Demons, Angels, and Spiritual Gifts (with Sam Storms)
https://youtu.be/jZuB8Uag_vo
Wednesday, January 25, 2023
Monday, January 23, 2023
Ken Fish Returns to The Eric Metaxas Radio Show with Recent Stories of Deliverance
Ken Fish Returns to the Show with Recent Stories of Deliverance
https://rumble.com/embed/v23qv2a/?pub=4
https://rumble.com/embed/v23qv2a/?pub=4
More Ken Fish videos:
3 hour video
Sunday, January 15, 2023
A Book Review of Vincent Cheung's Unpardonable
(Last updated 2023/01/18 at 2:35:00 UTC )
The following is my book review of Vincent Cheung's book on the doctrine of the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and the Unpardonable/Unforgiveable Sin. The book is titled, Unpardonable [pdf version] [epub version]. I give it a 1 out of 5 stars. I composed it to be posted as a book review on Goodreads.com, but the website no longer allows the average patron to manually input books, and Cheung's Unpardonable isn't yet in its database. Realizing I couldn't post it on Goodreads, I've made slight modifications to the review posted here.
I've listed my other doctrinal disagreements with Vincent Cheung in my main blog dedicated to him and his materials HERE.
This book review is of the 2021 edition of Unpardonable (with 30 pages). Cheung may update the book, so I've archived this edition HERE.
Before I review this book, I want to make clear that I've benefited greatly from Vincent Cheung's materials. Most recently, I've read his books titled "Backstage," "Trace," "Fulcrum," "Contract," and "Hero." Cheung doesn't like using the terms "Calvinist" and "Continuationist" for himself because they are limiting, but he is nevertheless sometimes willing to kind of identify as a "Calvinist" as a theological shorthand. He prefers "expansionist" or "expansionism" rather than "continuationist" or "continuationism" with respect to the continuing work of the Holy Spirit. For similar reasons I too call myself a "Calvinist" and "continuationist" (or "charismatic" or "expansionist"). I make all this clear so that no one wrongly thinks my criticisms are coming from a cessationist who vehemently opposes Cheung. They are not. I accept Cheung's term of expansionism and the label expansionist.
I dislike having to saying it, but despite having read and benefitted from over TWENTY of Vincent Cheung's BOOKS and dozens of his blogs, this book–"Unpardonable"–is the most disappointing book by Cheung I've ever read. Given his view that the doctrine of the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit ("BHS" for short) is a major doctrine that's neglected in the church and that has real world consequences for many people, why did he not interact with what other generally respected Christian leaders and exegetes have said or written when it comes to this doctrine? Notice what Cheung wrote (p. 20):
// "The doctrine of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a major teaching in the Gospels. It is no less extensive than the doctrines of marriage and communion, and more explicit than the doctrines of water baptism and church government. And whenever this doctrine applies, there is more at stake than all of these other doctrines combined multiplied by a trillion."//
Again, if the doctrine is so important, why didn't he interact with the scholars, theologians and exegetes who address this topic? What did he have to lose in doing so? Is he so confident of his interpretation of the relevant passages that he just dismisses what other scholars have said on the topic? Even the same scholars he approvingly quotes and cites on other topics? This is a major weakness in his book on the doctrine of the BHS and the Unpardonable/Unforgiveable Sin ("UnP" for short).
He spends 30 pages explaining his view on the subject without questioning the possibility that he could be wrong on the topic, or at least aspects of the topic. There's no exploration of options and possibilities here, only confident dogmatic assertion. He says on page 24, "I cannot be wrong about this." It's a common complaint by readers of Cheung's materials that he is overly confident in his views and interpretations. Despite his wide reading of other authors, Cheung seems to be too isolated from people's specific criticisms of his positions. Just recently, I noticed he has removed the Contact information on his website. Another example is his refusal to interact in-depth with Aquascum's criticism of his modified Clarkian Scripturalism [see also my blogpost critiquing Scripturalism HERE]. Cheung has only addressed weaker criticisms that may or may not be in reference to Aquascum's thorough and learned criticisms of his particular brand of Scripturalism. So, whereas Aquascum addresses Cheung's specific views, Chueng only addresses the vague views of his unnamed critics. He's never been good at steelmanning his opponents' arguments and objections. In fact, they are often strawman representations. Some of his best works are unfortunately tainted by such strawmen which don't anticipate obvious nuances and alternative arguments. It's not like Cheung is incapable of penetrating criticism. He very much IS capable. He often brilliantly makes mincemeat out of other people's bad arguments. He just doesn't seem to be able or be willing to critically examine and question his own views and assumptions. By so doing, he lowers his potential impact on the church because he doesn't address the better objections to his views, and only refuting the low hanging fruit.
If Cheung's definition of the BHS is correct, then it would imply that virtually all non-Christians have committed the sin. Which is problematic. It would mean that much evangelistic and missionary work is, in some (not all) senses, pointless.
