Grave consequences of testing the spirits spoken by the prophets

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoeJPurnell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will certainly continue the discussion for the sake of a soul who is looking for the truth but will not continue if it leads to the distortion of truth. If you are legitimately Catholic and legitimately trying to understand this area of the faith better I will go on as long as you need me to.

Notice in the area of Didache how it says every prophet who speaks in the Spirit (Spirit is capital to show Holy Spirit). It is saying if you reject the Holy Spirit. However we have to discern which spirit is speaking in order to know it is the Holy Spirit. By your thought process this discernment process could be unforgivable. This denies common sense, logic, and prudence for the sake of taking an excerpt of a teaching out of context and exalting it over the entire faith.

To reject a prophet who is legitimately speaking in the Holy Spirit is to reject the Holy Spirit’s words. The judgement of this is for that particular soul. It still does not negate the fact that forgiveness is available to all. Back then the term deadly sin or mortal sin was not used in the same way since the teachings stem from ancient language. This is showing the gravity of this particular sin to be deadly. Perhaps also showing the necessity of the sacrament of confession if one rejects the Holy Spirit by prophetic speaking or by rejection of truth and salvation in general. Both acts commit unforgivable penalties if repentance is not willed. Because we should know when He is speaking…

I have stated the stance of the Catholic Church and how She interprets the unforgivable sin that is my evidence to show you are taking it out of context. Therefore to say I provide no evidence is invalid. You seem to say I have provided no evidence. Yet I tell you the Church teaching.

You are self interpreting. Anyone can say “in the Bible it says an eye for an eye.” Clearly in the Bible it does. However interpretation of what we think it “clearly” says isn’t open for interpretation as 2 Peter 1:20 states the Bible is not open for interpretation. Interpretation is left to the magesterium.
 
Oh, good :). I’m glad to read you’re sticking with me on this. We can learn some great insights!
Louman127 said:
Notice in the area of Didache how it says every prophet who speaks in the Spirit (Spirit is capital to show Holy Spirit).
Click to expand...
But capitalization does not equate to the Holy Spirit because further on in the Didache 11:8 it says:

“But not everyone who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet;” - that’s capitalized too. So no it’s not the Holy Spirit, it’s just a term used to describe a prophet speaking in the Spirit.

Your premise is false. Here’s why I think my thought process is true.

Jesus said the sin He was referring to would be unforgivable in this age. While you infer that there is no such thing as an unforgivable sin in this age. Furthermore He contrasted this sin with an example of a forgivable sin. Blasphemy against Jesus is a mortal sin. Yet it is forgivable. If the unforgivable sin was merely a forgivable mortal one, why did He contrast the two?

“Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Matthew 12:31-32

Jesus said this particular sin was everlasting immediately after it was committed. Therefore it is intrinsically everlasting and not, as you might infer, dependent in any way on a sinner’s desire to repent. Note the “For they had said …” part. It was because of what they had said at that moment that the sin was everlasting, not what they might say in the confessional later on.

“Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin. For they had said, “He has an unclean spirit.” Mark 3:28-30
 
My “premise” and the way I view the unforgivable sin embraces the Church teaching and then you say my premise is false. Then you say your way of thinking is true and then quote Scripture. Sounds like you may be exalting your view over the Churches.

“Not everyone who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet” is showing to be careful to not be deceived because lucifer pretends to be the Holy Spirit all the time and we must discern if it is legitimately the Holy Spirit or not. That is why the very next line says by their ways will the prophet and the false prophet be known. To illustrate how hard it is to discern sometimes between satan and God.
 
Louman127 said:
My “premise” and the way I view the unforgivable sin embraces the Church teaching and then you say my premise is false. Then you say your way of thinking is true and then quote Scripture. Sounds like you may be exalting your view over the Churches.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your sticking with me on this. It helps me formulate my thoughts before I discuss these things in fraternal correction with someone.

However, that doesn’t mean I’m going to be a doormat. The first person to make a discussion personal is usually the one who knows he’s in the weaker position. I hope I’ve refrained from judging you personally as best as I could and I’ll try my best to continue along that path.

But you’re making it difficult with these ad-hominem pokes that presume to know way too much than your average member would be expected to know about a member over the internet. When it comes to who is exalting whose self and who is humbling whose self, I’ll let the reader judge.

And no one who speaks in falicies can carry the banner for the Church alongside those falicies. One’s arguments must withstand the test of reason. One is a friend of truth if one seeks it diligently and with love.

If you’ll permit me then, I’d like to see if we can find some common ground on this in a way that doesn’t contradict the teachings of the Church. Please reconsider the Gospel of Mark.

“Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin. For they had said, “He has an unclean spirit.” Mark 3:28-30

Jesus said that these people had been guilty of an everlasting sin. Do you agree?
 
To my knowledge I haven’t displayed any overt emotion that would imply me taking things personally. I generally just speak in an objective manner with intention limit emotions. If that has made me appear cold I do apologize. But I am standing firm on what the unforgivable sin is. Truth can not bend.

