make it bluntly clear that any blasphemy of the Holy Spirit would result in eternal death. This would be conveyed as clearly as possible, and an attempt would be made to try to get the other person as far as possible to want to blaspheme the Holy Spirit themselves, knowing the consequences, and accepting the punishment.>> Let me give you an example. I know what electricity is, what it does and how it's used. I really don't understand electricity outside of intellectual knowledge until I have a good jolt of it go through my body, that experience will not only clarify for me some of the priniciples on electricity I only knew before that experience but it will convey to me an understanding of electricity. In the same way many people know God ---or should I say know about God--- but few possess an understanding of God. Many people have knowledge of God's Word but lack understanding of God's Word.I don't know if that helps? basically the kids probably really didn't know the full ramifications of thier actions so they would not be held accountable for anything other than sin. I find this interesting. Would my hypothesis [of verbal blapheme of the Holy Spirit leading to death] be more plausable being directed on a "disillusioned" priest who commits blatant sin then rather than on ignorant or spiteful kids.>> Secondly: Calling Jesus Lord is easy to do. But You have to rember the writers of the epistles were jews and as such when they speak they mean different things than we would if we were to write this. Example: word , to us a word is just a thing written or spoken, to the jew word was the embodiment of essence, it has creative or destructive force and could be used to bless or curse. John called Jesus the Word. Basically Jesus was the embodiment of the written Word of God in life on earth. It's the same way with Lord. It shows that in every area of life Jesus has supreme control and calls the shots.This would indicate that the safest person would be the person who is closest to Jesus Christ in action and in faith. I also understand that it is said to be impossible for a truly born-again Christian to blaspheme the Holy Spirit because if they were saved they would have to get "unsaved" and be less than a full and permanent salvation [Calvanistic-related theology]. What do you believe are points for and against this theory. >> Lastly: The abomination that causes desolation is basically removing God from the center of worship and ,in the case of the anti-christ, he sets himself up as god to be worshiped. In the same way that lucifer tried to set himself up to be worshiped over God in heaven by the angels. Does that help???Yes, I think it does. The Bible is very clear: "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." -Matthew 12:31 (NIV) And, at the same time "A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." - Rev 9 (NIV)So then worshiping the beast must equal blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Further, receiving the mark of the beast must equal blaspheming the Holy Spirit. But, we also have some good news:"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." - Rev 3:20 (NIV)This would indicate that blasphemers of the Holy Spirit can not hear His voice and open the door. I suppose then that those who feel called by God need not worry.The mark of the beast is said to be the name of the beast, and the name of the beast can apparently be represented by a number. Is it possible for us to receive his mark then in the present age? As I see it, I think it improbable that we can receive the mark of his name as the beast has not yet appeared and we do not know what his name will be. But since we have the knowledge that the beast's name can be represented by a number perhaps then we can receive the mark of his name in number form.These are all ideas to consider. I am not saying that the ideas are correct, but I am looking for your thoughts in regard to the ideas. They can be summed up by the following question: "Can people in the present day blaspheme the Holy Spirit in such a way that they want the Spirit in their lives but are forsaken?" or "Is it possible for one person to deceive another or hurt the other to such an extent that a man can ensure the condemnation of another [or help them bring themselves upon sin which they commit themselves which causes permanent spiritual death]? I have found some amazing material on the matter which I believe sound. They include:"The Holy Spirit: His Office and Work in the World" by William Henry Branson. Nashville, Tennessee. 1933. http://www.maranathamedia.com.au/Download/Books/The%20Holy%20Spirit%20-%20Branson.pdf- Its a free full e-Book recreation of an old book"(John - Part 35): The Unpardonable Sin - What it is, What it is Not" by A.W. Tozer- here on SermonIndex.net in MP3 formhttp://69.44.157.77/sermons/SID2122.mp3"The Unpardonable Sin" by David Wilkerson- here on SermonIndex.net in MP3 formhttp://69.44.157.77/sermons/SID4272.mp3Thank you for your input, and patience, taking my ideas "with a grain of salt"

