Restoration of the Doctrine
The wonderful doctrine of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit appears in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 12:22-32, Mark 3:22-30, Luke 12:8-12). The idea is arguably suggested or assumed in several other places, but we shall focus our attention on the direct statements from Jesus. All three writers offer significant space and context to the doctrine, but Matthew’s account is more convenient. Thus we often use his text when discussing the topic. When the task at hand is to read through the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Luke, then we would address the topic using the passages from those Gospels instead.
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. This kind of religion stems from hostility against God, leads to misery for those burdened by it, and then hellfire for its adherents. In their pursuit of a faithless religion, many end up committing the unpardonable sin. In fact, if we take time to consider those verses, we might conclude that even more people have committed the unpardonable sin than a study of Matthew’s passage alone. Thus all three Gospels maintain a tight relation between the criticism against the healing ministry of Jesus and the damning response that came from him.
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. Why is it not a major teaching in our churches and our creeds? How is it not a test for doctrinal orthodoxy and church membership? Rather, it is rarely mentioned, and when mentioned, it is vehemently denied. It is regarded as a problem (that Jesus created!) to be suppressed in counseling.
Let me say this. To neutralize the doctrine is to make way for more people to commit the sin. And although to neglect the doctrine is not as devastating as to commit the sin, it is…how should I say this…it can mean to dance awfully close to it. When it comes to this doctrine, the place of negligence, ignorance, and dismissiveness are dangerous positions. This is because, in the same context, Jesus said, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” The only safe place is a conscious endorsement of the ministry of miracles and of the doctrine of the unpardonable sin.
Here was a man who was afflicted by a demon, so that he could not see and could not speak, and Jesus “healed him,” so that the man could both see and speak. So we are referring to a ministry of healing the sick and casting out demons. The religionists said, “He is possessed by Beelzebub” (Mark 3:22) — we can say “Satan” — and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” Thus they called the spirit within Jesus a demon, or Satan, and they called the power that Jesus wielded the power of a demon. Since it was the Holy Spirit that was within Jesus, and it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that Jesus healed the sick and cast out demons, these people indirectly called the Holy Spirit a demon.
They were the most ostentatiously religious people at the time. Do you think they would have called the Holy Spirit a demon directly? No. They would not have done that if only for the sake of their reputation. Do you think they believed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, filled with the Holy Spirit, and then still referred to the Holy Spirit as a demon? No, they did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. 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.
What will happen to the church leaders and theologians throughout history who had castigated the work of the Holy Spirit in healing the sick, casting out demons, speaking in tongues, and in granting visions, dreams, prophecies, and various signs and wonders? Today people regard some of them as spiritual heroes. Why, some of them wrote your creeds! If the extent of the apostasy seems too farfetched to you, it is because you have decided that certain persons and traditions are beyond reproach, and then you use that assumption to interpret the word of God. If they did it, then what they did must not be what Jesus meant by this sin. This is backward, and it reveals that your faith is corrupt. If you use the word of God to judge these persons and traditions, then they would not pass the test.
Then there are people in our time, including many who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, who claim to be knowledgeable Christians, or scholars and defenders of the faith, who have made equivalent statements as those made against Jesus by the Pharisees. In fact, there are those who have said things that are even worse, things that are more scathing, more deliberate, more explicit, more detailed, and more sarcastic and demeaning against the work of the Holy Spirit. There have been whole volumes dedicated to this subject. There have been entire ministries established for this purpose. Their statements against the Holy Spirit in healing the sick, speaking in tongues, and such things, were made after the ministry of Jesus had been published in the Gospels, including this incident that triggered the doctrine of the unpardonable sin. This makes them even more culpable than the Pharisees. Do you see how serious this is?
This brings to mind another point, which is the claim that very few people could be in the same position as the Pharisees. However, Jesus said nothing to suggest that it required a Pharisee to commit this sin. And the truth is that, due to the completion of Scripture and the dissemination of its knowledge – again, including the record of this very incident in all three Synoptic Gospels — even an ordinary unbeliever or church member nowadays is in an even more inexcusable position than the Pharisees, so that if one’s background matters at all, this makes it even more likely for violations to occur. In any case, blasphemy is blasphemy. By definition, it refers to the words and implications. The individual’s backstory is irrelevant as to whether a statement counts as blasphemy.
