Truth Magazine

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Matthew 12.31,32 states that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven. Hebrews 6.4-6 speaks of those who cannot be renewed. Hebrews 10. 26 speaks of no sacrifice remaining to cover sins.

If all these sins bring the same condemnation as any other sin (eternal damnation) and those sins can be forgiven upon the same condition as any other sin (repentance),- what, if any, real distinction is the Bible trying to make concerning them?

Reply: Sin is sin in the sight of God and there is no sin which is lesser or greater in his sight. Nowhere in the Scriptures is it even implied that one specific sin will condemn the soul, while another specific sin will not. Sin is the transgression of God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4) and spiritual death is the penalty for that violation (Ezek. 18:20; Rom. 6:23). God, then, does not make a distinction between sins. First, we need to consider the three passages in the question.

Jesus said in Matthew 12:31,32: “Therefore I say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.” there is a great deal of misunderstanding as to what Jesus is teaching in these verses. Some readily conclude that the “sin against the Holy Spirit” is the unpardonable sin; that is, it is possible for one to commit a sin for which he can never obtain pardon. The Bible, however, nowhere teaches that there is an unpardonable sin. To the contrary, it is evident that God will forgive a person of any sin if he will repent of it. God grants full pardon for any sin when one complies with his conditions – that he genuinely repents, and then ceases the practice of it. (See Isa. 55:6,7; Heb. 9:17; etc.)

Some attempt to harmonize 1 John 5:16 with Matthew 12:31,32 by concluding that both passages are teaching that there is an unpardonable sin. The truth is, that neither passage is teaching such. In 1 John 5:16 where the “sin unto death” is mentioned, the writer is referring to any sin which a brother will not confess (1 Jn. 1:9). It is understood, of course, that repentance precedes the confession. If a brother will not repent and confess his sin, he is impenitent; and in such a state, prayer for him will not avail (Jas. 5:16). In Matthew 12:31,32 Jesus is teaching that the “blasphemy” or “si against the Holy Spirit” is the rejection of God’s final revelation to man. There were the prophets in the Old Testament, followed by John the Baptist. Then came Jesus, and finally the written revelation of the Holy Spirit. To resist the message of the Holy Spirit is to reject the final message of God’s will to man, this revealed in the sacred writings of the New Testament. This is a denial of deity (the disbelief of the virgin birth of our Lord, his miracles, his death, burial, resurrection and ascension into heaven). It would be the willful denial of all this, in spite of the preponderance of divine testimony. The fact remains, however, that salvation is obtainable by the one who commits this sin if he will repent of it and thereby surrender his will to God. There is no salvation to one who blasphemes or sins against the Holy Spirit. It is only when he repents that he can procure forgiveness.

The author of Hebrews 6:4-6 wrote: “For as touching those who are once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” As is true of the first passage under consideration (Matt. 12:31,32), Hebrews 6:4-6 is not teaching that the ones guilty of falling away after experiencing the things mentioned can never be saved unconditionally. The phrase, “it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance” is very often glided over without careful observation. The phrase does not say that these persons can never be saved, regardless of whether they try to be or not; rather, it says that it is impossible to “renew” them again to repentance. The “impossible” in this verse refers to those who are making the effort to restore the fallen. It does not refer to the ones who need to be restored. In such a state, those described in this passage have rejected Christ and the atoning power of his precious blood. They have rejected that which would save them. Thus, it is impossible to bring them back while they continue in their rejection. They had experienced the great spiritual blessings named – nothing could be told them that they did not know. As long as they are in this condition, they themselves will not repent. But since people who have fallen away have repented, it is obvious that it is not impossible for them to do so. The fact remains, therefore, that when they cease their rejections and repent they can come back and the Lord will accept them. If they do not repent, it is impossible for them to be restored.

The final passage (Hcb. 10:26) is teaching the same thing in principle as the former two. It reads: “For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins.” Just as a willful rejection of the Holy Spirit’s message (Matt. 12:31,32) and a rejection of God’s provisions (Heb. 6:4-6) makes it impossible for one to be saved unless he is willing to repent, the same is true in this passage. As the message of the Holy Spirit is the final divine message to mankind, the blood of Christ is the final sacrifice. Those who reject it reject their only and final hope. The Hebrew letter was written to prevent apostasy. In this passage is a warning against a complete falling away from Christ. The Greek construction, “sin willfully,” is with a present active participle denoting a condition. Therefore, in this condition, the idea being to deliberately keep on sinning after having received the knowledge of the truth, there is no sacrifice for sin that remains. The only thing that does, however, is “a certain fearful expectation of judgment” (vs. 27). The only way to obtain pardon of this willful sin is to repent of it.