Cheung says [p. 23]:
//Any insult against deity is blasphemy. He did not restrict the sin to calling the Spirit a demon. Of course, to call the Holy Spirit a demon would be blasphemy, but this is not the only way to insult or speak against the Spirit. You do not have to call Jesus a demon for it to be blasphemy. You can call him a mere man and deny his deity, or you can call him weak or foolish, and that would be blasphemy. The same applies to the Holy Spirit. Just as there are many ways to insult or speak against Jesus, there are many ways to insult, to denigrate, or to speak against the Holy Spirit. There are many ways to criticize his ministry in healing the sick and casting out demons, his work in speaking in tongues and prophecies, and in granting visions and dreams.//
Why limit BHS to criticizing the Holy Spirit's ministry in healing the sick and casting out demons (etc.)? Isn't regeneration, sanctification and the inspiration of the Christian Scriptures (inter alia) the work of the Holy Spirit? Why then wouldn't denying the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration, inspiration, or any other work of the Holy Spirit be a case of blaspheming the Holy Spirit? If the Spirit's other works were included, then the majority of non-Christians have committed the Unpardonable Sin because most of them deny that Christianity is true, and deny all that Christianity claims. Including the alleged work of the Holy Spirit. This implication of Cheung's doctrine of the BHS would seem to suggest that his definition and interpretation of the BHS is seriously flawed.
What of the later salvation of formerly Trinity denying Unitarians [e.g. Jehovah's Witness] who blasphemed the doctrine of the Trinity, demoted the Holy Spirit to an impersonal force, and referred to Him in small caps [i.e, holy spirit]. There's inconsistency in Cheung's position because if he were consistent, then he would have to believe that atheists and Jehovah's Witnesses couldn't be saved. Cheung's distinction between 1. the "Signs and Wonders" works of the Holy Spirit and 2. His other works [e.g. inspiration] is artificial and poorly argued for. Cheung [AFAIR] never explains why the blasphemy of the first type of work of the Holy Spirit is singled out as committing the Unforgiveable Sin. Nor explain why the other types of works do not rise to that level seriousness. While there's much more consistency in the more traditional understanding(s) of the Unpardonable Sin. Most popularly defined as the persistent resolute opposition to and rejection of Jesus, His Gospel and all the other works of both the Father and Spirit. Though there are other definitions and variations. For example, some teach that only people in the 1st century could commit the sin. I hold to the more popular definition and personally believe that post-Biblical people can commit the sin. For the rest of this book review I'll assume (arguendo) that definition as the default one. Cheung's view doesn't explain why the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable, while those against the Father and Son are. And THAT contrary to the doctrine of perichoresis/circumincession and the implication of how the intertwined life of the persons of the Trinity entails the unity and inseparability of their glory and dignity.
Cheung's view teaches that it's worse to blaspheme one specific member of the Trinity than blaspheming all persons of the Trinity together. But how can blaspheming one person of the Trinity be worse than blaspheming all three persons of the Trinity? Cheung doesn't explain why blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is worse than blasphemy against the Father and/or the Son. He just says it's a special case and leaves it at that (!!!!). As I said, it seems to undermine the doctrine of perichoresis. And again, there's more consistency in the more traditional understanding(s) of the Unpardonable Sin.
Notice Hebrews 10:26-29:
26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
This reference to outraging the Spirit of grace (i.e. the Holy Spirit) seems to be referring to the Unpardonable Sin. If so, notice that it includes spurning the Son of God (etc.). Given Cheung's understanding of the BHS, this would result in a contradiction. The contradiction being that the Unpardonable Sin has to do specifically with the Holy Spirit's works of Signs and Wonders, and THIS text that defines the Unpardonable Sin in a way that does NOT have reference to the Holy Spirit's work of Signs and Wonders. Whereas the reference to the spurning of the Son makes sense given the more traditional understanding of the Unpardonable Sin whereby it's a persistent rejection of all three persons of the Trinity.
One of the insights of Protestantism is the Analogy of Faith which is a methodology of interpreting the Bible. It is a "hermeneutical principle which states that, since all scriptures are harmoniously united with no essential contradictions, therefore, every proposed interpretation of any passage must be compared with what the other parts of the bible teach. In other words, the “faith,” or body of doctrine, which the scriptures as a whole proclaim will not be contradicted in any way by any passage. Therefore, if two or three different interpretations of a verse are equally possible, any interpretation that contradicts the clear teaching of any other scriptures must be ruled out from the beginning."
Another principle of the Analogy of Faith is that the more clear passages and the more numerous passages should elucidate and take priority over the less numerous and the less clear ones. Given that there are many more passages and many clearer passages regarding God's willingness to forgive all repented of sin; and given that the passages describing the BHS and the Unpardonable Sin (UnP) are few and more difficult to interpret, then it only makes sense that formulating some doctrine of the BHS should take that into account. Cheung claims the passages on the UnP are easy to interpret. But that just begs the question. He doesn't take the time to interact with what other scholars, theologians and exegetes down through the centuries and millennia have said about the BHS.