Someone whined to me that “intention matters.” So…did you intend to endorse the ministry to heal the sick and cast out demons by calling it a work of Satan? Did you intend to encourage the manifestations of the Spirit when you insisted that tongues and prophecies have ceased? What if someone intended to worship the true God when he bowed down to Satan instead? Just say “oops”? If your intention is contrary to truth, Scripture does not define it as good intention. You cannot rape someone with good intention and call it holy communion. You cannot worship an idol with good intention and call it misdirected zeal. You cannot crucify Jesus Christ with good intention and call it a spiritual accident. Paul said that he was zealous and ignorant before he followed Jesus, but he still called his words blasphemy. He was able to receive forgiveness, because although he blasphemed Jesus, by the grace of providence, he did not blaspheme the Spirit.
The Pharisees themselves intended to speak against Jesus, not the Holy Spirit, just as many people today intend to speak against the preacher who heals the sick or speaks in tongues, not the Holy Spirit. The unpardonable sin refers to evil statements, not evil intentions. Blasphemy refers to the words and implications. 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. The attempt to excuse the sin is itself another sin. If you excuse unintended and uninformed statements against the Spirit, it might even mean that you now commit the unpardonable sin a second time, only that this time the statements are intended and informed. And by your own standard, this time intention matters, and it translates into even more extreme tortures in endless hellfire. Before you say, “What about…,” just stop. It does not matter what other variable you introduce into the situation. The answer is that it does not change anything. When the words or implications amount to blasphemy, then they count as blasphemy.
All this is me indulging a desperate objection just to practice my typing, because it was a useless discussion as far as whether something counts as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. This is because, in the same context, Jesus declared that people will be judged for “every careless word” that they speak. And he said, “by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” End of debate.
There is more. The sin refers to the act of insult, to denigrate, or to speak against a person or thing. It is called blasphemy when the insult is against deity. Jesus said that the sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, not specifically calling the Holy Spirit a demon. 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. Imagine how many people have committed this sin. Do we still want to pretend that this is a non-existent issue?
Jesus answered that a kingdom would not fight against itself, and so Satan would not cast out Satan. Therefore, it did not make sense to say that Jesus would cast out Satan by the power of Satan. When Christians read this text, this is as far as they go. Of course, this conclusion is on the face of the text, so there is nothing wrong with it. However, this conclusion about Satan is not the principle itself. The conclusion is reached by an application of a general principle, which is, a kingdom would not fight against itself. And there are two kingdoms here — the kingdom of Satan, and also the kingdom of God, or of Christ. If Satan would not cast out himself, then neither would God attack himself. God would not oppose the ministry of healing the sick and casting out demons. This means that any force that attacks the ministry of healing the sick and casting out demons cannot belong to the kingdom of God. Watch it, if you even lift a finger to suggest that I can be wrong about this, you would have to say that Satan would indeed cast out Satan, that Jesus was wrong about the situation, so that perhaps the Spirit by which Jesus healed the sick and cast out demons could be Satan. Do you really want to go that route?
Satan would not cast out Satan, therefore Jesus did not cast out Satan by the power of Satan. A kingdom would not oppose itself. Since Jesus came from the kingdom of God, the fact that the Pharisees opposed his ministry in healing the sick and casting out demons proved that they did not belong in the same kingdom — the Pharisees did not belong in the kingdom of God. Can you think of other people in history, perhaps those considered heroes of the faith, who opposed the ministry of healing the sick and casting out demons? Can you think of other people today, perhaps authors you have admired and preachers that you have supported, who have opposed the work of the Spirit in speaking in tongues and prophecies, in visions and dreams, and in various signs and wonders? By the principle that Jesus stated, which kingdom did these people come from? And if you stand with these people, then which kingdom do you think you belong to? Is this too scary? But it can be more scary, because there is even more in what Jesus said. I cannot be wrong about this. If I say that the text does not tell us all these things, then I would be fighting against Jesus, and everything would be wrong. A kingdom does not fight against itself. Jesus healed the sick and cast out demons, because he was not from the kingdom of Satan. The Pharisees attacked Jesus when he healed the sick and cast out demons, because they were not from the kingdom of God.