There is no distinction between the sins of the aforementioned passages (Matt. 12:31,32; Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26) and other sins mentioned in the Bible; but they do distinctly warn of the danger of willful sin. They deal with an attitude the stubbornness of the human will. This is what makes repentance so difficult in such a case. So, while sin is sin and one stands condemned for any sin until he repents of it, the passages under consideration distinguish themselves by emphasizing the danger of and issuing a warning against this kind of sin – willful rejection of the truth. It is not impossible for one to repent of any sin, but until one changes his attitude of willful rebellion to the will of God, he will not repent. All of us must repent of every sin of which we are knowledgeable, ask forgiveness, trust in God’s grace and mercy for those of which we are not knowledgeable and change our attitude to humility if we have willfully sinned, and then repent. All of us need to observe these solemn warnings from God’s Holy word.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 5, pp. 133-134
March 3, 1988

By Ron Halbrook

Christ said, “I will build my church . . . . the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:18-19). “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Lk. 19:10). Jesus did not pretend to be a social and political reformer. He did not establish his church or kingdom for social and political purposes. “My kingdom is not of this world,” he told Pilate (Jn. 18:36). The kingdom or church of Christ is spiritual in nature. It is concerned with the remission of sins and with the hope of eternal life in heaven (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 1:3-5).

At the heart of the gospel is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-8). When we are immersed in water by the authority of Christ, we identify with his death for the remission of our sins and with his resurrection in order that we may live a new life (Rom. 6:14). Christ took unleavened bread and fruit of the vine to represent his body and blood, and ordained that this supper of the Lord be kept in his kingdom every first day of the week (Matt. 26:26-29; Acts 20:7). He ordained that we give of our material prosperity for the work of his kingdom every first day (1 Cor. 16:2; 4:17). The pattern of worship included prayers, songs, and teaching of God’s Word (Acts 2:42; Eph. 5:19).

In other words, all scriptural worship directs our hearts and souls to the God who made us and the Christ who saved us! We are not to exalt and celebrate men – but God! It is good to remember the godly lives and lessons of men of faith, in so far as they point us to God (Heb. 11:1-12:4; 13:7). But Christ does not authorize special seasons and celebrations in the church centered upon men (Gal. 4: 10-11). All such special days in the church are human rather than divine appointments, and are therefore sinful (2 Jn. 9).

The church of Christ in the Bible never celebrated the lives of social and political reformers. The Lord’s true church does not do so today. Carnal minded men in the religious world have at different times and places promoted special services to celebrate the lives of such men as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, and Martin Luther King, Jr. The folly of such carnal proposals can be seen in the simple fact that all of these men held views which contradict the gospel of Jesus Christ. Whatever good they may have done in worldly affairs, they were enemies of the gospel.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), author of the Declaration of Independence and father of our country, believed in God and said that Jesus taught the highest morals known to man. But Jefferson believed that Jesus did not complete his teaching, was not inspired of God, and was not the divine Son of God. The virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus were denied by Jefferson.

Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-68), hailed by many as a great preacher as well as a social and political reformer, denied God’s direct and miraculous inspiration of the Bible (1 Cor. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16). He regarded as myths the prophecies of the Bible and the virgin birth of Jesus recorded in Matthew 1 and Luke 2. King denied the literal deity of Jesus, and Jesus told such unbelievers, “Ye shall die in your sins” (Jn. 8:24). “I’m not concerned with the New Jerusalem” in heaven but with social reforms on earth, King said of his work (Life Magazine, Nov. 1960, p. 134). King’s many adulterous affairs are no longer hidden (see Time Magazine, 19 Jan. 1987, p. 24). The Bible warns against false teachers “having eyes full of adultery” – men who preach “liberty” while “they themselves are the servants of corruption” (2 Pet. 2:19).

No, Christ did not authorize the church to celebrate the lives of social and political reformers! Such activities violate the authority of Christ and degrade the church. Stubborn hearted men answer, “We will do it anyway – Bible or no Bible!” When we oppose such activities for their lack of Bible authority, Satan will put into the hearts of some men to reply, “You are just a racist!” Name-calling cannot settle the issue. In fact, such a reply reflects a racist mentality by trying to prejudice our readers because of the race of the author of this article. Could a black preacher point out the absence of Bible authority for the church to celebrate Jefferson without being a racist? We oppose the church celebrating Jefferson (white) or King (black) – and for the same reason – Christ did not authorize it.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 5, p. 141
March 3, 1988

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote, Helen Parmley, “Southern Baptists Rest Paid Ministers,” Lexington Herald-Leader, Oct. 12, 1987, p. A- 1.