Cheung himself prioritizes Biblical teaching in this way. For example, he affirms the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works despite James 2:24 saying, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." He does this using the Analogy of Faith. Cheung prioritizes in his view of the relative unimportance of baptism. He does this despite his (seeming) previous rejection of prioritizing Scripture elsewhere. If he can change his mind on something and not be a heretic, why can't other professing Christians be in a place where they just need to grow more in their understanding of the Bible? The relevant example would be that of cessationists growing in their understanding of the continuation of the gifts. Cheung himself understands that the doctrine of the Trinity is something that must be formulated by taking into account all of the Bible's teaching and not prioritizing less clear and less common statements (e.g. the Unitarian prooftexts [really spooftexts]). Unitarians, for example, will prioritize John 14:28 which has Jesus saying "the Father is greater than I" and use it as a major hermeneutical Key for interpreting the rest of the Bible to deny Jesus' full and equal divinity with the Father. If the doctrine of the Trinity needs much nuance and explanation to fit ALL of the Biblical data when there is much data on the topic, how much more does it require ALL of Scripture to hammer out a doctrine of the Unpardonable Sin which has LIMITED specific data on the topic and seems to go against the rest of the tenor of Scripture? A tenor which ostensibly teaches that all sins in this Age can be forgiven except the sin of persistent impenitence and unbelief. Cheung doesn't explore the possibility that he might be spooftexting [rather than prooftexting] the Synoptic pericopes that address the Unpardonable Sin.
Cheung is more dogmatic than the evidence warrants given the enigmatic nature of the passages in question. He's overly confident in his interpretation. While Cheung thinks the passages are clear, the vast majority of Christian interpreters for 2000 years have not found them to be manifestly clear. Maybe because they REALLY ARE a bit cryptic. Yet, despite Cheung's claim of them being clear, he HIMSELF doesn't give a clear and full orbed definition that can (at least in principle) address all questions, objections, situations and nuances people will naturally bring up. Despite being a modified Clarkian Scripturalist, he doesn't precisely define the BHS. And Clark insisted on clear definitions. Though, Cheung says he came to Scripturalist-like conclusions before encountering Clark's materials. Nevertheless, Cheung teaches the importance of clear Biblically based definitions (cf. his Systematic Theology).
Cheung himself isn't clear when or if a cessationist has committed BHS. In this book and his other materials he sometimes implies all cessationists have committed the sin, other times that maybe some haven't and there might still be hope for them. His lack of certainty of who have and haven't committed it manifests the fact that he hasn't defined the Unpardonable Sin very precisely. There are versions of cessationism whereby cessationists can believe in modern miracles and encourage them, yet merely deny that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today. Does that qualify as committing the BHS? Cheung doesn't factor in the many different versions of cessationism, semi-cessationism (etc.) in his broad critique of "Cessationism." Cheung himself says that the Bible's emphasis when it comes to operating in the supernatural is on the basis of faith rather than the spiritual gifts. So, if a cessationist could operate in the supernatural through faith, yet denies the continuation of the gifts, has he committed the BHS? His book doesn't address this. And this isn't a theoretical question. Charles Haddon Spurgeon was technically a cessationist, yet he had a sort of divine healing ministry. See this video here:
What if someone who believes in the continuation of the Holy Spirit's supernatural work and His continued bestowal of spiritual gifts criticized a professing Christian Televangelist's videos of alleged miracles because of a News Network television exposé of the Televangelist or because he teaches serious heresy (e.g. Modalism; Tritheism; Kenosis theories that deny the orthodox doctrine of Incarnation; etc.)? Is that a case of committing the Unpardonable Sin? What do we do in such cases? His book doesn't address this.
What about a Hindu exorcist who claims he can cast out evil spirits in the name of "Jesus"? A "Jesus" who is merely an avatar (not the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity) who is only one of three dozen gods he has in his bag (pantheon) of gods? Isn't it more likely that what happens in such instances is that it's not done in the name of the real Jesus and by the power of the real Holy Spirit, but rather by a demon(s) pretending to be the real Jesus and the real Holy Spirit? That the evil spirit(s) who was cast out was cooperating in the deception? If so, then the intention of discernment is important and crucial.
Consider the hypothetical of a con artist preacher who preaches healing. Some of the apparent healings are of people who are plants who pretended to be sick and then pretend to be healed. But what if God sometimes heals people in the crowd because they placed their hope in God rather than in the con artist? In which case real miracles and fake miracles are mixed in the same meeting. Does condemning the fraud and his miracles entail the BHS? There are some charismatics who believe other charismatics are operating under a "Kundalini spirit" (i.e. demons) rather than the Holy Spirit. Are they blaspheming the Holy Spirit in such a case even though they believe in the continuation of the spiritual gifts and the Holy Spirit's work of modern signs and wonders?
These types of qualifications and situations aren't addressed by Cheung even though they are natural questions people will have. Instead, he says that intentions don't mean anything despite extenuating circumstances. He says on page 22:
//As far as the definition goes, intention is irrelevant. Evil intention could make it worse for the offender, since it would be an additional sin, but good intention – if it can be called good at all – does not change blasphemy into something else.//
Cessationist don't deny the miracles of Jesus recorded in the Bible, they affirm them as pointing to the real messiahship and divine sonship of Jesus. That's what those miracles done via the Holy Spirit are meant to do. It seems to me that it's not the miracles themselves, but how they point to the real Jesus that makes them the fulcrum upon which one may or may not have committed the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise all alleged claims of miracles must be automatically and uncritically believed even if they point to false religions. Discernment is necessary. And cessationists often reject some miracle claims by professing Christians because they see errors (sometimes major ones) in their doctrine. They do this out of intended ZEAL for the real Jesus and the real Holy Spirit.