Jesus said, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” And he also said, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” People often read these statements without the context in mind. These things were said in the context of the ministry of healing and miracles, and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Context determines the meaning. We can apply these statements to broader concerns whenever appropriate, but we must at least apply them to the ministry of healing and the work of the Spirit. Until we apply them in this context, we have no right to apply it in any other context, because we would have decided to disregard what the statements truly intend.
Let us rephrase the statements to force our attention on the context. Thus Jesus said, “Whoever is not with me [in this ministry of the Spirit, in healing the sick and casting out demons] is against me, and whoever does not gather with me [in this ministry of the Spirit, in healing the sick and casting out demons] scatters.” To use the words of another translation: “Anyone who is not working with me [in this ministry of the Spirit, in healing the sick and casting out demons] is actually working against me.” Support for the ministry of miracles is not optional, because support for Jesus is not optional. Everyone is required to agree, and everyone is required to join. This is the first and original meaning. Unless we acknowledge this, we have no business wresting it out of its context to make it say that we must work with Jesus in some general sense, such as following him as disciples or preaching the gospel. What does it mean to follow him as disciples anyway? In this passage, it must mean working with Jesus in healing the sick and casting out demons. What does it mean to preach the gospel? In this passage, it must mean working with Jesus in healing the sick and casting out demons. And then Jesus said, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak [about the ministry of the Spirit, in healing the sick and casting out demons], for by your words [about the ministry of the Spirit, in healing the sick and casting out demons] you will be justified, and by your words [about the ministry of the Spirit, in healing the sick and casting out demons] you will be condemned.”
Retribution by the Doctrine
The unpardonable sin is a lovely doctrine if you are on the right side of the issue. It was a doctrine that Jesus weaponized against unbelief. Then he inspired all three Synoptic writers to emphasize it, equipping us to launch a counterattack against the continuing opposition toward his ministry of healing the sick and casting out demons. What’s not to like about it, unless you are on the side that is attacking him? It also equips us to expose the imposters who have infiltrated the communities of faith. Without this doctrine, these cancers often hide in plain sight. What’s so scary about it, unless you are one of these imposters? It is a lovely doctrine.
Jesus has entrusted to us this doctrine as a weapon to combat unbelief. Christians indeed love to fight, but instead of fighting unbelief using this doctrine, they fight Jesus about this doctrine. Listen, if you are going to fight Jesus on anything, never fight him on this doctrine. Are you stupid? Didn’t you read what he said about it? This is the most dangerous thing to fight Jesus on. If you want to keep your life and your soul, do not fight him on this. Do not argue with him. Do not dilute it. Do not explain it away. Do not get in front of the doctrine to confront it and debate it. Join Jesus in the ministry of the Spirit and of miracles, stand behind the doctrine, and point it at the unbelievers and the religionists.
The doctrine is a mandate to get on the offensive. It is a directive to attack unbelief, rather than only to defend faith. If he had only wanted to defend himself, Jesus could have stopped after explaining that it did not make sense to say that he would cast out Satan by the power of Satan. Instead, he kept talking. He drew a clear line between friends and enemies, excluding from the kingdom of God all those who would not stand with him. Then he weaponized the doctrine of the unpardonable sin and deployed it against the people who challenged him. And he kept talking. He likened them to evil trees, so that because their essence was corrupt, they produced evil fruit. In this context, the evil fruit did not refer to things like greed, adultery, and murder, but derogatory speech against the Spirit in the ministry of healing the sick and casting out demons: “You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” By what they said, they showed that they blasphemed the Holy Spirit, that they did not belong in the kingdom of God, and that they were evil to the core. His response to their unbelief about the ministry of healing consisted of a multi-layered pronouncement of damnation. He is our teacher and our example.
The doctrine is a divinely commissioned weapon against the critics of healing and miracle ministry. It is something to be honored and utilized to the fullest extent. It is a sin to suppress it. The ministry of healing is a ministry of kindness and compassion, especially toward the believing and the teachable. Just because it is a ministry of compassion does not mean that we are doormats to be trampled by the agents of Satan. God’s kindness does not imply weakness toward unbelief. The truth is that a ministry of kindness is also a testimony against unbelief. In fact, a ministry that destroys diseases and demons is a ministry of violence against the kingdom of Satan. It is concerning this kind of ministry that Jesus said the strong man that was Satan would be subdued by one who was even stronger (Matthew 12:29, Luke 11:22). This is said in the same context as the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the work of the Spirit in prophecies and miracles can also carry the power of judgment. Never suppose that the ministry of the Spirit is something passive or defensive that can be attacked with immunity. It might be the last mistake you make.