Let me ask you a question. Lets say for arguments sake I was a prophet and this whole time you have been testing and trying the Holy Spirit and the words spoken and refused to recognize Him. Have you done any of this judging that is unforgivable? If that were the case would you then, by your definition, have committed the unforgivable sin? If not please clarify what would be necessary to take place for the unforgivable sin. Maybe another example of some sort?
 
Also since you were asking for solid evidence to show I am expressing Church teaching and not simply my own interpretation, here it is. This is also from the Catechism linking blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to not repenting.

1864*"Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

This is also from EWTN Father Echert. I will provide this link as well. ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=346226

"Following upon a charge against Jesus that he was performing an exorcism through the power of the prince of demons, Jesus responded with a statement about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. In other words, Jesus had acted with the power of the Holy Spirit and these enemies had charged that he did it by an evil spirit. What a contradiction!

So why is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit unpardonable? It would seem to follow upon the fact that life in Christ which is necessary for salvation is done through the power of the Holy Spirit. When a person is baptized, it is in water and the Spirit. And so too, if that eternal life is lost subsequent to baptism through mortal sin, that life can only be restored through the power of that same Holy Spirit, normally done in the sacrament of Penance. Remember our Lord’s words to His apostles immediately after breathing on them the Holy Spirit, as recorded in the Gospel of St. John:

20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”"
 
Thank you for helping me Louman. 👍 👍 👍

After reading this homily by our early Church Father Saint John Chrysostom, this is what I’ve learned:

Part of the advice and correction that Jesus used in the Gospels is not only to plead and persuade, but to threaten. Jesus affirms that blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven even to those who repent. To commit it requires that we have ample experience of the Holy Spirit working through the one that speaks.
 
JoeJPurnell said:
Thank you for helping me Louman. 👍 👍 👍

After reading this homily by our early Church Father Saint John Chrysostom, this is what I’ve learned:

Part of the advice and correction that Jesus used in the Gospels is not only to plead and persuade, but to threaten. Jesus affirms that blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven even to those who repent. To commit it requires that we have ample experience of the Holy Spirit working through the one that speaks.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm I’ve thought of this before but not fully through. So basically you are saying this rule is for prophets? So an example would be lets say that a prophet has been given a mind like lucifer and trusted like he once was. Lets say this person has a deep knowledge of God and His people and allows the Holy Spirit to work through him. Then one day in light of all this knowledge and love he has been given he decides to take the path of lucifer and betray all the good he has done and defile it and bring death to the souls he was entrusted. Would this qualify for being unforgivable? If this would qualify, it would seem the reason for that being the penalty is because even though all sins are forgivable the betraying prophet has done is different than that of the average human because the human prophet while although is in the physical world and has all the same means for salvation, the prophet is held at a much deeper and higher standard because of the amount of knowledge the prophet has been given by God.

I haven’t read the whole thing yet but that’s what I gathered so far rather than the meaning judging what a prophet says is damnable.

Does that sound like an accurate analysis what you are speculating?

Hmmmm this is interesting I must ponder this more because if that is the case it would seem possible for both meanings of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to be true. One is done like most people at death without repentance and the other can be done by a prophet that has been bestowed a great amount of knowledge and decides one day to not be a submissive vessel for Him and whole heartedly betrays Him.

But we must also keep in the front of our minds that while we are speculating this and it seems it may be possible both may be true we also need to keep the authority of the Church and not fully embrace something without the Churches final say.

Let me know what you think.
 
I just finished reading it and I believe what I said above. I think it is basically saying who has not served satan greater than that one who has turned away from the genuine service of Christ? The person who has turned from the “genuine” service of Christ would be that of an apostle or prophet.

Imagine one who preaches the truth and has the Holy Spirit roaring through them to gather and help God’s people. And then all off sudden he betrays them and delightfully hands them over to the evil one. One would need to turn ones will completely away from God such as lucifer did. Actually the more accurate wording would be, one would have to rip away and allow their will to be completely changed and whole heartedly betray Him.

The offense is that of the same as of lucifer’s.

There are also other examples, of the genuine server turning from Christ.

So to me, that’s what I gathered from the Homily.

It was excellent! Thanks for sharing! 🙂
 
In God’s church are many different styles and gifts. In a department store are staff of very contrasting styles, all contributing to the common effort.

Occasionally, a Christian or Christians may be helped to apply the permanent public revelation in a particular everyday situation.

It’s for hearers to freely use their own discretion in whatever direction they themselves choose, matching any content against the meaning of Scriptures, if hearing such a thing, that’s all that is meant by the phrase “testing the spirits”. The New Testament calls on us, many times, to apply this testing if applicable.

The “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” probably isn’t a stray phrase expressing scepticism, it’s probably an extremely hardened attitude (typically by a person in a degree of authority), twisting basic thruths, probably for the purpose of power weilding.

Those are opinions I’ve heard over the years at any rate. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top