Notice what Cheung himself wrote (p. 21):
//Whatever their motivation was, it was not a direct or entirely knowing and intentional insult against the Spirit. Moreover, the target of their attack was Jesus and not the Holy Spirit at all. They were not even attacking Satan or the demons. The indirect suggestion that the Holy Spirit was a demon was only incidental to their statement against Jesus. They attacked Jesus, not "Beelzebub." The Holy Spirit was collateral damage. But even that was enough to trigger the doctrine of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.//
The problem is that modern cessationists aren't necessarily or intentionally attacking or denying Jesus. They may be attacking what they think is a ministry that teaches heresy, denies essentials of the Christian faith, and of the sufficiency of the Holy Bible to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for Christians (i.e. Sola Scriptura). By the way, there ARE versions of Sola Scriptura that can affirm and be compatible with continuationism (i.e. that the gifts of the Holy Spirit continue and have not ceased). The situations between unbelieving, Christ rejecting, Pharisees in the 1st century that personally confronted the sinless Jesus versus believing, Christ receiving, Christians in the 21st century who are not dealing with Jesus personally but alleged representatives of Jesus who are not morally perfect and who allegedly perform miracles in Jesus' name and by the power of the Holy Spirit, are very different situations and circumstances. Cheung doesn't take and factor in those differences (and other nuances) into serious consideration.
Besides Jesus BEING RIGHT THERE in their midst in the 1st century, other differences to modern Christians include (to name just a few):
- the context and milieu of the Israelites' Covenant with God and its national covenant community;
- it was the time of the Messiah's direct arrival & visitation as predicted in Dan. 9, in which case the Jewish authorities should have known better and have been more careful/diligent when it came to evaluating messianic claimants (including Jesus);
- Jesus' miracles being more undeniable and spectacular than most [not necessarily all] modern alleged miracles.
All the above examples seem (IMO) to create room for obvious extenuating circumstances. Why didn't Cheung addressed them in (at least) SOME detail in this book? They are simple immediate contrasting differences that likely arise in the minds of people who first encounter his doctrine of the Unpardonable Sin. They are such basic differences, as well as giving rise to obvious questions & objections, that he presumably has encountered them before. His statement on page 22 suggests this. He writes:
"Before you say, "What about…," just stop. It does not matter what other variable you introduce into the situation."His refusal to deal with them to SOME degree is negligent, and makes me wonder if he's shielding himself from people's objections. Or not hearing them out in full. Otherwise he'd steelman the objections, criticisms and questions. He obviously can't address every possible scenario. That's an unreasonable expectation. But what he does say, and how he defines the doctrine, is too broad and isn't sufficient to answer these general criticisms & questions.
According to Cheung, Luke's teaching on the Unpardonable Sin begins in Luke chapter 11 and not in 12. He writes:
//Compared to Matthew, the Gospel of Luke appears to accommodate additional material between the accusation against Jesus (Luke 11:15) and his statement on the unpardonable sin (Luke 12:10), but it is easy to see that these verses between the two sustain a consistent theme (Luke 11:16-12:9), that is, the damnable religion of unbelief and tradition.//
But notice that in Matt. 12:25 and Luke 11:17 it says of Jesus "knowing their thoughts." He knew their thoughts and was judging them on that basis. So apparently intention DOES matter. Matthew's version seems to sum up blasphemy against the Spirit as intense opposition to Jesus. Christ's statement on the BHS is in v. 31. Yet the verse right before it is v. 30 which says "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." Jesus seems to be saying that the way to tell if someone has committed the Unpardonable Sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is [persistent] opposition to Him. Luke's version culminates in Luke 12:10. But it's on the heels of the two previous verses [8-9] which are about one's stance and attitude concerning Jesus. Just like in Matthew.
8 "And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God,
9 but the one who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.
Even Mark's statement in Mark 3:30 need not mean that that's the only way to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. It might just be giving one example. Remember that Cheung said, "...there are many ways to insult, to denigrate, or to speak against the Holy Spirit." Is Cheung being consistent when he teaches the BHS is specifically about signs and wonders and not the other works of the Holy Spirit? It doesn't seem like it.
Notice too that it is immediately after the pericope of the Unpardonable Sin (Matt. 12:22-32) that Jesus says JUST two verses later (Matt. 12:34), "You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the HEART the mouth speaks." This again suggests that one's INTENTIONS do matter. Because Jesus talks about how one's words spring from the HEART. If Cheung can say that Luke 11:15 to Luke 12:9 (forty-nine LONG verses in total) are part of the discussion of the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, then it shouldn't be a stretch to think that a mere two verses later (Matt. 12:33-34) are also a part of the teaching of the Unpardonable Sin. In fact, Cheung includes verse 36 as part of the context of the BHS. So, verses 33-34 MUST be included as well. Since they're in between Matt. 12:22-36.