I'm curious... why do you think that what I proposed is so off? I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it is off. But what were your reasons for rejecting the idea of verbal blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? To put it another way, are you certain that it is not possible to verbally blaspheme the Holy Spirit that would lead to death -- if so why? If not why not?Remember Jobs wife? "Curse God and die"Isn't it odd that she didn't for even suggesting it?From the article you linked to:The unpardonable sin is not some particular transgression which God refuses to forgive eventhough it be repented of, but instead it is the sinful, continual hardening of the heart against the Spirit's voice until the conscience is seared and the heart so hardened that His voice can no longer be recognized. The continued transgression of any command of God, the willful and repeated indulgence of any sin may lead to the sin against the Holy Ghost."First principles are definitions of what was meant.Mar 3:22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. Mar 3:23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? Mar 3:24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. Mar 3:25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. Mar 3:26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. Mar 3:27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. Mar 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Mar 3:30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Mat 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. Mat 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Mat 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. The problem with this is in not making sounds formed by lips, vocalised words but what is the intention of a man. It would be a bit odd for the Lord to grant forgiveness on the basis of a word spoken against him, say nothing of the Father and only make this apply to the Holy Spirit, especially if you take into account the Godhead as a whole, as it is.This is all very peculiar reasoning that you have here and a jump further here:My hypothesis is this: That the "abomination that causes desolation" will be something that will get people to call the Holy Spirit unclean. Further, that anyone who can get another to call the Holy Spirit unclean has the power to damn them for eternity by their lack of forgiveness with God.It is still no and no. You can have no power over another mans soul, nor in climbing inside his head to force something borne out of his heart. By the same token using this as illustravitve of Daniels prophecy and again marrying 'words' as some kind of force carrying effectual agent in and of themselves...sounds suspiciously like more of a WOF type of thing. There is no correlation here. They can be summed up by the following question: "Can people in the present day blaspheme the Holy Spirit in such a way that they want the Spirit in their lives but are forsaken?" or "Is it possible for one person to deceive another or hurt the other to such an extent that a man can ensure the condemnation of another [or help them bring themselves upon sin which they commit themselves which causes permanent spiritual death]? Still no.If you are breathing air you can repent. As has been stated, you can suppress things to such a state that the progression is leading oneself farther and farther away, but it will always be one's own doing and choosing to reject, and that ultimately will be the unpardonable sin.Mat 12:31-32 - In this place, and in Mar_3:28-30, Jesus states the awful nature of the sin of which they had been guilty. That sin was the sin against the Holy Spirit. It consisted in charging him with being in league with the devil, or accusing him of working his miracles, not by the “spirit” or “power” of God, but by the aid of the prince of the devils. It was therefore a direct insult, abuse, or evil speaking against the Holy Spirit - the spirit by which Jesus worked his miracles. That this was what he intended by this sin, at that time, is clear from Mar_3:30, “because they said he had an unclean spirit.” All other sins - all speaking against the Saviour himself - might be remitted. But this sin was clearly against the Holy One; it was alleging that the highest displays of God’s mercy and power were the work of the devil; and it argued, therefore, the deepest depravity of mind. The sin of which he speaks is therefore clearly stated. It was accusing him of working miracles by the aid of the devil, thus dishonoring the Holy Spirit.All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven - That is, only on condition that people repent and believe. If they continue in this sin they cannot be forgiven, Mar_16:16; Rom_2:6-9.Blasphemy - Injurious or evil speaking of God. See the notes at Mat_9:3.A word against the Son of man - The Jews were offended at the humble life and appearance of the Saviour. They reproached him as being a Nazarene - sprung from Nazareth, a place from which no good was expected to proceed; with being a Galilean, from Galilee, a place from which no prophet came, Joh_7:52. Jesus says that reproaches of this kind could be pardoned. Reflections on his poverty, on his humble birth, and on the lowliness of his human nature might be forgiven; but for those which affected his divine nature, accusing him of being in league with the devil, denying his divinity, and attributing the power which manifestly implied divinity to the prince of fallen spirits, there could be no pardon. This sin was a very different thing from what is now often supposed to be the sin against the Holy Spirit. It was a wanton and blasphemous attack on the divine power and nature of Christ. Such a sin God would not forgive.Speaketh against the Holy Ghost - The word “ghost” means “spirit,” and probably refers here to the “divine nature” of Christ - the power by which he performed his miracles. There is no evidence that it refers to the third person of the Trinity; and the meaning of the whole passage may be: “He that speaks against me as a man of Nazareth - that speaks contemptuously of my humble birth, etc., may be pardoned; but he that reproaches my divine nature, charging me with being in league with Satan, and blaspheming the power of God manifestly displayed “by me,” can never obtain forgiveness.”Neither in this world, nor in that which is to come- That is, as Mark expresses it, “hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.” This fixes the meaning of the phrase. It means, then, not the future age or dispensation, known among the Jews as the world to come, but it means that the guilt will be unpardoned forever; that such is the purpose of God that he will not forgive a sin so direct, presumptuous, and awful. It cannot be inferred from this that any sins will be forgiven in hell. The Saviour meant simply to say that there were “no possible circumstances” in which the offender could obtain forgiveness. He certainly did “not” say that any sin unpardoned here would be pardoned hereafter.Barnes Notes