We know that the ministry of healing is genuine and legitimate. We know that we can cast out demons, prophesy, receive visions and dreams, and speak in tongues. We know that these things are true because of the testimony of God’s word. And by faith in God’s word, we have been performing these works and experiencing their results. There are millions of people around the world, on our streets, in our churches, in our families, in our friend circles, who in one way or another are suffering under the oppression of Satan. And we have the answer right here. We have it now. Many of these people will live in misery and then perish without learning about it. They could be healed if they were to obtain God’s solution from us. But whenever they venture near the solution, there are religionists and unbelievers who discourage them, even threaten them. Who will fight for these people when they are surrounded by skeptics and mockers, even from their own churches and seminaries? It is cowardly and selfish to remain on the defensive and refuse to deploy a weapon that God himself has ordained. It is spiritually and ethically repugnant.
Satan can never win a theological argument against the doctrine of the unpardonable sin or the ministry of healing the sick. He can only inspire his agents to dilute the doctrine to reduce the perceived danger, and to deceive God’s people so that they settle into a passive and protracted defensive position. The correct strategy is to turn up the doctrine of the unpardonable sin to maximum, and launch an all-out attack against critics and skeptics. Invade en masse into their territory and blow it up with the word of God. Then do it again. And again. And again. And again. Then walk away, and return the attention to the suffering and the believing ones. When the next attack comes, do not allow it to marinate for months and years before you make a counterattack. Retaliate instantly. Attack thoroughly. Kill everything that moves. Jesus gave us a weapon — the doctrine of the unpardonable sin. Point it right in the face of the critics and fire it over and over again. Do not hesitate. Do not stop. It takes very little effort, and they have no defense against it, because the doctrine is true and clear, and it applies to exactly what they are doing. They are the ones who must answer us. Each time they oppose us, they are the ones who must prove that they have not committed the unpardonable sin. Let every attack against us trigger an immediate and disproportionate response. March into their territory. Blow up everything by the doctrine of the unpardonable sin — their churches, their seminaries, their creeds, their pastors, their idol heroes and scholars, their families and friends, and all others who might think like them. Then walk away. This is how you deal with critics, and how you prevent Satan from robbing the attention needed to rescue those who are suffering and those who are believing.
It is unwise to invest too much time in contending with people who would never believe the truth, but who are addicted to the excitement of debate. They debate the issues as a religious exercise, and by the very act of debate, they feel that they are engaging in something that is spiritual and productive. They are deceived, especially if they stand on the wrong side of an issue when they debate. But you are also deceived, if you allow yourself to become trapped in their lifestyle, even if you stand on the right side of the issue. If you argue with a dog or a pig five hours every day, even if you are always right, it does not mean that you are spiritual or intelligent. In the end, you are just as unproductive as these people, and you become just as ineffective for the truth of the gospel. Thus Jesus said, do not throw your pearls down before swine, because they will not appreciate your insights and good intentions, but they will turn to attack you instead. If it is unwise to invest too much time in these people, it is just as unwise to settle into a defensive position, because when there is nothing to discourage their attacks, and when they are not forced to put their own eternal welfare on the line, they will continue to derive a sense of excitement and accomplishment from the interaction.
Therefore, when you are challenged, feel free to offer an explanation for the ministry of the Spirit, of healing and such, and then stop. Just stop it. Get up from that defensive position and get on the offensive. And stay on the offensive without looking back. Do not let them trick you into returning to the defensive. Make them defend their salvation instead of allowing them to make you defend the ministry of healing. Refuse to keep explaining yourself, but keep the unpardonable sin in their face. If they call themselves Christians, or scholars, or even just decent human beings, they ought to support the ministry of healing. If they do not support it, then obviously they do not belong on the same side as Jesus Christ. They are foreign to, and outside of, the kingdom of God. If they respond with anything other than immediate and complete compliance, we hit them again. Before they can come up for air, we hit them again. And then we hit them again. And after all that, we hit them again. Next time you come across them on the street, if they dare to even glance at you, hit them again. Let them come face to face with the unpardonable sin day and night, week after week, year after year. Every time you come at me with unbelief and criticism about the Spirit’s work in healing the sick, casting out demons, speaking in tongues, and such things, I will slam you over the head with this doctrine of the unpardonable sin over and over again until you bleed from every orifice. Then I will take this sword of the spirit and thrust it into your eyeball…slowly, and then I will twist the sword just to hear you scream.
