The Blasphemy Challenge

Have you accepted the "blasphemy challenge"? I am amazed at how many people have fallen for this latest scam. An atheist group is offering a free DVD to anyone who will accept their challenge to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

Before you fall for this scam, please consider the following:
1) These people have absolutely no idea what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is (see below, "What is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit")

2) They claim that blaspheming the Holy Spirit will serve as a wake up call. They believe Christians blindly believe whatever they are told in church. The "truth" is that Jesus never really existed (this is the main point of the free DVD they will send you, "The God Who Wasn't There"). By believing their version of the facts, you can be set free from the delusion of foolishly thinking Jesus is a real person, and all the other "nonsense" in Christianity. What amazes me is how many people seem to buy their version of the facts, without any skeptical inquiry- the very thing Christians are supposedly guilty of and the very thing they think they are now avoiding!

I think everyone should have a healthy dose of skepticism. No one wants to be fooled. The Bible encourages skepticism, it says "Test everything. Hold on to the good," (1 Thes. 5:21). So don't believe everything you hear in church just because the preacher says so- do a little investigation on your own. Likewise, don't believe everything some atheist tells you. Just because they say "evidence reveals Jesus didn't exist"- this doesn't make it so any more than your pastor saying "evidence reveals Jesus did exist." Most of the content in "The God Who Wasn't There," is completely without any supporting evidence, credible sources, or even common sense. It uses highly selective and sometimes false statements to put together a wildly fanciful explanation of how Jesus didn't exist. See the "Answers for Seekers" link in the right column of this blog for a good introduction to answers to some questions you may have about how a Christian can know the Bible is true.

What is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?
Mark 3:29 says, "whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
The Blasphemy challenge says this means to "deny the existence of the Holy Spirit." Thus saying on a video clip, "I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit," means that you have committed the unforgivable sin and, assuming there is any truth in Christianity, you have assured yourself a spot in hell. Does making a statement like this have anything to do with "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Absolutely not. This kind of thinking only reveals how utterly ignorant this particular group of atheists are.

First, blasphemy, both in biblical Greek and in modern English, simply does not mean "deny the existence of something." It usually has something to do with speaking irreverently, insulting, or slandering. In the quotation from Mark 3:29, Jesus is using it to mean a type of irreverent insult.

Second, it is important to note what kind of insult Jesus meant. Judging by the context of the passage a specific kind of insult, not just any insult, is meant. The religious leaders Jesus was speaking to had just said that Jesus performed miracles using Satanic powers. Of course, Jesus believed it was the Holy Spirit who gave him the ability. So blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was saying that the work of the Holy Spirit was the work of Satan.

Does this mean you can blaspheme the Holy Spirit by replacing the words "I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit," with the words, "I think the miracles Jesus did were done through the power of Satan."? Of course not, because it is not the words alone but that you actually believe what you are saying. The last time I checked, must atheists don't even believe in the existence of Satan, let alone that Jesus used Satan's powers to perform miracles (apparently some don't even believe Jesus existed!).

I do not think anyone could really commit this same sin today. John MacArthur Jr. gives a great explanation why:
Excerpt from "What is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?" by John MacArthur Jr.:

"So, in a true sense, what Jesus did, He did by the power of the Holy Spirit working through him. His virgin birth was conceived of the Spirit. His empowerment for ministry was at his baptism and was generated by the Holy Spirit. And so, Jesus operated on the principle of submission to the Father and the power of the Holy
Spirit. Now, it was one thing (notice in verse 32) to speak against the Son of Man, to say something against the humanness of Jesus or against his earthly presence or his earthly work. But to blaspheme the Holy Spirit was quite another thing.
Now, what it means is this: these people had received all the revelation they could receive. They had heard Jesus teach—and He said, “You should believe me for the words I speak.” They had seen the works that He had done, miracle after miracle after miracle… Many of them. So many of them that John says in John 20, “I suppose that if all the things that Jesus did were written, the books of all the world couldn’t hold them.” They had seen hundreds and perhaps thousands upon thousands of miracles. And Jesus said, “If you won’t believe me for the words, believe me for the very”—what? “Works’ sake.” The point here is, here were a group of men, the leaders of Israel, who had had the epitome of revelation. They had it all. The fulfillment of all Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament, the corroboration by the very statements of Christ and the deeds of Christ that He was the Messiah, and their conclusion was that He was of Satan. Now, what happened? With all the revelation that God could possibly give them, they concluded the very opposite. And our Lord says, “It’s impossible for you to be saved.” Why? “Because
when you had all the revelation, you concluded that I was satanic.” That’s hopeless."

Comments on Roe v. Wade, 34 Years Later

The words "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" immediately bring images of divisiveness and angry confrontation to mind. Both sides of the debate often see the other as evil, or at least irritatingly incompetent. I admit that I often look down on the "other side" with fierce opposition. Yet, I think everyone can step back for a moment and analyze what both groups have in common, and what leads to our differences. Then we can better understand the real issues. That is the goal of what follows here.

We do actually have a lot in common. First, both groups do believe murder is wrong. Both recognize that it is right for the government to be involved in punishing those who take human life. Suppose we knew that an innocent child was brutally murdered and that the murderer was clearly identified. Wouldn't everyone be outraged if the police refused to do anything about it?