DALLAS – Dallas churches pay their senior ministers more than any other city in the country. And the nation’s highest paid minister is a Southern Baptist pastor in Dallas whose total annual compensation is $149,150.

A survey to determine the compensation for people in the ministry or related jobs in 10 American Christian denominations finds that Dallas ministers and Southern Baptist clergy are the best paid in the United States.

The survey ranked Kentucky 12th among the states and Lexington 19th among the cities in the level of pay for senior ministers of all the denominations.

The churches in the Southern Baptist Convention are autonomous, operated independently, like a franchised business. They do not make pastors’ salaries public.

The study finds striking differences among denominations and”regions in the average senior pastor’s total compensations.

Heading the list are Southern Baptists, who pay their senior pastors an average annual package of $50,458. Presbyterians run a close second at $49,934, and Episcopalians are third, with an average of $46,811.

Independent Churches of Christ reported the lowest average – $31,908, with the Nazarenes, at $33,420, and Disciples of Christ at $34,069, second and third from the bot tom, respectively.

The survey also shows that Baptist provisions for their ministers’ retirements are among the lowest.

Disciples were just above the 10 percent level recommended in the study. But along with the Baptists, the United Methodists, the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, Assemblies of God, the Church of Christ and the Nazarenes all were below 10 percent.

Denominationally, Presbyterians, Lutherans and Episcopalians pay well above the average retirement package, at 11 percent of total compensation.

The survey was conducted by the Ministers’ Financial Services Association of Lubbock, Texas. The company gathered information from nearly 1,000 congregations in 10 Christian denominations.

The association examined the full financial package for pastors in the Assemblies of God, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Episcopal Church, Independent Churches of Christ, Lutheran, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist and United Methodist churches.

The response from Roman Catholics was so small that even though the results were published, they were not considered by those who took the survey to reflect an accurate picture of the compensation received by priests.

Among the 10 denominations, the average compensation package for the senior minister of a church is $42,481. The total includes base salary, housing and utilities allowances, insurance and pension payments and other benefits.

The average pay drops considerably for an associate minister, whose average full compensation is $34,424, and a minister of pre-school education, whose average pay package is $20,789.

Overall, among those surveyed, the second-highest paid church position is that of the minister of music, except in many larger churches, where the second-highest paid staff member is the business administrator.

Michael J. Springer, executive director of the Ministers’ Financial Services Association, said that when compared with the $50,525 median income for people across the nation with graduate education – equivalent to seminary – many ministers “could possibly be significantly underpaid.”

Geographically, the Sun Belt warms up the most to its preachers. In ranking of clergy pay state by state, the survey shows that the South and South Central regions dominate the top of the pay charts.

Fifteen of the top 20 states are in those two regions. Every state in the South Central region except Kansas was in the top 20. Ranked in order, the most generous are Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, New York, California and North Carolina.

Besides Southern Baptists, in the six-state South Central area of the United States, the highest total compensation for senior ministers of churches are: Christian (Disciples), $64,786; Independent Church of Christ, $48,000; Episcopal, $111,808; Lutheran, $52,549; Methodist, $114,988; Nazarene, $85,962; Pentecostal, $95,280; Presbyterian, $128,992; Roman Catholic, $15,072.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 5, p. 139
March 3, 1988

By Don Martin

A study of different biographies can be most rewarding. The word “biography” is a compound word from the Greek consisting of bio, meaning life and graphe, meaning to write or a writing. Hence “biography” means a writing of someone’s life. I immensely enjoy reading the biography of George Washington Carver. Mr. Carver was born in abject poverty, the son of a slave woman. In his late twenties he struggled to obtain a high school diploma and, when he was thirty four, obtained a degree in agricultural science. In 1894 he received his master of science degree. Thomas Alva Edison is also an inspiring example of overcoming severe handicaps. Edison received less than a year of formal schooling; notwithstanding, he has immeasurably affected and changed the lives of all of us.

Beloved, while there are many excellent biographies to consider I suggest there is one biography which transcends all biographies as far as the quality of the one considered and the contributions which he made to mankind, the man Christ Jesus. “How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power,” Peter states, “who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him” (Acts 10:38).

Jesus Was Obedient

To motivate the Hebrews to a higher and more constant level of obedience, the writer often employed the example of Jesus. Please consider such an instance: “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:8,9). The very essence of Jesus’ life was to obey his Father. He expressed this desire in this manner, “. . my meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work” (John 4:34). Jesus could truthfully say, “for I do always those things that please him” (John 8:29). Jesus “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). Jesus was obedient – even to the death of the cross (Phil. 2:8).