As far as I can tell, technically none of the passages on the Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit state explicitly that anyone in the stories actually committed the Unpardonable Sin. The passages are consistent with either 1. the people having actually committing the sin as well as 2. with the people not having actually committing the sin but were on the verge of it such that it was appropriate for Jesus to warn them of the dangers of committing it. If the latter is the case, then Cheung's definition and understanding of the doctrine has to be false.
It's often said in theology that, "If something is new, it's probably not true. And if it's true, then it's probably not new." The most influential Christian writers in Christian history have not held to Cheung's understanding of the Unpardonable Sin. How can Christians for ~2000 years have been so wrong about a topic that Cheung has described as more clear than other doctrines like baptism, communion (etc.)? What are the chances that his understanding of the Unpardonable Sin is correct? If he's incorrect in his interpretation of Jesus' statements, then maybe he's led some people into spiritual depression needlessly because they thought they might have committed the UnP or are convinced they already have and have no psychological hope of salvation. Even if they might have actual metaphysical hope, but it's being blocked or hindered due to a false conception of what the Unpardonable Sin is and entails.
ANY blasphemy against the true God or any person of the Trinity is an EXTREMELY SERIOUS SIN AND OFFENSE to the Most High God. So it naturally invites the question, "What makes BHS worse and why?" As I said, my understanding of the Blasphemy of (or against) the Holy Spirit and the Unpardonable Sin is more in line with more traditional conceptions of it. It is the persistent direct (and possibly also indirect) denial or rejection of the Holy Spirit's work of confirming the gospel *of* and *about* Jesus. It is a more stubborn, final, and permanent rejection of Jesus Christ and His message.
It makes sense to me that the BHS is the opposite of receiving Christ. That it's the opposite of faith, trust and allegiance to Christ. That it is the resolute rejection of Christ despite clear indications that Christ is who He and the Bible claim Him to be either by visible signs and wonders and/or the invisible spiritual testimony and convicting work of the Holy Spirit in a person's heart. The BHS is the opposite of saying Jesus is Lord [i.e. the verbal allegiance to Jesus that springs from the heart] . Compare 1 Cor. 12:3 where the Apostle Paul says, "Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit." See also: Rom. 10:9; Phil. 2:10-11 Matt 12:34b. We know that unsaved people can utter the words, "Jesus is Lord" without truly believing and being in submission to Jesus. If that's true, then maybe it's possible to say/utter "Jesus is accursed" without it being blasphemy against the real Jesus. For example, someone whose only exposure to "Christianity" is Mormonism. The "Jesus" of Mormonism is conceived of as being the spirit brother of Lucifer whose Father was once a human being who only later on was deified to be God the Father. It's a false Jesus. Therefore, it seems cursing the Mormon conception of Jesus wouldn't count as blasphemy against the true Jesus. Similarly, not all cursing of the Holy Spirit may amount to The Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Speaking/uttering blasphemy OR affirming the Lordship of Christ are synecdoches or metonyms for one's whole heart attitude, resolve and determined course of action [James 4:13]. Similar to how the "Mark of the Beast" on the forehead and on the right hand is symbolic of and corresponds to one's mind [hence the reference to the forehead] and actions [hence the reference to the hand by which humans do/accomplish things]. And so the BHS would then be allegiance to Anti-Christ, to saying "No" to or rejection of Christ, and a resolved/determined alignment (knowingly or unknowingly) with the Kingdom of Darkness. Again, to repeat, just as non-Christians and unregenerate/unsaved self-deceived Christians can MERELY utter "Jesus is Lord" yet it not really being true and applied to them metaphysically (to their salvation), so it's likely that people can MERELY "utter" blasphemies against the Holy Spirit without it really being true and applied metaphysically to them in a way that amounts to the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (to their assured damnation).
Cheung's understanding of the BHS reduces the severity of blasphemy against God in general [to any one, two or all three persons of the Trinity]. The nature of the BHS in traditional understandings of the doctrine make sense of how anti-Trinitarians who oppose the Trinity (like Jehovah's Witnesses) don't necessarily commit the BHS and can be saved, as well as explaining why it is that the BHS is the worst type of divine blasphemy. Whereas in Cheung's view it's more arbitrary, inexplicable and mysterious why blasphemy against the Spirit in particular [as distinguished from animus against the Father and the Son], and specifically His work in signs and wonders, and not His other works like regeneration, are so evil that they become unforgiveable. And that contrary to Cheung's notorious aversion to mystery.
Part of what may make the BHS unique might be in how the Holy Spirit is [as described by Scripture] especially involved in convicting people of sin and the truth of the gospel about Jesus as really being who He is [the Messiah, Son of God, and 2nd person of the Holy Trinity]. Hence making one more culpable when given more light and wooing of the Spirit.
I want to recommend Cheung's books to others more often than I do, but I disagree with some of his doctrines such that I have to give a long qualification whenever I do recommend them. This includes his doctrine and understanding of the Unpardonable Sin.
The following are YouTube Videos by various Christian leaders on the topic that I recommend. While watching them, notice how internally consistent their explanations are when compared to Cheung's radical views on the topic.