Participation in the Doctrine
As I mentioned in the beginning, the doctrine of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a major teaching in the Gospels. It is more explicit than some of the doctrines that people care very much about, such as water baptism, church government, and the sabbath. It is certainly far more graphic. In this doctrine there is more at stake to any individual than the doctrines of the Lord’s supper, marriage and divorce, biblical prophecy and the last things, and numerous other things combined multiplied by a trillion. Entire denominations had been established upon doctrines that were less detailed, less explicit, with less biblical support, and which had less significance. Yet this doctrine has been worse than neglected. It has been twisted almost to its opposite, as if it is somehow forgivable to speak against the Holy Spirit. But Jesus indicated it was unforgivable even when the Holy Spirit was incidentally insulted. The consequence for committing this sin is an immutable verdict of damnation — to forever burn, and burn, and burn in hell — without any possibility of forgiveness, whether in this life or in the life to come. How in the world had something like this become the most shunned and rejected doctrine in Scripture? How? It is not because the doctrine is obscure. In the Gospel of Mark, we run into it by the third chapter. Any literate person can read about it for himself and understand it in less than a minute. The doctrine is in this condition because people refuse to accept that such a sin can exist. Like it or not, the sin exists, and it has been committed by numerous people. Satan is not nearly as afraid of many other doctrines as this one. This doctrine can single-handedly restore the fear of God to the church and to the world. It can restore power and honor to the ministry of the Spirit in healing the sick and casting out demons. As Jesus explained, this ministry is the one that destroys the kingdom of Satan, so that it cannot be the work of Satan, for Satan would not destroy himself. Thus this is the doctrine that can make way for a ministry that destroys the kingdom of Satan. No wonder he wishes to make it disappear.
Christians are eager to preach that every person must believe in Jesus to be saved, and anyone who does not believe in him will burn in hell. Preaching salvation in Jesus alone increases assurance in those who ought to have assurance, in those who follow Jesus. However, it removes assurance from those who should not have assurance, those who think that they have no need to be saved, or that they can be saved some other way. Why not censure this? Enemies of the Christian faith indeed reject the doctrine, but why don’t Christians also oppose it? Presumably many more people have been sent to hell for rejecting Christ than for blaspheming the Spirit. The doctrine threatens the disbelieving and disobedient just as the doctrine of the unpardonable sin threatens the disbelieving and disobedient. Is the doctrine concerning Christ more palatable because the damnation is not confirmed until the person’s death? How is this much better, if that person indeed never believes? The difference is that someone who hears about Christ can repent and believe, but it remains that many people would never believe. It is ridiculous to regard the doctrine concerning the Spirit as something especially despicable, just because it could expose a reprobate sooner. How does that make any sense? The doctrine that any person who does not believe in Christ will burn in hell poses no problem to me, because I believe in him. It only poses a problem to the person who refuses to believe. The doctrine that any person who blasphemes the Holy Spirit is guaranteed a place in hellfire poses no problem to me, because I do not speak against the Holy Spirit. There is no danger if we honor his work in everything that we say. It is dangerous to even remain a spectator about this, because Jesus said that whoever is not working with him is working against him. But there is no danger if we participate in this work of healing the sick and casting out demons, in speaking in tongues and prophecies, and in visions and dreams. There is no danger if we stop being skeptics or spectators of the Spirit’s work, but if we stand with the Spirit to attack the critics.
Sometimes people complain that I have disturbed their peace by teaching this doctrine from Jesus. Well…HOW IS THAT MY FAULT? If you had not been mocking God day and night, would you be in this predicament? Blame yourself. I refuse to apologize, recant, or weaken the doctrine by one iota. And even given your strange addiction to speaking against the Holy Spirit, if you could refute me on what this sin means – if you could refute what Jesus said — you would still be at peace. So the only villain here is you. To blame me for what you did makes you look like exactly the kind of religious scum who would blaspheme the Holy Spirit without much misgiving. And if I have disturbed your friends by this doctrine from Jesus, as the complaints sometimes go, you should rebuke your friends, not me. Or rebuke Jesus, if you dare. Why are you talking to me, if they are the ones who blasphemed the Spirit? If they have done it, it is out of my hands. No one can save them.