Partook of Word

Necessarily involved in the acquiescence of Jesus to his Father was his dependency on the word of God. When Jesus taught and engaged in controversy, as he often did, he did not refer to his subjective feelings or to objective sources such as the teachings of the rabbis as his authority. He quoted Scripture (Matt. 19:4-6,8)! When the devil amassed every particle of power and persuasiveness at his disposal to defeat the Lord at the very outset of Jesus’ ministry, the Lord relied on Scripture. After each of the devil’s appeals through the lust of the flesh, pride of life, and the lust of the eyes, Jesus cogently responded: “It is written” (Matt. 4:4,7,10). Jesus believed in the total indispensability of the word. Hear him: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4).

Jesus Desired Unity

In the shadow of the cross, Jesus’ primary concerns were not exclusively for himself. Consider his prayer, “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (Jn. 17:21).

Concerned one, Jesus did not believe in nor practice our modern ecumenical unity. Jesus did not place “unity” over truth. In fact, Jesus – because he insisted on truth regardless – often caused division among his brethren (Jn. 10:19). Our Lord, I am convinced, would not be very successful as a modern “Church of Christ Preacher”! Jesus desires unity based on a conformity to the word of God (Jn. 17:8,14,17,19,20).

Jesus Loved Truth

One cannot help but be impressed with the profound love Jesus possessed for the truth. While the religious world, and more and more within the body of Christ, are clamoring for the suppression of truth, or at least parts of truth, Jesus unshackled the truth found in the Hebrew Scriptures and enunciated new, revolutionary truths (Matt. 5:21-48; Jn. 14:6). When in the presence of error, Jesus could not remain silent, even though such outspokenness would later cost him his life (Jn. 8:31-59). Jesus did not “just love to argue.” Jesus loved the truth! Beloved, truth was not any more popular in Jesus’ day than it is in our day. It was Jesus who told his brethren, “And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.” And, “But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth” (Jn. 8:45,40).

Returned Good For Evil

Jesus taught: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matt. 5:44). As we have seen, Jesus practiced what he preached. Jesus restored Malchus’ severed ear – one in the ungodly mob which had come to ruthlessly apprehend and later murder Jesus (Lk. 22:51). While suspended between heaven and earth on the cruel cross, Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Lk. 23:34).

Intelligent reader, please be informed that while Jesus taught and exhibited returning good for evil, he did not advocate nor practice passivity. Allow me to explain. Jesus taught that when one has been personally sinned against, he is to rebuke the trespassing brother (Lk. 17:3,4). However, such action is not retaliatory, but for the reclamation of the erring brother (Lk. 17:3,4).

Good Citizen

Jesus’ conduct relative to civil law was exemplary. It would seem that because Jesus had developed a reputation of being a “rebel” the tax collectors in Capernaum did not expect Jesus to pay tribute (Matt. 17:24-27). However, Jesus did pay his taxes.

Jesus was under the close scrutiny of all. They all with one accord were desperately seeking to find some fault in him (Matt. 12:10,14; 16:1). Jesus had exposed their sins and errors and they desired his destruction (Matt. 21:45,46). Jesus’ hypocritical brethren could not fault him and could not answer his arguments (Matt. 22:46). Hence, envy was evoked on their part (Matt. 27:18). It was this envy coupled with their severe hatred which caused them to crucify the Lord. What is my point? My point is this: if they could have established one infraction either from God’s law as such or from civil law, they would have!

Jesus Was Prayerful

Yes, even the incarnate Son of God depended on prayer. From an examination of Jesus’ life, you find Jesus regularly engaging in prayer to his Father (Jn. 17; Matt. 11:25-27). Jesus customarily prayed before he made important decisions (Lk. 6:12ff).

Jesus did not pray as many of his brethren did. His prayers were not pretentious and formalistic (cf. Matt. 6:5-15). Jesus prayed earnestly, sincerely, and fervently (Lk. 22:44).

Kind reader, when we consider biographies such as Carver’s and Edison’s, we are moved to believe that we similarly can overcome hindrances. We admire these men’s determination and refusal to accept defeat. Moreover, when we consider Jesus’ biography, if you please, we are moved to partake of godliness. Jesus, you see, is our exemplar (1 Pet. 2:21,22). We need to consider him more and marvel at his wonderfulness (Heb. 12:3). Truly, “Never a man spake like him” who “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” (Jn. 7:46; 1 Pet. 2:22).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 5, pp. 131-132
March 3, 1988