Have You Committed the Unpardonable Sin? by Tim Challies
https://youtu.be/e95YdpYtuMQ
Michael Heiser - What is Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit? (Naked Bible Podcast)
https://youtu.be/nBL_ttQO1Go
What is the unforgivable sin? by Thomas Schreiner
https://youtu.be/8g-60kufB7Y
Don Carson on the Unforgivable Sin
https://youtu.be/mK1dIDCY1rI
Can Christians Commit the Unforgivable Sin? by Michael F. Bird
https://youtu.be/9azQvWTApWQ
Can a Christian Blaspheme the Holy Spirit? by John Piper
https://youtu.be/DO-Ie7fASAk
What EXACTLY Is the Unforgivable Sin? The Mark Series pt 12 by Mike Winger
https://youtu.be/KmCHX8-2Smo
The Unforgivable Sin (Mark 3:20-35) by John MacArthur
https://youtu.be/hcxL6dNQ5kk
The Unpardonable Sin (Mark 3:20–30) — A Sermon by R.C. Sproul
https://youtu.be/tbVYnGxLX9o
Tuesday, January 3, 2023
Many More Promises in the Bible Apply to You More Than You Probably Realize
For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.- 2 Cor. 1:20 (ESV)
The following will be quotations and excerpts of the works of other Christians that argue that many of the promises in the Bible can be claimed by New Covenant Christians in ways many Christians don't realize. About 20 years ago when I was still a Progressive Dispensationalist (and before that a Revised Dispensationalist) I was very careful not to claim passages of Scripture that weren't addressed to New Covenant Christians. This is something that Dispensationalists (and other Christians of different theological persuasions) often warn about. They rightly point out that while all the Bible is FOR you (i.e. the Christian), Not all of the Bible was/is TO you. However, they took that fact to such an extreme that they corrected and forbade Christians from claiming certain Old Testament promises that weren't repeated in the New Covenant.
For example, many Christians apply to themselves and the church 2 Chron. 7:14 which says, "if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land." Dispensationalists are quick to argue that that promise was originally given to the Israelites under the Mosaic Covenant and therefore do not apply to Christians and the church. That makes perfect sense in Dispensationalism which make a clear distinction between Israel and the Church. However, I later found out that there is much more continuity and connection between Israel and the Church than I originally knew. I first starting learning about that continuity and connection in the late 1990s when I read Keith Mathison's book "Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?" It was my first introduction to Covenant Theology. Though, I now currently hold to Progressive Covenantalism (a modified version of New Covenant Theology that's slightly closer to historic Covenant theology, which itself [i.e. NCT] was originally something in between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism). Books like Mathison's (and Greg Bahnsen's House Divided: The Break Up of Dispensational Theology) opened my eyes to see the close connection between Israel and the Church. Another book that helped me see that was Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock's book, Progressive Dispensationalism. When first proposed and formulated the position of Progressive Dispensationalism was an attempt by Dispensationalists to remedy the errors of Classic Dispensationalism, Hyper-Dispensationalism and Revised Dispensationalism. One of the main errors was that clear-cut distinction between Israel and the Church.
CLICK on the image below to better read the meme
A famous meme showing the similarities between Israel and the Church
A famous meme showing the similarities between Israel and the Church
Seeing that the Church is in some sense a continuation of Israel (being the true Remnant Israel separated from unfaithful Israel), I finally understood that many Old Testament promises for Israel apply to the Church. The next step that I had to "overcome" was the Historical-grammatical method of Bible interpretation which Evangelical scholars pioneered and refined [HGM for short].
As the Wikipedia article defines it,
"The historical-grammatical method is a modern Christian hermeneutical method that strives to discover the biblical authors' original intended meaning in the text.[1] According to the historical-grammatical method, if based on an analysis of the grammatical style of a passage (with consideration to its cultural, historical, and literary context), it appears that the author intended to convey an account of events that actually happened, then the text should be taken as representing history; passages should only be interpreted symbolically, poetically, or allegorically if to the best of our understanding, that is what the writer intended to convey to the original audience...."
As an Evangelical myself, I agreed with the Historical-grammatical method of interpretation. However, it too can be used to prevent Christians from taking Old Testament promises originally given to Israel and applying them to New Covenant members of the Church. I eventually came to realize that while the HGM is the primary and foundational approach to interpreting Scripture, by which all other ways must conform and not contradict, it's not the only way to interpret Scripture. Neither the Apostles themselves in the New Testament, nor the early post-Apostolic church limited themselves to something like the HGM. The HGM is sometimes defined as the only way to interpret Scripture. If defined that way, I disagree. If defined as the primary and foundational way that allows for other ways, then I agree. For example, the HGM and the sensus literalis when taken to an extreme sometimes contradicts the theological concept of the sensus plenior meaning of Scripture. That is to say, the deeper (often multi-level & multivalent) meaningS God intended when inspiring the Biblical authors to write what they wrote.
This is why, when I was still a Dispensationalist, I sometimes struggled to accept famous preacher Charles H. Spurgeon's interpretations and applications of Biblical texts. Others have also criticized him for his alleged eisegesis (as opposed to proper exegesis). He's famous (or infamous) for taking passages of Scripture and making seemingly outlandish interpretations and applications. Now, I realize that he's often right in doing that type of exegesis and application. In his sermons and books he not only does that, but he constantly promotes other Christians to do the same. See for example his classic devotionals: Faith's Checkbook [AKA Checkbook of Faith], and Morning and Evening.