You say, “I have believed in Jesus Christ, so I couldn’t have committed this sin, nor will I ever commit it!” Why are you talking to me then, if there is no problem? What I know is, if you had committed this sin, then regardless of what you claim, you have never really believed in Jesus, nor will you ever. You say, “Well, I was an unbeliever when I said those things.” And that is my fault again? If you had committed this sin, then you are still an unbeliever, and that is not my fault. If Christians had been teaching about this sin, so as to strike the fear of God even into the hearts of those outside the church, then fewer people would have committed this sin. Fewer people would have been disturbed when they heard the truth about it. If people are disturbed when I talk about the unpardonable sin, then let them blame the other Christians through the centuries and in this generation who had shoved it aside. They are the ones responsible for the disturbance by permitting the issue to fester. But do we care only about ourselves? If Christians had been teaching about this, then God would not have been insulted so often through these centuries. If we begin to restore this doctrine to its proper place and give it due attention, then we can expect fewer problems in the future. The effect would not be immediate. The doctrine needs to become a common teaching, and even a test of orthodoxy and discipleship to show that we agree with Jesus and that we endorse the Spirit. However, it is unlikely to become a common teaching until we become diligent and forceful in talking about it.
Whenever this doctrine is mentioned, Christians usually dedicate their effort into providing assurance, as if they do not care whether the Spirit has been blasphemed in the first place. Should we preach on hell and then say that no one goes? Or, is hell an oppressive doctrine? It is oppressive only to the one who rejects Jesus. As for assurance, read the passages on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. They are not secret texts. Read them. Do they make it sound like Jesus intended to provide assurance? He made one attack and threat after another. If anything, he intended to destroy assurance. Nothing in these verses offer any assurance, any escape, any comfort, any excuse, any hope, any repentance or restoration toward those who attack the ministry of healing the sick and casting out demons. How can I conjure up one meaning, when the words convey another? How can I create assurance for the critics and the mockers, when the texts intend to destroy it? I am a preacher, not one of your scam theologians — I preach what is there, not what is not there.
The doctrine is what it is whether or not you admit it or preach it. Someone who has blasphemed the Holy Spirit will burn in hell even if you do not tell him about the doctrine, and even if he would never feel the hopelessness in knowing that he has committed this unpardonable sin. He will know soon enough, when he burns in hell. The point is that even before he knows about it, he has still committed it. He will still burn in hell. But if you preach about it, you might prevent some people from committing the sin. If every time someone is about to make a reckless statement concerning the ministry of healing, or speaking in tongues, or some such thing, he is reminded of this doctrine, then it could restore a holy fear of God into him and make him hesitate. The doctrine can save just as easily as it can damn. Yet if we do not preach it, it can only damn, but if we preach it, it can save.
Moreover, God said to the prophet, “If I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked one, you shall surely die,’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked person shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, that person shall die in his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul” (Ezekiel 33:8-9). Do you want to be blamed when other people commit the unpardonable sin? I would never want God to say to me, “This fellow spoke against the Spirit fifteen times in one hour, right to your face, and you did not tell him about the unpardonable sin. You even complimented him here and there in your discussion on healing the sick and speaking in tongues, and you comforted him in your differences. Now he is damned forever. He is burning in hellfire, writhing and convulsing in agony, screaming in pain and despair. He deserves this, but his blood I will require at your hand.” Ah…no way I will let that happen to me. Given how people seem to enjoy mocking the Spirit nowadays, I am going to sling this doctrine in every direction and tell people about the unpardonable sin everywhere I go. If God so much as glances my way, I will throw up my hands and say, “Lord, I told them! I told them not to do it. I told them what would happen to them. I talked about this straight out of what Jesus said more than anybody that I know of in the past two thousand years. This is not my fault.”
Recommended
Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit
The Unpardonable Sin
Cessationism: Worse than Sorcery