Second, we both believe that the government should not treat one gender as inferior to the other. Women should not be treated as second-class citizens, with fewer rights and harsher laws controlling their behavior.

Third, we both value liberty and freedom. We don't want the government meddling in things that are "none of their business." We all want a measure of privacy and liberty, while at the same time recognizing that certain criminal activity must be restricted.

These three points really are held by virtually everyone on both sides of the discussion. So where do the differences come in? The difference is simply the amount of value each side places on two competing interests: women's freedom in reproductive decisions and the value of pre-born human life. Note that each side may put a lot of value on both. But which one you consider the most valuable will ultimately determine which side of the debate you are on.

A pro-choice person puts a high value on women's right to reproductive freedom. Some in the pro-choice movement think that pre-born human life has very little value worth protecting until after birth (or perhaps after a certain stage in a pregnancy). Therefore, the choice is easy, women should have a right to an abortion. Other pro-choice people think that pre-born human life is very valuable, but not quite as valuable as women's reproductive freedom. Therefore, they may say something like, "while I personally think abortion is wrong, I think such a decision should be left up to each individual woman and her doctor." However, if you think the value of pre-born human life is more valuable than a women's right to reproductive freedom, you will fall down on the pro-life side, period.

Why are there different values? One explanation is the type of argument different people find compelling. For instance, Pro-choice people tend to be driven by emotional arguments. They would find the following argument compelling:

This girl named Rosie gave in to peer pressure and pressure from her boyfriend to have sex. Now she is pregnant and her boyfriend is gone. She was afraid to tell her parents because she thought they would kick her out of the house and never speak to her again. She felt all alone and had no idea what to do. She decided to have an abortion. Because this was before Roe v. Wade she went to some guy's house her friend recommended. By the next day, she had died from internal bleeding. What a sad story! And if only she had been able to have a doctor perform the procedure, she could be alive today.

Since a pro-choice person values human life, women's rights, and personal liberty, a story like this will be very persuasive. Women like Rosie must have the freedom to choose to have an abortion. Something like what happened to Rosie must not happen again.

Pro-life people, on the other hand, tend to follow logical arguments better. Not that either side exclusively uses one or the other, but they tend to be more convinced by one than the other. A pro-life argument might go something like this:

We all agree that it is wrong to kill a newborn baby. We all agree that the government should prosecute someone who kills a baby. But what is the difference between a newborn baby and the same baby a few days earlier? The only real difference is the location of the baby. Why should one be given citizenship and full constitutional rights, and the other no rights at all? Certainly a mother who kills her newborn baby would horrify all of us. Why then should we find it acceptable
for her to have her baby killed a few days before birth? If it is then wrong to kill a pre-born baby just before birth, isn't it also wrong to kill a few weeks before birth? What about a few months? How do we draw the line?

Such an argument uses logic to try to point out inconsistencies in the pro-choice position. Notice the appeal given to the value of pre-born human life. "Since a born baby is so valuable, isn't a pre-born baby also very valuable? In fact, isn't it more valuable than the right for Rosie to have an abortion, for none of us would think it would be acceptable to kill her baby after it was born." A pro-life person may also use images of a pre-born baby, or medical facts, such as "did you know a baby has it's own unique heartbeat just six weeks after conception?" These arguments also use logic to point to the value of pre-born human life.

At this point, if you are pro-choice, you are probably thinking, but what about poor Rosie? And if you are pro-life you may be thinking, it's only logical, no matter how sad the story, the government do something to stop abortion.

But which side is right? That of course depends on which is really more valuable, the pre-born human life or women's reproductive freedom. We might discuss all sorts of legal, historical, medical, or religious arguments to reach a conclusion. Here is my belief. The images and medical facts, as well as simple logic point to a high value for pre-born human life. (If you believe the Bible, the case is even stronger, but it is not necessary to appeal to any religion to see the value.)

Is the value of women's reproductive freedom even greater? While I believe it is very valuable, I do not think it is so valuable as to permit the destruction of pre-born human life. Emotional arguments like the Rosie argument are problematic because they only focus on one side of the story. We all feel bad for Rosie, and any decent human being should. But the story puts all the focus on Rosie and none on the pre-born baby. If abortion had been legal and Rosie had a safer abortion, should we not also feel bad for the baby that was destroyed? We certainly would if we gave the baby a name and attached it to an emotional story of all the baby would have accomplished in life if only Rosie had the baby and raised it or gave it up for adoption. I think that these emotional arguments, while helpful in drawing attention to the importance of the subject, ultimately lead us to inconsistent positions. In other words, positions we ourselves would not want to hold if we thought through all sides of the issue and had all the facts available.

There is one more objection a pro-choice person may use. You may say, that sounds logical, but if abortion is illegal, Rosie and her baby die. Isn't the lesser of two evils to permit abortion? This question is beyond the scope of what I want to address here. However, I will simply say that when abortion is illegal, the number of abortions is dramatically less. When including pre-born human life, there are fewer lives lost. Although a world in which some women like Rosie and their babies tragically die, it is more valuable to me that we save the most human lives possible. Comments? I'd love to hear from you.