It might be asked, "To what degree can the promises apply and be appropriated now?" I would say that the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises are in the future Kingdom of God. But that we can now have foretastes of the fulfillment of those promises here and now. It would also depend on which promises we're referring to specifically. There are some that I think 1. can be fully received now, or 2. only can be fulfilled now, and 3. others which are only fulfilled in the future. But virtually all can, at the very least, have some foretaste fulfillment in this Age. This gets into the topic of the Kingdom of God being in some sense "Already" yet also "Not Yet." This concept is rejected by normative Dispensationalism which sees the Kingdom as only future. Progressive Dispensationalism rightly grants that there is a sense in which the Kingdom of God is in some sense Now, though it's fulness is yet future. I'm convinced that the Already/Not Yet schema is Biblical.
Here is a link that links to some articles on the topic of the Kingdom being "Already/Not Yet" from different perspective:
https://www.monergism.com/topics/eschatology/alreadynot-yet
The rest of this article will be quotations and excerpts from other Christian writers where they promote this extended interpretation and application of Scripture beyond the HGM and the sensus literalis.
Before I quote more reputable Christian authors, and in keeping with the stated purpose of this blog of promoting the convergence of 1. Bible and doctrine centered Evangelicals with 2. Holy Spirit oriented continuationists, let me first quote controversial Christian writer Vincent Cheung [I've listed my agreements and disagreements with Cheung HERE]. The following is from Cheung's article "All Things Are Yours."
Moses’ rock belongs to us. Job’s suffering belongs to us. Elijah’s power belongs to us. David’s victory belongs to us. How much more should we directly apply the biblical examples of those who received from Jesus by faith? Jesus said, “I am willing” to the leper and healed him. Apply that to yourself. Jesus said, “Your faith has healed you.” He said, “It will be done according to your faith.” This is for you too. Jesus said, “All things are possible to him who believes.” When you have faith, all things are possible to you. Of course the healing miracles are signs that reveal Christ. They are signs that reveal a Christ who is willing to heal us and who heals when we believe him. They are signs that reveal a Christ who thinks that all things are possible to us when we have faith.
Leave the school of magical theology. If a sign reveals something more than what the sign says, at least it cannot reveal something other than or even opposite to what the sign says. If a Christ who heals reveals a Christ who saves, it still reveals a Christ who heals. Don’t let the magicman deceive you. Don’t let him show you a text and then give you something else. Don’t let the theologians and preachers lie to you, and convince you that it is an abuse of Scripture to directly apply to yourself the examples of faith, healing, miracles, and all kinds of blessings. You would be abusing Scripture if you do not apply them to yourself. Apply them directly. Apply them forcefully. Apply them often. Apply them all day and all night. Apply all of them. - Vincent Cheung, excerpt from All Things Are Yours [see also his articles Faith Override and The Extreme Faith Teacher].
The following will be some quotes from more universally recognized and reputable Christian writers and leaders. I'll be adding more and more quotes as I come across them. I've encountered many from Charles H. Spurgeon, but because he so often teaches applying the promises in this way, I never bothered to systematically collect them. I wish I had. I'm now working my way through is books 1. Faith's Checkbook, and 2. Morning & Evening.
Rest on a PromiseThe land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it. (Genesis 28:13)
No promise is of private interpretation: it belongs not to one saint but to all believers. If, my brother, thou canst in faith lie down upon a promise and take thy rest thereon, it is thine. Where Jacob "lighted" and tarried and rested, there he took possession. Stretching his weary length upon the ground, with the stones of that place for his pillows, he little fancied that he was thus entering into ownership of the land; yet so it was. He saw in his dream that wondrous ladder which for all true believers unites earth and heaven, and surely where the foot of the ladder stood he must have a right to the soil, for otherwise he could not reach the divine stairway. All the promises of God are "Yea" and "Amen" in Christ Jesus, and as He is ours, every promise is ours if we will but lie down upon it in restful faith.
Come, weary one, use thy Lord's words as thy pillows, Lie down in peace. Dream only of Him. Jesus is thy ladder of light. See the angels coming and going upon Him between thy soul and thy God, and be sure that the promise is thine own God-given portion and that it will not be robbery for thee to take it to thyself, as spoken specially to thee.- Charles H. Spurgeon, Faith's Checkbook, entry for January 3
MORNING
"Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you."
1 Peter 5:7
It is a happy way of soothing sorrow when we can feel--"HE careth for me." Christian! do not dishonour religion by always wearing a brow of care; come, cast your burden upon your Lord. You are staggering beneath a weight which your Father would not feel. What seems to you a crushing burden, would be to him but as the small dust of the balance. Nothing is so sweet as to
"Lie passive in God's hands,
And know no will but his."