Well then, I'm quite glad. Much appreciated. :-)

Someone preached on the sin of Achan in our meeting on Sunday morning and I noticed something which I had not seen before. It comes from this verse“Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff.” (Josh. 7:11, KJVS) it was the word 'and'. My knowledge of Hebrew is pretty small so I don't know if the word is appropriate but I note that Youngs Literal Translation picks it out too.“Israel hath sinned, and also they have transgressed My covenant which I commanded them, and also taken of the devoted thing, and also stolen, and also deceived, and also put [it] among their vessels,” (Josh. 7:11, YNG)Was Achan's sin not only a sin but a 'transgression of the covenant'? My hunch took me to some other verses which have reference to 'the transgression of the covenant'. Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11,15; 23:16; Judg. 2:20; 2Kings 18:12; Jer. 34:18; Hos. 6:7; 8:1 There is a theme in these verses of catastrophic punishment as a result of 'transgression of the covenant'. Achan not only disobeyed but the manner of his disobedience was to oppose the covenant. The plunder of Jericho was to be given to God; in this he robbed God. It was a conscious affront to God's rights. He stole what was to have been utterly dedicated to God.I think dozman's observation that the warning was given to the people of Israel is significant. There history ought to have warned them that to 'steal' from God, consciously brings terrible punishment. In their attributing of the work of the Holy Spirit to demons they were 'stealing from God'. To continue in this is surely to 'transgress the covenant'. The warnings in Matt and in Hebrews are addressed to people clearly on the 'inside' and not to any outside.The Deut 17 reference above is interesting too. It is the source of the comment in Hebrews regarding someone who under the testimony of two witnesses was to be put to death under Moses' law. (Heb 10:28ff) The Hebrew's verses also refer to 'counting the blood of the covenant... as an unholy thing'. This is not backsliding but stark apostacy and a fixed rebellion against God's rights. The Deut 17 passage is not just referring to personal sins but active idolatry in the face of the truth''; transgressing the covenant.There is a continuing provision of atonement and forgiveness available to those 'within the covenant' but to those who put themselves outside it by conscious defiance of God they put themseles beyond the reach of God's provision.We have talked on this subject before and I noted then that Luke's version refers to the 'finger of God' “But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.” (Luke 11:20, KJVS) I see a reference here to the phrase as first used by the Egyptian magicians;“Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.” (Ex. 8:19, KJVS) this was a point at which God had revealed Himself beyond controversy. The Egyptian magicians bore witness to the fact, but in defiance of all evidence to the contraty Pharaoh continued in his rebellion against God. The phrase 'finger of God' seems to point to incontravertible proof of the origin of a miracle. When Israel saw the 'finger of God' and attributed this to Beelzebub they stood in mortal danger.Just thought this might provide some 'mood' to this discussion.

QUOTE: "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven - That is, only on condition that people repent and believe. If they continue in this sin they cannot be forgiven, Mar_16:16; Rom_2:6-9"This leads me to believe that somehow the mark of the beast will inhibit people who receive it from repenting. I would then expect that this mark be not only physical but spiritual as well. Would this be accurate? I'm looking to formulate a minimum requirement of what the mark of the beast would be. Thanks for your help.

If they continue in sin, they never repented. Repentance is turning from sin, which is permanent. Stopping sin for a while and then going back was just a temporary reformation.Leonard Ravenhill quoting A.W.Tozer, "Len, You knew one thing about a man who was carrying a cross out of the city. You knew he wasn't coming back."Jesus said the only way to follow Him was to deny yourself and take up your cross. The man that is crucified with Christ has given up His rights, and now belongs to God.2 Cor 7:10, "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death."As far as the "mark," let me know when you find out.