O child of suffering, be thou patient; God has not passed thee over in his providence. He who is the feeder of sparrows, will also furnish you with what you need. Sit not down in despair; hope on, hope ever. Take up the arms of faith against a sea of trouble, and your opposition shall yet end your distresses. There is One who careth for you. His eye is fixed on you, his heart beats with pity for your woe, and his hand omnipotent shall yet bring you the needed help. The darkest cloud shall scatter itself in showers of mercy. The blackest gloom shall give place to the morning. He, if thou art one of his family, will bind up thy wounds, and heal thy broken heart. Doubt not his grace because of thy tribulation, but believe that he loveth thee as much in seasons of trouble as in times of happiness. What a serene and quiet life might you lead if you would leave providing to the God of providence! With a little oil in the cruse, and a handful of meal in the barrel, Elijah outlived the famine, and you will do the same. If God cares for you, why need you care too? Can you trust him for your soul, and not for your body? He has never refused to bear your burdens, he has never fainted under their weight. Come, then, soul! have done with fretful care, and leave all thy concerns in the hand of a gracious God.
-Charles Spurgeon's Morning & Evening, Jan 6, Morning
January 19. "Prove Me Now Herewith" (Mal. Iii. 10).
Days of Heaven Upon Earth — Rev. A. B. Simpson
"Prove me now herewith" (Mal. iii.10).
We once heard a simple old colored man say something that we have never forgotten. "When God tests You it is a good time for you to test Him by putting His promises to the proof, and claiming from Him just as much as your trials have rendered necessary."
There are two ways of getting out of a trial. One is to simply try to get rid of the trial, and be thankful when it is over. The other is to recognize the trial as a challenge from God to claim a larger blessing than we have ever had, and to hail it with delight as an opportunity of obtaining a larger measure of Divine grace.
Thus even the adversary becomes an auxiliary, and the things that seem to be against us turn out to be for the furtherance of our way. Surely, this is to be more than conquerors through Him who loved us.
Blessed Rose of Sharon
Breathe upon our heart,
Fill us with Thy fragrance,
Keep us as Thou art.
Then Thy life will make us
Holy and complete;
In Thy grace triumphant,
In Thy sweetness, sweet.
-A.B. Simpson, Days of Heaven Upon Earth, Jan. 19
Every promise of Scripture is a writing of God, which may be pleaded before Him with this reasonable request: "Do as Thou hast said." The Creator will not cheat His creature who depends upon His truth; and, far more, the Heavenly Father will not break His word to His own child. "Remember the word unto Thy servant, on which Thou hast caused me to hope," is most prevalent pleading. It is a double argument: It is Thy Word, wilt Thou not keep it? Why hast Thou spoken of it if Thou wilt not make it good? Thou hast caused me to hope in it; wilt Thou disappoint the hope which Thou hast Thyself begotten in me?- Charles Haddon Spurgeon as quoted in E.M. Bound's classic book on prayer, "The Possibilities of Prayer"
He Freely Gives
He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? (Romans 8:32)
If this is not a promise in form, it is in fact. Indeed, it is more than one promise, it is a conglomerate of promises. It is a mass of rubies, and emeralds, and diamonds, with a nugget of gold for their setting. It is a question which can never be answered so as to cause us any anxiety of heart. What can the Lord deny us after giving us Jesus? If we need all things in heaven and earth, He will grant them to us: for if there had been a limit anywhere, He would have kept back His own Son.
What do I want today? I have only to ask for it. I may seek earnestly, but not as if I had to use pressure and extort an unwilling gift from the Lord's hand; for He will give freely. Of His own He gave us His own Son. Certainly no one would have proposed such a gift to Him. No one would have ventured to ask for it. It would have been too presumptuous. He freely gave His Only-begotten, and, O my soul, canst thou not trust thy heavenly Father to give thee anything, to give thee everything? Thy poor prayer would have no force with Omnipotence if force were needed; but His love, like a spring, rises of itself and overflows for the supply of all thy needs.- Charles H. Spurgeon, Faith's Checkbook, reading for Feb. 3.
"Do as thou hast said."
2 Samuel 7:25
God's promises were never meant to be thrown aside as waste paper; he intended that they should be used. God's gold is not miser's money, but is minted to be traded with. Nothing pleases our Lord better than to see his promises put in circulation; he loves to see his children bring them up to him, and say, "Lord, do as thou hast said." We glorify God when we plead his promises. Do you think that God will be any the poorer for giving you the riches he has promised? Do you dream that he will be any the less holy for giving holiness to you? Do you imagine he will be any the less pure for washing you from your sins? He has said "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Faith lays hold upon the promise of pardon, and it does not delay, saying, "This is a precious promise, I wonder if it be true?" but it goes straight to the throne with it, and pleads, "Lord, here is the promise, Do as thou hast said.'" Our Lord replies, "Be it unto thee even as thou wilt." When a Christian grasps a promise, if he does not take it to God, he dishonours him; but when he hastens to the throne of grace, and cries, "Lord, I have nothing to recommend me but this, Thou hast said it;'" then his desire shall be granted. Our heavenly Banker delights to cash his own notes. Never let the promise rust. Draw the sword of promise out of its scabbard, and use it with holy violence. Think not that God will be troubled by your importunately reminding him of his promises. He loves to hear the loud outcries of needy souls. It is his delight to bestow favours. He is more ready to hear than you are to ask. The sun is not weary of shining, nor the fountain of flowing. It is God's nature to keep his promises; therefore go at once to the throne with "Do as thou hast said."- Charles Spurgeon, Morning & Evening, reading for the morning of Jan. 15th
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)